One of the most discouraging things for me is to see current and former American missionaries support Trump. To see them propagate a nationalistic, power-hungry form of Christianity around the world. But then, American missions have always been twisted up in the same self-righteousness and arrogance that has bound white American evangelicals to MAGA.
Yes, this is quite problematic. But at least we can know those who do not deny that they are invested in empire. There are many who say they are not part of the emperor-supporting missionaries whose strategies are still 100% built upon imperialism.
The legacy of Constantine is certainly mixed. These days, it is increasingly popular to blame Constantine for nearly everything that is wrong with Christian praxis. Some of that blame is warranted while some of it is not. But Constantine did some things well. Thus you give the current American president — whose name is not worthy of mention — far, far too much credit by referring to him as a New Constantine. Insofar as Constantine was an emperor/king/dictator and the current American president both acts like and wants to be an emperor/king/dictator, you do have an argument. But for all of his flaws, Constantine did apparently experience something of a Christward conversion, however incomplete it may have been. (Notably, he refrained from being baptized until he was on his death bed.) The current American president, however, has never experienced anything remotely like a Christward conversion. Indeed, though he has frequently boasted about various of his sins (especially his sexual immoralities and adulterous infidelities), he has also boasted that he has never repented because he has never done anything that calls for repentance. While it would foolish (and probably eisegetical) to call him The Antichrist™, he certainly demonstrates an antichrist (small -a-) spirit at every turn.
Has the evangelical label been (mis)appropriated by those with nothing in common with classical evangelicalism? Of course. (Note well that the evangelical revivals led to the abolition both the slave trade and slavery itself as well as to various other gospel-inspired social reforms: e.g., prison reform, labor reform protections for workers, child labor laws, expansion of the electoral franchise to those other than wealthy landholding men of European descent, etc.) Does the support of so-called evangelicals (especially in the USA but elsewhere as well) for the narcissistic, misogynistic, racist, coup-attempting, conman who mocks the teachings of Jesus and currently occupies the White House besmirch the name "Christian"? Absolutely. Is it a tragedy that so many American Christians are unable to see this? It is. But calling the current US president "a New Constantine" both feeds the myth that he would like to build for himself and mocks the entire Christian world — outside of the Roman Empire, where half of the Christian population at the time lived, as well as inside of it — of the fourth century.
Note well that if 1) you were not my friend and 2) I did not greatly respect your opinions, I would have not taken the time to comment.
Joshua, this should be Part Two to my piece. You ask questions that I would like to ask people like yourself. You add words that I could write if I had the space because, of course, there is a lot more to discuss here. Actually, I am not blaming Constantine for anything. If we were to say I did, it would be what I say towards the end of my piece — a humbler American missionary movement is all we are asking for, and in the current climate, I doubt it is possible. This is what Christian imperialism has done to mission — makes it difficult to be humble.
And, if it helps, I should have put the title in quotation marks.
One of the most discouraging things for me is to see current and former American missionaries support Trump. To see them propagate a nationalistic, power-hungry form of Christianity around the world. But then, American missions have always been twisted up in the same self-righteousness and arrogance that has bound white American evangelicals to MAGA.
Yes, this is quite problematic. But at least we can know those who do not deny that they are invested in empire. There are many who say they are not part of the emperor-supporting missionaries whose strategies are still 100% built upon imperialism.
The legacy of Constantine is certainly mixed. These days, it is increasingly popular to blame Constantine for nearly everything that is wrong with Christian praxis. Some of that blame is warranted while some of it is not. But Constantine did some things well. Thus you give the current American president — whose name is not worthy of mention — far, far too much credit by referring to him as a New Constantine. Insofar as Constantine was an emperor/king/dictator and the current American president both acts like and wants to be an emperor/king/dictator, you do have an argument. But for all of his flaws, Constantine did apparently experience something of a Christward conversion, however incomplete it may have been. (Notably, he refrained from being baptized until he was on his death bed.) The current American president, however, has never experienced anything remotely like a Christward conversion. Indeed, though he has frequently boasted about various of his sins (especially his sexual immoralities and adulterous infidelities), he has also boasted that he has never repented because he has never done anything that calls for repentance. While it would foolish (and probably eisegetical) to call him The Antichrist™, he certainly demonstrates an antichrist (small -a-) spirit at every turn.
Has the evangelical label been (mis)appropriated by those with nothing in common with classical evangelicalism? Of course. (Note well that the evangelical revivals led to the abolition both the slave trade and slavery itself as well as to various other gospel-inspired social reforms: e.g., prison reform, labor reform protections for workers, child labor laws, expansion of the electoral franchise to those other than wealthy landholding men of European descent, etc.) Does the support of so-called evangelicals (especially in the USA but elsewhere as well) for the narcissistic, misogynistic, racist, coup-attempting, conman who mocks the teachings of Jesus and currently occupies the White House besmirch the name "Christian"? Absolutely. Is it a tragedy that so many American Christians are unable to see this? It is. But calling the current US president "a New Constantine" both feeds the myth that he would like to build for himself and mocks the entire Christian world — outside of the Roman Empire, where half of the Christian population at the time lived, as well as inside of it — of the fourth century.
Note well that if 1) you were not my friend and 2) I did not greatly respect your opinions, I would have not taken the time to comment.
Joshua, this should be Part Two to my piece. You ask questions that I would like to ask people like yourself. You add words that I could write if I had the space because, of course, there is a lot more to discuss here. Actually, I am not blaming Constantine for anything. If we were to say I did, it would be what I say towards the end of my piece — a humbler American missionary movement is all we are asking for, and in the current climate, I doubt it is possible. This is what Christian imperialism has done to mission — makes it difficult to be humble.
And, if it helps, I should have put the title in quotation marks.
Very thoughtful, Harvey, thank you!!