Vern Barnet, Ph.D., is a gifted man who has long been a prominent person in Kansas City. I am honored to have him not only as a Thinking Friend but also as a personal friend. This blog post was written in response to a request that I received from Vern several weeks ago.
Thanks for Noticing: The Interpretation of Desire is the title of a book of sonnets that Dr. Barnet published in 2015. He is now revising that erudite book and is asking friends/acquaintances to make comments arising from some of the sonnets in it.
In particular, Vern asked me to comment on “A Roman Soldier,” his 12th sonnet, using it “in some way to develop the Christian ideal of pacifism in contrast to military powers” linked to Christianity from the 4th century to the present.
Constantine, the Roman emperor who reigned from 306 to 337, was the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity.
The spark of Constantine’s conversion was struck in 312 when during a military battle he suddenly saw “a bright cross of light emblazoned against the noonday sky and upon it the inscription: ‘In hoc signo vinces’ — ’In this Sign Conquer.’”*1 He then did use the sign of the cross and was victorious.
The following year, the Edict of Milan was promulgated. It stated that Christians within the Roman Empire should be treated benevolently, so it gave Christianity legal status and a much-needed reprieve from persecution.
Constantine’s vision changed his life—and Christianity as well. Indeed, up until that time the faithful followers of Jesus Christ had been pacifistic, but now for the first time their religion was being used in warfare. That connection has been prevalent in Christianity from then until present times.
The subtitle of Barnet’s 12th sonnet is “Circa Anno Domini CCCXXV.” That year, 325, was when the Council of Nicaea (or Nicea) was convened by Constantine. The purpose of that gathering was to settle theological matters, but Constantine’s main desire was to foster unity among his subjects.
Constantine did apparently seek to affirm and uphold many of the practices of Christianity and was not just a CINO (Christian in name only). But his continual use of the sword questions his understanding of and/or allegiance to the teachings of Jesus Christ.
After 312, Roman soldiers continued to fight, but they did so in the name of a different “god.” The soldier in Barnet’s sonnet “slew heretics” for the sake of Mithra, the sun god. Now, though, “Constantine says Christ is why we fight.”
Some in the Anabaptist tradition, which began in 1525, have called Constantine’s conversion the fall of Christianity. As one who identifies with that tradition, I agree with that designation. Thus, I am calling Constantine’s conversion a calamitous co-option of Christianity.*2
Certainly, though, that has not been the last such co-option.
Have you noticed Donald Trump’s co-option of Christianity? Of course, the current nominee for POTUS isn’t seeking to become an emperor such as Constantine was, and it is not all of USAmerican Christianity that has been or is being co-opted.
To a large extent, though, Trump has co-opted a wide swath of white evangelical Christianity for his political ambitions. Around 80% of such Christians voted for Trump in both the 2016 and 2020 elections, and recent polls indicate that the percentage this year may be nearly as high.
Certainly, evangelical Christian leaders such as Ralph Reed have long sought to gain political influence by cozying up to the Republican Party. Reed is the founder (in 2009) and chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition (F&F), and they have held conferences yearly since 2010.
Trump has spoken at the F&F conferences repeatedly since 2011. (I attended that conference as a “spy,” and my impression of Trump, whom I then knew little about, was that he seemed like a “lightweight.”) In seeking to be elected POTUS in 2016, he gave a major speech in 2015.
In June of this year, the F&F’s “2024 Road to Majority” conference was held at the Washington Hilton hotel, and the three minute video summarizing that gathering (see here) concludes with a brief clip of Trump’s keynote speech.
Trump’s co-option of Christianity is, admittedly not as calamitous as Constantine’s was, but it is, sadly, a major reason why so many younger evangelicals, and others, have turned away from Christianity at this critical time when Jesus Christ’s message of love for all is so badly needed.
_____
*1 These words are from the brief and quite positive account of Constantine’s conversion found in a Christian History magazine article (see here).
*2 Co-option is the process by which a political leader or organization selects and absorbs some other organization or its ideas/practices into their structure or system in order to expand their strength/influence.
Note: The co-option of religion is certainly not limited to Christianity. Consider, for example, the co-option of Shinto by Japanese militarists in the 20th century, of Islam by the Taliban and the Islamic State in the past several decades, Judaism by militaristic Zionists in the last century and since 10/6/23, Hinduism by the Bharatiya Janata Party in India, and Buddhism by militants in Sri Lanka and Myanmar.
