Two new blogs

I have recently moved this blog to WordPress - http://roomofgrace.wordpress.com - after removing some of the more controversial material.

What is wrong with the Christian RELIGION?

See "About this blog" for an introduction.

Over two million people are leaving the 'traditional' churches of Europe and North America every year.  Why?

Could it be that there is an enormous difference between the Christian RELIGION (Christendom) and the Christian FAITH?  

This is one of a number of awkward questions that I would like to encourage others to consider.

It was several years ago that I found a controversial definition of ‘Christendom’ that gives plenty of food for thought.  How can we look at some of the terrible ‘crimes’ that have been committed in the name of Christianity and relate that to a loving God?.

Are we seeing the beginning of the end of Christendom (the Christian religion – as opposed to the Christian faith)? Is this the reason why many committed Christians are being called away from the churches that they may have attended for many years?

***

A few thoughts for starters:

• Mankind has created a religion called Christianity (sometimes referred to as Christendom) .  
• As a result of Christendom some people are looking for God in the wrong places and attempting to appease a God who doesn't need to be appeased.
  
• Religion thrives on fear!
• I find it sad that much preaching suggests we are separated from God; that we don't measure up; that we are being condemned by an angry God; that we need to repent before God will change his mind!

Like many others who have been drawn away from churches they may have attended for many years, I'm convinced that some of the teachings of traditional Christianity are misguided!  I would go so far as to suggest that some of the foundations are seriously misguided.  But I'm only an uneducated believer!

It was in 2003 that I really became aware of the emerging / emergent / house church movements and what was then being referred to by some as “the out of church Christians”. It was in the same year that I found the book “So you don’t want to go to church anymore” on the web when the authors had only written the first three chapters. As a result of the traumatic experiences of 1995/6 and my ongoing experiences since then, I have developed a real feeling for some of those who are being challenged to reconsider their whole belief systems and even their roles in life - whether or not they have ever had a leadership position.

When I look back on my unusual journey, I realise that I had been questioning the meaning and significance of some aspects of the Christian FAITH from an early age. I had been forced to attend Sunday School until I was 14 despite the fact that my parents (who had left school at 13 and 14) had never owned a Bible and never attended church.

I don’t remember ever doubting the existence of God but I do have a clear recollection of my rejection when I was 13, of the nonsensical way in which the trinity was explained. This subsequently had a major influence on my understanding of some of the enormous differences I see between the Christian RELIGION and the Christian FAITH. I have written elsewhere about how, after reading “The Shack” for the second time in 2007, I found myself wondering, “Why has it taken 57 years for someone to give me a picture of the trinity that really begins to make sense?".

Over the years - especially since 2003 - I have been reconsidering many aspects of the Christian FAITH and in the posts that follow I have gathered together what seem to me to be some of the most significant questions that might be considered by those who are seeing something of this difference between the Christian FAITH and the Christian RELIGION.

I recognise that we are all on unique journeys and have been influenced by many different factors.  Questions that have been important to some have not been important to others.  Maybe like me, you have sometimes felt that you haven't been able to come to any meaningful conclusion on a particular topic, and just 'put it on the shelf' to be considered later. 

Some of the Awkward Questions

It is now more than 15 years since I was forced (for the second time) to reconsider just about everything I had ever been taught.  It has been a long wilderness experience - a time of detox - and now at the age of 75 (with a faith that I do not have to defend) I simply want to share some of the basic questions I have been considering over the years, and encourage people to THINK for themselves about the nature of God, the purpose of life and other similar questions.

What is the foundation of our faith?  Why do we believe what we believe?

Individually we see only a small part of the overall picture - and as we consider our own thoughts we sometimes find ourselves reconsidering something we previously thought we understood.  There is I suggest, a close parallel with the way our understanding grows and changes as we move from childhood to teenage; from teenage to young adult; from young adult to a more mature view of life  that may continue to change  over the years.
This thought is developed in "Stages of Faith" (see sidebar).

