Bible Belief

Research reveals that Biblical literalism is strongly correlated with a host of social maladies and inhumane world-views. For instance, people who think the Bible is the literal word of God are more likely to physically abuse their children, harbor hatred of homosexuals, deny the evidence for climate change, love semi-automatic assault weapons, oppose women’s equality, oppose humane treatment of animals, oppose universal-subsidized health care, and to vote for incompetent, unintelligent, unhinged men for president.[1]

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Fewer than one in four Americans (24%) now believe the Bible is "the actual word of God, and is to be taken literally, word for word," similar to the 26% who view it as "a book of fables, legends, history and moral precepts recorded by man." This is the first time in Gallup's four-decade trend that biblical literalism has not surpassed biblical skepticism. Meanwhile, about half of Americans -- a proportion largely unchanged over the years -- fall in the middle, saying the Bible is the inspired word of God but that not all of it should be taken literally.[2]

I have been unable to find any of the “research” Zuckerman used in his defamation of people who believe the Bible is literal. I am not interested in the semantics of how one views the Bible, let’s just say that it is God’s story, from creation to redemption. I might also point out that the actual research he used from Gallup is of American society. The information may suggest that there is a problem with the way Americans think, rather than their view of scripture. I doubt that one’s view on biblical literalism is the only factor leading to: physical abuse of children, hatred of homosexuals, denying climate change, loving semi-automatic assault weapons, oppose humane treatment of animals, oppose universal-subsidized health care, and to vote for incompetent, unintelligent, unhinged men for president. That sounds to me more like being a republican than a Bible believing Christian. The list also fits white supremacists better than most other groups. It also reflects atheistic beliefs, since if there is no God, the survival of the fittest is key. Regarding the election of the current weird president, it took a whole lot more people that just those who believe the Bible is literal to put him in office. A country that elects a bombastic buffoon as president will have to live with the fall out; he is the American president. I wouldn’t be blaming Bible believers for crimes of society, the American president doesn’t believe climate change is real. He’s against health care, he’s all for making the rich richer. As an atheist Phil Zuckerman clings to anything disparaging about Bible believers. I suggest that he look at American society, it just may be that immorality and baseness keep pace with the increase of godless people.

I don’t agree with Zuckerman’s rationale, I do however recognize that many who profess Christianity come across more political than spiritual. I can’t speak for all churches in the US, but I can about some with which I am familiar. It’s my belief that Jesus applauds acts of kindness, the consideration of people in need, and support of those who are vulnerable. I don’t understand how a disciple of Jesus would be against poor people receiving medical help from the government. I also don’t understand why a believer would be against social programs. It certainly doesn’t look good for “Christians” to support policies which advance the rich and wealthy, but do harm to the working class and poor of society. Anyone having a modicum of understanding of Jesus’ teaching will see that professed Christians do not always support those teachings. “Christians” of every stripe are giving atheists and other godless groups ammunition against God. It is incredulous that the current American president owes part of his success to “the religious right”, that’s politically right, not religiously correct. What characteristic of this man was most appealing to Christians? Maybe his morality? Possibly his business ethic? Might be that he’s very rich. It couldn’t be his campaign promises, since those were against social programs. I don’t know what it was that appealed to the religious people of America causing them to vote for this man. He is certainly not the epitome Christian virtue, but then very few of us are.

"In the Western religions — Judaism, Christianity and Islam — the focus is: 'What do you believe?' There is always a tremendous focus on doctrine and teachings," he says. "In the East, Buddhism and Hinduism in particular, the leading question is, 'Do you know God?' It's much more experience-based."[3]

In India I saw the grotesque deities of Hinduism, the thousands of idols and shrines littering that country, and I ask myself, how is it that pagan idolatry has captured the essence of Jesus’ teaching, and western religions focus on intellectual concepts devoid of spirit. There is something terribly wrong when Christianity is seen in the same context as Judaism and Islam. Unfortunately I don’t think the problem is with the author of the above quote.

