| Jesus-Based Christianity |
| Jesus-Based Christianity |
| COULD CHRISTIANITY SURVIVE WITHOUT 'PAUL'? When I started this site, one of the things that bothered me about Christianity was what I called the 'sliding'. When presented with details in the Bible that make no sense, the leadership 'slides'. Slides across the problem. There's Sister Betty with the 5-7 year olds on sunday morning, explaining 'inspiration'. There's Paster Bob trying to explain the creation account(s). There's Professor Jenkins bravely stretching his students' logic to demonstrate the unbelievability of existence (and doing a darn good job of it too). There's the conservative commentary that lives on double-negatives, since the writers have so little to use as evidence. And, there's me trying really hard to believe. As a college student, I very much minded the 'sliding'. I thought it was tremendously dishonest. Today, 35 years later, I don't mind the sliding so much any more. I kind of smile, knowing what the teacher is up against. No, what I mind is the dishonesty [*]. This page is designed to list my thoughts about the obvious. If you're a Christian, you really don't realize just how 'bound up' your mind-set is, to some underlying assumptions. If you 'remove' those assumptions, not much of the message actually changes. You're still a Christian! Most of those assumptions are there for a different reason. They exist for 'Christianity'. 1. INSPIRATION The NT never claims to be inspired. This should be OBVIOUS since the NT didn't EXIST at the time of its writing. Various of the NT writers claim visions and messages from God (mainly Paul and Revelations), and that's fine. Both also promised an immediate end-time, but were mistaken. WHAT'S OBVIOUS?: The truth of the matter is that the NT is a series of WITNESSES, that you may or may not wish to trust. No more. No less. WHAT'S DIFFERENT?: Not much, actually. You never met the NT writers, did you? So, you were always pretty much just trusting what they were writing. 'Teachers' need the concept of 'inspired'. It 'slides over' a whole bunch of issues concerning the witnesses' testimony. 2. NT CANON Like #1, the canon could not possibly be demonstrably from God (emphasis on 'demonstrably'), since the folks his Son chatted with were DEAD long before it was created. So THAT means, the decisions on 'what to include' came from TRADITIONS. WHAT'S OBVIOUS?: Jesus and his witnesses never said/wrote which books were 'ok'. With the rise in heretics, early church leaders appear to be largely forced into the 'choosing' (right or wrong). WHAT'S DIFFERENT?: There's a critical change here. As a believer, you moved from 'God's Inspired Word' to 'The Bishops' Inspired Word'. The minute you do this, you immediately and naturally question the bishop's motives. Were they above board? Indeed, you have to examine the writings, just like the early believers did. 3. HOLY SPIRIT If you're a 'trained' Christian, you skipped over #1 and #2, since you have the 'Holy Spirit' on-board. Whatever the bishops did, the Holy Spirit was quietly in the background, 'managing' their decisions. WHAT'S OBVIOUS?: The NT never says that. You did. I don't begrudge you your belief ... only your honesty. The problem with this claim is you're playing like God or at least his personal messenger, and (2) given all the 'lists' of books that the early churches liked or didn't like (plus the Catholic's apochrypha), it's hard to pin down just whose Holy Spirit you're depending on. WHAT'S DIFFERENT?: As noted above, having a list of writings that defy questioning is a great thing to have as a church leader. The alternative is to place your church in the same position as the early church. Hmmmm. 4. BELIEF When people say they 'believe', they're really talking about whatever their denomination believes. And that's fine, as far as it goes. You can get a good feel for this among conservatives, where you express your belief as your denomination's and then watch members of other denominations squirm. Unfortunately this is not what Jesus was talking about. WHAT'S OBVIOUS?: Jesus discussed 'belief' in a quite simple manner. Him! Then he tried to discuss the 'kingdom' every which way, hoping 'you would get it'. There's a passage in John where Jesus says he got everything from God, AND he gave everything to his disciples. Meaning: that's it. Paul who? WHAT'S DIFFERENT?: Sunday mornings would get a WHOLE LOT more simple. Just imagine what Christians would be like, if every week they concentrated on what God gave Jesus. Have you ever noticed that the simplest person discussing 'Jesus' is the most edifying? Pastors, like the bishops, would not be that needed. Hmmmm. 5. CHURCHES I Churches, over time, sort of 'morph' into control-oriented organizations. As you get ready for church each sunday, the next several hours in your life are pretty much 'a given'. The men are going to separate from the women in responsibilities. The 'laity' is going to separate from the 'leaders'. The kids will leave the parents. And the excitement will separate from 'good behavior'. Another sunday church service begins. WHAT'S OBVIOUS?: First, all those 'separations' above aren't in the early church (as far as we know anyway). I'm not an advocate of 'home churches', but there's something pretty obvious about home churches ... they eliminate a LOT of the artificial separations that churches induce. Essentially, meeting in peoples homes is just that. Celebrating Jesus' coming. WHAT'S DIFFERENT?: I kind of wonder sometimes why anyone would prefer a 'church' to a great meeting at your fellow believer's home. Great food. Laughter. Kids running around, seeing believers as they should be seen. Quietly chatting about issues that need to be overcome. On the other hand .... the 'home church' concept has REAL PROBLEMS. (1) It's a pain for the hospitable believer. People dirty up your