What is Christianity? - digg this
Well we've been on a little bit of a religious kick here and that's a good thing for me anyway. A comment on a post at Steve's blog poses this question:
Looking back at this whole discussion, I come back to this basic question–What is Christianity? Is it (a) a set of activities in a sacred place on Sunday morning, with a list of tenets to be subscribed to as a condition of participation, coupled with rules for behavior, enforced by the official leadershipor
(b) a way of living, every day, 24/7, in relationship with Jesus Himself, and with others who also are in relationship with Him.
Now my kneejerk is that this is in some ways a false dichotomy and that the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. But the original poster goes so far as to say that you can't have it both ways.
Going through the words of Jesus Himself in the Gospels, I cannot find anything that leads to (a); in fact, he often rebuked the leaders of the (a) system of the day. I grew up in churches, have been in churches all my life, and my conclusion now is that in most situations, the more of (a) you have, the less you have of (b); in fact, (a) tends to replace and eliminate (b)!
I could point out that Jesus never told these folks to stop going to the temple. I could also point out that both Jesus and Paul went into synagogues to preach/teach. So it's a bit of an argument from silence. Now I'm not arguing that Christianity is a, I don't think it is. It often involves a and I don't think that that's a bad thing as long as it doesn't, as he says, replace and eliminate b. God set up something exactly like a in the Old Testament and thus I don't think it can entirely be a bad thing. Of course that's not Chrisitanity, but since our faith did come out of that tradition we need to be careful not to throw tradition away in an effort to be "more like the first century church". We are supposed to gather together and any time a group of humans does that you pretty much wind up with a list of tenets to be subscribed to as a condition of participation, coupled with rules for behavior, enforced by the official leadership. It's also important to note that Jesus rebuked the leaders and not the system. So which rightly get's the blame?
One of the things that interests me about this statement most though is the part where we are to be in relationship "with others who also are in relationship with Him". So what does this look like and how long before you wind up with your own list of tenets to be subscribed to as a condition of participation, coupled with rules for behavior, enforced by the official leadership? Do you think it won't? If not, why not? I'm pretty sure that I belong to a church that manages to combine the two in a way that stays as true to the stated goal of b as one realistically can, but it's far from perfect.
How did “Abide in me” come to mean “Be at the church building every time the doors are open”?
I certainly agree that there is no need to be at the church every time it's open. I think that there's a lot more to abiding than any of us really understand. You can abide in Christ in church, at home, at work, etc.
If you enjoyed this entry subscribe to this blog by email or feed reader
Total Number of Comments: 8
Hi. I'm new to your blog, but enjoy the thoughtful interaction you've posted here in regards to the topic at hand. I hope its ok for me to enter the discussion uninvited...
"God set up something exactly like a in the Old Testament and thus I don't think it can entirely be a bad thing."
Yes, you are right. God did set that up. And I am persuaded that it wasn't His original intention (remember how He wanted DIRECT contact with His people, but they were to afraid, and delegated/abdicated that role to Moses).
And now we are in a New Covenant. One where WE are actually the living temple, the ark of the covenant (as it were). And so God's original desire for DIRECT fellowship (a restoration of the intimacy of the garden that was lost by the first Adam) is finally restored. Hallelujah.
So, for me, I really don't think it's so much of an issue of models or how to do ekklesia. I think it's more about trying to pour Old Covenant practice into a New Covenant. For me, there's nothing wrong with people wanting to gather on Sunday mornings and do things in a "traditional" way (unless they confuse that with the Church. The Church is the people, not the meetings.) In and of itself, I'm okay with that. The danger I've observed happens when we perceive the Church to be the meetings, then going to meetings fulfills our function in the earth. I don't believe that's true. If we understand the Church to be the people, then we see ourselves as human temples carrying the glory of God and the message of His love to "our neighbour" and those outside of His rule and authority. And the Kingdom (His rule and authority) expands when we are functioning AS the Church out in the world.
"It's also important to note that Jesus rebuked the leaders and not the system." My take on it (I could be wrong, it's just my take) is that Jesus rebuked the leaders for setting up a system that was MORE than what God required of people. So, it seems like both to me...
These are just some thoughts. I'm not sure if they are completely right or true (or perhaps they are limited in their perspective and scope). But, I like talking about these things. Because I find that together with others, I learn more if I engage. So thanks for giving me an opportunity to engage... :)
Sarah you are most welcome any time to comment here.
None of this was his original intention. He wanted to walk with us in the garden. Barring that he set up some other things in the interim. Ans since God set it up I just think we need to tread lightly. Many folks I've met have taken the idea that we are the temple to mean that we can do this whole thing without gathering. Obviously you don't seem to be doing that, so that's good.
