Christianity in the Post-biblical Era: by this I mean Christianity in the time following the period covered by the Bible, which is from creation to the end of the Jewish age circa 70 CE.
As I begin putting my thoughts on paper I feel very much as though I’m driving the opposite direction to all the other traffic on a one way road. The overbearing influence of religious tradition may prove too dominant for propositions in this paper to be accepted. On the other hand to a few readers some of these ideas may not be new. Similar concepts can be found in Brian McLaren’s book “A New Kind of Christian.” Based on the growing frustration in the Christian arena it appears that more than a few people are disillusioned with the current state of the church. According to studies like those of the Barnar Group, thousands of Christians have left churches for home groups or other unconventional means of worship. The very number and proliferation of denominations suggests something is not altogether right in Christendom. The exodus of people from Christianity to Eastern religions or to New Age religious experiences, also suggest that people are not getting what they want from the existing array of churches. After more than half a century of affiliation with a particular denomination I chose to leave the institutional church for a more personal and closer relationship with God through Christ. By making that decision I recognize the Christian walk is living every moment within the kingdom and not being limited to conforming to church doctrines or needing to practice religious activities through programs. I’m not against churches, but I do believe the institutionalization of Christianity has caused irreparable harm. I credit thoughtful leaders of the past including those who functioned within a church, for leading me to what I believe is living by faith and not by sight.
King Hezekiah
removed the places of false worship from Judah, and along with the icons of
idolatry, he destroyed the copper snake that Moses made during Israel’s
wanderings. His reason for destroying the snake was that Israel burned incense
to it; Israel idolized it. Orthodox Christians as well as the Catholic Church
refer to the writings of St. John of Damascus to support the veneration of
icons; most evangelicals consider icon worship wrong. I am of the opinion that churches
can be guilty of idolatry by venerating the church and or the Bible. Neither
the church nor its predecessor the synagogue is given authorization in the
scriptures; the synagogue became the focal point of Jewish religion. The first
Christians quite normally adopted the synagogue and its organization. The word
church is not the correct translation of the Greek word ekklesia, but a word selected to support existent religious customs
and practices at the time the New Testament was being translated into English. The
word church is not the only term incorrectly translated; all English
translations are heavily influenced by the biases of the people paying for the
translation or that of the translators themselves. Notwithstanding the
aforesaid, when using appropriate rules of interpretation, truth can be
revealed. Gordon D. Fee, in his New
Testament Exegesis gives eight rules:
1: Survey the
historical context in general.
2: Confirm the
limits of the passage.
3: Become
thoroughly acquainted with your paragraph or pericope.
4: Analyze
sentence structures and syntactical relationships.
5: Establish the
text.
6: Analyze the grammar.
7: Analyze
significant words.
8: Research the
historical-cultural background.
These rules of exegesis appear to have been generally ignored in the formation of denominational doctrines; the haphazard misinterpretation of scripture has led to numerous and contradictory beliefs. Exegesis is most helpful in determining the meaning of a text, but fails in that it cannot with any degree of certainty establish if the context applies to anyone other than the originally addressed.
For many centuries after its inception the Roman Church dominated Christian religion, and any opposition or variance was quickly and severely dealt with. The Protestant movement started by Luther evolved into the vast fragmented confusion of denominations that exists today. Obviously the claims of Protestant or Catholic, fundamentalist or evangelical, cannot all be correct; although, it is possible they can all be wrong. In almost every denomination there is sufficient truth to give the appearance of biblical support. Since for the most part all denominations consider the Bible to be the basic text governing what they believe; why are there so many different interpretations of the scripture and so many contradictory doctrines? Catholics assert that the scripture is authoritative as defined by the Church; some churches believe every word is divinely inspired; others point to the context as being inspired. Some denominations take their religious rules from the Old Testament and the New Testament while others employ only New Testament directives. Many Christians view the preservation of the Bible to be a miracle, which leads me to ask why God would miraculously preserve its text for people incapable of doing anything other than distorting and misinterpreting it. Most “scholarly” works appear to start with a conclusion followed by a search of scripture for support and proof. A basic principle overlooked by all denominations, as well as those groups who think they are not denominational, is, if the foundation is faulty the building will be faulty.
I have cautiously referred to the Bible as God’s story because that’s what I have come to believe it is. I say cautiously because I do not want to give the impression that the Bible is a fable or a legend. The concept of the Bible being God’s story obviously did not originate with me, but so far I have not come across any writing that states my belief that the Bible is the complete and whole story of God. When I speak of the Bible as God’s story, I mean it starts at the beginning with creation and ends at the destruction of the temple with Christ coming in his kingdom. “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” (Mat 16:28) The Bible is the story of man’s redemption by God; fortunately for everyone’s sake God loved humanity and sent Jesus as the sacrifice by which man can be reconciled with God. God’s people after the first century are not featured in the process of redemption, but are the beneficiaries of all God accomplished through Christ. Jesus told Thomas, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” The Bible is the story of God’s relationship with man; it was good, even very good at the outset, but man messed things up and the relationship with God was severed. In his story God describes the dreadful result of human willfulness and the length to which he went in order to reconcile man to himself. The conclusion of the story is that Christ reigns over the kingdom of the redeemed of all ages.