How for example, would you define the purpose of life?  Some would say that this is a mystery that we are not meant to understand, but if we don't have an answer to that most basic of questions, what is it that motivates us?  My thoughts have changed enormously over the years.  For some 30 years I can now see that my faith was based almost entirely on 'head knowledge' and very little 'heart awareness'.  That began to change only some 7-8 years ago.  The Bible suggests that we should be growing in grace and knowledge.  How many of us reached that point where we thought we knew most of the answers?

So much has been written about the Christian RELIGION but how well do we understand the foundational truths of the Christian FAITH?  At the risk of over simplification I am suggesting that there are very few fundamental questions that need to be considered:

• Would a loving Father really allow anyone to end up in hell simply because they had never heard or understood the real truth of the gospel message?  See "The Battle over Hell" for an article that had a big impact on my thinking ten years ago.
• How much do we know about God, and how well do we know God and his plan and purpose for mankind in general?  
• What is the real meaning of ‘church’ and why are so many committed Christians being drawn outside the walls of traditional Christianity?
• Why do we have so much divisive denominational theology, and is there a difference between the Christian religion and the Christian faith?
• What does the Bible really say (see sidebar) and what is it that we really believe? 
• Do we see the Bible as the Word of God or Jesus as the Word of God?
• What is the place of leadership? What about the priesthood of all believers?  See "Dorothy on Leadership"
• Where is the growth that follows transitions?
• What place myth and symbolism? What is the significance of the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?   How do we understand the story of Genesis?  What is the significance of the "Fall of Adam"?
• What is the real meaning of sin? Is it possible that it might better be described as a lack of love or missing the mark of what Father wants us to be?
• Do we understand the significance of justice, mercy, grace and suffering?
  
  • Justice = we get what we deserve (is that really the biblical meaning?)
  • Mercy = we don't get what we deserve
  • Grace = we get what we don't deserve
• What is the real meaning of repentance, righteousness, salvation and forgiveness?
• How important are the 'Stages of Faith'?

Some might wonder why I didn't include any reference to the two great commandments, prayer and worship.   Our understanding of these will surely vary to a significant extent, depending upon our understanding of the purpose of life, and at what stage we might be on the journey of life?  How secure is our foundation?

The Story of Life - possible scenarios?

What does the story of Genesis mean to you?

Some believe that the story of Adam and Eve is literally true while others believe it is ‘myth and symbolism’.  Some believe that the Bible is the inerrant ‘Word of God’ while others believe that while the Bible is ‘inspired’, it is Jesus who should be seen as the Word of God!  

I had at one time been taught that Genesis 1.1-3 indicates that the earth was struck by some cataclysmic event (some suggest as a result of the fall of Satan) between v1 and v2 - and that the Bible is referring to a restoration of it's original condition. I have also seen it suggested that when Adam sinned God had two options. He could give up on man and allow creation to go back into chaos and darkness, or He could initiate a rescue operation.  Do either of these suggestions really make sense?

Some people feel that in an ideal world we would be returning to the Garden of Eden. Others feel that we need to be able to return to the time of the early church.

Could it be that God knew that Adam and Eve (or mankind generally) would fail - and eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? This would certainly fit with the need for Jesus as the future Redeemer even before Creation.  Have you ever considered how much theology is based on the "Fall of Adam"?  I would question the whole basis of that teaching!

We all have our own theology - our own picture of God - created by the lessons we have learned throughout our individual journey of life - usually heavily influenced by the denomination of the church we attended. At its best that theology will be very incomplete, and will inevitably be distorted. Are we ready to reconsider what we think we already know?

I would suggest that maybe there is an ordered progression through the story told in the Bible - the miracle of life and growth! In the beginning they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil - some would say they separated themselves from God, but does God separate Himself from us?  The result is sin, sorrow and death – missing the mark of what a loving Father wants us to be - instead of trusting God (pictured by the tree of life).

What is Church?

 While I was reviewing what I felt I needed to include in this blog I found the following note that sums up many of my thoughts:

The vast majority, who belong to a church seldom if ever, reflect on what it is they belong to, and have little or no awareness of the deep historical roots which lie beneath the façades of everyday church life.  The first Christians were Hebrews – disciples of the long-awaited Messiah.  The origins were found in the Hebrew Scriptures – a process consolidated by Paul within two decades of the death of Jesus.  But by the fourth century the church had become the official religion of the declining Roman Empire.  In the process of rereading the Hebrew Scriptures (long before the NT was created) the church apparently evolved a deep-seated antipathy to the Jews.