I think that the church in America today is so obsessed with being practical, relevant, helpful, successful, and perhaps even well-liked that it nearly mirrors the world itself. Aside from the packaging, there is nothing that cannot be found in most churches today that could not be satisfied by any number of secular programs and self-help groups. Christless Christianity. Sounds a bit harsh, doesn't it? A little shallow, sometimes distracted; even a little human-centered rather than Christ-centered from time to time, but Christless? Let me be a little more precise about what I am assuming to be the regular diet in many churches across America today: "do more, try harder." I think that this is the pervasive message across the spectrum today. It can be exhibited in an older, more conservative form, with a recurring emphasis on moral absolutes and warnings about falling into the pit of worldliness that can often make one wonder whether we are saved through fear rather than faith.[4]

It bothers me greatly to realize that Christianity has become so insipid and common that it is listed as just another western religion. In fact, none of the three “Western religions” are really western. Judaism and Christianity are Middle Eastern, and Islam is Arabic. That any one of these religions is considered western should cause great concern for adherents of any of the groups. Christianity has suffered the greatest from syncretism, Judaism and Islam do not permit modernization of their doctrines. The Jews did not, and still do not accept Jesus as the Messiah, they are obviously not Christian. Islam worships the moon god, and follow the teachings of a man who had political ambitions which required unification of Arab tribes. That was accomplished by focusing on a single deity, Islam is not Christian. The critical feature of Christianity, as the name suggests, is its focus on Christ. When Christ is taken out of Christianity all you are left with is insanity.

The major changes in spiritual practice over the past half century have been largely window dressings. Pick a trend—megachurches, seeker churches, satellite campuses, vacation Bible school, children's church, affinity group ministries (e.g., ministries for singles, women, men, young marrieds), contemporary worship music, big screen projection systems, EFT giving, cell groups, downloadable sermons, sermon outlines in bulletins, Alpha groups. All of the above have simply been attempts to rely on marketing strategies to perform the same activities in different ways or places, or with particular segments of the aggregate population. Whatever difficulties were present in the larger institutional setting that spawned these efforts are invariably present in the smaller or divergent efforts as well.[5]

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel![6]

I do not want to leave the impression that either Frank Viola or George Barnar are hypocrites. The point I want to make is that similar to the religious leaders of old, most modern efforts to reform Christianity ignore the primary deception that –Jesus designed the church. The idea that by reforming or improving the church one is somehow restoring Christianity is as ridiculous as swallowing a camel. The church is a human institution, it has nothing to do with Christianity. Jesus did not build the “church”! His entire mission concerned the kingdom of God. It is time we stopped being fooled by the erroneous translation of Greek words. Some Christians formed societies to avoid persecution, however, Christianity was never intended to be institutionalized.

…the Christians encountered by Pliny recognized that their meetings came within the scope of the edict against collegia, at least potentially a subversive political club, a view later espoused by Celsus. Celsus also saw them as a disloyal Jewish sect; others may have seen them as a rather more respectable burial society, and so forth. Christianity was diverse; people are likely to have noticed diverse aspects of the strands they encountered, and interpreted them in terms of differing models from their respective social contexts.[7]

I agree with Viola and Barnar’s findings which suggest to me that attempts to resuscitate the church have failed. Unfortunately many churches represent Horton’s “Christless Christianity”. Not all though, there are churches focused on Christ, which have a fellowship of believers, and support people in their walk with Christ, but even those will not evade the stigma of institutionalism. The Roman Church adopted the hierarchical structure of the Empire and/or Jewish priesthood, both of which were foreign to Christianity. I believe that despite persecution by the church, Christians have lived as citizens of God’s kingdom either secretly in the church, or hidden away from its influence. To avoid persecution Christians were forced to go underground to hide from the scrutiny of the church. I am confident that what Jesus told his disciples concerning his kingdom is true, “the gates of Hades will not overpower it.”[8] The church as the imposter of the kingdom is becoming evident. People are leaving the traditional church by droves.