In the beginning the first humans lived in an uncomplicated paradise; their only duty as far as I can tell was to tend a perfect pristine garden; much preferred I imagine to trying to maintain a weed infested lawn. The abundant produce of the garden was theirs to enjoy with only one single exception, and our primeval parents blew it; they decided to upgrade their living conditions. I like to imagine I would have steered clear of the forbidden fruit, but like our ancient parents I find myself wandering across boundaries not appreciating that rules were established for my benefit. Perhaps the first humans didn’t understand God’s instructions; possibly God didn’t stress the danger of trespassing sufficiently, but more likely Adam and Eve just disregarded God’s restriction and did what they wanted to do. Even in paradise the relationship between man and God was on the basis of faith. In all probability Adam and Eve did not recognize the consequences of eating the forbidden fruit. They should however, have trusted that God was looking after their best interest by telling them not to eat that particular fruit. Man’s proclivity for trying to improve on to God’s plans seems limitless; a good many traditional doctrines are based on what someone deemed a necessary improvement to the simple text. That thinking must be seen in the same light as the sin of eating forbidden fruit. Despite modern protestation Adam’s sin is repeated almost daily in the teaching of church doctrines that have been built on human opinion rather than God’s direction.
The utopian existence of man in relationship with God ceased abruptly when the choice was made to move up in status and become like God with greater knowledge, up to that time reserved for the divine. Everything changed under the curse of death and decay; the earth would be infested with thorns and thistles, man would labour for food, women would give birth in pain, the snake would crawl on its belly, and Satan’s head would eventually be crushed by the heel of a descendant of Eve. The changes that occurred as a result of sin were irreversible and devastating, the human mind has conjured up numerous myths for the desperateness of life; possibly one the best known comes from the Greeks - Pandora’s Box. The folly of trying to improve on God’s plans is equaled only by man’s compulsion to rectify his faults through personal measures and effort. The anticipated excitement of being like God with new abilities faded in shame and fear which were the cohorts of sin they knew nothing about until too late. Driven from God’s presence no longer to walk with him in the cool of evening our ancestors became the living dead. Irrevocably separated from God; life offered little hope other than God’s statement that the seed of woman would one day crush Satan’s head. God’s plan for a close relationship with people was disrupted by their exercise of free will with no regard for consequences.
God’s story relates
how a few men were able to reach toward him through faith; that’s not the
religious word meaning a set of beliefs or doctrines, but represents the inner
spirit of man connecting with the Spirit of God. Abraham was called the friend
of God; he was given promises by God that in the future his family would live
in the land of Canaan and that through one of his descendants all nations would
be blessed. Those promises passed down to Isaac and Jacob. It was Jacob’s
children the Israelites that God rescued from Egyptian servitude and
established as his special people. “The LORD did not set His love on you nor
choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you
were the fewest of all peoples, but because the LORD loved you and kept the oath
which He swore to your forefathers…” (Deut 7:7, 8) God disciplined Israel;
continually pruning corruption in order to preserved a remnant through which
the blessing of reconciliation would come in the person and sacrifice of Jesus.
Matthew’s genealogy makes it clear that God accomplished his plan through the
descendants of Abraham; maintaining a contiguous link back to the patriarch. That
in a nutshell is the story of God. With a sense of finality Peter spoke to
Jews, “For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like
me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you.
Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from among his
people.’ Indeed, all the prophets from Samuel on, as many as have spoken have
foretold these days. And you are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God
made with your fathers. He said to Abraham, ‘Through your offspring all peoples
on earth will be blessed.’” (Act 3:22-25)
The history of the kingdom of Israel was turbulent; as with Adam and Eve the enticement of self-gratification lured Israel into idolatry to the point that God compared it to a prostitute clamoring after her lovers. The marriage of Hosea portrays God’s one-sided relationship with Israel the whore. “She will pursue her lovers, but she will not overtake them; and she will seek them, but will not find them. Then she will say, 'I will go back to my first husband, for it was better for me then than now!' For she does not know that it was I who gave her the grain, the new wine and the oil, and lavished on her silver and gold, which they used for Baal.“(Hos 2:7, 8) Hosea’s relationship with his wife paralleled God’s love for Israel and culminated in redeeming her from slavery, “the LORD said to me, ‘Go again, love a woman who is loved by her husband, yet an adulteress, even as the LORD loves the sons of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love raisin cakes.’ So I bought her for myself for fifteen shekels of silver and a homer and a half of barley. Then I said to her, ‘You shall stay with me for many days. You shall not play the harlot, nor shall you have a man; so I will also be toward you.’ For the sons of Israel will remain for many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred pillar and without ephod or household idols. Afterward the sons of Israel will return and seek the LORD their God and David their king; and they will come trembling to the LORD and to his goodness in the last days.” (Hos 3:1-5) God’s plan was not thwarted by Satan; God preserved a remnant through which the promise to Abraham was fulfilled. The appeal of idolatry is in its sensual gratification and while most of Israel fell prey to Satan’s seduction there were always some who remained faithful to God.
