Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
* SUCCESS. The Kingdom only works when it's lived out in small numbers. Once it becomes a mass movement, it becomes an ideology and loses its soul.
I agree. Christianity is it's most effective on a relational level and not as a movement. Co-opting the ecological slogan if Christians want to impact the world, they must act locally. The primary focus should be in the immediate community.
Quote:
* MONEY. A movement that was founded on people renouncing all possessions got seduced into sanctifying the "right" to possessions.
Christianity, founded on people renouncing all possessions? I disagree. Though Christ did tell certain individuals to renounce all their possessions he did not command that of all followers. Rather, he required that followers give His kingdom priority over worldly domains. All things (possessions) come from God and we are to be faithful stewards of His world.
Quote:
* MORALITY. This is a huge point. Ellul totally gets that eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is judgment and is at the root of all sin (see chapter IV). The Kingdom revolution is a revolution of the Spirit -- which is the antithesis of living on the basis of ethics. He continually stresses that the New Testament and the early Jesus-movement "has no morality." Once Christianity became a ruling power and a successful mass movement, however, it had to control people with rules.
I agree with the conclusion of the last sentence in this paragraph. That is why I prefer to participate in a stand-alone self-supported non-denominational church. But the statement that the New Testament and the early Jesus movement "has no morality" is clearly mistaken. Perhaps the author has another meaning which I am missing?
Quote:
* RELIGION. The Jesus movement is anti-religious. But people crave religion. They have "religious needs" that the Jesus movement undermines. When the movement became a mass movement, it became a Christianized version of pagan religion.
I understand the sentiment here, (I think) but it is poorly stated. Religion in the context used implies structure and organization, yet those are not inherently anti-Christian characteristics. Christianity is to be based upon an individuals relationship with God. But anytime like-minded individuals gather for community, religious or otherwise some structure and boundries, even if informal, will result.
Quote:
* PRAGMATISM. The Kingdom was founded on the singular concern to be faithful to God, not a concern to fix the world. Once Christianity became successful, however, it wrongly assumed responsibility to rule the world and got practical. Since most of Jesus' teachings are impractical, they had to be set aside.
Again the author starts with a correct statement (first sentence, even first two sentences). Then he stretchs too far to imply the global Christian community has deliberately set aside the teachings of Jesus Christ, because they don't mesh with their true objectives (last sentence). That's a conspiracy theory of ridiculous proportions.
Quote:
* VIOLENCE. Non-violence never seems practical, so it was among the things that needed to go. (Here Ellul curiously argues that the example of Islam was the main influence in making Christianity a violent religion, see Chapter V).
Is the author referring to the present day or the Dark Ages?
Quote:
* POLITICS. Here Ellul is at his best, showing how Jesus' apolitical/anti-political movement was transformed into the handmaiden of politics. He shows that Christianity has almost always pathetically given divine sanction to whatever political regime it found itself in. Using ingenious theological arguments right out of the Bible, the Church defended the monarchy when it found itself under a monarchy and the Republic form of government when under this type of government. So too, it defended Socialism under Socialism, Communism under Communism and of course Democracy under a Democracy. The movement whose heart is to revolt against all government to manifest the reign of God is reduced to a silly defender of whatever government happens to be in charge.
Christianity's design was never to revolt against all governments or any government. Christ said, "Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's" and "My kingdom is not of this world."
Quote:
* POWER. The heart of the problem, Ellul argues, is that we fear the freedom the Kingdom offers us. It's the radical freedom of possessing nothing -- including power. We rather crave the security of things, of power, of rules, and of pretending we are free (e.g. by having a vote) when in fact we are in bondage. The Spirit was to set us free, but this requires relinquishing all these things
This paragraph I agree with almost completely. It is the nature of our humanness to strive for power. But Christ stated, "he who wishes to gain his life, must give it up."
__________________
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
-Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Christianity, founded on people renouncing all possessions? I disagree. Though Christ did tell certain individuals to renounce all their possessions he did not command that of all followers. Rather, he required that followers give His kingdom priority over worldly domains. All things (possessions) come from God and we are to be faithful stewards of His world.
The first churches were communal. There was no property ownership. There is no Biblical mandate for this type of living, but it was the foundational practice -- probably because the first members had so little to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardLogic
I agree with the conclusion of the last sentence in this paragraph. That is why I prefer to participate in a stand-alone self-supported non-denominational church. But the statement that the New Testament and the early Jesus movement "has no morality" is clearly mistaken. Perhaps the author has another meaning which I am missing?
