This topic contains 6 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
I found the following note written by a former Anglican, that sums up many of my thoughts:
The vast majority, who belong to a church seldom if ever, reflect on what it is they belong to, and have little or no awareness of the deep historical roots which lie beneath the façades of everyday church life. The first Christians were Hebrews – disciples of the long-awaited Messiah. The origins were found in the Hebrew Scriptures – a process consolidated by Paul within two decades of the death of Jesus. But by the fourth century the church had become the official religion of the declining Roman Empire. There were claims to absolute truth and invincibility but the church is a human organisation, the result of human choice and subject to death and decay like any other organisation!
Members have acted in ways that cannot be reconciled to the Jesus of history.
There was a move away from an inspirational interpretation of the origins of the church towards a sociological understanding.
There was persecution of those who didn’t conform – the threat of excommunication (and hell).
Did Jesus really say, “go and make disciples …” Consider that the results of missionary work in comparatively simple cultures was profoundly polluting.
Other religions at best, were seen to be misguided. Worldly wisdom had to be suppressed when it clashed with the seen will of God (e.g. birth control).Truth is something that shifts and changes according to human perceptions and understanding. It is never absolute. The church in the West is in steep decline. Will a new tree rise from the ancient roots or must a new seed be planted? If the roots are diseased …
The church as an organisation is dying. Leaders can only lead with the consent of those whom they lead – but the church still retains structures, rules and procedures better fitted to a long gone social model. The church is losing touch with the world around it!
Some are trying to preserve the traditional essence of the orthodox faith at all costs, while exiles maintain the need to strip away the baggage of religion!The practice of Churchianity as we know it – all the gruelling, unfruitful self-effort to change has very little transformative power!
The truth of the gospel (Christ in us as our life) is little understood.
There is some authentic spirituality in those passion filled churches that have better things to do than make converts, collect tithes and build membership roles.
Few people seem to have authentic transformative experiences – the rest just hear stories and believe them. How much harm do the majority of belief systems create?
There is a lot of deconstruction but little seems to be replaced!
***
It was early in 2003 that I had an email from an Internet friend pointing me to A Churchless Faith – an article by Alan Jamieson written in 1999. This was the second of three articles in a series. The others were “Ten Myths about Church Leavers” and “In search of Turangawaewae“.
This was the beginning of a long journey through the emergent / emerging / house church scene where I shared with many others travelling in a wilderness. It was during this time that I wrote about my understanding of the different “Stages of Faith“.It was at some point in 2003 that I was reading a number of booklets about the church or the ‘ecclesia‘ that had a big impact. It raised so many questions. Tyndale was a Greek scholar who produced the first English New Testament from the original Greek. Among other things he used elder instead of priest; congregation instead of church; repentance instead of penance. Tyndale was martyred in 1547 and all but two of his Bibles were destroyed. Why?
Who authorised the Authorised Version and why? Why were there significant differences between the Authorised Version and the Geneva Bible (that did not promote the divine right of Kings and ruling bishops, but instead recognised the priesthood of all believers)? How much influence did King James have on the translation (and why?) – he was an absolute monarch who believed in the divine right of Kings – he dissolved Parliament and ruled for ten years without it.
It is also worth considering the British Feudal System. The land was owned by the King or his lords. Inheritance was to eldest sons. Younger sons often sought power, influence and identity through offices in the church. It’s hard to imagine how anyone would dare to question them!
Consider how cathedrals dominated the skylines while the serfs lived in very primitive surroundings. I Corinthians 3 surely makes it clear that God does not dwell in temples made with hands – we are temples of God’s Spirit (1Cor 3.16) – so why the ongoing emphasis on buildings?
The true church is a living organism, but by the time of Constantine the old temple order was being reinstated, and is I would suggest, still well entrenched!
There were many more questions but I think that’s where it all started.-
This topic was modified 1 year, 10 months ago by
AnonymousI like the romantic and symbolic idea that the Church is the bride of Christ. That sounds more like an individual relationship rather than a group identity to me. I never felt like I ever “left” the church, never. I only felt like I left a social gathering of believers and wannabe’s. I am the Church, I believe.
Let’s explore that idea of the Church being the bride of Christ. Individually we have a relationship with the Head of the Church. The Church is made up of individual members who all have a unique position. We have all had unique experiences that others will only be able to understand in part. I have twice been drawn away from churches that had been the centre of my life. But I have never doubted the existence of God. There was a time when, as a member of what might have been described as a cult, we knew that we were the one true church, but at the same time, I knew that, “This is not the only day of salvation”. In other words I felt that others were misguided but that they would get their chance to understand later (because I also understood that nobody went to hell when they died).