The religiously unaffiliated, called "nones," are growing significantly. They’re the second largest religious group in North America and most of Europe. In the United States, nones make up almost a quarter of the population. In the past decade, U.S. nones have overtaken Catholics, mainline protestants, and all followers of non-Christian faiths.[9]

The share of Americans who do not identify with a religious group is surely growing: While nationwide surveys in the 1970s and ’80s found that fewer than one-in-ten U.S. adults said they had no religious affiliation, fully 23% now describe themselves as atheists, agnostics or “nothing in particular.”[10]

The only thing that concerns me about failing churches is that some will equate it to failing Christianity. Christianity is not failing, Christianity is personal, and it can never be institutionalized. As the many facades of Christianity crumble, and the debris of denominations is cast aside, the love of God will still be seen in his disciples. The godless mass will revel thinking they have finally destroyed God, some believers may feel that God has been defeated. The world has been in this situation before; pagans have partied, and Christians have wept. No one is going to shake the God of heaven. He’s seen it all before; it is he who laughs at atheists.  

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools;[11]

For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart." Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.[12]

A favourite passage of mine comes from the Old Testament, it is an interaction between God and one of his prophets.

"What are you doing here, Elijah?" He answered, "I have been very zealous for the LORD, the God of hosts; for the Israelites have forsaken your covenant, thrown down your altars, and killed your prophets with the sword. I alone am left, and they are seeking my life, to take it away." …. Whoever escapes from the sword of Hazael, Jehu shall kill; and whoever escapes from the sword of Jehu, Elisha shall kill. Yet I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him."[13]

There is significant meaning in what Jesus told people, "If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.”[14] Believers have a personalized cross, its purpose is the link to the Lord, one’s service of worship. Honouring God through Jesus, reaching out to the vulnerable of one’s area. It is not looking for comforting meaningless talks in an air-conditioned auditorium. It means to be committed as Jesus was to serving others and honouring God.  

…there seem to be two ways in which a truly Christian reformation could come about. It could come about through some terrifying persecution of the Christian Church — a persecution that would rid the Church of those of little faith, of the status-seekers and respectability-hunters, of the deadwood who enjoy the club atmosphere, of the ecclesiastical hangers-on and the comfort-searchers. Once the Church becomes the most uncomfortable institution in the community, only those who really matter will stick with it. At this point, one would expect the Church to come back to those basic principles of love, faith, and hope that have made martyrs out of men.[15]

Berton wrote in 1965, he saw something few of his contemporaries noticed, and which has got steadily worse over time. Now, over fifty years later, the church is falling apart from internal rot. The name of Christ will be slandered because the church has presented itself as the face of Christ. Christianity will be mocked. But, nothing will overpower God’s kingdom.

Then the king will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.' Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?' And the king will answer them, 'Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.'[16]

---

[1] Bible Belief in Decline, Phil Zuckerman Ph.D. https://www.psychologytoday.com

[2] http://www.gallup.com/poll/210704

[3] More U.S. Christians mix in 'Eastern,' New Age beliefs, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion

[4] Christless Christianity, by Michael Horton, p. 17

[5] Pagan Christianity?: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices, Frank Viola, George Barnar

[6] Mat 23:23, 24

[7] Making Sense in (and of) the First Christian Century, F. Gerald Downing, p. 142

[8] Mat 16:18

[9] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160422-atheism-agnostic-secular-nones-rising-religion/

[10] The factors driving the growth of religious ‘nones’ in the U.S. Pew Research Center, September 14, 2016