Morality is a man-made system of ethics. It is man's law (such as Hammurabi's Code). God's law is supposed to be written on our hearts and manifested by the Spirit via the fruit. If the fruit is evident, we are living above a moral system. In our pursuit to advance the Kingdom of God, we are exceeding the expectations of morality.
For example, our own sense of justice might accept a man killing another man who violated his daughter as just and moral. God's law requires forgiveness in our hearts.
That is a movement that has no morality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardLogic
I understand the sentiment here, (I think) but it is poorly stated. Religion in the context used implies structure and organization, yet those are not inherently anti-Christian characteristics. Christianity is to be based upon an individuals relationship with God. But anytime like-minded individuals gather for community, religious or otherwise some structure and boundries, even if informal, will result.
The author was correct that the church took on the organization identity of other religions (such as Christmas and Easter). Jesus ran a very loose ship in terms of organization. He never even officially ordained anyone to an office such as Prophet or Apostle. He simply organized his followers into twos and sent them off to "spread the word." One of the reasons Evangelicals believe the canon closed with Revelations is because it is believed the authority to speak for God in that manner ended with John, thus you have a faith based on the individual's direct relationship to God, not the individual's relationship to a church, or an office, or an official. I would appeal against the implication of total anarchy, but ultimately it is the message that should get across when discussing the salvific doctrines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardLogic
Again the author starts with a correct statement (first sentence, even first two sentences). Then he stretchs too far to imply the global Christian community has deliberately set aside the teachings of Jesus Christ, because they don't mesh with their true objectives (last sentence). That's a conspiracy theory of ridiculous proportions.
I think when you consider the history of two millenia of Christianity (which the author is specifically inferencing), the shoe fits. We have a long history of not preaching the Gospel while we, as the old saying goes, try to clean the fish before they're in the boat. The biggest problem with Christianity in this regard is Christians don't like fish. Too messy, too smelly. It's much easier to just "fix" people. Or enslave them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardLogic
Is the author referring to the present day or the Dark Ages?
The author is referring to the totality of Christian history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardLogic
Christianity's design was never to revolt against all governments or any government. Christ said, "Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's" and "My kingdom is not of this world."
I think you're missing the point. He's saying Christianity should look the same regardless under which government it is practiced. He's saying Christians shouldn't have patriotic designs on their faith. For example, God is not an American, or even the God of America first. He is the God of all humanity. We are all first members of the Kingdom of God and that supercedes our allegiances to which ever country we live in. We are in constant revolt against the nature of this world, and that includes the evil pursuits of government.
The first churches were communal. There was no property ownership. There is no Biblical mandate for this type of living, but it was the foundational practice -- probably because the first members had so little to begin with.
The first churches were communal, but so was society in general in that period. Villages were drastically more communal, relative to today's lifestyle. So it is hardly surprising that the church was too. But I do agree that the intent was to live a "shared" life with other believers. Today also I feel the church should also live more of a "shared" lifestyle than that of our society in general, we should strive to be a community of believers. Not necessasarily a true communal life, but we should be there for the needs of fellow members and others. I often stress to other members of my church that today's culture has no concept of community, focus is all upon the individual, and lack of committment is prevalent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaddabout
Morality is a man-made system of ethics. It is man's law (such as Hammurabi's Code). God's law is supposed to be written on our hearts and manifested by the Spirit via the fruit. If the fruit is evident, we are living above a moral system. In our pursuit to advance the Kingdom of God, we are exceeding the expectations of morality.
For example, our own sense of justice might accept a man killing another man who violated his daughter as just and moral. God's law requires forgiveness in our hearts.
That is a movement that has no morality.
We will have to somewhat disagree on this point. I do agree that God's morality calls us to a higher standard of morality than the society in which we live. God's law is written upon our heart, agreed, that in and of itself is a code of morality. Perhaps our difference is one of semantics.