There were claims to absolute truth and invincibility but the church is a human organisation, the result of human choice and subject to death and decay like any other organisation!

Members have acted in ways that cannot be reconciled to the Jesus of history.

There was a move away from an inspirational interpretation of the origins of the church towards a sociological understanding.

There was persecution of those who didn’t conform – the threat of excommunication (and hell).

Did Jesus really say, “go and make disciples …”  Consider that the results of missionary work in comparatively simple cultures was profoundly polluting.

Other religions at best, were seen to be misguided.  Worldly wisdom had to be suppressed when it clashed with the seen will of God (e.g. birth control).

Truth is something that shifts and changes according to human perceptions and understanding.  It is never absolute.  The church in the West is in steep decline.  Will a new tree rise from the ancient roots or must a new seed be planted?  If the roots are diseased …

The church as an organisation is dying.  Leaders can only lead with the consent of those whom they lead – but the church still retains structures, rules and procedures better fitted to a long gone social model.  The church is losing touch with the world around it!

Some are trying to preserve the traditional essence of the orthodox faith at all costs, while exiles maintain the need to strip away the baggage of religion!

I suggest that it is Christ (himself) who is actually ‘Christianity’ and that Christianity is a Person, not a mere belief system or another religious faith!

The practice of Churchianity as we know it – all the gruelling, unfruitful self-effort to change has very little transformative power!

The truth of the gospel (Christ in us as our life) is little understood.

There is some authentic spirituality in those passion filled churches that have better things to do than make converts, collect tithes and build membership roles.

Few people seem to have authentic transformative experiences – the rest just hear stories and believe them.  How much harm do the majority of belief systems create?

There is a lot of deconstruction but little seems to be replaced!

***

It was early in 2003 that I had an email from an Internet friend pointing me to A Churchless Faith  - an article by Alan Jamieson written in 1999.  This was the second of three articles in a series.  The others were "Ten Myths about Church Leavers" and "In search of Turangawaewae".

Then in October 2003 this same friend pointed me to 'Out of church Christians' by Andrew Strom.  As a result of that article Andrew had hundreds of responses from around the world which he collected into a 32 page booklet, 'The Out of Church Christians' that makes very interesting reading.

This was the beginning of a long journey through the emergent / emerging / house church scene where I shared with many others travelling in a wilderness.  It was during this time that I wrote about my understanding of the different "Stages of Faith".

It was at some point in 2003 that I was reading a number of booklets about the church or the 'ecclesia' that had a big impact.  It raised so many questions.  Tyndale was a Greek scholar who produced the first English New Testament from the original Greek.  Among other things he used elder instead of priest; congregation instead of church; repentance instead of penance.  Tyndale was martyred in 1547 and all but two of his Bibles were destroyed.  Why?
Who authorised the Authorised Version and why?  Why were there significant differences between the Authorised Version and the Geneva Bible (that did not promote the divine right of Kings and ruling bishops, but instead recognised the priesthood of all believers)?  How much influence did King James have on the translation (and why?) - he was an absolute monarch who believed in the divine right of Kings - he dissolved Parliament and ruled for ten years without it.
It is also worth considering the British Feudal System.  The land was owned by the King or his lords.  Inheritance was to eldest sons.  Younger sons often sought power, influence and identity through offices in the church.  It's hard to imagine how anyone would dare to question them!
Consider how cathedrals dominated the skylines while the serfs lived in very primitive surroundings.  I Corinthians 3 surely makes it clear that God does not dwell in temples made with hands - we are temples of God's Spirit (1Cor 3.16) - so why the ongoing emphasis on buildings?
The true church is a living organism, but by the time of Constantine the old temple order was being reinstated, and is I would suggest, still well entrenched!

There were many more questions but I think that's where it all started.

You might find it helpful to consider "Some causes of Disillusionment ".