[11] Rom 1:18-22

[12] 1Co 1:18 

[13] 1Ki 19:13, 14, 17, 18

[14] Luke 9:23

[15] The Comfortable Pew, Pierre Berton

[16] Mat 25:34-40

God of the Old Testament and the New Testament God

The ditheism was sometimes veiled by the conception that the second God had been created by the first, and was ultimately subordinate to Him. In the theology of Marcion, which filled a large place in the Christianity of both the second and the third centuries, ditheism was presented as the only solution of this and all the other contrasts of which the world is full, and of which that of Law and Grace is the most typical example. The New Testament was the revelation of the good God, the God of love; the Old Testament was that of the just God, the God of wrath. Redemption was the victory of forgiveness over punishment, of the God who was revealed by Jesus Christ over the God who was manifested in the Law.[1]

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.[2]

The book “Is God a Moral Monster” by P. Copan is a great starting place for anyone seeking to understand the stupidity of accusations against God in the Old Testament. The gum-flapping vitriol of Dawkins says more about him than about God. “Fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is no one who does good.”[3]

Beloved, while eagerly preparing to write to you about the salvation we share, I find it necessary to write and appeal to you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. For certain intruders have stolen in among you, people who long ago were designated for this condemnation as ungodly, who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. Now I desire to remind you, though you are fully informed, that the Lord, who once for all saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not keep their own position, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deepest darkness for the judgment of the great day. Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Yet in the same way these dreamers also defile the flesh, reject authority, and slander the glorious ones. But when the archangel Michael contended with the devil and disputed about the body of Moses, he did not dare to bring a condemnation of slander against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"

But these people slander whatever they do not understand, and they are destroyed by those things that, like irrational animals, they know by instinct.[4]

A word of caution for all of us who believe that God is supreme, loving and just; we don’t need to defend God, he is more than able to take care of himself. What we do have to undertake is a review of the Old Testament scriptures as they relate to God’s nature and dealing with humans. It is important to consider charges brought against God, not to convince godless Atheists they are wrong, but to reaffirm our own faith. Copan deals with a number of questions raised by Atheists, I will look at the scriptural evidence that there is and has only ever been one God.

In Deuteronomy Moses prepared the people to cross the Jordan River to enter the promised land by reiterating the commandments given by God. “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!”[5] These words are the beginning to the Jewish Shema, the most important prayer of Judaism. When asked by a scribe, which was the greatest commandment Jesus quoted Deuteronomy, “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one;”[6] To this the scribe responded, “You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that 'he is one, and besides him there is no other'…”[7] What I find interesting is that Jesus used the quotation from Moses in answering the scribe’s question. Moses was speaking of the Old Testament God, Jesus was speaking of his present day God with the same exact words. To the people of Jesus’ time and specifically to the religious scribe there was but one God. The God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are one and the same, The Old Testament God was the same God who sent Jesus into world; the God of the Shema never changed:

It was not because you were more numerous than any other people that the LORD set his heart on you and chose you--for you were the fewest of all peoples. It was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath that he swore to your ancestors, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.[8]

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.[9]

Paul wrote, “For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, so that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope.”^[10] And, “These things happened to them to serve as an example, and they were written down to instruct us, on whom the ends of the ages have come.”^[11] It is ridiculous to conceive of there being different Gods governing different times, in different ways. The division between Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament Scriptures is purely human meddling. The scriptures in total are a library of books and letters written over hundreds of years by different people in different circumstances. Together they provide a story of God’s relationship with his creation. That story culminates in the redemption of man through Jesus’ sacrifice. I firmly believe that it is impossible to understand the New Testament without having a grounding in the Old Testament.

Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. He is the reflection of God's glory and the exact imprint of God's very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,[12]

The author of Hebrews obviously recognized only one God, and he did not make any distinguishing remarks concerning God before and God at his time.

The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our ancestors has glorified his servant Jesus, whom you handed over and rejected in the presence of Pilate, though he had decided to release him.