The term “David their king” in Hosea chapter three alludes to Jesus; centuries later an angel told Mary about the son she was to bear, “… he will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.” (Luke 1:32, 33) At the birth of John his father Zachariah prophesied, “Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel, because he has come and has redeemed his people. He has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David (as he said through his holy prophets of long ago), salvation from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us—to show mercy to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant, the oath he swore to our father Abraham: to rescue us from the hand of our enemies, and to enable us to serve him without fear in holiness and righteousness before him all our days.” (Luke 1:68-75) Long before Hosea’s depiction of God’s patience, Samuel was commanded to tell David, “When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom, he is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.” (2Sa 7:12, 13) Peter in his address on the day of Pentecost concerning David stated that “God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ…” (Act 2:30, 31) and that Jesus was “both Lord and Christ”. Jesus is the son of David and Jesus is king over his kingdom. When Pilate acknowledged that Jesus was a king, Jesus responded, “you are right in saying I am a king, in fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world…” The prophecies concerning Christ as king were fulfilled; Christ’s rule was established and secured. The kingdom of God is comprised of all who have been cleansed by the blood of Christ from Adam to the end of time.
Matthew writing from a Jewish viewpoint emphasized the kingdom more than any of the gospel writers; he almost always used the term kingdom of heaven showing deference to Jewish avoidance of the name or designation of God. The Greek word translated kingdom embraces the concept of the rule of a king; it was this notion Jesus emphasized in his response to a question from the Pharisees on the kingdom, “the kingdom of God is within you.” The literal meaning of the Greek word translated “within” is “inside”; some translations use “in your midst” which gives a false impression of the nature of God’s kingdom. “In your midst” suggests a geographical location, which goes against what Jesus told the Samaritan woman about physical locations. The woman had raised the question over which religious site was correct, Jesus said “neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem,” but true worship would be spiritual. Unlike Israel of old, the kingdom of God is fully spiritual. David was the honoured monarch of ancient Israel ruling the citizens of that nation; Jesus is Sovereign Lord ruling over citizens of his kingdom. Allegiance to Christ the king happens in the heart, it is the subjection of the inner spirit in service to him. The kingdom of heaven is spiritual and is not to be confused with gathering or institutions, citizens of the kingdom are those whose hearts are in submission to Christ the King.
“You have heard that it was said”; four times while Jesus was teaching his disciples he used that phrase and each time it was followed with ‘but’. One might presume that which followed “but” would be a negation of the preceding statement; however, Jesus instead of repudiating any of the commandments elevated them from ritualistic regulations to spiritual principles. It is significant that when teaching his disciples he recognized the cultic aspect of law and promoted the intrinsic or spiritual nature of true obedience. After his encounter with Satan Jesus began “preaching the good news of the kingdom,” that kingdom was the fulfillment of prophecy. God through the prophet Jeremiah said the new covenant would be different to the one established at Sinai; “I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.” The kingdom of God was to be spiritual; its laws would not be written on slabs of stone, but on human hearts. The kingdom is not a geographical domain, but the dominion of the heart; citizens do not gather outside a temple into which only special representatives enter, but as one New Testament author wrote, “…we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus.” Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus goes back to the patriarch Abraham –the father of the Hebrew nation; Luke not being Jewish represents the new Israel and kingdom as global with his genealogy going back to God the Father. The global spiritual aspect of the kingdom has been obscured by the promotion of the church as the only bona fide center of worship. Christianity has taken on features of Israel’s temple worship restricting believers to parochial enclaves.
“Three times in a year all your males shall appear before the LORD your God in the place which He chooses, at the Feast of Unleavened Bread and at the Feast of Weeks and at the Feast of Booths, and they shall not appear before the LORD empty-handed.” (Deut 16:16) The command indicated that formal religious obligations were to borne by men in Israel, and while not excluded, women were not under the same obligations as men. The cultish aspect of religion was male oriented, whereas the Ten Commandments formed the base of the more general and personal religion. Dietary laws, sanitary laws, and the host of laws governing daily life were personal responsibilities. It appears that religion in ancient Israel was both institutionalized and personalized. Priests from the tribe of Levi made sacrifices for Israel and presided over ceremonies and feasts. The priests performed rituals in the tent or temple with the high priest once a year entering the innermost sanctuary of the Most Holy Place to make offering for the sins of the people. In the kingdom of God Jesus is the high priest, and he himself was the offering and atonement for sin. Priests in Israel “existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, but Jesus, on the other hand, because he continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently.” (Heb 7:23, 24) The author of Hebrews extols the virtues of Christ’s priesthood, “…we have such a high priest, who has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man.” (Heb 8:1, 2) Religion in the kingdom of Christ is only personal; the institutional aspect of sacrifice was satisfied by Jesus. There is no gender separation in the kingdom of God; we are all one in Christ; the exclusion of women from participation in church services is a throwback to synagogue and temple rules within the Jewish community.
Abraham returning from the battle against an alliance of northern kings met Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God and gave a tenth of the spoils of victory. Abraham was blessed by Melchizedek; similarly citizens of the kingdom are blessed by Jesus who is “a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.” Another aspect of importance about Abraham is that he was the father of many nations; “Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.” (Rom 4:16) Our faith in Christ qualifies us as citizens of the kingdom, and we are children of Abraham if we walk by faith. It is noteworthy that in his discussion of faith Paul bypassed Israel’s relationship with God which was through ritual and regulation, looking instead to Abraham the friend of God through faith. Citizens of God’s kingdom have more in common with Abraham than with anyone else in pre-Christian times. Paul writing to the Corinthians said “We live by faith, not by sight”; the Greek word for sight in this verse means “that which is seen or form”. Life in the kingdom of God is a spiritual venture; it is not based on ritualistic obedience. Rather than having laws to govern every act of life one must walk by faith in the footsteps of Jesus. I believe the point can be made that walking by faith is the opposite of living according to law. Faith is linked to grace which is God’s gift; law and ritual represent human effort toward self-justification.