Christendom

One of the major influences on my thinking several years ago was an article entitled, "The Rise and Fall of Christendom" by Stuart Murray who is involved with the Anabaptist Network. In it he gives a controversial definition of 'Christendom' that seems to give plenty of food for thought.

(The history of the Anabaptists is an interesting story - bearing in mind that at the time of the Reformation they were persecuted by both Protestants and Catholics).   

What Christendom meant:

• the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of city, state or empire
• the assumption that all citizens (except for the Jews) were Christian by birth
• the development of a ‘sacral society’, where there was no effective distinction between sacred and secular, where religion and politics were intertwined
• the definition of ‘orthodoxy’ as the common belief, determined by socially powerful clerics supported by the state
• the imposition of supposedly ‘Christian morality’ on the entire population (although normally Old Testament moral standards were applied)
• a political and religious division of the world into ‘Christendom’ and ‘heathendom’
• the defence of Christianity by legal sanctions to restrain heresy, immorality and schism, and by warfare to protect or extend Christendom
• a hierarchical ecclesiastical system, based on a diocesan and parish arrangement, which was analogous to the state hierarchy and was buttressed by state support
• a generic distinction between clergy and laity and relegation of laity to a largely passive role
• obligatory church attendance, with penalties for non-compliance
• infant baptism as the symbol of obligatory incorporation into this Christian society
• the imposition of obligatory tithes to fund this system.

***

The Rise of Christendom - as described by Stuart Murray:

In the early years of the fourth century the Roman Empire was in turmoil. After centuries of dominance, the empire was showing signs of age - the bureaucracy was creaking, moral standards were low, the old forms of religion seemed empty, and barbarians were attacking the frontiers.

Despite almost three hundred years of marginality and intermittent persecution, and despite still being an illegal society, the church was one of the few remaining stabilizing and civilising influences. Their sacrificial care for victims during a recent outbreak of plague had won them many admirers, even if their convictions still seemed strange.

In 312, there were two claimants to the imperial throne. Maxentius held the capital city, Rome, and most of Italy, but Constantine held most of the Western empire, had the support of most of the army and had marched on Rome. In October 312, he was camped north of the city preparing for what would be the show-down with his rival, but worried because he did not have the resources to sustain a long siege.

Then something unusual happened. According to Christian writers of the time, Constantine had a vision, in which he saw the sign of the cross with the sun rising behind it, and saw or heard the words in hoc signo vince ("In this sign conquer"). Constantine, who came from a family of sun-worshippers, had the sign of the cross painted on his soldiers' equipment.

Shortly after this, to everyone's surprise, Maxentius decided to risk a battle outside the city walls and Constantine's army won a decisive victory, forcing their opponents back across the Milvian Bridge into the city. Constantine took the city and became emperor, apparently convinced that the God of the Christians had given him victory.

Historians have argued for centuries about whether Constantine was genuinely converted, but what is certain is that he saw Christianity as a force that could unite and revive his crumbling empire. Within a year the persecution ended, as Constantine issued an edict of toleration, Christianity became a legal religion and Constantine invited church leaders to assist him in making the Roman Empire a Christian society.

In the following decades it seemed like revival - massive church growth, wonderful new church buildings, changes in laws and customs, church leaders taking on political and social roles, Constantine ruling as a Christian emperor. By the end of the fourth century, Christianity had become the state religion, the only legal religion, and it was pagans who were being persecuted.

The system known as christianitas (Christendom) was coming into being, an alliance between church and state that would dominate Europe for over a thousand years and that still impacts the way Christians think and act.

The Christendom Shift 
Two opposite assessments have been made of what happened in the fourth century:

·  That this was a God-given opportunity which the church rightly seized and which ensured the triumph of the church and of Christianity in Europe;

·  That this was a disaster that perverted the church, compromised its calling and hindered its mission, achieving through infiltration what 300 years of persecution had failed to achieve. That this was not the triumph of the church over the empire but the triumph of the empire over the church.

[I now believe that there is another important aspect to consider - to what extent did God recognise that something like this would happen?  Perhaps God gave people what they wanted, just as he had previously given Israel the king that they asked for!].