You and Fisherking would have a great discussion regarding the topic. His contention, and with which I agree, is that truth is an absolute.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaddabout
The author was correct that the church took on the organization identity of other religions (such as Christmas and Easter). Jesus ran a very loose ship in terms of organization. He never even officially ordained anyone to an office such as Prophet or Apostle. He simply organized his followers into twos and sent them off to "spread the word." One of the reasons Evangelicals believe the canon closed with Revelations is because it is believed the authority to speak for God in that manner ended with John, thus you have a faith based on the individual's direct relationship to God, not the individual's relationship to a church, or an office, or an official. I would appeal against the implication of total anarchy, but ultimately it is the message that should get across when discussing the salvific doctrines.
I agree completely about the holidays... I was speaking the other day with someone about the idea that perhaps Christian's ought to consider a return to the Jewish holy days. Christ did "ordain" Peter as the foundation upon which His church would be built. Minimal though it may be there is a structure of organization in sending disciples out in two, and a purpose to it.
We agree that it is the message and the relationship with Christ which are critical. It is salvation of the individual that God is focused upon not maintaining tradition and hierarchies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaddabout
I think when you consider the history of two millenia of Christianity (which the author is specifically inferencing), the shoe fits. We have a long history of not preaching the Gospel while we, as the old saying goes, try to clean the fish before they're in the boat. The biggest problem with Christianity in this regard is Christians don't like fish. Too messy, too smelly. It's much easier to just "fix" people. Or enslave them.
I agreed with the statement, "Once Christianity became successful, however, it wrongly assumed responsibility to rule the world and got practical." I disagree with the implication that the global Christian community has deliberately set aside the teachings of Jesus Christ, because they don't mesh with their true objectives, which is according to the writer, to rule. The power structure within the church, has at times; particularly in the instance of the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages, and prior to Reformation; certainly taken it upon themselves to rule. But keep in mind that this was the power structure within the church, not the church (body). Power and greed have always corrupted mankind. This is not a phenomenon exclusive to the church.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaddabout
The author is referring to the totality of Christian history.
It was a rhetorical question. Here again I see the argument as being overstated by the writer. It is not the church, but rather some within the church which take to violence as a means of exerting there rule or influence. Certainly there have been many instances of the body standing by to allow the violence to happen or continue, and that is wrong. I don't see this as a issue of the Christian church as a whole but rather individuals or segments within the church.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaddabout
I think you're missing the point. He's saying Christianity should look the same regardless under which government it is practiced. He's saying Christians shouldn't have patriotic designs on their faith. For example, God is not an American, or even the God of America first. He is the God of all humanity. We are all first members of the Kingdom of God and that supercedes our allegiances to which ever country we live in. We are in constant revolt against the nature of this world, and that includes the evil pursuits of government.
I agree with this. I didn't see that same sentiment in the article.
__________________
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
-Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Gaddabout -- this discussion has really interested me for a little different reason. I have been doing a ton of reading on the sociobiology of cruelty, genocide, and torture -- sort looking at what we know about the evolutionary underpinnings at a brain level -- to understand how people become torturers, how our species so easily legitimizes enslaving or brutally wiping out other people, and how it is such a constant throughout the planet and throughout human history.
The thing that kept coming up over and over and over is that the first necessary thing is to identify 'the Other': the 'Not-Us.' It happens in all animal groupings, and becomes highly developed and intricate in primates, and is seen in all human cultures.
The more different and the more demeaned you can make the 'not-us' seem, the easier it is to obscure our common humanity, and then to be cruel. It becomes not just easy to create and train torturers and mass killers, it becomes a cultural positive, because the 'other' is by definition a competitior, a danger, a threat to control, power, wealth, reproduction, you name it. By brutalizing and destroying the 'other' you also elevate your sense of your own group (and yourself as a member) and it builds confidence and self-righteousness (and pumps up the testosterone in the tormentors, which makes them more excited and brutal -- that's why torture always expands beyond whatever initial limits are set for it).
Anyhow, tying that in with my readings and study of various religions, it just now hit me what the most basic difference is between Islam and any other major religion, but especially original Christianity as you are describing it:
Islam is in all its teachings a religion of duality -- believer-Muslims, and nonbeliever-Others. There is never the slightest effort to minimize these differences, but in fact most of Islam from the Quran on is predicated on emphasizing the differentness, and the inferiority, of the non-Muslim. The best a monotheistic non-Muslim can hope for is a clearly second-class status; if you aren't a Christian or Jew, the ONLY solution in Islam is slavery or death (and they aren't sure Mohammed meant to include Jews). There is not one word anywhere in Islam that says otherwise.