To suggest that church in any way represents the kingdom, or is the kingdom in earthly form, would be the same as saying that the Jewish synagogue was Israel. “They have burned all the meeting places of God in the land” (Ps. 74: 8) this is the verse to which people turn when wanting scriptural authorization for the synagogue. The Hebrew word translated “synagogues” in the KJV is rendered “meeting-places” in the MKJV. That Jesus participated in synagogue activities ought to be sufficient validation of its part in supporting religion in Israel. Manipulating scriptures to authenticate the synagogue seems unnecessary since Jesus attended and taught in it. The synagogue was not a smaller version of the temple, nor did it substitute for temple worship; it was at most only an adjunct to temple activity. The synagogue had little influence on temple ceremonies or worship, but focused on people in its community. Its function was to provide support, direction and teaching on personal practices and worship. The synagogue was an appropriate model for Christian gatherings; its structure, purpose and practices were suitable for Christian life in the years preceding the destruction of Jerusalem. The synagogue had a social aspect as well as religious; it functioned as a depository for documents regarding birth, marriage and death as well as civil documents. Contributions were received and support distributed to the needy of its community.
The first Christians adopted the institution with which they were familiar, there was no need to modify practices, and other than accepting Jesus as the Messiah their religion didn’t change. Diaspora Jews who had become Christians were expected to comply with all Jewish customs and laws; whereas Gentile Christians were exempt from all but a few vital regulations. The Christian synagogue was never intended to take the place of personal worship; it was support for inexperienced believers who had taken a stand opposed to that of Israel’s leaders. Many churches today resemble a kindergarten or elementary school, from which few graduate. The author of Hebrews wrote concerning mature Christians, “who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.” I have not yet come across a church that promotes graduation of the mature, but have attended more than a few that persistently offer diets fit only for infants. In business one recognizes the difference between twenty years’ experience and one year’s experience repeated twenty times. Churches follow practices of repeating early education over and over. The apparent objective of a church is to fill classrooms and not to educate toward graduation. What the author of Hebrews saw as an issue, churches have adopted as practice. A believer should be able to find respite in the fellowship of Christians; encouragement and support needed to face life among unbelievers. Support ought to be what a church provides for the citizens of the kingdom comparable to what the synagogue provided for citizens of Israel..
In my imagination I envision a church, an assembly of believers gathered around the word of God seeking principles supporting spiritual maturity and life in the kingdom. Such fellowship might include expressions of praise and faith, and songs of exultation. It would be an association of sinners made pure by the sacrifice of Jesus; the more mature leading and guiding novices toward confidence in Christ. I wonder if such inspiration is possible when looking at the back of the heads of people sitting in pews in front of you. The purpose of fellowship, whether church gatherings, or, a home group should be to assist one another along the road of life. Jesus is our example, by the way he lived, the compassion he showed, and the praise he offered. Jesus will not be found in the details of doctrinal debate, but by becoming familiar with him as the man who was the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of God’s nature. (Heb 1:3) God chose to reveal himself through Jesus the man; John wrote that not all the signs establishing Jesus as the Messiah had been written down, “…but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” (John 20:31) It seems to me that greater effort should be made by churches to encourage believers to grow spiritually than to fit in with church programs. The objective of a church should not be to fill pews with members, but to prepare believers for life in a society that has become antagonistic to God and Christ.
“But since we are of the day, let us
be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet, the
hope of salvation. For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining
salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, so that whether we
are awake or asleep, we will live together with Him. Therefore encourage one
another and build up one another, just as you also are doing.” (1Th 5:8-11)
The Bible story began with man in a close relationship with God; man was innocent and without sin. Our original parents lived and walked with God until they disobeyed the only prohibition we are told was in place. Innocence was marred, guilt became a reality and the relationship with God was permanently severed. God told Satan that he would in time be conquered by one of Eve’s descendants. Later in history God selected Abraham because of his faithfulness to be the father of the nation through which blessings would come to all people. After Israel became a nation they rejected God and chose a king so that they could be like the nations around them; the people chose Saul, but God chose David to rule his people after Saul’s death. God promised David that he would always have a son ruling on the throne of Israel. That promise was accurate concerning the physical kingdom of Israel except for the six years Athaliah usurped the throne. People of faith in Old Testament times looked forward to the fulfillment of promises, the author of Hebrews spoke of Abraham and other servants, “All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own. And indeed if they had been thinking of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them.” (Heb 11:13-16)
Since it was the woman that Satan deceived it would be her offspring that would defeat him; with the benefit of history we see God’s statement referring to Jesus and his virgin birth. “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel;” (Gen 3:15) –the victory of man over evil. The first Adam was conceived in the mind of God, the second Adam conceived by the will of God. “…as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.” To Abraham God promised that through his family all nations would be blessed. “By Myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son, indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies. In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice;” (Gen 22:16-18) –the victory of faith. “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” David was promised that he would always have a son on the throne of Israel; “…the LORD said to Samuel, ‘Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart;’” (1Sa 16:7) –the victory of the heart; “…with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness.” God fulfilled his promises in Jesus, Satan’s head was crushed by Jesus; God reconnected with man through Jesus’, and God placed Jesus on the throne of the kingdom. That is God’s story.
