The Pre-Modern Church (Built on Sand): Church of Man

Great power came out of the church. The kingdom of God was being proclaimed with many people coming to the faith. While this was happening, Satan was hatching his plan as well. He was planning an attack that would seemingly corrupt Christian history until our time. While the kingdom of God was being preached, Satan was preaching his kingdom. The only problem is that Satan's kingdom looked a whole lot like the kingdom of God. Jesus, before the church began, prophesied that this would be happening:

And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you: For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many ... For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall show signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect. But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things. (Mark 13:5-6, 22-23)

DECEPTION AND APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

Streams of Faith

Jesus was telling his disciples years before they went out to establish the church there would be people who would be copying them but preaching a different message from their own. They would be false prophets. A false prophet is not a person who simply speaks a different message from Christianity. A false prophet fits the description of the scripture above; he comes in the name of Christ but speaks a different message than Christ. False prophets preach false Christs or Jesuses that fit the image of Jesus in some respects but are not the real thing. If Jesus said this would happen, it makes absolute sense that we would see examples of it in the writings of the Apostles. We need to look at an example of Jesus' prophecy coming to fruition. In the book of Galatians, Paul argues that the Galatians believed another gospel than they had previously received from him. At some point in the past, Paul went to Galatia and preached to these people. He even established a church with them. The Galatians maintained Paul's beliefs but at some point they diverged from them. Paul responded to their wantonness below,

O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? (Galatians 3:1-3)

These people left the Spirit of God and started to believe in the system of circumcision as the means for justification. In other words, they trusted a system based on the flesh to be Christian. This brings the discussion right back to tradition. The problem, as Paul saw it, was that the Galatians were connected to the "weak and beggarly elements" that the system of this world has to offer. By trusting in a system rooted in the flesh, when there is a system that is much better (through Jesus Christ) is to slap Jesus in the face, to reject freedom from bondage (Galatians 4:8). Paul, lamented about this again in Colossians, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (Colossians 2:8). The problem is that they would have claimed that they were "following" the tradition of the Apostles. On the contrary, the only tradition of the Apostles was the one given through the scriptures (the Gospel preached is the Gospel written). They did not follow that tradition. Even though they had real contact with Paul, historically, they had very little contact with Paul spiritually. As such, Paul had to explain to them that they were "foolish." They were foolish because they turned from the truth, which is expressed in the scriptures. What would have happened if the church of Galatia became a model church for the rest of the body of Christ? Many churches would have believed that they were following the doctrine of the Apostles but would have been in error. They believed "another gospel" and thought it was the one Paul taught them. But Paul spoke to them in the book of Galatians and explained, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8). Paul said even if he came back saying something different than what he said before that he ought to be accursed. Paul says that his very own words were subject to an authority greater than himself. New words from the Apostle were not more authoritative than the gospel he first preached. The gospel he first preached was based on the scriptures. Paul's messages to the Galatians were explications of how Christ was fulfilling the scriptures. This is what the Galatians needed to remember, this is what they needed to believe. The Apostles did not teach any tradition separate from the scriptures. What we have today is the traditions of many churches, like the Galatians, who heard the word, called themselves Christian, and passed down what they believed as Christian doctrine. They purported that their doctrines were just as authentic as scripture because some "false apostle" told them that they should believe in his teachings more than scripture. The scriptures show the truth. True apostles pass down the true doctrine by teaching people the scriptures and not tradition.

What we have here are streams of faith. There were different streams of theology that passed down from the apostles and prophets. Many people infiltrated the church and started tainting the doctrine of the church teaching a kind of Christianity filled with all sorts of bogus claims. This is how documents like the Didache, the Pseudopigraphia (the false books of the New Testament), and the Gnostic Gospels arose. They came out of confusion: creating a false Christ unlike the Christ of the Apostles and their scriptures. It was confusion manifest by the corruption of the Gospel message. Instead of a Christianity characterized by submission to Jesus and his word, a type of Christianity formed that was focused on rituals and the supposed infallibility of the leadership of the church. The second generation church that rose during the second century seems to reflect much of the tradition we see in Galatia. They were much more focused on the flesh than the Spirit. Debates began to arise. The church left the focus on manifesting the power of God trading it for "intellectualism." In this sense, intellectualism is the focus on mental ability to understand the Christian faith and not focusing on the power to manifest the faith as the Apostles. This is what happens today: the "top" scholars of the Christian faith offer their opinions about Christianity but fail to operate in it. Most, and we say most Christian scholars, argue that Christianity, mainly derived from the scriptures, does not work and is in much need of revision. This is why they are called "Critical Scholars" the word critical connotes their affinity for criticism. They come from the position that they have the power to question, particularly the text of scripture; and this is not always to discern its meaning. What we see today in the church, is a huge discontinuity between what scripture says about the early church and today's church, is because most of us do not follow the stream of the church of scripture we follow some other stream based on the flesh. It is difficult to ascertain the exact physical name and location of this stream, but we are able to show the spiritual continuity and show examples of the significant manifestations of this continuity over the centuries. We must remember that the fact that we have record of this church does not make it the true church that followed the scriptures. For example, if the only record we have of the Christian church in a thousand years consisted of some of the most famous Christians (T.D. Jakes, Joel Osteen, Creflo Dollar, and Eddie Long); people would conceive a Pentecostal/Word of Faith type of Christianity. But they do not comprise the whole of Christian thought. They disagree with many Christians and many Christians disagree with them. Let us discuss what happened in the second century.

Church Fathers?

