Monday, 05 October 2009
-
The Church: Better Off without Christianity?
First, I had better define my terms! By the Church I mean the biblical definition of that entity that embodies all genuine believers in Christ. By Christianity I mean the conglomeration of organizations and structures that have grown up around these believers throughout the ages. Many assume the two terms are equated somehow, but I feel that is a sad mistake. What if we all could shed the "churches" (so-called) and other associations and simply return to living and meeting wherever we lived only as fellow-Christians? Such a situation would, after all, match the blueprint of truth found in the Bible.In the divisive and sectarian situation found in Christianity, we find Christian denominations competing for members. "Come meet with US! (instead of them)" There appears to be a lot of gospel activity, but little real coordination is possible when the Christian leaders within each town operate separately from one another. Redundancy reigns! The result is woefully ineffective when compared to what could happen if we could act together as a unified whole.
Imagine how beneficial it would be if all the Christian youth in a city could be together rather than isolated from one another within their "churches"! Consider the power of the gospel within a community if all believers were actually one, rather than just in theory. Present-day Christianity makes sure the "church invisible" stays covered up. In the New Testament, we see believers identified simply as "the church in Ephesus," "the church in Jerusalem," "the church in Antioch," and so on. Couldn't we, shouldn't we, return to this practice today?
The Body of Christ has become dismembered to the point that believers don't know their own brothers or sisters who live on the same street! Personally, I view the present situation as a triumph of the enemy, since he has caused so many Christians to break the bond of Christian unity over matters such as practice and minor doctrines, rather than demonstrating how Christ's grace is sufficient for ALL things (Ephesians 4:3-6; Philippians 4:13). Through present-day Christianity, the door has been opened to accommodate endless division in the Body of Christ, something Paul condemned (1 Corinthians 1:11-13 ).
I find the statement tragic that urges believers to go to the church of their choice, as though God has more than one church, or that He Himself has no say in the matter! After we die, I am pretty sure no one will be known as a Baptist, a Presbyterian, a Lutheran, a Catholic, and so on. Why maintain these distinctions now?
It may seem the present-day structure of Christianity has become too strong for the Body of Christ to overcome, but by simply stepping away from of the various man-made circles, wouldn't we find ourselves joined together again in the one unique circle that Christ created when He died on the cross? His death and resurrection were sufficient to produce the Church, and His death and resurrection remain sufficient for its unity.
Thus, in my view, the only way the church can regain its unity is through the complete dissolution of present-day Christianity by means of non-participation in it. I don't think anyone should be afraid that the Christian witness would disappear. Instead, the Body of Christ would be able to finally manifest itself to the world.
Do people care more for their traditions and being disagreeable than they care about John 17:21?
-
recommend
- recs 0
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: brerjohn_lives@xanga
- Name: john
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 1 Views: 0 575 Comments: 0 76 View all posts by brerjohn_lives@xanga
Comments (76)
i think Christianity is just a title signifying alliegience to a faith system... sadly, 80% of American according to the 2002 Gallup poll suggests that they are Christian or align themselves with Christianity to some degree... the number might have changed since then... but because of the weight behind the term, there's also some access baggage... and thus causes the Church to become diluted... only when the wheat and the tares are separated, will that happen... and this is done w/ church discipline, faithful exegetical teaching, and the power of Christ seen and understood...
While it would be ideal to get rid of denominations, I don't think it would work. Where do you draw the line at Christian unity? What about those who reject the deity of Christ? What about those who preach the health and wealth gospel? You have to draw lines somewhere, or false teachings will enter the church. There's a difference between false teachings (i.e. health and wealth) and different theological persuasions (i.e. baptism methods).
As much as we talk about how evil denominations - remember there were different Jewish sects in Jesus' day, and He didn't seem too concerned with them abandoning their sect. He wanted them to love God and love each other no matter their beliefs. I think the same is true for us. I believe Jesus is a lot more concerned with whether we love other Christians and follow Him than if we claim a certain theological persuasion. Simply abandoning denominations in favor of everyone embracing a "Christian" label doesn't bring about unity.
If you look carefully at the letters to the churches in these cities, you see they were not without problems. There were calls to love and exhortations to maintain the unity of the Spirit. People today are the same as they were then. We can't sugarcoat church history and say they all just got along without incident or conflict.