In the post-biblical era believers live in harmony with God through Jesus; life is a celebration of hope. Sin and guilt which forced separation are taken away by the blood the Lamb. Christ as King reigns over his citizens. The characteristic features of Christianity in the post-biblical era are faith, hope and love. Our citizenship is in heaven, we are children of God, and members of the Lord’s body; we do not live under the shadow of exclusion, but under a canopy of grace. God accomplished his purpose in Jesus, “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and he has committed to us the word of reconciliation.” (2Cor 5:17-19) The kingdom is spiritual, our relationship with God is spiritual, and our walk in Christ is spiritual. Paul wrote about the differences between law and faith; “Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, the righteous will live by faith.
The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, ‘The man who does these things will live by them.’ Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us…” (Gal 3:11-13)
In the original Greek language there is no
definite article ahead of ‘law’ in the verses quoted, and while translators
capitalize ‘Law’ over one hundred and sixty times it is doubtful that they are
correct in doing so that many times. The fact is that no one is justified by
the Law, or by law. It is obvious why translators would specify “The Law”,
because if translated ‘law’ without the definite article there would be no
support for the many religious rules churches impose on members and converts. It
seems unreasonable that the Spirit inspired a confused message; the righteous
will live by faith, but there are numerous rules to be observed. Or, there is
no justification by law, but there are commands that must be obeyed. Paul was
most determined in his teaching that Christians do not live according to law,
but by faith. “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of
yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no
one may boast; for we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good
works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.” (Eph 2:8-10)
Some will oppose the idea of living by faith asserting that there are laws which
must be obeyed such as baptism. My response to that would be that the only law
being obeyed in physical birth is the law of nature; and in spiritual birth the
person being baptized is saved through faith by the working of God. There are
others who will say that baptism is not required since one is saved by faith
alone; my response to this is that once conception has taken place birth will
naturally follow in due time. Being born from above is not a regulation, but
the consequence of faith in God.
What differences are there between Christianity in the New Testament and Christianity in the post-biblical era? It is important to keep in mind that the prophecies concerning Christ, the covenant, and the renewal of all things focused on Israel. “For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on his shoulders; and his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.” (Isa 9:6, 7) Jeremiah prophesied that God would make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. He also prophesied, “For behold, days are coming,' declares the LORD, 'when I will restore the fortunes of my people Israel and Judah.” (Jer 30:3) Jesus fulfilled every prophecy concerning Israel; Jewish expectations did not fit with the reality of Christ. It is evident that the physical kingdom of Israel and the spiritual kingdom of God ran parallel to each other until the destruction of the temple. Throughout the time covered by the book of Acts and to the end of the Mosaic age Jewish Christians continued to observe all requirements of the Law; it was a time of transition.
Circumstances around the New Testament period were unique to that time; Christianity was a fledgling religion built on fulfilled promises and prophecies. A specific set of rules were developed to accommodate Gentile Christians; they were not expected to comply with Jewish regulations and laws, but were to avoid practices abhorrent to Jews and evil in the sight of God. There were two major centers of Christian activity; one being its place of origin –Jerusalem, and the other representing Gentiles was Antioch. Paul wrote about the mystery “which in other generations was not made known,” but which had been revealed to him and the other apostles, “…that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” (Eph 3:6) Christianity in the post-biblical era does not share the regulatory dichotomy that existed in the transitional period, but follows the examples and principles of Jesus which are ageless. Rules regarding adopting or avoiding extant customs in the time of early Christianity do not apply to post-biblical Christians, principles concerning customs and behaviour are to be applied by Christians wherever they are, but there is no single global rule of conduct. The Christian life in the post-biblical era is based on Bible principles not on regulations given to people in earlier times and greatly different circumstances.
Christianity in the post-biblical era is not
institutional, which doesn’t mean there is no place for a church. It does
however, mean that a church has to go through a transformation from the structured
organization it has become to the fellowship it needs to be. A church should be
more like a synagogue and less like the temple. With the sacrificial death of
Jesus all sacrifices were rendered obsolete and redundant; the destruction of
the temple in 70 CE brought an end to sacrifices for all time, because the
temple was the official site for sacrifices. The tabernacle or temple worship
was male dominated; women were relegated to the outer court or not included.
There is no gender separation in post-biblical Christianity; the rules laid out
by Paul concerning women’s involvement were in connection to the existing
customs and Jewish mores and do not necessarily apply to all societies. Paul’s instructions
applied to those people at that time and in those places; the principle of respecting
customs applies to all time. Jewish religion had two components; one being the
temple worship which obligated only men for only three specified ceremonies.
The other was made up of the Ten Commandments and a multitude of regulations.
It could be said that the national religion was connected to the temple and personal
life governed by commandments and regulations.
