why some people just don't "do church"

The following comprises part of my more recent thoughts regarding modern church practices. This is not an attempt to criticize or be argumentative.


No matter how you slice it, modern church practices have their roots in pagan culture (mostly Greek and Roman) and not in the vibrant life of Christ that indwells his Body. For the last 1800 years, humanity has decapitated the Body, leaving the Head safely in heaven so that we needn't be much concerned with His attempts to direct the functioning of his members. Our traditions call for only a select few members to function; a few "mouths" turn the rest of the Body into one giant Ear. Thanks to our traditions, few other types of organs are even possible within the assembly. Our traditions nullify His Life. We have created church practices that are, for the most part, sterile, cold, efficient, arm's-length and, quite frankly, boring.

Christ doesn't want us to "go to church." Christ wants us to BE the church: an organism of many members, *all* of whom function (instead of passively spectating), an organism directed by Him in every aspect of its life.

Why don't some people "do church"? In my opinion, it's because they aren't able or aren't being allowed to function. Because the every-member functioning of the Body has been inhibited or outright forbidden for nearly two millennia, these people (my past self included) don't even know that they're meant to be able to function.

I'll just say it: They've been brain-washed--by others who have themselves been brain-washed--into believing that "mutual edification" (see Hebrews) means showing up at a church building, listening to a sermon, singing a few songs, and chatting amiably afterward before someone decides it's time for everyone to leave so the building can be locked up.

The Christocentric definition of "church" includes so much more than an efficient, convenient "worship service" and friendly, superficial conversation on a Sunday. "Church" means Body, and that means Life: the Life of Christ, continuously, day-by-day, minute-by-minute, in an active, vibrant community in which the members are completely and irrevocably interwoven with each other. And until we rediscover how to live this Life, until we start plumbing the depths and riches of the fullness of Christ, more and more of us are going to stop wanting to "do church."

book comments 24, or: hey look, a non-fiction title

"Pagan Christianity?" by Frank Viola and George Barna
This book really deserves a full review, but I don't feel like writing one right now. Yes, I'm being mentally and emotionally lazy. So shoot me. ;o) But this book has changed a lot about my thinking and my way of life, so it *will* come up all on its own in future blopgosts. I guar-on-TEE it.

In short:
--analysis of contemporary practices and paradigms of non-Catholic churches
--examination of the historical origins of these practices
--sources include secular history, church history, and scripture
The authors question whether or not a church that is run like a business can ever function as the living organism (read: body) God means it to be. Their answer is that it cannot, and I agree with them. They ask a lot of the questions I (and others I know) have been asking for years. Viola and Barna don't claim to know all the answers...but they at least challenge the pat traditional answers that so many of us have been offered for such a very long time.
I appreciate the authors' attitude throughout the book. They are blunt and unafraid to critique what they consider error--but they also caution that no one should feel free to use the information to bludgeon anybody. They encourage truth without fomenting rebellion, and I think that is priceless.

I highly recommend this book to anyone and everyone. If you're a believer, you'll benefit from some education in church history and from a challenge to your preconceived ideas. If you're not a believer, this book will answer some of the questions you've always had about why churches have maintained (and still maintain) certain questionable practices.

BUT.

Don't read this if you don't want your beliefs challenged. Don't read this if you don't want to have doubts. Don't read this if you don't want to get out of your comfort zone.

Don't read this if you're afraid to pass a point of no return.

2010 Book Count To-Date: 8.

THIS RESONATES

(aka outing myself just a teensy bit ;o)

“The New Testament doctrine of ministry rests therefore not on the clergy-laity distinction but on the twin and complementary pillars of the priesthood of all believers and the gifts of the Spirit. Today, four centuries after the Reformation, the full implications of this Protestant affirmation have yet to be worked out. The clergy-laity dichotomy is a direct carry-over from pre-Reformation Roman Catholicism and a throwback to the Old Testament priesthood. It is one of the principal obstacles to the church effectively being God’s agent of the Kingdom today because it creates a false idea that only “holy men,” namely, ordained ministers, are really qualified and responsible for leadership and significant ministry. In the New Testament there are functional distinctions between various kinds of ministries but no hierarchical division between clergy and laity.”

~Dr. Howard Snyder

“Increasing institutionalism is the clearest mark of early Catholicism—when church becomes increasingly identified with institution, when authority becomes increasingly coterminous with office, when a basic distinction between clergy and laity becomes increasingly self-evident, when grace becomes increasingly narrowed to well-defined ritual acts … such features were absent from first generation Christianity, though in the second generation the picture was beginning to change.”

~James D. G. Dunn

the "gospel" of judas--an excerpt from courtney's journal, with a few additions

So, I'm sure most of you, my Faithful Readers (ha!), have heard about this "new" and so-called "gospel" of Judas. A few thoughts:

I think this archaeological find is intellectually interesting, but insignificant beyond that.

Okay, maybe not insignificant…..Perhaps I could call it significant in that this “gospel” of Judas (obviously not a “gospel” at all, since the definition of gospel is “good news,” specifially about Christ) proves once again that we Christians must be wise and discerning about what we accept as truth. From what I understand, the world is getting in a big tizzy over this "new" text (which has actually been around since the 1970s!), and many Christians are in a defensive, worried uproar over its content, some of which contradicts the New Testament.

According to what I've read, this Judas text was written in the 2nd or 3rd century and is full of "new information" and "secrets" that were revealed to Judas. Some scholars, with whom I agree based on my own studies, say that the Judas text has very strong Gnostic overtones.

Gnosticism was a mystery cult rife with visions and spiritual elitism, a religion that rejected the physical body as evil and said that the truly spiritual person was one who received secret, ‘higher-level’ knowledge from the spiritual realm. Gnostics also rejected the idea that Jesus was the physical incarnation of God. These particular beliefs obviously contradict the teachings of the New Testament…as does the idea that Judas received special, secret information from Jesus that the other disciples weren’t given.

(As a side note: Bishop Ignatius of Antioch was one church leader who reacted so violently against mystic Gnosticism that he wrote letters to numerous churches, telling them to "cling to the bishop." He said, "Whoever does anything without the bishop's knowledge is from the devil." Ignatius and his reactionary ideas helped pave the way for the bishop- and pope-centered universal church, also known as the Catholic Church. If you don't believe me, research it.)

Furthermore, it seems that the Judas text tells of how Jesus allegedly imparted to Judas a story of creation that contradicts the story told in Genesis: Allegedly, Jesus told Judas that God didn't create the world. Merely that idea should be enough to prove that this Judas text isn’t inspired and is, therefore, only as spiritually convicting to us Christians as we allow it to be.

My bottom-line take on the whole thing? It sounds like a text penned by Gnostics in an effort to lend creedence to their heathen movement. To a serious Christian, this “new” text should be no more spiritually intimidating than the so-called Gospels of Thomas or Mary (included in the Apocrypha).

Academically interesting, but it doesn’t shake my faith in the inspired writings of the New and Old Testament.

Put all things to the test: keep what is good...
--1. Thessalonians 5: 21

P.S.In the comments section of this post, Val provided me with a link to a very good article on the subject of Judas, Christianity, and "The DaVinci Code," among other things.

P.P.S.
"I intend to get to the bottom of this web of deceit and confusion if it takes me the rest of my life, which may end at any minute!"
--Judge Maxwell
in "What's Up, Doc?"