The basis of the Constantinian system was a close partnership between the church and the state.  The form of this partnership might vary, with either partner dominant, or with a balance of power existing between them.  There are examples from the 4^th century onwards of emperors presiding over church councils and of emperors doing penance imposed by bishops.  Throughout the medieval period, power struggles between popes and emperors resulted in one or the other holding sway for a time.  But the Christendom system assumed that the church was associated with the Christian status quo and had vested interests in its maintenance.  The church provided religious legitimisation for state activities, and the state provided secular force to back up ecclesiastical decisions.

Christendom seems to have no place for elements of a New Testament vision such as:

• believers’ churches comprised only of voluntary members
• believers’ baptism as the means of incorporation into the church
• a clear distinction between ‘church’ and ‘world’
• evangelism and mission (except by military conquest or missions to heathen nations)
• the supranational vision of the new Christian ‘nation’
• faith in Christ as the exercise of choice in a pluralistic environment where other choices are possible without penalty.

Other elements of New Testament Christianity appear to be redefined within Christendom:

• ‘church’ is defined territorially and membership in it is compulsory
• the voluntary communities called ‘churches’ in the New Testament are now called ‘sects’
• a preoccupation with the immortality of the soul replaces the expectation of the kingdom of God, and the concept of the kingdom of God is either reduced to a purely historical entity, coterminous with the state church, or relegated to a future realm
• the church abandons its prophetic role for a primarily priestly role, providing spiritual support for groups and individuals, sanctifying social occasions and state policies
• discipleship is interpreted in terms of good citizenship, rather than commitment to the ways of the kingdom of God
• the church becomes primarily concerned about social order rather than social justice
• persecution is imposed by those claiming to be Christian rather than upon them.

Some Thoughts on Theology

George Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury had some interesting things to say about ways of thinking about God in a book entitled 'Canterbury Letters':
As a young and committed enquirer Carey had endless books – the first group retold the simple faith, but seemed to ignore or deny questions – for Carey there was a need to transition from simple belief to a profound doctrinal understanding!
The second group dealing with questions and competing claims didn’t have the same excitement and commitment to faith.
Faith was said to be shaped in four ways - anchored in the Bible - taught by the church - probing of every human culture - always relevant to the way we should live - something that has to be articulated and owned by each generation.
Carey suggests that it is not possible for a serious Biblical student to ignore the scholarship and the rigorous and detailed analysis and fruits of some 200 years of research!  The essential need to think about our faith theologically!  The absolute importance of tradition!
At one point Carey suggests that truth and error have been difficult, if not impossible to distinguish, and that the 'authority' of the church's history has to be seen as to some extent ambiguous!

How difficult is it for those who have been taught at Bible colleges to distinguish between sound and misguided theology?  I have seen it suggested that when properly used theology can serve the church by combating heresies or false teachings.  This is no doubt true to some extent, but where did the majority of heresies and false teaching come from originally but from misguided theology!  

It is surely when we allow Jesus to live his life in and through us (the miracle of a new creation) that we can begin to love and relate to others as God loves us! (Gal 2.20)

We all have our own theology – the way we think about and understand God, grace and salvation.  Is that theology dynamic and relational – where we know Father and Jesus in an active and real way that seasons all our relationships with mercy, patience, kindness and peace – or is the theology static – a religion of legalism, spiritual stagnation, and judgment of those who fail to meet our carefully defined standards of godliness?

Human beings are not capable of reasoning out who God is and what he must be like!  Scripture tells us that God has chosen to reveal himself in Jesus, as being the God who loves us!  In Jesus we are free, as God’s new creation, to learn to love as God loves – in freedom!

Consider the following scriptures:
Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, Jesus explained to them everything in the scriptures that referred to himself (Luke 24.27)
If you really believed Moses you would be bound to believe me, for it was about me that he wrote (John 5.46)
God, who gave to our forefathers many different glimpses of the truth in the words of the prophets, has now, at the end of the present age, given us the truth in the Son (Heb 1.1)
This is my dearly loved Son.  Listen to him (Mark 9.7)


Who do we listen to?  Who is our teacher? 

Should we be listening to the words of men or the Word of God?

Where is the miracle of an open mind?