house. Eat your food. Every week??? Goodness, heaven can't be THAT important, could it??? (2) How in the world would a denomination EVER manage a bunch of home churches? Why, there'd be thousands and thousands. All POSSIBLY not following directions. (3) What would you DO with all the MONEY that believers give? I'll leave this one to your imagination (or read early Acts). And (4), how would you 'evangelize' the world, if you didn't have chuch organizations? Hmmmm .... where, oh, where might the answer to THAT ONE be??? 6. CHURCHES II I'll repeat myself here ... I'm not advocating home churches here. But, home churches provide a LOT of clues about Christians. Church services are 'anonymous'. Everyone faces forward (unlike accounts of the early church) [*]. You come and leave alone. Your belief is your own (let's NOT start an argument, darn it!). As much as you're together with other believers, in truth, you're alone among many. WHAT'S OBVIOUS?: Churches intentionally make it easy for you to not involve yourself. Compare that to home churches, where involvement is unavoidable. The rear church pews are famous for what they truly mean: non-involvement (unless you're a mother). There's two illustrative perspectives here. If I encourage you to join a home church, what first pops into your mind? I'd bet it's the reluctance for close social contact. Being accepted. Betcha. Come on ... read Jesus and what he constantly pointed out ... people's reluctance to love. True. The other perspective? Let's assume you're REALLY enthused about Jesus' return. Just can't keep it in! Chances are, your church is not going to be REALLY supportive of your enthusiasm. It's true. WHAT'S DIFFERENT?: A church that EXPECTS involvement is not your church. How could it survive? When someone expects your involvement, what do many do? Push-back. Leave! We do have our pride, don't we? 7. LANGUAGE When you go to church, there's a language. Obviously, there's the language of rich/poor, white/black, behaved/not, and english/spanish/etc. Here, I'm talking about 'religious' language. If you're new to Christianity, it's more observable. The same principle is also observable when you go to a meeting of geologists or quilters. They have 'their language'. WHAT'S OBVIOUS?: The religious 'language' AVOIDS the obvious. "Let's glorify God". "... in the highest". "Sanctifying his name." "A sacrificial lamb." "Have you truly accepted Jesus in your life?" I could go on and on. If you were a comedian, all these sayings would be 'so rich'. Why? Because anybody with a brain can see they're more often hypocritical. And if you used normal 'english' (spanish, etc), you'd have a WHOLE lot more trouble keeping a straight face. WHAT'S DIFFERENT?: Church'y language avoids responsibility. You really don't HAVE to 'glorify God'. You could just as easily 'be' what God wants. But, how much fun is that?? 8. GROWTH As Americans and mini-businessmen, we think of religion just like a business. Getting bigger is good. Getting smaller is not good. More people joining your church? Good. People leaving your church? Not good. WHAT'S OBVIOUS?: Body-counts are the measure of Christianity. Most obvious is 'income' ... 'bodies' contribute. But ignoring that, 'bodies' equals success. In my old home town of Flagstaff, they converted my dad's 'church' into an artist condo. Obviously, the believers had long left. That seemed sad to me. Even now, I blame the artists. But truth be known, the issue wasn't 'bodies'. It was personal belief. When you see an itty-bitty church or a mega-version, the reality isn't the parking lot. It's whether 'belief' is growing. WHAT'S DIFFERENT?: As believers, we like 'confidence'. We can 'see' bodies. Shake their hands. But, after church, when it's time to go home and eat lunch, was it 'bodies' that were important, or 'belief'? What did Jesus say? 9. SURVIVAL When I chat with the pastor about some of these things, he disagrees on some (most?), and agrees on others. But, like it or not, Sunday morning is just days away. He has to prepare his sermon, plus the usual 'pastoral duties'. If you were a pastor (preacher, priest, etc), what are your choices concerning 'Jesus'? WHAT'S OBVIOUS?: Rationalize. You really don't have much choice, do you? When TRADITIONS are so strong, you really have to 'weigh' your choices. Luckily, humans can rationalize just about anything (everything?). And so can you. WHAT'S DIFFERENT?: Unfortunately, the 'red writing' in the NT is hard to rationalize. 'Love your neighbor as yourself'. Loving your neighbor as being just 'second' to loving God. There's not a lot of wiggle-room in there. Jesus and wealth? I'll let you rationalize that one. It's just part of preparing for next Sunday's sermon. 10. COMBOS At McD's, combo's are great. Easy to order and easy to prepare. Save money. Christianity is quite similar. It's a combination of things that collectively make life easier. Easier for the pastors. And easier for you. WHAT'S OBVIOUS?: I don't think Christians trust God's message. You know ... gave his only son ... believe ... be saved. By comparison, Christianity is TRUELY MASSIVE. Simple, it is NOT. Imagine if every sunday, the pastor just taught what Jesus taught? Booooring? (plus depressing too). I think the distaste for teaching Jesus is SO obvious ... here's a guy that drags 12 disciples all over a hot and dusty land, constantly argues with the religious leadership, knows he'll die, and CHOOSES his teachings. But his teachings are just NOT good enough for us. Go figure. WHAT'S DIFFERENT?: We need MORE than 'Jesus'. Our middle-class lives couldn't survive with 'Jesus'. Our churches would die with 'Jesus'. Imagine, if we did what 'Jesus' suggested ... what a nightmare. No, 'Christianity' is what we need; not 'Jesus'. Trust God's guidance? Not if we want 'Christianity' to survive. |
| Copyright ©, 2007, dmbarnhart |
| Prev Back Next |