We do need to keep in the forefront Paul's words to the Ephesians and by the grace of God put aside nonessential differences so we might strive together for the Gospel rather than striving against one another.
I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, 3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
Ephesians 4:1-6
I Cor. 16:13-14.
What if we all could shed the "churches" (so-called) and other
associations and simply return to living and meeting wherever we lived
only as fellow-Christians? Such a situation would, after all, match
the blueprint of truth found in the Bible.
By "blueprint of truth", I assume you refer to descriptions of the Church such as in the book of Acts. I would argue that it is not a blueprint of truth, but rather a record of how the Church started. Not all of it can realistically be mimicked today because of changes in time, culture and the growth of Christianity.
Thus, in my view, the only way the church can regain its
unity is through the complete dissolution of present-day Christianity
by means of non-participation in it.
Lots of people have beat you to that conclusion, and from what I've seen it has only caused further division. Ironically, at the root of that proposal is the same mentality that drives the denominational splits and discord you are attempting to combat:I don't like the way Church is being done, therefore I will do Church my way, and my way only. Instead of being rejoined into the one unique circle of Christ, more and more circles form, its just that they are smaller and less prominent, and some even divide up further over how to achieve the unity they were originally pursuing.
I do think it is sad that unity is not more synonymous with the Christian Church. The closest we can come to it are religious empires with well structured hierarchies that demand nominal uniformity of it's congregants.
I would say we ought to stay in the structured Church, wherever we are, and seek ways to be peacemakers and bridge the gaps between Christian sects. Further division can not bring unity.
It all started off as one...
i think the foremost thing revelife has shown me is how fragmented the church is. going to protestant churches all my life, i had gotten a false sense that the church was unified. but the posts on revelife show otherwise. diversity is one thing. brokeness is another.
Great post, great comments, all around. That makes me happy.
That said, I don't think the post is great because it's right or pragmatic, but because it's well-written, clearly thought-out, and thought provoking. For a long time, I held a similar view of denominations, and in some ways I wish I still did. It's great to think, "Hey, why can't we just put our differences aside, avoid institutionalization, and then be unified," but it's more complicated than that. As @Theophilus166@xanga put quite well (thank you for that), there are legitimate reasons for division in the Church. Not division in the sense of schism necessarily, but in the sense that the Bible is open to interpretation and not everyone will ever be satisfied with any sort of unified doctrine. If we lack a unified doctrine then there will inevitably be "divisions" between schools of thought (e.g. Calvinism, Catholicism, Lutheranism, Armenianism, etc.). I don't think that's a bad thing, so long as all parties involved realize that not all other parties are idiots and there are legitimate reasons to believe what they do.
That last sentence is the only way to really achieve any sort of unity, and it doesn't necessitate the dissolution of denominations. To use @nyclegodesi24@xanga's terms, that is diversity, but what we currently have--us vs. them mentalities between denominations--is brokenness. There was a post on Revelife a couple days ago (or yesterday?) that had a very potent anti-Catholic theme. Would the Church (as you defined it) be better off without that? Absolutely! Would we be better off without discontinuity of doctrine regarding transubstantiation in the Eucharist/communion? I don't think so. To say "yes, we would be better off if we were unified on that topic," requires that the one making the statement is correct, and that can be a dangerous claim to make. Furthermore, once you declare "transubstantiation is [true/false], case closed!" you may have created a false, obligatory unity, but you've also closed off the debate. Debate is the result of disunity, but more importantly, it is the search for truth. When you stop the debate, you stop the search for truth. I've chosen the doctrine of Transubstantiation because it was the first thing that came to mind that separates Catholics from Protestants (doctrinally speaking)--thus making a good comparison--that I don't think will cause a great deal of tangent bickering, but this same idea holds for all doctrinal disagreements between all denominations/schools of thought: e.g. Perseverance of the Saints, Double-predestination/election, literal creationism, Inclusive Salvation, Various depictions of Hell, etc.
