Early church got it WRONG, and 2000 years later, we're still believing in the wrong mission
[Sharing a thought of the day from the Mad Priest (the Rev. Jonathan Haggar) in his popular blog Of Course I Could Be Wrong. I've been cogitating on it a while, a month or more. Now it's your turn, what do YOU think? Is he right or wrong or somewhere in the middle?]
Since the time of Saint Paul the mission of the Church has been in error.
All our evangelistic has been focused on persuading people to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour. In other words we have always been out to get people to join our gang, a distinct association labeled Christianity.
But, if we are disciples of Jesus, shouldn't we obey his commandments? He certainly told us that we should. And Jesus does not command us to preach himself to the world. Jesus tells us to preach that God is near and the kingdom of God is near. He commands us to call people to repentance so that we and all those who have repented can carry out another great commandment of Jesus, that we must, with the help of God, heal the world. Primarily we are called to heal the people of the world. The people have been made sick by their greed, hypocrisy and need to lord it over each other.
The death and resurrection of Jesus is not the good news. They are merely pointers to and guarantees of the good news that God and his people will change the world from its damaged state into a Godly state.
The true gospel brings together rather than splits apart. If we preached the true gospel we would not be in competition with each other or with people of other faiths. The good news that God is near and the commandment to heal the world do not require of their hearers a commitment to any particular religious grouping. They are both things that can be claimed by people of any religious tradition that strives for the good not the evil and, at least the commandment, can be embraced by people of no faith.
We can still be Christians. We can still worship God in our churches in ways that are comfortable for us. But the mission of Christianity is not to make more Christians. It is not to persuade people to become members of anything. Such a mission is too easy and any resultant commitment from the evangelised is too passive. It's a cop out. It's a two thousand year old strategy that allows us, and those we preach to, to avoid the difficult, pro-active demands of the true Gospel.
(1 vote)
- thejanet's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
But what do we know about the accuracy of the gospels
I don't mean to be harsh on Christianity, but it seems to me that the most important thing is not whether Jesus is Lord and Savior as his the good news that Jesus taught.
I don't know if I can call myself a Christian or a Roman Catholic anymore. It appears that it doesn't matter which version of the bible you believe to be most accurate, the oldest translations of the new testament have been discovered to be full of errors in translation. Over the years the translations were compounded with scribes making more mistakes and trying to rewrite what were believed to be errors.
It is also possible that some where along the line the copies had been edited to make the teachings of Jesus consistent with empires.
What would the teachings of Jesus mean if Jesus was not the incarnation of God? What if God did not intend for Jesus' death to be made to look like a pagan sacrifice to a not so loving God. If Jesus was not God, then his actions were based on his beliefs and therefore his teachings would be practicable by his followers.
It may have been easier for Constantine to convert Christianity to Roman Catholicism by making Jesus appear to be like religion that taught that God became man and that his death was to atone for our sins. Roman Catholicism made it easier to Rome to accept Jesus as long has he was God because people could be made to believe that Jesus' death was God's sacrifice and not Rome's or Jerusalem's crime.
If we love Jesus, how do we prove it? Jesus told his disciple, Simon Peter, essentially, "If you love me, then feed my lambs".
I guess the problem with this is that Christianity has grown to believe that Jesus died so that they don't have to follow his teachings. All they have to do is to ask for forgiveness before they die. This sounds like the loop hole that Chrisitians are couting on.
The Mad Priest is only half right
I honor the writer's intention to focus human interest on the noble cause of bringing greater healing to humanity. However, I believe he minimizes his message by overstating the failings of the Church to accomplish the commissioned assignments of Jesus. Truly the Church has never fully manifested the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, but his basic premise that the entire history of the church mission has been operating in error is a gross overstatement.
His premise that the Church veered off course because of the evangelistic ministry of Paul is historically absurd. Why start with the "time of ST. Paul?" Paul was merely preaching the same consistent message of the original apostles and with their endorsed blessing. Why not go back to Matthew 28:18-20 when St. Matthew quoted Jesus as He commissioned His followers to "go and make disciples of all nations". I think the Mad Priest should take his beef to the One who initiated the Plan from the beginning...after all, this is the season of Advent.
