I would like to say that this paper is specifically oriented towards the foundation of a political theology. I am still partial towards a non-Constantinian consciousness, but thats a whole other argument.

Still, let me know if you have any questions

I just wanted to say I really enjoyed your essay and appreciate you posting it. I’m not familiar enough with Constantinianism to respond with any informed criticism but your perspective on the western history of church/state relations will be a helpful resource as a continue Democracy and Tradition.

When I think of the eschatological hope, I actually rarely think about the new Jerusalem, mostly its prophecy like swords into plough shares, lion with the lamb, etc. Abundance? For sure. But none of this is possible without the righting of the relationship between oppressed and oppressor - justice. When we have true justice and peace, then I do not think riches will matter quite so much because we are realizing this fundamental aspect of the church: it looks out for people, it gives, it meets the needs, it takes care of people.

In the local community (in America is my context), it might look like taking care of immigrants, illegal or not. I think it also means ethically buying food and material goods locally. This has many implications like: less overhead, ethical practices can be assured, less transportation for the goods, etc. It is both people friendly and environment friendly. While it is a positive vote - because I think our votes are now through money and not ballots - it is also a rejection of the way corporations work. Not buying from the beast means not supplying the beast that forces the use of pesticides, over-working the land, patenting the foundations of life (so to control and profit from something as basic as water rights or to sell only genetically engineered crops that will not produce seed), paying the people too little for a crop they have to export, etc. I really do think if the consumer within the system react differently than the system expects, wants or needs, then the system can be at least hobbled. If we buy less, live with what we have, share with one another and pool resources for the big things, then we can begin to live a life less subject to the market.

With the excess money, and in theory with corporations ravaging the lands of other people less, there is room for the church to move in and help humanity flourish. Its like war, the bombs have to stop before people can plant to harvest. This is by no means an entire solution, but I think puts the church on the right track. To get here though, the Christians in America have to give up this false idea of the American dream and their right to have whatever they want.

As for an immediate solution in the mean time? I don’t know. I wish I did. I know force won’t do it. Maybe this is part of the insidious nature of the problem, to get out means a long term plan and people will continue to die, no matter what we do. I do not want to give up so easily though, I’m just not sure what else to do besides to challenge what I can, and what I can challenge is literally down the street from me and its called Columbia and its called Wallstreet.

Haha, it’s funny because I am somewhat of the same mind when it comes to historical readings. Right now I am just trying to work through Wright’s Christians Origins and the Question of God series, just to be done with it and get on to political theology, questions of economics, ethics and the like. However, I do find it rather obnoxious how often I encounter people who I agree with in their application- how they live in/against the systems, focused on the kingdom, living on the margins- yet their way of getting there is so thoroughly ahistorical, not taking into account the context from which they extrapolate to their theology.

For instance, what is our ethic/telos in relationships with Jews? Paul in Romans desires a community of Jews and Gentiles, but the Reformed, ahistorical Romans Road reading doesn’t take into account how much of a Jewish prophet Jesus was, and therefore, how his teaching and ethics was inextricably linked to Israel’s story…

But again, I am in the same boat as you- I want to get a decent overall understanding (not that just reading Wright will do that) in order to move to other matters. And you ARE being inconsistent but that’s okay!

As far as the Church creating kingdom space- what do we do once we have this kingdom space? What are we going to do all day when God is all in all? It comes back to my earlier question: how do we enable people (the poor) to become the value-creating (co-creating) stewards they are made to be? The eschatological vision is one of abundance, even wealth, and opulence- I’ve not been to a city of pure gold and jasper walls, but it sounds awful nice.

If indeed the market is designed to favor the rich and not the poor, how do we subvert it, go against it while being in it? And what do we do NOW about the 1-2 billion people on the edge of death, who not only need some food and healthcare now but also the ability to provide for themselves once they get to the level of subsistence?

After saying all that, I still like to read and listen to Wright. Maybe I am just inconsistent, but I’d like to think that if I were really pushed on it, my theology could stand, as far as I could see, without leaning on Wright and the historical characterization. Then again, language would be nowhere without the ability to translate and that is entirely dependent on history…but again, I am getting sidetracked. Stories. Christian stories.

For your second question, when I think of the market, much of the time I have neo-liberal economic theory in mind, probably because the proponents of such and the system itself are charactures of themselves. And Jeffrey Sachs, quite frankly, is as relevant as a band-aid for a decapitation in the grand scheme of things. I’ve heard the metaphor that if the water rises, all boats rise, but this seems flawed to me - it doesn’t count for inflation and it says that only extreme poverty is bad. It leaves the status quo alone, by maintaining the hierarchy as it is and not acknowledging privilege. However, the market extends beyond that and the neo-liberals making that argument. True, I am somewhat of an anarchist, but not a social anarchist per se. I see the church creating space, safe space - kingdom space. And I see the church leveraging its assets and living simply, or at least is should. Christians are in the system, because they exist wherever they exist, but they’re against it. They don’t flow within the system so easily and this disrupts the status quo. It is the status quo that is okay with the poor existing, or throwing most of pharmaceutical research money at recreational drugs rather than, say cancer, because erections pay more. Sure, money flow plays a part in the poor not being poor, but I have to go with the post-colonial critique - the market is designed to provide for the rich and it is designed against the poor. I see the church disrupting this system - working with the poor and shaming the rich, or something like that. Poverty in my mind is a religious question/problem - there is the religion of the market and wealth or there is the kingdom that fights from the margins.

I appreciated reading this brief summation of where your thinking and reading is taking you. I have two questions:

You wrote, “In other words, the materialized past and a Christian eschatological hope changes who the community presently is through a remembrance of Christ, a vision of the telos and the power to change.”

First, who do we remember Christ to be? I know this wasn’t the point of your essay, but the answer to this question is quite central to our praxis as the Church. Is he a Jewish peasant Cynic, aphoristic sage, apocalyptic prophet, the liberating Messiah of Israel, peasant revolutionary (violent or nonviolent?), or more than one of these or something else?

I ask this because as I have only begun to think and read in the realm of political theology, I’ve realized that I first need a better sense of who Jesus was/is in his own context (I’m working through N.T. Wrights big volumes now). So I’m interested how you would answer this question?

My second question deals more with economics. I agree that the narrative of the capitalistic market system is mostly antithetical to the story of the kingdom. On the other hand, free markets can and do play a significant role in reducing suffering, poverty, disease, starvation, and the like (though I grant this role is ambiguous as they can also create these things). So how do you see the Church, with a proper understanding of the tyrannical, commodifying narrative of the market, at the same time, using market forces to alleviate suffering and enable people (the poor) to become the value-creating stewards they are made to be? How can we balance these things in your mind? Is it even desirable to do so?