Moses said, 'The Lord your God will raise up for you from your own people a prophet like me. You must listen to whatever he tells you. And it will be that everyone who does not listen to that prophet will be utterly rooted out of the people.' And all the prophets, as many as have spoken, from Samuel and those after him, also predicted these days. You are the descendants of the prophets and of the covenant that God gave to your ancestors, saying to Abraham, 'And in your descendants all the families of the earth shall be blessed.' When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you, to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.[13]

The God of the past was their God of present and the God of their future. It is absolutely impossible to separate the God of the Old Testament from Jesus his Son. “Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring; it does not say, "And to offsprings," as of many; but it says, "And to your offspring," that is, to one person, who is Christ.”[14] “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,”[15]  

You have not come to something that can be touched, a blazing fire, and darkness, and gloom, and a tempest, and the sound of a trumpet, and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that not another word be spoken to them. (For they could not endure the order that was given, "If even an animal touches the mountain, it shall be stoned to death." Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, "I tremble with fear.") But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. See that you do not refuse the one who is speaking; for if they did not escape when they refused the one who warned them on earth, how much less will we escape if we reject the one who warns from heaven! At that time his voice shook the earth; but now he has promised, "Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heaven." This phrase, "Yet once more," indicates the removal of what is shaken--that is, created things--so that what cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us give thanks, by which we offer to God an acceptable worship with reverence and awe; for indeed our God is a consuming fire.[16]

This a comparison if not contrast of the first time God connected with people as his kingdom, and the second time God provided a kingdom through Jesus. “…if they did not escape when they refused the one who warned them on earth, how much less will we escape if we reject the one who warns from heaven!” The author has a stern warning for people who reject the kingdom over which Christ is king. People who believe that the God of the Old Testament was violent and angry should pay attention, because the writer says that as bad as the punishment for rejecting the Law of Moses was, rejecting Jesus will bring greater violence –“our God is a consuming fire”.

The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our ancestors has glorified his servant Jesus,[17]

The God of our ancestors raised up Jesus,[18]

I worship the God of our ancestors, believing everything laid down according to the law or written in the prophets.[19]

The people who wrote, and were of the New Testament era recognized the same God as ancient servants of God.

…yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist,[20]

...one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.[21]

For there is one God;[22]

There is only one God, if you have a problem with how God acted in the Old Testament you’d better get over it, because the punishment for rejecting Jesus comes from the same God and will be worse that that suffered by those who rejected Moses.

The days are surely coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt--a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, "Know the LORD," for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more.[23]

But Jesus has now obtained a more excellent ministry, and to that degree he is the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted through better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need to look for a second one. God finds fault with them when he says: "The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not like the covenant that I made with their ancestors, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in my covenant, and so I had no concern for them, says the Lord. This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws in their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.[24]

God promised a new covenant hundreds of years before Jesus, the new covenant was given by the same God in Jesus. There is only one God. Those people who don’t like the God of the Old Testament need to wake up and recognize there is only God. You cannot worship God if you can’t accept he is One.

---

[1] The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church, by Edwin Hatch (1891) pp. 227, 228

[2] The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, p.31 (The fool who in time will learn of his folly)

[3] Psa 14:1 

[4] Jud 1:3-10

[5] Deut 6:4 

[6] Mar 12:29 

[7] Mar 12:32 

[8] Deut 7:7 

[9] Joh 3:16

[10] Rom 15:4 

[11] 1Co 10:11 

[12] Heb 1:1-3

[13] Act 3:13, 22-26

[14] Gal 3:16 

[15] Gal 4:4 

[16] Heb 12:18-29

[17] Act 3:13

[18] Act 5:30

[19] Act 24:14

[20] 1Co 8:6 

[21] Eph 4:6 

[22] 1Ti 2:5 

[23] Jer 31:31-34

[24] Heb 8:6-10

Christianity in a Changing Society

Nature has poured forth all things for the common use of all men. And God has ordained that all things should be produced that there might be food in common for all, and that the earth should be in the common possession of all. Nature created common rights, but usurpation has transformed them into private rights.

