Abuses in the name of Christianity

[ShiftParticipant]

I feel like every Christian has to attempt to distance themselves from its historical baggage, though I have heard a few people try and justify it. If most Christians believe that the entire Bible is the word of God, then they have to come to terms with the fact that God did indeed kill many, many people in the Old Testament, and I would consider that historical baggage for Christianity. I don’t believe those things happened because a) I don’t believe in biblical infallibility and b) it contradicts Jesus almost entirely and really, the latter point is why I don’t believe the former haha. And I think the very reason that the Bible can be twisted to fit almost any aim of agenda just goes to show how imperfect it is, when will people realise that people wrote this book, churches decided what would be put in it, simply deciding that these people were told by God how to make such a book are frankly deluded in my opinion. Its like trying to believe that the Earth is flat when we have photos of it from space, Christians believe that God wrote the Bible and thus it is perfect, despite the fact that you only have to read it to see that it isn’t!

And yeah that’s more or less the point I was getting to with church. Simply going because I thought I had to, and trying to ignore the mass of problems I have with it, and the fact that I knew I wasn’t getting anything out of it. I genuinely believe that the vast majority of Christians go to church not because they get some wonderful spiritual experience out of it or because they have awesome friendships there, but simply because they feel like they have to, and because apparently God has told them to do that, they can very easily ignore how hopelessly contrived it all is. Simply put, they are living a lie.

And @Adam-Julians – Interesting! Though I wouldn’t even dare call myself any kind of Christian, I have pondered the use of non-denominational Christian before but I would prefer not to call myself anything really. As you said, labels are simply there so society can categorize people into certain blocks, it makes it easier for people to gain a better perspective of such people and I think its only serving to split people apart.

[Anonymous]

@shift what you are describing about the bible is one of the reasons why I am doing a Masters in Bilibcal Interpretation. If what is interpreted in scripture and then is applied departs in anyway from love of God and love of fellow humans then ther has been error. I find the engagement with differing approaches to biblical interpretation fascinating enlightening and flufilling. And I hope to use my exepreince in service to others.

I se what you are doing with what I have assigned myself as post- Christian with calling it a label. I would draw a distinction between what I would call myself which i amhappy with than what has been imposed on me and therefore would have been a form of control. A patriarchal opressor for instance to me is a label. And no matter how hard I try and how fair and loving I woulf be, when I speak out passionately and stongly there will be elements of society that would seek to attributre such a label to me. I hate that. At the same time I would fight for the freedom for those to choose how to perceive me, whether what they perceive is accurate or not, whether the way they express themselves is edifying to me or offenseive to me.

[WadeParticipant]

I like the label “post-Christian”. So descriptive without being prescriptive. Or proscriptive. I would use it for myself but I’ve developed a habit of violating labels. “Churchianity” is, of course, mildly perjorative.: it is supposed to be.

I’ve been reading Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and George Barna. It is a potted history of the church service and its practices – stuff I really think we should be talking about in our church services and aren’t. Viola and Barna lay out quite convincingly that the church as we know it is an invention of many men who could not understand a religion that had no structure. So they gave it one. #facepalm As a mark of how explosive this book can be is that the publisher felt they had to a Publishers’ Forward. :-/ Viola and Barna set out to show that Jesus’ (and Pauls’) teachings about the church don’t agree with how many churches run.

I think they got more than they bargained for.

Wade.

P.S. Yes, it was recommended to me by someone here on TLS.

[Anonymous]

@staticsan That sounds interesting with the book you are reading. Would you like to summarsie the points that are being made and what your thouhgts are about the book?

[WadeParticipant]

@nolonger1 Yes, it is very interesting. It’s also difficult to sum up, but I’ll give it a try.

Viola and Barna are of the opinion that the modern church service, where attendees set in a church building in pews, sing some version of the three-hymn sandwich, and listen to a trained, ordained pastor preach a message are artefacts of Roman and Greek influences on the church. This structure tends to create a church service that is a performance rather than fully-interactive. Even things like Sunday School for children are a lot more recent than most people realize.

I have definitely felt for some years that the church services are too formulaic. Most people in the churches I’ve been are undeniably used to the standard pieces. But even the radical sorts of things I have advocated are conservative compared to what Viola and Barna are presenting. There have been a lot done to the church for selfish agendas by powerful people through the centuries, only sometimes with the best of intentions. It is hard to believe these weren’t only abuses of the church on itself, but also on the wider world.

The kicker is not only that I haven’t finished reading it but there is a Part 2 called Reimagining Church where they collect all the pagan and secular things added over time and re-invent the church service. I haven’t even cracked the cover of that one.

Wade.

 

[Author]

Posts