I call Constantine/Nicea "The Constantinian Captivity of the Church." It continues to this day in broad seaths
ReplyDeletein broad swaths of "Christendom." The Apostles Creed, a bariation
Deletea variation of the Nicene Creed, jumps from "born of the Virgin Mary" to "crucified under Pontius Pilate" as though nothing happened in between.
DeleteThanks for commenting early this morning, Charles. (We old men tend to get up and going early, don't we!)
DeleteYes, I agree that "the Constantinian Captivity of the Church" is a fitting designation. But it seems to me that "captivity" is perhaps too strong a word, so I chose to use co-option instead, even though it is not as readily understood. (That is why I felt the need to add the footnote indicating what I meant by that word,) And I used Christianity rather than Church, partly, I guess, because as a lifelong Baptist/baptist, I think the word church refers more properly to a local faith community than to a worldwide organization.
I also agree with what you pointed out as a deficiency in the Nicene/Apostles Creed. The former was written to deal with a divisive Christological matter and was not intended to be a comprehensive summary of Christian belief. That is one reason, again as a baptist, I do not look favorably on reciting a creed in weekly worship services.
And then even though he is not as old as Charles Kiker (see above) and I, not long after 6 a.m., local Thinking Friend (and good personal friend) David Nelson sent the following gracious and much appreciated comments. I paste them here mainly because what he said about Dr. Barnet.
ReplyDelete"When two of my most respected friends are mentioned, how can I not respond? Vern and Leroy are my teachers and fellow pilgrims in this wonderful human adventure. You have both shared your wisdom with such generosity that I often don’t know where your thinking and my thoughts begin and end. And I am very comfortable with that reality. I am not the poet or the theologian that either of you are, but I am a better human being because of your presence in my life and the world is better off because of both of you.
I like how you use the term “USAmerican.”
ReplyDeleteChristianity can be co-opted for any purpose when it teaches people to believe and follow blindly instead of think critically.
-KKS
Thanks, KKS, for your comments. -- Yes, Canadians are (North) Americans as well as those of us who live in the U.S. It is not original with me, but I try to use USAmericans when referring only to U.S. citizens.
DeleteI think that Christianity, indeed, can be co-opted for any purpose as you suggest--but so can (and have) other religions as I indicated in the note at the bottom of this blog post. That is why critical thinking is so important for people of all religions and ideologies.
Constantine is a big problem. To begin with he brought huge relief to Christians after ten or so persecutions in 300 years, of which the then recent Diocletian persecution was the worst. He was proclaimed emperor of a quarter of the empire in 306 in York, England, 60 miles from where I grew up. He eventually defeated the other three emperors. The year after assisting with the Nicene Creed he had murdered his father in law, his wife and his son. He was as violent as any previous Roman Emperor. Alan Kreider's book "Patient Ferment" is very good on early Christians, Constantine and the shift to Christendom - the fusion of empire and Christianity. Also James Carroll's "Constantine's Sword" is also excellent.
ReplyDeleteTrump is just as scary for me - we live in an age of nuclear weapons.
Thanks, Andrew, for your helpful comments. You know more about Constantine than I do at this point, so I appreciate the information you gave and the books you introduced. And yes, those who would fight under Trump's command, if he were elected again, would have weapons that can't even be compared to the sword of the Roman soldier in the picture
DeleteHere are comments received today from Thinking Friend Truett Baker in Arizona:
ReplyDelete"The temptation to compare Constantine and Mr. Trump is worthy, but both are guilty of using Christianity for political purposes. The genuineness of both is questionable but Constantine ranks considerably higher in the matter of integrity but lower in his understanding of Jesus' teaching of pacifism. Trump's coziness with Christianity is ugly and deceitful. His egomania and lying taints everything he touches, and I can't imagine that the American people would give any success to his attempt to be the POTUS."
Truett, I appreciate your reading and commenting on my blog post. But I don't know what you meant to imply by "temptation." I think comparing Trump to Constantine is fully legitimate, for as you say, "both are guilty of using Christianity for political purposes."