To all earth's creatures God has given the broad earth, the springs, the rivers and the forests, giving the air to the birds, and the waters to those who live in water, giving abundantly to all the basic needs of life, not as a private possession, not restricted by law, not divided by boundaries, but as common to all, amply and in rich measure.^[1]

Next there came the fortune-favoured period when the bounties of nature lay open to all, for men's indiscriminate use, before avarice and luxury had broken the bonds which held mortals together, and they, abandoning their communal existence, had separated and turned to plunder. The men of the second age were not wise men, even though they did what wise men should do. Indeed, there is no other condition of the human race that anyone would regard more highly; and if God should commission a man to fashion earthly creatures and to bestow institutions upon peoples, this man would approve of no other system than that which obtained among the men of that age, when

No ploughman tilled the soil, nor was it right

To portion off or bound one's properly.

Men shared their gains, and earth more freely gave

Her riches to her sons who sought them not.  

  What race of men was ever more blest than that race? They enjoyed all nature in partnership. Nature sufficed for them, now the guardian, as before she was the parent, of all; and this her gift consisted of the assured possession by each man of the common resources. Why should I not even call that race the richest among mortals, since you could not find a poor person among them?

  But avarice broke in upon a condition so happily ordained, and, by its eagerness to lay something away and to turn it to its own private use, made all things the property or others, and reduced itself from boundless wealth to straitened need. It was avarice that introduced poverty and, by craving much, lost all. And so, although she now tries to make good her loss, although she adds one estate to another, evicting a neighbour either by buying him out or by wronging him, although she extends her country-seats to the size of provinces and defines ownership as meaning extensive travel through one's own property, - in spite of all these efforts of hers no enlargement of our boundaries will bring us back to the condition from which we have departed.[2]

The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.[3]

Mark the Wise dispensation of God. That He might put mankind to shame, He hath made certain things common, as the sun, air, earth, and water, the heaven, the sea, the light, the stars; whose benefits are dispensed equally to all as brethren. We are all formed with the same eyes, the same body, the same soul, the same structure in all respects, all things from the earth, all men from one man, and all in the same habitation. But these are not enough to shame us. Other things then (as we have said) He hath made common, as baths, cities, market-places, walks. And observe, that concerning things that are common there is no contention, but all is peaceable. But when one attempts to possess himself of any thing, to make it his own, then contention is introduced, as if nature herself were indignant, that when God brings us together in every way, we are eager to divide and separate ourselves by appropriating things, and by using those cold words' mine and thine.' Then there is contention and uneasiness. But where this is not, no strife or contention is bred. This state therefore is rather our inheritance, and more agreeable to nature Why is it, that there is never a dispute about a market place? Is it not because it is common to all?[4]

A Bushman will go to any lengths to avoid making other Bushmen jealous of him, and for this reason the few possessions the Bushmen have are constantly circling among members of their groups. No one cares to keep a particularly good knife too long, because he will become the object of envy. Their culture insists that they share with each other, and it has never happened that a Bushman failed to share objects, food or water with other members of his band, for without very rigid cooperation Bushmen could not survive the famines and droughts that the Kalahari offers them.[5]

…Native American’s desire to live in balance with nature. Europeans believed that through the act of staking out a parcel or land, an individual could claim ownership of that parcel. The concept of individual ownership of an actual piece of ground was foreign to the Native American way of thinking. Indian tribes fought over the use of land. In other words, they fought over hunting, fishing, and/or farming rights to certain pieces of land. But they did not believe that individuals- could actually own the land.[6]

Attitudes toward land and landownership in Native American cultures varied. Group possession and communal use of land were most common. Almost all native groups had a concept of their own territory that was theirs by long residence and whose boundaries they defended or extended as circumstances demanded. Picturing native cultures as idealized societies in which land had only spiritual value is invariably wrong because it romanticizes and oversimplifies the realities of life in North America before European settlement. The. Native Americans were aware of their dependence on the land, which led most native cultures to deify or revere nature, On the other hand, some cultures exploited their environment until it became depleted. Others over-hunted until some animals became extinct. If resources became scarce, groups moved to meet their needs, and conflict with other cultures resulted.[7]