So I completely agree with the sentiment of this post: non-competition of Churches, avoiding schisms, etc., but I think this whole argument falls through because you didn't define "Unity." Also, you say that unity can be attained through non-participation in Christianity (as you define it), but whatever your definition of unity, that approach will lead you to throw out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak. I already mentioned debate (and the systematic search for truth amidst disagreement), but beyond that, there are many organizations that are part of Christianity that are bringing about the Kingdom of God, even in spite of themselves in many cases. The healthcare industry may be broken, but that doesn't mean people aren't being healed by it. Christianity may have lost focus, but that doesn't mean God can't use it. Completely scrapping the idea and starting from scratch seems like a lot of unnecessary work that will bring you back to the same place. (I know I just brought up a controversial political topic, but please don't focus on it, please just accept the analogy for what it's worth and continue with the topic at hand.)
Also, yes, there is definitely brokenness within Christianity, but if this brokenness was caused by Institutional Christianity (as you seem to suggest and I'm projecting), then institutional changes (including anti-institutionalism) aren't going to solve the problem. To quote Einstein, "The world's problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them." In the same way, the problems within the Church will not be solved by the doing (including undoing) of Christianity, as @subSacred@xanga pointed out, but only by a change of heart within the individuals involved, which is not something that can easily be invoked in a person by another person.
So my question to you (the OP) is how do you define "unity"?
Sorry, that was quite long, but responses (from anyone, regarding definition of unity or otherwise)?
Original Post: In the New Testament, we see believers identified simply as "the church in Ephesus," "the church in Jerusalem," "the church in Antioch," and so on. Couldn't we, shouldn't we, return to this practice today?
My reply: And what makes you think that these were united on everything? When one read the NT, one notes that different points of view developed very quickly.
@naphtali_deer@xanga - I agree. Well said.
ENGLISHFAIL!
Sorry, it had to be said; and while I agree with your point to a certain extent, the way you explain it bothers me. It is not acceptable to simply redefine words to make them fit whatever you want them to.
For instance:
"Violence is never acceptable; however, if someone attacks you and you shoot them in self-defense, that's not violence."
We all know that shooting someone, no matter what the circumstances, is--in fact--violence; and this statement is in error.
Now, if you will take out this book, called a "dictionary," that you should be acquainted with from school, and if you would open to the page with the word "Christianity" on it. You would see that the definition of "Christianity" refutes your argument; and that being a member of the "biblical church" does--in fact--equate to partaking in Christianity.
The crippling divisions in the Church began with Protestantism. The doctrines manufactured by the first Protestants require division.
The Catholic Church on the other hand, was founded by Christ himself, and is designed for unity.
Jesus explained the meaning of the entire Scripture to his disciples. That meaning was infused into the Church and taught continuously for over 2 thousand years.
Protestants have teachings that were manufactured by men who thought they knew better about Christ than the Church that Christ himself created.
How can that be?
@Theophilus166@xanga - It doesn't bring about unity unless Christians decided to meet together merely as Christians (sans names). I agree that it seems too simple, but perhaps God doesn't need ALL believers to take such a stand in order to accomplish what He wants in response to the satanic government of the air over that city (I was influenced in this by Frank Peretti's novel "This Present Darkness"). As far as not being able to separate the wheat from the tares, I don't believe that would be any different a situation than what is found in any present Christian groupings today... the Lord simply said if He would be lifted up, He would draw all men to Himself...
@fallingraindrop@xanga - The problem I have, from a biblical perspective with the Roman Church is that it is run as a worldwide entity. In the Bible, it seems to me, no one city church has power over any other one city church... there simply is no hierarchy. Each local congregation is governed by a group of local presbyters, or elders. If you argue apostolic succession, the apostle John, being the last apostle left alive, did not seek to rule the churches in such a way. Rome did not assume control until later (certainly not at the time of Ignatius, who wrote Rome making no reference even to a bishop, as he did when urging one central leader be lifted up among the elders as bishop to other churches).
Many credit/accuse Ignatius of introducing the papacy by means of lifting up one person per locality, which, once begun, kept spreading hierarchy level by level until it couldn't spread any more.
Orthodox believers, of course, argue THEY are the original church. All this doesn't matter; what matters is whether ALL believers could simply receive one another without holding to labels such as "Catholic" "Protestant" "Orthodox" etc.
@MusicologyNut85@xanga - Can you give me a better word? Christendom? I don't really care about the word used, as long as the understanding is made plain. I think, as long as my application of the word is understood, the distinction can be plainly seen, regardless. No one should equate the one Body of Christ with the fractured state of affairs that passes itself off as Christianity. Would that be a more acceptable way of saying it? If you want to argue the present situation is as God desires it, that is one thing. If, like me, you cannot say this, then we should ask why we continue on in it.