Jesus qualified the laws of old by emphasizing the spiritual principles behind them; the destruction of the temple brought an end to sacrifices which were central to the Jewish religion. Christianity coming out from under the shadow of Judaism was to embrace spiritual principles and live by them. Some years before the destruction of the temple Paul contended with believers returning to the law for comfort; which he energetically opposed. The Old and New Testaments contain principles and examples for life in the post-biblical era. From beginning to end the Bible story reveals valuable insights and opens vistas of God’s glory and grace encouraging believers to trust him who has shown himself faithful and loving. Modern churches are regulation-based organizations and cannot provide the spiritual encouragement and support needed by Christians. Most people do not leave a church because they lack faith or commitment, but because the commitment required is not God-centered, it’s church oriented. The church has to encourage spiritual life not corporate support. For reflection of what Christian life should be we need to look back to Abraham.
Abraham was the father of the Hebrew nation; he is also according to scripture the father of the faithful. As children of Abraham we are obliged to learn how our father became a friend of God. It is not to the time of transition with its unique circumstances we should look, nor to the law with its multiple regulations, but to Abraham. We are told very little about his religious activities; he paid a tithe to Melchizedek the priest of God, and we honour Christ the eternal priest. God spoke to Abraham and God speaks to us through his word. God required Abraham to sacrifice that which was most precious to him, and God requires that we be a living sacrifice. God gave circumcision as a sign of the covenant between him and Abraham; God provided baptism as circumcision of the heart and sign of his covenant with believers. From the information in scripture it would appear that Abraham lived a normal life with few formal religious activities; or maybe better said, Abraham lived a spiritual life. That is the message we are to learn.
It is sad that the picture of Christianity seen by the world is a mosaic of denominations each claiming superiority over others. No church has a monopoly on truth and no church can rightfully claim to be exclusively authorized by God. Real Christianity is not seen by looking at churches, but at the lives of believers. Within churches many Christians live lives of dedication in spite of their affiliation with that church. Remember Elijah’s complaint that he alone was loyal to God? God told him that there were seven thousand people who were faithful; it’s the same today. Hidden within the morass of denominational churches is a body of believers dedicated to Christ. The church throughout history rejected believers who sought biblical simplicity and did not conform to official dogma. When fellowship is restricted to only those who agree with a church’s doctrine, Christianity is in trouble. The family of God is made up of people who believe that Jesus Christ came to earth; lived, died and rose from the grave, and that through him sinners are reconciled with God. Until churches recognize their duty to support followers of Christ no matter what opinions they hold on things other than Jesus they are an impediment to the kingdom of God.
What ever happened to the Ethiopian guy Philip baptized? Do you ever wonder about him and how he remained faithful –if he did? Perhaps your Sunday school teachers led you to believe there was a church just like yours waiting with open arms to receive him into their fellowship. Or, do you believe he retired to his office in the back of the palace and counted shekels? I have always loved the account of the Ethiopian conversion, because it shows the power of faith in the resurrection of Jesus. For me the Ethiopian man represents God’s grace in action; I don’t know if there were other Christians in Ethiopia, but I doubt it since his conversion was early in the life of Christianity. He left his encounter with Philip and the gospel a new man, filled with joy and hope. It was the message of Christ that compelled him to request baptism, and the presentation of the gospel that connected him with the kingdom. There was no church to impose restrictions on him; he was free to live as one of God’s children, like Abraham, by faith. There is no requirement for anyone to go to church; the very statement seems absurd. There will be those who quote Hebrews 10:25 “not forsaking our own assembling together” as an injunction to keep attending church; however, that order was more urgent “as you see the day drawing near”. That day, was the day of the Lord, not a scheduled day of assembly. Oh, and by the way the root word of assembling is synagogue.
I am not against churches even though some seem to do more harm than good; I am against the church becoming more important than Christ. I’m against what the church has become - self-serving and the center of religious activity. The church is made out to be the channel of salvation, the means through which a person approaches God; neither of which are true. A church should be able to functions without a building, without charitable status, and without specialized programs. If a group owns a building it is a convenience not a sanctuary; if a church can afford a preacher it would be for him to preach Christ at all times, not to promote the special interests of that group. A church should meet the needs of people within its community whether social or spiritual. Attendance at functions has to remain voluntary and no one’s spirituality should be assessed by attendance. The ancient synagogues supported Jews, God’s people in their communities. The church is to support God’s children in the same way the synagogue supported the children of Israel. As I see it churches can come of age and function as they need to, or they can remain in the 1950’s rut and continue to disfigure the body of Christ.
Something seems very much out of balance in that so much time, money and effort has been spent on proving and supporting the church, all because Matthew reported Jesus saying he would build his church. Even if church was the correct translation, which it is not, the word appears only twice in Matthew’s gospel, and is not mentioned in any other gospel. The imbalance I see is that so much has been made of a mistranslated word found twice in Matthew’s gospel, when in comparison such little has been made of the “kingdom” which Matthew used over thirty times in his writing. Jesus announced that his mission was to preach the kingdom of heaven; but from the council of Nicaea man’s mission has been to build a church. That which Jesus said was important to him hardly finds its way into church vocabulary; even Pharisees had more sense than to suggest that the synagogue was more important than the temple or more important that Israel. That is what religion has done with the church; the church has higher ranking than the kingdom and higher ranking than the people of God. Jesus came to earth to become king and establish his kingdom, which he did; a church must act as a support system for believers instead of being an institution to which people must submit.
