Why aren't Mennonites Constantinian?

[Bootstrap]

Then they aren’t preaching it accurately or preach one way but live another.

But I think Mennonites can sometimes underestimate the extent to which we do the same. I think we do get this right when it comes to military involvement. In general, if all of God's children who understand the core message of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God would learn from each other, that would be a good thing. When we point to others as proof that we are the ones getting it right, that usually leads to blind spots.

Who is currently doing the best job of teaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God among Mennonites and Anabaptists? What would you turn to? Most of my Mennonite sources are older sources, things I read a long time ago that were formative. I'm not sure who is preaching this well these days.

I think John D. Martin and David Bercot do a pretty good job. Our local minister is probably one of the best but he isn’t into being broadcasted like these men have been. I’ve heard some visiting preachers and our bishop also do an amazing job but you’d have to look into churches much more conservative than where you are at currently to find them.

Have you been to our church? I think we do a rather good job of preaching on the Kingdom of God. Have you taken the time to look at the Bible Project resources I gave? In the 1980s and 1990s, most of the resources I used on the Kingdom of God were Anabaptist. I find a lot of really good resources on the Gospel of the Kingdom of God in other places these days. Including some of the resources I posted.

I have read some really good things in David Bercot. I know less about John D. Martin. Could you perhaps summarize what you have learned from Bercot and Martin?

Here's one thing I have noticed repeatedly on MN: threads about the Kingdom of God don't last long. It's not what people what to discuss here. Here are ALL of the topics on MN whose titles contain the phrase "Kingdom of God", with the most active threads at the top. None of these count as a particularly active thread on MN. Most of these threads were not started by conservative Anabaptists.

• Can the Kingdom of God speak to political matters? - 93 responses
• Making room for the Kingdom of God - 27 replies
• Kingdom of God/Kingdom of Heaven - 16 replies
• What if Kingdom of God Christians ... - 4 replies
• Life in the Kingdom of God - 4 replies
• Understandings of the Kingdom of God - 3 replies
• Wayne on the Kingdom of God - 0 replies

I'd like to see more discussion of the Kingdom of God here. Not focused on who we think are the real Kingdom of God people, but on what the Kingdom of God is, how we know if we are seeking it first, how we preach the "full gospel" from a Kingdom of God perspective, the full picture of the Bible as read from a Kingdom of God perspective, etc.

But can that be done here? Can the Gospel of the Kingdom of God compete with the latest political buzz here on MN?

[NedFlanders]

But I think Mennonites can sometimes underestimate the extent to which we do the same. I think we do get this right when it comes to military involvement. In general, if all of God's children who understand the core message of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God would learn from each other, that would be a good thing. When we point to others as proof that we are the ones getting it right, that usually leads to blind spots.

Who is currently doing the best job of teaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God among Mennonites and Anabaptists? What would you turn to? Most of my Mennonite sources are older sources, things I read a long time ago that were formative. I'm not sure who is preaching this well these days.

I think John D. Martin and David Bercot do a pretty good job. Our local minister is probably one of the best but he isn’t into being broadcasted like these men have been. I’ve heard some visiting preachers and our bishop also do an amazing job but you’d have to look into churches much more conservative than where you are at currently to find them.

Have you been to our church? I think we do a rather good job of preaching on the Kingdom of God. Have you taken the time to look at the Bible Project resources I gave? In the 1980s and 1990s, most of the resources I used on the Kingdom of God were Anabaptist. I find a lot of really good resources on the Gospel of the Kingdom of God in other places these days. Including some of the resources I posted.

I have read some really good things in David Bercot. I know less about John D. Martin. Could you perhaps summarize what you have learned from Bercot and Martin?

Here's one thing I have noticed repeatedly on MN: threads about the Kingdom of God don't last long. It's not what people what to discuss here. Here are ALL of the topics on MN whose titles contain the phrase "Kingdom of God", with the most active threads at the top. None of these count as a particularly active thread on MN. Most of these threads were not started by conservative Anabaptists.