I agree that the church isn't the building, it's the catholic (small c) church that's important. The body of believers is where its at. However talking about how we "do church" is important I think. Paul certainly spends a good deal of time on that and that's significant. As much as the perception of the church as the building or even the meeting can be a problem I also sense a strong movement of folks going in the other direction and that's equally bad. God is a god of order and structure. Being laissez-faire in that area is dangerous. The Emergent Church has weaknesses in that area. Tradition has become anathema to some.
I think Jesus was rebuking the leaders for gaming the system that God set up, adding to it and building a power base where they were able to become the focus. Remember that he set the system up, though I'll grant you it was defintely a temporary thing. Please feel free to let me know what you think about that.
"None of this was his original intention."
This was something about Christianity that I never understood (even when I was a Christian). How is it possible that God's intentions were not realized? It goes against His omnipotent nature. It was in pondering these sorts of conundrums that lead me to skepticism.
Any thoughts?
Well there are things that God decrees and then there are things that God desires. And simply because God wants something or can do something, doesn't mean tha he should or would get or do those things.
So God created the world in such a way that does not match His intension, and He knew this when He created it? It still doesn't make any sense. The two answer you posit for this question is that He either shouldn't realize his intentions or he wouldn't realize his intentions.
Since Christians believe that all morality derives from God, it makes no sense to say that God "should" do anything. From that point of view everything that God does do is exactly what God should do. I just can't picture God saying to Himself "Gee, I really should work on the problem of evil on earth today." Being omnipotent, it would require absolutely no effort on His part. His will suffices. 'Should' doesn't apply to God.
The other answer you give, God wouldn't realize his intentions in some situations, requires judgment calls that I don't think is supported by Christianity. Why wouldn't He? God's intentions are the best possible since He is omniscient and omnibenevolent. Thus there can be no moral reason for not making his intentions a reality.
Really, this is the Problem of Evil in disguise. God's creation contains things that are abhorrent to His nature (aka evil). How can that be if God is penultimately good, wise, and powerful? For a Christians, this is a deep puzzle that has not been adequately answered. As a non-Christian, the answer is simple: Christians got something wrong about the nature of God.
I'm often told by atheists that if god exists then he "should" or "shouldn't" do x or y. So in that sense I agree with you. What I was saying is since god is omnipotent then that means he would be capable of doing something that would run contrary to his nature. So in other words, God could have created us in such a way that we could not have failed to follow his rules. He chose not to. Should he have? Some days I wish he would have. But he didn't, so I guess he wouldn't.
God is doing something about the problem of evil in this present day. He is choosing not to do it supernaturally. Should he?
If God's intention are the "best possible" and he does or does not do something that we think he should, does that mean he's evil?
God is ultimately (penultimate does not mean what you think it means, I think) good, wise, and powerful. He has a plan for ridding the world of evil. He's electing to do it in ways that you and I think we might not, should we find ourselves in his shoes. Since I know that my understanding of God and his nature is far from complete and you make no claims in that direction either, all we can do I suppose is wait and see what happens, doing as much good as we can in the meantime. And actually that's all god asks of you and I really.
"penultimate does not mean what you think it means, I think"
Indeed it does not. I learned something today, thanks! It's too bad really, since the word sounds so cool.
"I'm often told by atheists that if god exists then he "should" or "shouldn't" do x or y. So in that sense I agree with you."
Often, when debating Christians, I try to take the Christian perspective to the best of my ability. From that perspective God defines good. Since atheists are not bound by that belief, they sometimes fail to recognize this belief. Since we are tackling the time-honored problem of evil, it is necessary to take the Christian perspective of God in order to discover any contradictions.
Therefor, God defines 'morally good'. Thus anything that God does do is exactly what God should do, morally speaking. (A quick aside. Thinking about this, an argument can be made that there is no evil, which contradicts our intuitions.) Thus we are left speculating what God would do. Would God act in opposition to His nature or intention? Would God knowingly create a world with evil, though He despises evil? We have no rational basis for deciding what God would do since, as you point out, we have imperfect knowledge of God. Is it any more likely that perhaps Christians have made an incorrect assumption about the nature of God? I think so. They may have some things correct, but not all.
Oh it's still a good word. You just have to be judicious in its use.
I've no doubt that we fail to understand certain things. I need to post this week on what Omnibenevolence means and if God in fact is from the perspective of Christianity. I said in our meeting that he's not at least not how benevolence might usually be defined.