Thus Islam has historically been the bloodiest and most oppressive religion on Earth. Yes, Christianity has had it's turn at brutality and 'inferior otherness' and forced conversion, too, but it's estimated Islam has killed well over 250 million people in jihad since the days of Mohammed, and enslaved tens of millions more, and they haven't stopped.
On the contrary, the Jesus Christ you present here denies that there is 'the Other' and completely rejects the denigration of the stranger, the demeaning of 'the different,' denies that cruelty is ever justified. Christ denies the inferiority of any human being, male or female, lame, blind, leprous, insane -- the people that the provincial Judaism of his time viewed suspiciously or rejected, he embraced, and in that, ironically, Jesus is one of the first true Humanists. (Really, the only earlier one I can think of is Buddha, interestingly enough, who also would not recognize any human as an enemy. Modern Hinduism and less-Orthodox Judaism sort of haved move into this area, but only Christ and Buddha made it the core of their teaching.)
His teaching of absolute forgiveness, charity, and compassion (again, very similar to Buddha's teachings) really was incredible not just for the time, but it faces off against an evolutionarily primitive but extraordinarily powerful tribal drive to compete, to control, to 'prosper' in the broadest sense, at the expense of others. You might say (as Teilhard de Chardin did) that this was God's way of introducing and kick-starting social and spiritual evolution in the human condition.
In fact, 'render unto Caesar' is saying to really divorce oneself from politics, because politics by definition IS about us/them, power, and distinctions.
So it's no surprise that self-identified Christian groups (aka churches) would unthinkingly fall back into the divisiveness and 'them-us' thinking, the cruelty, the power-politics, the denigration and degradation typical of our more primitive selves, because it is our evolutionary genetic heritage that we have yet to overcome. As you say, Christ's message was not really aimed at establishing large ongoing organized groups. 'Group' instantly distinguishes a 'not-group' and it may be almost impossible at a sociobiological level to sustain Christ's rejection of otherness in larger groups.
Sorry to blather, and hope the evolutionary take isn't too off-putting -- it is the way I think and I do not believe it is inconsistent with deep spirituality -- but this thread got me really enthused, just as my study of Islam had gotten me profoundly discouraged. I hadn't really thought of Christianity in the way you have described it. (Unfortunately, nor do most Christians.)
__________________
oderint dum metuant (Latin for 'let them hate, so long as they fear').
Well, in truth I'm actually not a total hawk, but I'm not a dove either -- I'm more like an angry pigeon flying over the political arena after a really big meal. -Abba Gav
That is a fascinating post and I'm glad you went to the trouble. I have a lot of Buddhist friends and we have a lot of interesting discussions. We obviously have points we disagree on but it doesn't stop us from gently proselytizing each other. LOL (They say they don't do that, but why would anyone discuss such a personal thing if not for persuasion?)
I feel like you went 20 miles to underscore the very first assumption of Judeo-Christianity: Man is inherently evil. You refer to it as primal, but I see it as the natural, fallen state. I think, like tamed animals, consumer culture goes a long way to stifle our innate brutality, but I've yet to come across a person -- no matter how deifically (my word) good -- that didn't have at least an ounce of self-preservation in the genetic makeup. No one enters into total self-sacrifice without spending time developing a conscience.
It's interesting you might even hint at that because I'm not sure traditional Buddhism allows for the concept of man as inherently evil. Perhaps I'm reading too much into your post? My friends seem obsessed with overcoming their own guilt and shame, things they feel were put upon them by a Judeo-Christian culture.
Christianity has been co-opted by a Western worldview when it is, in fact, an entirely Eastern religion. If you're seeing a relationship to Buddhism, that's probably the kernel you're looking for. It's not pantheistic, but it is not at all modernistic. For example, there is no shame in Christianity. This is all part of the model of redemption: man alone cannot redeem himself, but only by faith through Christ alone is man redeemed. When covered by the "veil" of Christ, God views us as pure, unadultered, blameless. This is not meant to say we can take God's grace for granted, but an earnest Christian wouldn't do this, anyway.