@subSacred@xanga - My response would be that to return to the way of oneness, regardless by how many, would satisfy something God is seeking after today. Did the remnant of the children of Israel who returned from captivity in Babylon form just another group when they returned to Jerusalem to rebuilt the temple on the original foundation? Mathematically it could be argued they were another group, but spiritually it surely was a restoration of something God was after.
@brerjohn_lives@xanga - Rome did not assume control until later
This is the Protestant straw dog. What is Rome but the Pope? Peter was the prime Apostle, the first pope.
The last thing Jesus said was "Make disciples of all nations..." Such a huge endeavor requires a huge, world wide organization.
The Church (the Kingdom of Heaven) is like a mustard seed. It started small but eventually became huge. Just as all organic things begin small, they also develop.
Development is part of the organic nature of the Church.
@HLPU@xanga - Paul's words are quite plain in a number of his epistles but perhaps summed up most succinctly in Ephesians: "keeping the oneness of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace"..."Until we all arrive at the oneness of the faith". The NT is our constitution. We may argue over its interpretation on various matters, and practices and policy may differ from city to city... to me that is where the diversity lies. The church, wherever it is, should be able to embrace all believers, regardless how they practice things according to conscience, as per Romans 14.
@brerjohn_lives@xanga - All this doesn't matter; what matters is whether ALL believers could simply receive one another without holding to labels such as "Catholic" "Protestant" "Orthodox" etc.
Labels are important! Naming things reveals their essence. People who have trouble with labels are people who have trouble coming to grips with the nature of reality.
Orthodox believers, of course, argue THEY are the original church.
This is a flaw. What good is a claim if it is false?
@fallingraindrop@xanga - I simply believe that the Bible displays that the work and the church are clearly universally one organically (as in Ephesians 4, where all members are one through holding Christ the Head by means of the gifted members) but not organizationally. In the final Revelation (chapters 1-3), Christ is seen walking in the midst of the churches, caring for them one by one. Those who work with Christ are received by the churches according to their gifts. This is nothing that requires bureacracy or the imprimatur of some central agency.
The question I have is, If Christ sent a letter to a town, who today would be qualified to say, "We are here standing as the church that YOU equate with the city. We are qualified to receive this letter"?
@brerjohn_lives@xanga - The church, wherever it is, should be able to embrace all believers, regardless how they practice things according to conscience, as per Romans 14.
This is a recipe for disaster! If the truth is one, it cannot be determined by conscience. For everyone has a different conscience. Consequently, according to your reasoning, there could be infinite truths.
@brerjohn_lives@xanga - I simply believe that the Bible displays that the work and the church are clearly universally one organically (as in Ephesians 4, where all members are one through holding the Head, who is Christ) but not organizationally.
You cannot have an organism without organization.
To say something is "organic" but is without organization is to destroy the language you are using. What you are saying makes absolutely no sense at all if words have any meaning at all.
@fallingraindrop@xanga - I can see no point in pursuing dialog if we cannot agree upon the Bible as the authority of truth and practice.
@brerjohn_lives@xanga - I can see no point in pursuing dialog if we cannot agree upon the Bible as the authority of truth and practice.
This is truth. The Bible has no authority. Jesus never taught that the Bible has authority. Jesus taught that he has authority and that he gave his authority to the Apostles and the Church that they organized.
Sola scriptura is a corrupt doctrine that allows the Bible to mean anything anyone wants it to mean.
@fallingraindrop@xanga - And I will agree with you that what is organic is still subject to organization: The source of the organization must be as demonstrated in the Bible as spiritual rather than extra-local human bureacracy. This was clear in Paul's treatment of the churches, even to those he himself raised up, such as Corinth. He had the right to claim them as his own, but instead encouraged them to receive workers who were not even of his group or under his control, such as Apollos.
Anyway, I cannot agree with you that the Bible should not be the standard of truth.
Thank you for honoring me with your interest.
@brerjohn_lives@xanga - And I will agree with you that what is organic is still subject to organization:
If you agree to that than your entire argument collapses.
The source of the organization must be as demonstrated in the Bible as spiritual rather than extra-local human bureacracy.
Why? Because you say so?
The Bible is God's revelation to mankind about himself. It is not a tome on politics, science or organizational behavior.