The writer's basic premise of subduing the world for the sake of God is essentially the same message that fundamentalist Dominionists preach and has also been the cause of every catastrophic religious war in history. I believe our assignment is to preach the Good News of a resurrected Savior and to love God and our neighbors while also loving mercy, doing justice and walking humbly with our God. Yes, this would most definitely be done through the most pragmatic embrace of the Golden Rule.
I suggest the Mad Priest should find a copy of Fox's Book of Martyrs and study the history of what the cost has been for those who have advanced Christianity over the last two millennium. Perhaps he should subscribe to The Voice of the Martyrs and discover that Christians are still persecuted unto death in these modern times for the Gospel of Jesus. There is a huge difference between those who are willing to kill for their beliefs and those who are willing to die for them. Jesus and His true followers have historically fallen into the latter rather than the former. Which category are you and I in...either or neither? Are we convinced and passionate enough for what we believe to die proclaiming it?
More importantly, he would do well to just simply read the red letters of the Gospels and discover the fullness of what Jesus lived and commanded. The true Gospel of Jesus is not an either/or message. It is not good works versus the evangelistic message. Even the most nominal reading of the New Testament plainly reveals it is both.
Where is the Kingdom of God? It is anywhere Jesus is acknowledged as Lord and submitted to. That would start with any single human heart that is submitted to and in dwelt by the Holy Spirit and any community that is likewise submitted to the loving direction of God. Nothing but generous loving kindness is manifested in hearts, homes, churches and communities where this message is fully believed, embraced and implemented.
The Kingdom of God is within
I agree heartily with the Mad Priest. My only comment is that, IMO, he and the well known song, "From a Distance" is misinformed. The Kingdom of God is not just near---"Neither will they say, Behold it is here! Or Behold it is there! for behold the Kingdom of God is within you." Luke 17:21
God is not just near by, observing "from a distance", but is within us all, all creatures large and small, all of creation. I come of my faith by science which tells us we are an intimate part of an interconnected, interactive, and interdependent universe.
Once we as a species understand this fact of life, peace will be instant. If we are part of the whole fabric of life, why would we attack the web that sustains us? To do so, would be tantamount to an act of suicide.
Yes, Mad Priest, let us proclaim and live the good news! God is within!
Rev. Rich
The Kingdom of God's location, and the Mad Priest
I agree with him, too, Rich -- And thanks, Janet, for posting that and thus reminding me to remember to take more frequent looks at the Mad Priest's blog.
On a point of translation, however: I think the phrase "the Kingdom of God is within you" is more accurately rendered as "among you" (New Standard Revised Version) or "in your midst" (New American Standard). The NSRV and NAS are reputed to be among the most nearly literal translations.
The significance of that translation is that it's consistent with the Jewish emphasis on national salvation: the kingdom is within the collectivity of "us", and is already here, waiting to be actualized. Thus, it also fits with the Mad Priest's contention that the church has erred by emphasizing personal salvation through the various churches instead of going out to to heal the world, in the Jewish style of Jesus.
Bill
Within you or amidst you
Bill,
Well the difference is quite significant. I understand that in the contemporary Jewish culture of the time that amongst you might well be one way to look at it. It makes it a group concept. Within you, on the other hand, makes it much more personal. As I use the Aramaic version, translated directly into English from Aramaic, by Dr. George Lamsa, I have a different interpretation. This version purports to use the oldest translation, dating back to the 4th century CE. It was most certainly the language Jesus spoke.
Going back to my point, why I prefer to use 'within you' makes it more personal and to me, much more empowering. If God is within me, am an intimate part of My Creator, then I have direct assess to the power of creation. As such my personal power to change my thinking and thus the circumstances of my life, and by extension my relationships with family, friends and the world as a whole, I have greater influence, (please note I do not say control) over what happens to me.
I thus must, out of self interest and by spiritual guidance, fully embrace the Golden Rule, which says I must take control of, and accept full responsibility for the consequences of my decisions. I must treat you, or not treat you, as I would have you treat, or not treat, me.
To say the Kingdom is amonst you dilutes its personal impact, for me. And to live by the Golden Rule I am fully empowered to make the wisest decisions for me, accepting that I am also fully, and equally, responsible for the results. This then makes me a more cautious, more thoughtful person, --- well at least in theory :-).
Rich