I looked on the internet vis-Ã -vis the question of people leaving church and noticed the various positions taken by the entries. Some were defensive with churches proclaiming innocence in the whole matter; changing demographics and family busyness were to blame. Some statisticians point toward young people and their insatiable desire for relevance as the main offenders. Opportunists see the exodus of members from churches as a virtual goldmine; they peddle books and programs that if followed will stem the outflowing tide and keep pews filled to capacity. There are lists of the top number of reasons why people leave churches; the top twenty, the top ten, or the top six. It appears that all you have to do is pick a number and someone will accommodate your fancy. I wonder if the internet is the best supplier of information regarding church health; if one is looking for a sociological answer it most probably is.
“Concerning Christ we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant, but solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil. Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment, and this we will do, if God permits.” Heb 5:11-6:3
It’s not just young people who are leaving the church. I believe leaders can scan pages of essays or countless books looking for the reasons why people are leaving church and not come up with the real answer. I don’t believe the answer lies in sociology or psychology, nor do I think it is a personal disorder or failure on the part of people who are leaving. Whoever wrote the book of Hebrews recognized a malady affecting some believers of that day; their development was stunted and their spiritual life had stagnated. The issue back then was that those people were “dull of hearing”, which literally meant lazy or stupid. Such is not the case with people leaving churches today; in many circumstances it is an attempt to preserve personal spirituality; to have a relationship with God they have not been able to develop in the churches they were attending.
If today we adapt the analogy of milk used in the scripture above, it is not believers who are at fault for leaving churches, but the church itself for providing only milk instead of more appropriate spiritual nourishment leading to development and maturation. Excuse me for comparing a church to a commercial business, but any business that was so messed up in what it was supposed to accomplish would be purged of employees from the president down to labourers. Churches are family gatherings; times for fellowship and building one another up. A mother would be considered criminal for not providing suitable food for a child, yet in the case of spiritual malnutrition churches are not held accountable. This may seem harsh, but in the present climate where people are leaving churches, leaders have to step up and take responsibility. There are times when it’s a positive move for people to leave a church and seek a close relationship with God; the problem comes when for whatever reason a person leaves a church he or she leaves God as well, thinking that God and church are synonymous.
There are two beliefs that are sacrosanct to
churches that I believe are root causes of spiritual malnutrition. One is that
the church is to pattern itself on the New Testament church; the second is that
the task of the church is to fulfill “the Great Commission”. These two goals
are foundational to the modern church and its programs.
Christianity began in an era that was distinctive; it started in a social and religious environment that was exceptional. The circumstances of the New Testament period were specific as Paul wrote, “…when the fullness of the time came,” and, unlike any other time before or since. The early period was transitional as the Hebrew writer pointed out, “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete, and what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” (Heb 8:13) Jesus ruled on the throne of David; the kingdom of God existed parallel to the physical kingdom of Israel which was in its last days, becoming obsolete and about to end. Some gatherings of Christians were exclusively Jewish and followed all the regulations of the law and Moses. Gentiles were not expected to adhere to the regulations of the law, but were expected to abstain from things abhorrent to the Jewish culture. Gatherings of Gentile Christians were similar, but distinct from those of their Jewish counterparts. Which “church” would be best to replicate; the church in Jerusalem, or, the church in Antioch?
Churches in the post-biblical era should not attempt to replicate institutions of an earlier period. The problem in replicating an institution or practice from the biblical period is that virtually every circumstance has changed. Customs are different, the religious climate is different, and life itself is different. Paul adamantly spoke against people reverting to following law, and the principle of his objection needs to apply today. Because of the rumour that Paul taught Jews in other countries to forsake Moses, James and the elders of the church in Jerusalem instructed Paul to demonstrate his compliance with the law. “Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law.” (Acts 21:24) It was expected that Jewish Christians wherever they lived adhere to the Law of Moses. The religious climate of Corinth required special attention from Christians and Paul wrote concerning the dress code required to differentiate Christian women from female prostitutes in the pagan temple. The Islamic hijab dictates modesty for both men and women; women are required to cover almost all of their body and head with loose hanging non-see-through cloth. The principle coming out of Paul’s teaching is that Christian women from the west when traveling in Islamic countries should adorn themselves in keeping with that country’s customs.
“The Great Commission” taken out of its time and context loses its meaning and significance. The problem with making a scriptural order apply to a different time and situation is that it also loses its meaning and purpose. For the disciples the instruction was to move outward from Jerusalem to every nation with the gospel. If applied properly the “Great Commission” today must begin in Jerusalem then to Judea to Samaria and then to the rest of the world. In relation to the end of the Jewish age Mark recorded Jesus saying, “…the gospel must first be proclaimed to all nations.” (Mar 13:10) “The Great Commission” is a misnomer; Christ’s instruction was specifically to the disciples. The gospel of salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus had never been preached as a reality to that point, and taking it out into the world for the first time was of greatest importance. That was the only time when the commission could be fulfilled as intended; those people from that place at that time with a message that had never been preached before.