The modern notion of possessions is alien to traditional Aboriginal culture. Material things were shared within groups. The idea that an individual could 'own' land was foreign to Aboriginal thinking.[8]

The philosophers contemplated an ancient utopian society in which people lived harmoniously with one another and nature. Indigenous people of Africa, Australia and America had great respect for the land and nature since it was their source food and life. The Bushmen of Southern Africa shunned personal possessions to maintain harmony and cooperation within the tribe. European explorers referred to aboriginal people as savages, and uncivilized. No doubt there were tribes that would have been correctly designated as such, but the vast majority while different, did not deserve pejorative labels. A utopian society free from strife is merely fictional. Consider that man in the beginning lived in a paradise, and yet was deceived into rebellion against God, and was expelled from paradise. The roots of Christianity were nurtured by mutual support;

All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having the goodwill of all the people. And day by day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved.^[9]

Among the thousands who contributed and benefitted from the communion of that society, we know of a husband and wife that conspired to deceive; they died as a result of their folly. Societies’ whose cultures are communal and supportive are often damaged from within by one of their own seeking selfish gain. And, if not from within, such societies are exploited by unscrupulous outsiders. What is evident from the writings of past sages, as well as contemporary thought, is a wish for a peaceful way of life that differs greatly from urban and suburban life.

Of all the social groups in place, one would think that the church would be the closest community to that contemplated by philosophers and dreamers. Jesus, the founder of the Christian movement lived simply and without encumbrance. He made the statement, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.”[10] The soldiers at the cross did as was prophesied, “They divided my clothes among themselves, and for my clothing they cast lots.”[11] All his earthly possessions were taken by the soldiers. The first disciples worshipped a common Lord, shared a common purpose, and enjoyed a common fellowship. Within decades in Corinth the fellowship of the Lord’s Supper was tainted by drunkenness and gluttony; selfishness led to the disregard of poorer people in that fellowship.[12] A while later Diotrephes took control of a Jesus’ community endeavouring to cut it off from the apostles.[13] It appears there is always some misguided person or group that will take advantage of others.

Catholicism institutionalized Christianity founding the Church; America commercialized the Church developing a business venture. Whatever exists as church today is nothing like the community of faith that became known as Christianity in the first century. Disciples in the first century understood that they were citizens of God’s kingdom. The freedom believers enjoyed at that time had nothing to do with politics or manumission, it came as a result of belonging to a theocratic society. God’s grace was the great equalizer. “For whoever was called in the Lord as a slave is a freed person belonging to the Lord, just as whoever was free when called is a slave of Christ.”[14] “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything … since you know that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward; you serve the Lord Christ.”[15] “Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, for you know that you also have a Master in heaven.”[16] “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”[17] To be a child of God, a citizen of the kingdom of God is man’s greatest privilege. Discipleship was for many a release from the burden of everyday oppression, not because oppression went away, but, because it was the exercise of choice to be a disciple of Jesus. “Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.”[18] In early times choosing to follow Christ would have meant potential persecution at the hands of Jews, Romans, or both. That was not a decision to be made lightly, since the outcome could have extreme ramifications.

So we do not lose heart. Even though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed day by day. For this slight momentary affliction is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all measure, because we look not at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen; for what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal.[19]

It was not the imagination of a tranquil society that compelled early Christians to voice their belief in Christ, it was the hope burning within them. Christianity in many countries has had to put up with being “the state religion”. That relationship with society offered peaceful co-existence. But, on the downside, that peaceful co-existence proliferated the number of nominal Christians. The infiltration of Islam and other eastern religions into countries in which Christianity has been favoured is now seen as a threat to Christianity. The rise of Atheism and other anti-Christian philosophies are also considered threats to Christianity. I don’t believe, Islam, or Atheism is a real threat to Christianity. They are threats to the lifestyle people in the west have enjoyed for a very long time. Christianity flourished in a world of mixed religions, and numerous deities. Very few people were nominal Christians in those societies. The acceptance of Christianity as a bona-fide religion by Constantine, and later the acceptance of Christianity as the state religion under Emperor Theodosius I, was not good news. While the change in status provided peace, it also gave rise to institutional Christianity. Institutional Christianity, namely the Roman Church, undertook the persecution of Christians who would not submit to institutional rule.

