The problem is that not all people agree on what is the "true" Christianity. What if the people in power are of a different Christian persuasion than you are? For instance, if Rick Perry is the leader in question I would definitely NOT want his version of Christianity to be the dominant one.

Cullin R. Schooley

There's a big difference between "embracing Christianity and Christian values" and following Christ Jesus. So much of the ugliness on our political and social landscape in America these days, far from the Gospel no matter how much it claims the name "Christian," is ample proof of that. Christianity is meant to be a matter of following someone who changes one from within -- not a mass ideology enforced from above.

My argument with Constantinianism was never about the alliance of church with empire, but the forced conversion of entire populations to Christianity without any thought given to the hearts, souls, beliefs and faith of those converted, so Christianity was passed down by people who were not necessarily passionate about Christ but rather Christian out of fear.

On this and other sites we're on about how to restructure the institution to better serve God's mission. Part of that has to be to ask ourselves, why are we Christian in the first place? What is the Good News for today? What would be Good News for the person who is "spiritual but not religious"? The person who does not believe he or she needs a savior?

I see a direct link between our present fix as a religion and as a church, and Constantinianism's forced conversions that left out the link between the human condition and the need for a savior. Under Constantinianism the need for a savior was solely to escape losing everything, even life, for not converting. That's no basis for a religion and it's only by an act of God that Christianity has survived until this day.

"But is Constantinianism entirely wrongheaded? Don't Christians want people in power to embrace Christianity and Christian values? "

I think that an issue lies here in a false conflation. Of course any good Christian hopes that their political leaders and figures of power will accept Christ into theirs lives and live as Christians... but that doesn't seem to be what Constantinianism is meant to be by most users of the term.

When a political power uses worldly means to force the form of the Christian faith on a people who have not yet found the spirit of the Christian faith, it may do long lasting harm to the actual spread of the Word, and of the Glory of Christ. A true Christian leader would live a Christian life, and allow others to be impressed by his convictions, not ordered to imitate his deeds.

To me, and I suspect many others, when someone speaks of Constantinianism, rightly or wrongly they are speaking of a leader who embraces the outer shape of Christian faith without the indwelling of the spirit, which I would hope no true Christian would desire.