I have heard many explanations of the “Great Commission” made in an effort to permit its application. Maybe correctly the verse should read “as you go” rather than the imperative, “go!” Some in an effort to gain support have pointed out that not everyone can go, but the “Great Commission” is fulfilled by giving money so others can go. Churches sometimes display signs of the commission to remind members of mission activity. If enforced in Africa the “Great Commission” would instruct believers there to go; I suppose that would be to make room for missionaries from other countries to go to Africa. This seems ridiculous, but that’s what happens when a specific command given for a specific reason at a specific time is applied as a general rule outside its parameters. On a serious note, the general application of a specific command such as the “Great Commission” could have the effect of dividing believers by financial ability. Believers in richer countries can obey the command in a way believers in poorer countries could never imagine; that seems to me more of a difference in expectations than suggested in the parable of the talents. The commission to the disciples was very personal and specific, and in the form of a command does not apply to believers any time following the destruction of Jerusalem. The commission’s value to believers today is the underlying principle of serving others in God’s grace. The individual is as much the message as words spoken; formation of a relationship is vital (make disciples) and then teach about Jesus. Does James contradict the “Great Commission?” “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers; for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness;” (Jas 3:1) in the way it is most often applied today the answer is yes, but no if taken as a principle of life.
The two issues of concern are; the church today is to pattern itself on the New Testament church, and the task of the church is to fulfill “the Great Commission”. In what way do these two issues affect spirituality? The first, by enforcing regulations from a remote and different period of history a church removes itself and its teaching from any contemporary relevance. Churches can be classified by where they line up in a spectrum of ultra-conservative to ultra-liberal; the more conservative being those who adhere closest to scriptural rules as applied in biblical times and the more liberal being those who apply fewest rules. In attempting to be a replica of the first “church” modern churches have missed the point; it’s not the rules and regulations of the biblical period that need to be practiced, but the love, care, and communion shared in those early gatherings that should be matched. Rules are specific to the time and conditions in which they were given, but the principles of love, encouragement and fellowship are timeless. If people are leaving churches it may be because current issues are not being addressed with current wisdom, but by outmoded regulations. Jesus offered a new and better understanding of service to God; not the literal practice of the letter of law, but an adherence to the spirit of the law. The Lord pointed out that sin was present before violation of the letter of the law; not to murder wasn’t enough, the thoughts and anger leading up to the act had to be controlled. In Christ’s teaching there is no place for conservatism or liberalism; God looks at the heart; outward piety and ritualism does nothing to hide what’s inside a person.
The most important feature of post-biblical Christianity is its life of faith; “Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.” (Gal 3:23-26) I reference the book written by my late father-in-law, Cecil Bailey, “The”; in the original language the definite article is not positioned in front of “law”; obviously the Law of Moses was intended in Paul’s discussion, but the word applies to any system of law and not exclusively that law. John makes it clear that in Christ we are under grace not law. “…the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.” (John 1:17) Jewish Christians needed to move away from the rituals of the Law Moses, and, also the myriad of rules proposed by Jewish rabbis and teacher accumulated over time. Capitalizing “Law” limited Paul’s instructions to the specific Law of Moses; however, Paul’s point was that no one can be justified by law.
As I ponder the question of why people leave church, other questions come to mind; what does leaving church mean, and why does it matter? If people are growing in faith and moving toward a closer relationship with God, wouldn’t that be a good thing? Paul wrote, “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.
I do not nullify the grace of God, for if
righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died
needlessly.” (Gal 2:20, 21) Living “by faith in the Son of God” cannot be
confused with church attendance or other religious activity; living by faith is
very personal and governed by Christ not church programs. Church activities could
be considered as living according law; this varies dependent on the church you
belong to and it is this aspect of church that I believe some reject by leaving.
Rules which are necessary for church organization and convenience may appear
harmless, yet they do however impose obligations on members. The confusion of
institutional obligations and spiritual commitments creates a burden some
people aren’t willing to carry. A church faces a dilemma trying to balance its fiscal
responsibilities and spiritual mission especially when it sees its spiritual
mission being reliant on its building and programs. The body of Christ is fluid
and not reliant upon material structures such as buildings or programs.
The modern church cannot exist without a suitable building, an organizational structure, and a suite of programs. For a growing number of believers it has come to making a choice either to continue in the institutional system or find an alternative arrangement to live a life of faith. I’m not suggesting the two alternatives have to be mutually exclusive, but unless a church is unique in its purpose it would be difficult for both to occur in one organization. Increasingly believers who are more than just church goers are giving considerable thought to the origin of institutional worship, the form of services, and the choice of programs. Some seem content to have their monetary contribution put toward a church mortgage or building maintenance and don’t question organizational expenditures. More people it seems lately see such expense as unnecessary and will likely move on to a different form of religious expression. Some people object to being “preached at” or “cajoled” to conform or be involved in church programs. A church, especially in its beginning, is a microcosm of the society in which it exists. At first this may not pose a problem, but as the congregation or its social environment ages issues will arise. Over the years I have attended services in numerous cities and in many of those services it was a matter of déjà vu, as though I was transported back into the 1950’s except there were very few attendees. Those churches were no longer representative of the community or of the current social climate. Sadly many congregations have become totally irrelevant in their social environment.
There are many questions that need to be asked as to why people are leaving churches. Would your church continue to function if it had no building, or is the church building the center of all religious activity? Could your church continue as it is without a full-time preacher? What does your church provide that is not available from another institution? Does your church encourage maturity and independence of members or does it expect continual attendance at meeting it organizes? Are you encouraged to live by faith or conform to church practices? The answers to these questions and maybe others that should be asked will I believe demonstrate that enforcing New Testament period rules and practices will lead a church into irrelevance. Christianity in the post-biblical era is not accurately represented by churches, but by believers living by faith.