Social change is not to be seen as religious persecution, although it may seem like it. When religion and politics come together there are usually problems. Islam is much a political institution as it is a religion. The political aspirations of Muhammad could only be achieved through religious unity. Today Islam is supported by its politics. Islam poses a great threat to western societies, not because it’s a religion, but because of its political and culture objectives. South Africa was set on a path of racial discrimination by its state religion. The outcome of the Battle of Blood River, determined the status of races in South Africa, based on religious commitment. Politics in USA is a mess, and some blame for the deplorable situation lies at the feet of the “Religious Right”. Christian churches support unconscionable practices because of their political biases. Politics and religion do not share the same foundation. Christianity is not against government, but neither is it dependent on government.  Christians are instructed to pray for the rulers;

“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity.[20]

I believe it is the institutions of Christianity that are under threat, not my personal conviction. Institutional Christianity has presented a façade to the world, but that front is crumbling. Churches are losing membership, but the number of believers is not going down. People are leaving churches, because those institutions do not meet their spiritual needs. The way of life we know and enjoy is changing, and that’s stressful. Disciples of Jesus have to recognize that the government is not going to necessarily support their religious beliefs. Christians must have a spiritual outlook. The task of a disciple is to reflect God’s love and grace in living each day. Institutional Christianity is an affront to many people, both those associated with it and those who are not. Churches bemoan the fact that people are leaving. Church programs are being left derelict. Church building are being sold. For traditionalists these events are tragic. For those who feel that God’s plan is falling apart, this is horrible. It’s time that believers open their eyes to reality. That which has been so comfortable and accepted for so long, is not God’s plan. God’s kingdom has been and is thriving. As citizens of that kingdom we need to believe the words of the hymn sung many times:

This world is not my home, I'm just a-passin' through

My treasures are laid up somewhere beyond the blue

The angels beckon me from Heaven's open door

And I can't feel at home in this world anymore

Oh Lord, you know I have no friend like you

If Heaven's not my home, then Lord what will I do

The angels beckon me from Heaven's open door

And I can't feel at home in this world anymore[21]

There has never been, nor will there ever be, a utopian society on this earth. If that’s you wish, you are going to be disappointed. That is certainly not what Christians should look for. We are citizens of God’s kingdom, and just passing through this world.

---

[1] Ambrose, http://www.azquotes.com

[2] Delphi Complete Works of Seneca the Younger, XC, 36-39

[3] Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality, 1754

[4] The Homilies of S. John Chrysostom: John Henry Parker; and J. Rivington, pp 101, 102

[5] Liberation Theologies on Shifting Grounds, Edited by G. De Schrijver

[6] Beyond the Textbook, C. Bernadowski, R. Del Greco, and P. L. Kolenic, p. 4

[7] American Civilization An Introduction, by David Mauk and John Oakland, p. 41

[8] https://www.didjshop.com

[9] Act 2:44-47

[10] Mat 8:20

[11] Joh 19:24 

[12] 1Co 11:20-22

[13] 3John 1:9

[14] 1Co 7:22

[15] Col 3:22, 24

[16] Col 4:1

[17] Gal 3:28 

[18] Man’s Search for Meaning, Viktor Frankl, paperback 1984, p.86

[19] 2Co 4:16-18

[20] 1Ti 2:1, 2

[21] This World is Not My Home (Mary Reeves / Albert E. Brumley)