I think soft constantinism is the fact that the church has a lot of trouble avoiding the following temptations which can warp our politics
1) It is easy for Christians (or any group) to have collective narcissism and assume that ideas that either come from non-Christians, or are popular amongst non Christians are morally suspect
2) Politicians are eager to use Christians as an ethical shield - aka borrowing from the moral credibility of Christians (where it exists) to defend something dodgy they do
3) It currently seems easy for politicians to reframe attacks on them as attacks on Christians (this seems true of many groups to be fair).
4) It is much easier for church leadership to have compassionate views on private charity than public welfare as we rely on wealthy people's donations. You can agree to private charity in principle while opting out of doing much, harder to do with tax funded welfare.
5) it is easy for Christians (or any group) to imagine one of their own is a more trustworthy candidate than someone from another group (like an atheist) regardless of their character and policies
6) There are often a variety of ways of applying Christians values in tension to one another. Yet it is easy to describe on position as "the christian position". It is also easy to be the most successful in labeling your position the Christian position if you are loud, arrogant and lack nuance - attitudes at odds with a Christian virtue.
Mike, I was not aware that it was Yoder who created the category of "Constantinianism." I was told this two days ago. Early church historians never pinned the blame on Constantine but on Theodosius I, and called it "Christendom" or "Christianization" (MacMullen).
Good comment! But a problem arises when there is a raft of anti-Christian stuff coming forward (esp in Victoria) and ACL becomes seen as an extension of the Liberal party.
I think soft constantinism is the fact that the church has a lot of trouble avoiding the following temptations which can warp our politics
1) It is easy for Christians (or any group) to have collective narcissism and assume that ideas that either come from non-Christians, or are popular amongst non Christians are morally suspect
2) Politicians are eager to use Christians as an ethical shield - aka borrowing from the moral credibility of Christians (where it exists) to defend something dodgy they do
3) It currently seems easy for politicians to reframe attacks on them as attacks on Christians (this seems true of many groups to be fair).
4) It is much easier for church leadership to have compassionate views on private charity than public welfare as we rely on wealthy people's donations. You can agree to private charity in principle while opting out of doing much, harder to do with tax funded welfare.
5) it is easy for Christians (or any group) to imagine one of their own is a more trustworthy candidate than someone from another group (like an atheist) regardless of their character and policies
6) There are often a variety of ways of applying Christians values in tension to one another. Yet it is easy to describe on position as "the christian position". It is also easy to be the most successful in labeling your position the Christian position if you are loud, arrogant and lack nuance - attitudes at odds with a Christian virtue.
Much truth here Graham, many temptations to reduce Christianity to giving political capital to a particular political tribe.
Please share this article directly with the ACL.
Mike, I was not aware that it was Yoder who created the category of "Constantinianism." I was told this two days ago. Early church historians never pinned the blame on Constantine but on Theodosius I, and called it "Christendom" or "Christianization" (MacMullen).
I did not know that!
Good comment! But a problem arises when there is a raft of anti-Christian stuff coming forward (esp in Victoria) and ACL becomes seen as an extension of the Liberal party.
Ian, very true!