I mention this because I think when you begin to look at Christianity through this Eastern prism, you can see how the modernistic notion of power has corrupted Christianity, particularly the pop-Christianity we often see on TV. In pop-Christianity, the message is one that we can have the fullness of God's Kingdom here on Earth, when in fact Biblical Christianity preaches the now and the not yet; the now is the good news of Christ's sacrifice that freed us from the burden of fulfilling the letter of the Law, which presents us the "not yet," which is the fullness of the Kingdom to come when Christ returns; the "now" is the age of mercy and the "not yet" is the age of judgment. (George Eldon Ladd 101 there, folks) We may have a "taste" of the Kingdom (perhaps if you've known someone who was healed of cancer after prayer), but we cannot have the fullness of the Kingdom in this age.
So my Christian faith is not defined by a life of good works and personal discipline. My Christian faith is defined by submission to the cross, direction from the Spirit, and a heart for service. If I do a good deed but my heart bears ill will, what good is my deed? But if my heart is filled with contentment, full of the Spirit, good deeds should flow out of me as a second nature. The good deeds are no longer about me, they are about what God is doing through me. I'm just a vessel, and an imperfect one at that. Jesus said He only did what he first saw his Father doing. That's my model.
Getting back to your first comment about human disassociation, devaluation of human life is the common thread for serial killers and mass murdering dictators alike. Or more likely, elevation of the self is achieved by the exercising the power of taking another's life. Having counseled victims of child abuse, it's unsettling to learn how much the seeds of bitterness planted so young can corrupt someone's heart, to blind them from even the simple pleasure of a moment of internal peace. I can see how having basic human rights usurped from them at such destroy any perceived hope for contentment, and an outright rejection of others who did not experience what they experienced. I've never counseled anyone who grew up in a constant state of war and abject violence, but I imagine the consequences being that much more severe to the development of the understanding of the value of human life.
That's the world we live in. I'm just trying to shed light into the darkness.
Well, I'm not sure I would use the term evil for something I believe is a primitive biological endowment; and I also believe altruism and sublime feelings like compassion and creativity are likewise, although they seem to be much later developments. And as a Buddhist (however bad a one) I do not believe man is inherently one or the other, but has all potentialities, so you choose to consciously cultivate some of those qualities.
You don't have to be an abused kid to become a torturer or a member of a death squad is one of my points -- by far, most of the people who do such things are not originally sadistic at all and come from unremarkable backgrounds -- but they are 'normal' people who can be convinced that an us-them mentality is the right mentality, and is the lens through which everything else (including morality and religion) must pass. (That describes a lot of our fellow Americans, you'll notice -- folks on this very Board!)
But my point, now that it's coffee and not wine, was really that some of the great teachers have focused on exalting the humanist (and by that I mean all humans are in this together, are 'one,' and there is no 'other.') I had never distinguished the major religions in those terms before, but your discussion of original Christianity and my just-completed reading on the ethical dualism of Islam came into focus.
Perhaps what I went 20 miles to say was that Mohammed was the only major spiritual teacher who used the word of God to promote a view of the world where the most aggressive, dangerous side of human nature is actually encouraged and praised, where the idea differentness, superiority/inferiority and us/them mentality is cultivated as a good and is a core tenet of the religion that developed.
No matter how badly Christianity has behaved at times, the core teachings of Christ are a repudiation of that us/them mentality. The aggressiveness of Christian churches IS in that sense a 'fall.'
It just shocked me, coming from an early Judeo-Christian background and 45 years of Buddhism to suddenly examine the major religions from that particular angle, of how they view 'us/them' and how they explain or justify what their organized adherents do. There are other ways to slice and dice the major teachers/religions -- but your discussion matched up to my interest in understanding the psychology of group cruelty in a way I hadn't seen before.
__________________
oderint dum metuant (Latin for 'let them hate, so long as they fear').
Well, in truth I'm actually not a total hawk, but I'm not a dove either -- I'm more like an angry pigeon flying over the political arena after a really big meal. -Abba Gav
Perhaps what I went 20 miles to say was that Mohammed was the only major spiritual teacher who used the word of God to promote a view of the world where the most aggressive, dangerous side of human nature is actually encouraged and praised, where the idea differentness, superiority/inferiority and us/them mentality is cultivated as a good and is a core tenet of the religion that developed.
No matter how badly Christianity has behaved at times, the core teachings of Christ are a repudiation of that us/them mentality. The aggressiveness of Christian churches IS in that sense a 'fall.'
This is a position that I have attempted to express in this forum several times.
__________________
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
-Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Linear Mode