DeleteAlso, Thinking Friend Eric Dollard in Chicago sent the following comments by email and asked that I post then here:
ReplyDelete"The story of Constantine's conversion to Christianity may be apocryphal, but whatever its cause, Constantine changed Christianity, or perhaps one should say, 'Christendom.' The earliest Christians were pacifists and the Mennonites, to their credit, have continued this tradition. Luther was no pacifist, but the ELCA has stressed its opposition to war and violence without specifically endorsing pacifism. I suspect that the hymn, 'Onward Christian Soldiers' would have appalled the early Christians, and I doubt that it is ever sung by Mennonite congregations, although it could be understood metaphorically (Leroy--you would know about this).
The endorsement of Donald Trump by certain Christian groups today is puzzling. They argue that Trump, despite his serious character flaws, is God's instrument to restore 'godliness' to a decadent America. While America may very well be decadent, it is hard to imagine that God could do no better than to choose Trump as his instrument especially since Trump, if he is elected, is more likely to accelerate America's descent into decadence rather than the other way around."
Thanks for your comments, Eric. Regarding the hymn "Onward, Christian Soldiers," you are correct that this is not sung in Mennonite congregations (at least it is not in the older or new Mennonite hymnals). But that hymn was never intended to refer to physical warfare. Here is an explanation from an online article posted earlier this year:
Delete"Onward Christian Soldiers has been a popular hymn for over a century and its theological significance is reflected in the lyrics. The hymn is a call to action for Christians to take up the 'cross' and 'follow their Savior.' It is a reminder that the Christian life is a spiritual battle against evil and that believers should be prepared to fight."
https://christianeducatorsacademy.com/discovering-the-meaning-of-onward-christian-soldiers-marching-as-to-war/#:~:text=Onward%20Christian%20Soldiers%20has%20been%20a%20popular%20hymn,and%20that%20believers%20should%20be%20prepared%20to%20fight.
Last night I received the following comments from local Thinking Friend Dennis Boatright, who is currently in Amsterdam.
ReplyDelete"Thank you for the education as I fight jet lag. I appreciated yours and others’ comments. I especially relate to Eric Dollard’s comment about it being hard to believe that Trump is the best God can do.
"I visited the Anne Frank House yesterday according to the clock here in Amsterdam. The memorial is disturbing enough without being reminded of Trump by the presentation. Rallies, lying and especially blaming a country’s problems on a minority (Jews = immigrants) plus wanting to jail or even kill political opponents. I refuse to believe that he is God’s choice."
Dennis, it was good to hear from you and I appreciate you sending me your comments even though you are in Amsterdam.
DeleteI certainly agree that it seems ludicrous that Donald Trump is "God's choice" to be president of the U.S. again (or that he was God's choice the first time). But that continues to be the position of those aligned with the New Apostolic Reformation, about which I wrote on Oct. 8. Perhaps you didn't have time to read that post or to watch the short movie linked to in it. At some point I hope you will be able to do both.
At one time a British parliamentarian, Samuel Johnson 1775, declared patriotism as the last resort of a scoundrel as he argued with Wm. Pitt about Americans seeking representation in Parliament. Perhaps today we would have to revise those words to say religion (in the name of whatever god you may choose) is the last resort of a scoundrel, or perhaps just a desperate man who feels his power is threatened and his influence slipping away. Trump's attempt at spirituality probably doesn't influence anyone away from their current position. Those who support him see him as having gone through a significant faith conversion. Those who see it as propaganda feel it only reflects the desperation of a man seeking to hold on to one segment of our society. Great blog.
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting your pertinent comments, Tom.
DeleteBack in July, Trump said the following at a conservative evangelical gathering:
""Christians get out and vote. Just this time," he urged. "You won't have to do it anymore. Four more years. You know what? It'll be fixed. It'll be fine. You won't have to vote anymore my beautiful Christians."
(Here is the link to the CBS post citing those words: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-christian-voters-turning-point-action/ )
These words could be interpreted as "the last resort of a scoundrel," but in 2016, months before the election, Trump's embrace of evangelical Christianity was, it can be legitimately argued, a "scoundrel" seeking to co-opt evangelicals in order to be elected POTUS, and that effort achieved his desired result.
Back in June 2016, the Religious News Service (RNS) wrote,
"Donald Trump has described himself as 'Presbyterian and Protestant,' a 'Sunday church person' and a collector of Bibles.
"Now the presumptive Republican presidential nominee reportedly can add 'born-again Christian' to that list, too, according to one of the members of Trump’s new evangelical advisory board."
The member cited is James Dobson. As the RNS said, "Trump recently accepted a relationship with Jesus Christ as his Savior, making him a “baby Christian,” Focus on the Family founder James Dobson said in an interview' ...."