Life has changed dramatically since then. I have learned so much in recent years why people believe what they believe, often as a result of divisive, denominational theology (the teachings of men). When I look at the churches today I find myself asking, “What impact do they have on the communities of which they are a part?” Sadly the answer is often, “Very little”.
There is a fear within churches that those who leave will be cut off from the fire! But I can relate to the former pastor who said, “Don’t people realise that I want to leave the institution so that I can really connect with people?”. Denominations have their own rituals and theology – only by getting away from those restrictive environments can we go deeper and share with those who have been on different journeys and who have experienced different parts of the overall picture.
I find myself very comfortable here sharing part of my story, and I’m looking forward to really getting to know some of you and your stories.
Pete questions are/were a big part of the lives of those in this community. I had many of the same questions you’ve had so I appreciated reading this. I have old journals consisting of nothing but questions. The type of questions were often met with the answers implying that my faith wasn’t strong enough, or that I was arrogant in wanting to know all of God’s ways.
One major questions was, “What makes Church X the right and not Church Y?” I was raised in a fundamentalist, legalistic, hellfire and brimstone Baptist Church. As an adult when I returned to the church after years of being away, I found a non-denominational, Bible based, contemporary Evangelical church. The difference between the two were so immense that I actually doubted that my new church was a “good” church early on. However, the longer I stayed in and the more questions I asked, I grew to realize as Kathy said that church was not about the body/congregation, nor the building. I believed that I was the church and my relationship with God took priority over the ideas of others. I didn’t attend church for the last few months that I was a Christian, instead I studied the Bible on my own. I found that time to be when I had the best understanding of faith and God because I had none of the noise from the Church.
Also thanks for adding a link to your Stages of Faith post. As I shared with you before, when I here that title I instantly think of Fowler. I won’t even get started on the Bible. I was a good little Baptist girl when I ran into the word ‘apocrypha’ while at Catholic Boarding school, and it rocked my world! lol
Looking at the church as representing God on the earth, to me it leaves God not looking too good. If Jesus is the head and his earthly followers are his body then it would seem that there may be some kind of nerve communication problem between head and body. Or the concept is just plain false. Or my perception of the situation is skewed big time (which it could be
There are something like 41,000 denominations within christianity. The in-fighting among Christians is legendary. Historically the church is imperceptible from any other human institution as far as morality is concerned. Certainly it is not head and shoulders above the rest as would be expected from an organism with its foundations in heaven, even the pillar and ground of the truth. Granted there are individuals, living and dead who claimed to be Christians, who have lived good and loving lives. But that is also true of non believers. If you were to fill out a report card of how the holy spirit was doing in superintending the church, what kind of grade would you give it, (him)? What am I missing here?
AnonymousI don’t have much to say other than, thanks guys @hugh @servantgirl @Old-pete @kathy. I love reading your thoughts.
Servantgirl: I have never been a fundamentalist and I came to the conclusion several years ago that I was not an evangelical.
Hugh: You are right about denominations fighting amongst themselves creating so much fear and confusion.
As David has said on his recent podcast: The Bible is a dangerous weapon in the wrong hands.
Perhaps I should have said that the church as I understand it, is made up of individual members who all have a unique position.
I referred earlier to the practice of Churchianity. This is an expression that seems to be quite common in emerging church circles. I often think of the Christian RELIGION as Christendom
It seems to me that Jesus was very critical of the Pharisees and Synagogue worship. The gospel message was something quite different. But then by the time of Constantine we had a new priesthood and new temples that had little to do with the message of Jesus. I am well aware that this is a picture that does not go down very well with many ‘Christians’. I was looking at Ephesians 1 yesterday. I was reminded that most teachers believe that Paul was writing not only to people then but to all people down through the ages. But look at the first two verses of that book – it is addressed to all faithful Christians at Ephesus! I sense that is significant!
Sorry, I know that just raises more questions, but that’s what I’ve been doing for so long. The difference now is that like so many others who have been drawn away from traditional churches, I have deconstructed some of what I have been taught and found a story that begins to make sense – a story that really came together after reading “The Shack” when it was first published. I’m no scholar and I can’t preach or teach, but if anyone wanted to know what I believe and how it fits together, one way would be to share thoughts generated by that book.
Does that make any sense?
-
This topic was modified 1 year, 10 months ago by
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.