• Can the Kingdom of God speak to political matters? - 93 responses
• Making room for the Kingdom of God - 27 replies
• Kingdom of God/Kingdom of Heaven - 16 replies
• What if Kingdom of God Christians ... - 4 replies
• Life in the Kingdom of God - 4 replies
• Understandings of the Kingdom of God - 3 replies
• Wayne on the Kingdom of God - 0 replies

I'd like to see more discussion of the Kingdom of God here. Not focused on who we think are the real Kingdom of God people, but on what the Kingdom of God is, how we know if we are seeking it first, how we preach the "full gospel" from a Kingdom of God perspective, the full picture of the Bible as read from a Kingdom of God perspective, etc.

But can that be done here? Can the Gospel of the Kingdom of God compete with the latest political buzz here on MN?

Mennonet is not even close to a good representation of what I’m talking about - even by the CA professing ones here unfortunately.
I don’t know why exactly it can’t gain much traction but I’ve tried. It personally works many times better in person where people can see the expression and countenance of the person I guess.

[Bootstrap]

Mennonet is not even close to a good representation of what I’m talking about - even by the CA professing ones here unfortunately.
I don’t know why exactly it can’t gain much traction but I’ve tried. It personally works many times better in person where people can see the expression and countenance of the person I guess.

I don't have an in-person relationship with you, at least not yet. But it's quite possible that if we met and talked, we would find a lot of agreement on what the Kingdom of God is, at least in terms of what the Bible teaches and what Jesus taught and did.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, which began in Eden and ends in the Revelation. I think you can find people teaching that quite well in many places. But I also think most people who call themselves Christians have no idea how to "seek first" the Kingdom of God. I don't think it's the same thing as being CA - I have no idea what percent of CAs are particularly good at this, but I suspect the Christians who are good at this can be found in many denominations.

And I wish Mennonites would get better at preaching this again. We used to do this well. We do in our congregation.

[temporal1]

Mennonet is not even close to a good representation of what I’m talking about - even by the CA professing ones here unfortunately.
I don’t know why exactly it can’t gain much traction but I’ve tried. It personally works many times better in person where people can see the expression and countenance of the person I guess.

Bidden or not bidden, God is present.

[NedFlanders]

Mennonet is not even close to a good representation of what I’m talking about - even by the CA professing ones here unfortunately.
I don’t know why exactly it can’t gain much traction but I’ve tried. It personally works many times better in person where people can see the expression and countenance of the person I guess.

I don't have an in-person relationship with you, at least not yet. But it's quite possible that if we met and talked, we would find a lot of agreement on what the Kingdom of God is, at least in terms of what the Bible teaches and what Jesus taught and did.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, which began in Eden and ends in the Revelation. I think you can find people teaching that quite well in many places. But I also think most people who call themselves Christians have no idea how to "seek first" the Kingdom of God. I don't think it's the same thing as being CA - I have no idea what percent of CAs are particularly good at this, but I suspect the Christians who are good at this can be found in many denominations.

And I wish Mennonites would get better at preaching this again. We used to do this well. We do in our congregation.

Seeking the kingdom of God relates to seeking the will of God. If a person does this in all things they will not be worried about “salvation issues,” but have a strong desire for God’s grace in living for Him, not because they have to but because they want to. Because I have only found this attitude in CA’s I’ve found becoming a CA is just a result of seeking first the kingdom of God rather than a goal. If I would have found such desire and action lived out elsewhere I would have been happy to not be CA and so if a person finds that outside CA’s - praise God and blessings to them!

[Coifi]

I will list what I think are some undisputed facts.

1. Constantine's mother was a Christian according to Eusebius.
2. There is no record of Constantine mentioning anything about the sign he saw on the sun until ten years after his historic victory against Maxentius. Following the victory, there is no record that Constantine gave God or Jesus any credit for the victory until 10 years later.
3. The sign he had his soldiers paint on their shields was the chi-rho symbol, not a cross. The chi-rho symbol was a pagan good luck symbol.
4.Constantine the Great made Christianity popular.
5. Constantine joined church and state, then used force to punish those who would not toe the line of his Christian government.
6. Constantine ordered the death penalty for those he considered heretics, people who defied his version of church.
7. Constantine paved the way for the rise of a religious Roman government that would prove to be horrific for many years.
8. The result was a unification of church and state—a move that would be the catalyst to the egregious abuses that took place over the next 1,500 years during what has come to be known as the Dark Ages.