If Trump was, indeed, a "baby Christian" back in 2016, he certainly seems to have experienced an extreme lack of growth in the ways of Christ in the eight years since then.
This morning I was reading an essay by Julian Jaynes in the book Reflections on the Dawn of Consciousness. The end of what I read fits right into this discussion, particularly the connection between Trump and religion. Jaynes says, in part, "I think it can easily be inferred that human beings with such a mentality of hearing hallucinations had to exist in a special kind of society so that the hallucinations would agree. It would be one rigidly ordered in strict hierarchies with strict expectations organized into the mind so that the social fabric was preserved. And such was definitely the case. The texts clearly show that bicameral theocracies were all hierarchical, submerged in ritual, with a god, often an idol or robed statue as throughout Mesopotamia at its head from whom hallucinations seemed to come, or else, more rarely, with a human who was divine (that is, heard in hallucination by those just below him in the hierarchy) being head of state as in Egypt." Now think about MAGA and Trump. Trump wants to be Pharaoh in ancient Egypt. MAGA is an atavistic "bicameral theocracy." It just looks like zombies to the rest of us!
ReplyDeleteJulian Jaynes' seminal book is The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" (1976). Read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind
For Reflections check here: https://www.julianjaynes.org/product/reflections-on-the-dawn-of-consciousness/
A free copy of the first edition (which I am reading) is available in PDF here: https://www.julianjaynes.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Reflections-on-the-Dawn-of-Consciousness-Free-Download-JJS.pdf
Thanks for your meaty comments, Craig. Sorry to say, what you wrote is a bit "over my head" as I don't remember hearing of Julian Jaynes (although I might have seen his name while reading some of Ken Wilber a few decades ago.) Janes (1920-97) was no doubt a brilliant man, and his emphasis on the bicameral mind was significant. I just wish I had a better knowledge of psychology in general and the origin of consciousness in particular.
DeleteI wonder, though, about the profundity of his statement,
"Consciousness is a much smaller part of our mental life than we are conscious of, because we cannot be conscious of what we are not conscious of." ("The Origins of Consciousness ...," Book I, Chapter 1, p. 23)
Thinking Friend Frederick (Rick) Shiels, a political science professor emeritus in New York, sent the following comments (in a longer email) yesterday, and I have his permission to post his comments here:
ReplyDelete"Is the crux of one of your main arguments that Constantine both broke ground in gradually 'embracing a form of Christianity into the empire' but took it in a militant direction or at least used it as a kind of cover from Roman imperialism. one that lasted to the present day.' I assume this would include the Crusades, the religious wars (various) of the 11th to the 17th C.'s etc., the use of the religion to undergird things like imperialism in African and the Americas.
"And now another (self-described--Great Man) wishes to co-opt a Christian wing for his own purposes. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, 'Donald, you're no Constantine.' I would just advance the idea that it seems that all of the Mid-Eastern 'desert monotheistic' religions have evolved with the tide of history toward militant methods in the service of crown and conquest (for Muslims perhaps 'burnoose and conquest'). Trump accomplishes a version of this that is slick and 21st century subtle and complicated (upside down Bibles and all) and rather involves tarnishing against all odds a large functioning liberal democracy. That alone is cause for Democratic failure Nov. 5th is not an option."
Rick, I think you correctly understand what I was trying to say. Constantine’s co-option ended about 100 years after his “conversion” in 312, but it arose again in 800 when Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne as the Holy Roman Emperor, and that “empire” lasted for just over 1,000 years and includes the events you mentioned.
DeleteThat was clever for you to paraphrase what Sen. Bensen said to Dan Quayle in the 1988 vice president debate.
Yes, sadly, I think it is true that the three main "desert monotheistic religions" used militant methods in the service of crown/burnoose and conquest. But for Judaism and Islam there wasn’t much of an evolution, for military conquest was common early on. Think of the Israelites moving into the “promised land” after their exodus from Egypt and the use of the sword for the expansion of Islam during its first decades. The main “evolution” was seen, in Christianity, though, for it was not aligned with militant methods until Constantine, nearly 280 years after Jesus' crucifixion.
Back in 2015, I posted an article about “Radical Christianity and Radical Islam";' you might like to take a look at what I wrote there. https://theviewfromthisseat.blogspot.com/2016/03/radical-christianity-vs-radical-islam.html