If anyone has evidence to dispute these, feel free to bring it forward. When I say evidence, I am not talking about supposition.

I'm not going to dispute these per se. I do take issue with the framing, statements which I have placed in bold text in the quote. What I am about to describe are not necessarily arguments, but an alternative frame of certain things. So, if I recall correctly, Constantine breaks years of pagan Roman emperor tradition by not sacrificing to Jupiter upon his ascension (2) so if he isn't crediting Jupiter, who is he crediting? The chi-rho symbol was also one of the earliest Christograms (3) and, if you ask a linguist, words and therefore anagrams, can change meaning over time. Constantine never attempted to function as a priest in the Church (6) which means he very deliberately was not functioning as a church hierarch. Finally, the Christian Roman government was not "horrific"...if you compare it to the previous Roman governments (7 & 8).

I do not know enough about this period to engage in an in depth discussion regarding Constantine. However, I would encourage a more comprehensive framing of the situation. Constantine's immediate predecessor was Diocletian - arguably one of the worse emperors for Christians in history. To say the regime change was whiplash would be an understatement. My main critique would be to avoid presentism - reading history in lieu of modern times. For example, saying that Constantine unified church and state assumes that people 1700 years ago separated religious life and state life into two different categories like we do today. That is an assumption that has to be justified and definitely should not be taken at face value.

Ernie, you've asked a question in the Denominations subforum about Constantine. That one is next on my list to respond to. I will get to it once I get a chance.

[NedFlanders]

It’s no assumption when one reads the bible and what it says about the Gospel that Jesus preached. The Jews were and still are looking for a political leader to be their saviour - Jesus showed us this wasn’t how it was to be. Furthermore what did Christ teach the early church before Pentecost? -Read Acts 1. It wouldn’t make sense that Christ teaching them the kingdom of God then and before His resurrection continually that the early church should have been political when they clearly choose not to be. And then there is the early church fathers writings too. Assumptions are bad but so is dismissing the witness of Christ, the Apostles, the early church and the early church fathers writings who were all clearly separated from the kingdoms of this world.

[Coifi]

It’s no assumption when one reads the bible and what it says about the Gospel that Jesus preached. The Jews were and still are looking for a political leader to be their saviour - Jesus showed us this wasn’t how it was to be. Furthermore what did Christ teach the early church before Pentecost? -Read Acts 1. It wouldn’t make sense that Christ teaching them the kingdom of God then and before His resurrection continually that the early church should have been political when they clearly choose not to be. And then there is the early church fathers writings too. Assumptions are bad but so is dismissing the witness of Christ, the Apostles, the early church and the early church fathers writings who were all clearly separated from the kingdoms of this world.

I appreciate your response and I sympathize with your desire to not dismiss the teaching of Jesus Christ and the witness to that teaching by the apostles and the early church fathers. I hope I did not come across as being dismissive of something so important.

I think we would both agree that those who say that Jesus taught we should support gay person's homosexual activities because that is "the loving thing to do and God is love" are using a modern definition of love. Just as I would advocate against using the modern category of love to talk about blessing immoral sexual behavior, I am advocating that we avoid similar presentist assumptions regarding the modern categories of religion and politics. I would submit that the comments of yours which I placed in bold contain similar presentist assumptions. Why do you assume that, because the Jews were expecting the Messiah to liberate them from the Romans, that the Messiah would therefore not be a religious figure (to use the modern categories)? Did the early church choose not to be political because they were taught to avoid politics or because the political life was indistinguishable from the religious life? I would ask the same question about the early church fathers.

I would suggest that religion and politics were functionally not two separate categories in the time of Christ. The emperor of Roman was worshipped as a god at the time and the Imperial Cult lasted decades (if not centuries). Therefore, a (if not thee) reason why the early church did not "get political" because that would mean participating in pagan rituals. Political life was indistinguishable from religious life.

I hope that clarifies my comments!

[ken_sylvania]

It’s no assumption when one reads the bible and what it says about the Gospel that Jesus preached. The Jews were and still are looking for a political leader to be their saviour - Jesus showed us this wasn’t how it was to be. Furthermore what did Christ teach the early church before Pentecost? -Read Acts 1. It wouldn’t make sense that Christ teaching them the kingdom of God then and before His resurrection continually that the early church should have been political when they clearly choose not to be. And then there is the early church fathers writings too. Assumptions are bad but so is dismissing the witness of Christ, the Apostles, the early church and the early church fathers writings who were all clearly separated from the kingdoms of this world.

I appreciate your response and I sympathize with your desire to not dismiss the teaching of Jesus Christ and the witness to that teaching by the apostles and the early church fathers. I hope I did not come across as being dismissive of something so important.

I think we would both agree that those who say that Jesus taught we should support gay person's homosexual activities because that is "the loving thing to do and God is love" are using a modern definition of love. Just as I would advocate against using the modern category of love to talk about blessing immoral sexual behavior, I am advocating that we avoid similar presentist assumptions regarding the modern categories of religion and politics. I would submit that the comments of yours which I placed in bold contain similar presentist assumptions. Why do you assume that, because the Jews were expecting the Messiah to liberate them from the Romans, that the Messiah would therefore not be a religious figure (to use the modern categories)? Did the early church choose not to be political because they were taught to avoid politics or because the political life was indistinguishable from the religious life? I would ask the same question about the early church fathers.

I would suggest that religion and politics were functionally not two separate categories in the time of Christ. The emperor of Roman was worshipped as a god at the time and the Imperial Cult lasted decades (if not centuries). Therefore, a (if not thee) reason why the early church did not "get political" because that would mean participating in pagan rituals. Political life was indistinguishable from religious life.

I hope that clarifies my comments!

I agree one must be careful not to read modern assumptions and understandings into historic events, but I think a careful study of of life of Jesus Christ and his relationship with government leads to the inevitable conclusion that Jesus clearly taught and lived separation of religious life (church) vs civil government and that the early church followed suit. Yes, the pagans of the time didn't understand the distinction, but the early church apparently did.

[NedFlanders]

It’s no assumption when one reads the bible and what it says about the Gospel that Jesus preached. The Jews were and still are looking for a political leader to be their saviour - Jesus showed us this wasn’t how it was to be. Furthermore what did Christ teach the early church before Pentecost? -Read Acts 1. It wouldn’t make sense that Christ teaching them the kingdom of God then and before His resurrection continually that the early church should have been political when they clearly choose not to be. And then there is the early church fathers writings too. Assumptions are bad but so is dismissing the witness of Christ, the Apostles, the early church and the early church fathers writings who were all clearly separated from the kingdoms of this world.

I appreciate your response and I sympathize with your desire to not dismiss the teaching of Jesus Christ and the witness to that teaching by the apostles and the early church fathers. I hope I did not come across as being dismissive of something so important.

I think we would both agree that those who say that Jesus taught we should support gay person's homosexual activities because that is "the loving thing to do and God is love" are using a modern definition of love. Just as I would advocate against using the modern category of love to talk about blessing immoral sexual behavior, I am advocating that we avoid similar presentist assumptions regarding the modern categories of religion and politics. I would submit that the comments of yours which I placed in bold contain similar presentist assumptions. Why do you assume that, because the Jews were expecting the Messiah to liberate them from the Romans, that the Messiah would therefore not be a religious figure (to use the modern categories)? Did the early church choose not to be political because they were taught to avoid politics or because the political life was indistinguishable from the religious life? I would ask the same question about the early church fathers.

I would suggest that religion and politics were functionally not two separate categories in the time of Christ. The emperor of Roman was worshipped as a god at the time and the Imperial Cult lasted decades (if not centuries). Therefore, a (if not thee) reason why the early church did not "get political" because that would mean participating in pagan rituals. Political life was indistinguishable from religious life.

I hope that clarifies my comments!

I think from what I understand from your comments is that you don’t have the understanding that the gospel that Jesus taught was the gospel of the kingdom of God.
Correct me if I’m wrong!

I think tells us many times and Paul that there are two kingdoms - God’s and the world’s. We are cslled to be seperate.
From John 18:36

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.