Jesus said something very interesting in the scriptures: "But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted" (Matthew 23:8-12). This is a hard scripture to swallow. It states that no one is to be called father upon the earth. We assume this is meant to be interpreted in another sense because of the context. The rest of the verses all speak of religious titles being the main issue in this passage. And in each case Christ is suggesting that that the only spiritual parent we have is God himself. He is the source for our development. Also, in the New Testament, we have no record of any of the Christians referring to an apostle or any other preacher in this manner. The closest reference we have to this is Paul himself calling Timothy his son or saying that the people of Corinth were his sons. This, however, does not mean that they referred to him as father. As can be seen, they called him Paul or brother Paul. The people did not want there to be any confusion over who was the true leader of Christianity, Jesus Christ. When we begin to call church leaders "father," it becomes difficult for them to remember that they too are sons of God (see "Flattering Titles" and "Exercise Lordship" for more on this).

Later churches of the second century did not follow this trend. This is why we have statements like this: "wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church"²¹. This is a statement made by the bishop of Antioch, Ignatius. The trend among these churches, at least beginning in the early third century, was to refer to the bishops as "papa"—or better known to us, pope. In other words, after the title bishop received prominence above others, the bishop (pope) was the chief among Christians within the different cities. As such, the bishop received honor near to that of Jesus Christ himself. Statements like we see above are dangerous because they sound too much like scripture: "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:20). Christians are to come together for Jesus not for the bishop. There were also presbyters (also called priests) and deacons who served under the bishops. As we suggested earlier, scripture does not make a distinction between bishops, elders/presbyters, and pastors (see "As In All Churches (Transformation)"). So why is it that we see this trend arise? Why is it that the titles elder, pastor, apostle, or even prophet did not gain status? These titles are used more in the New Testament. Bishop is only used four times in scripture. We also have actual examples of prophets, apostles, and evangelists in the New Testament. There are no examples of bishops. What transpired between the conclusion of scripture and the beginning of the second generation church for there to be such distinction? We want to explore this question here. To understand this question, we analyze different bishops from the second until the fourth century, which should provide us with enough information to draw some conclusions as to what happened.

Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons 2nd Century

Irenaeus is a very intriguing figure. He is notable for publishing many works that framed the tradition of the church for several years. Some of his works were highly polemical (aggressively controversial), he argued against Gnosticism and other heretical traditions. Many of his arguments defined the orthodoxy of the church. His main thrust was that his tradition extended back to the Apostles by way of his supposed mentor Polycarp (Polycarp is said to have been a student of John, the apostle). The problem is that Irenaeus adopted a structure for the church, as well as church doctrine, contrary to the one advocated by the New Testament. Let us look at some of the things he said that were in direct contradiction to what the New Testament advocates. Irenaeus said:

the tradition of the apostles, made clear in all the world, can be clearly seen in every church by those who wish to behold the truth. We can enumerate those who were established by the apostles as bishops in the churches, and their successors down to our time (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies [Latin: Adversus haereses] (c. 175-185 CE), 3.3.1)

Irenaeus presented the theory that the Apostles somehow passed on all of their power to the bishops. The bishops were now the new leaders of the church. Where did he get this idea from? It was certainly not from the New Testament. The Apostles were "Master builders" in the church and the church had to continue beyond the first century. Why then would there be no more Apostles? It is hard to provide a historical reason but there are clear spiritual connections with him and others that the Apostles preached against in the New Testament. There seems to be spiritual continuity with him and what we saw earlier in Galatians. He identified himself with the Apostles not by their writings but by their traditions. Paul warned the Galatians that if he himself came again with another message to disregard it, meaning that the message of scripture trumps any apostolic tradition. Of course there are other times when Paul says to follow the traditions he taught, but he wrote to them so that they would know the test of those traditions. Any tradition that contradicted the written word (the tradition of God) was to be disregarded. This is why we have books like Galatians, and 2 Thessalonians—Paul first preached there and had to write to them so they would not misconstrue what he had said. The written document attested and checked what they believed they heard. Furthermore, we do not know what apostolic tradition Irenaeus actually had. We have to conclude that his notion of the "callings" of God (prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists etc.) was flawed and was not an apostolic tradition for there is no mention of "succession" authority to the bishops (see "Apostles").

Additionally, Irenaeus, as well as the other bishops, were not supporters of prophecy. Sunquist argues, "prophecy continued to be exercised in Carthage and North Africa long after it appears to have died down—or been suppressed—elsewhere in the western Roman world ... Irenaeus ... knew of the practice of prophecy in the church but certainly did not emphasize it"²². Why not? Paul encourages the practice of prophecy in the church. 1 Corinthians 14 says that it is the gift that everyone should covet (14:39). That is a strong command. Paul does not say that about any other gift. It is because it truly shows the power of God over the powers of Satan. It was the means by which the first gospel, the one preached to the Jews of old, was established. Yet, we find that it was not emphasized by a man claiming to be in the tradition of the Apostles. He even specifically claims to be in the tradition of Peter and Paul (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies [Latin: Adversus haereses] (c. 175-185 CE), 3.3.2-4). So why the distinction? Let us go further—exploring the beliefs of the other bishops before we draw our conclusions.

Ignatius Bishop of Antioch 2nd Century

Here again is another believer in apostolic succession in a different sense than Irenaeus. Sunquist notes that he was not as concerned to be associated with Peter and Paul's ministry in Rome as he was of their ministry in Antioch. He had a "mystical" understanding of the role of bishop. The bishop for him was the head of the Christian community. He was the one who had the power to administer the Lord's Supper and other things. He believed in, as it is now called, a kind of transubstantiation (the bread of communion actually became the flesh of Jesus), he said, "the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ who suffered for us"²³. A bishop would also administer baptism and this is what he believed about that, "Jesus submitted to baptism so that by his passion he might sanctify the water"²⁴. The body and blood of the Lord are food? Christ made water holy? These ideas indicate a major shift from New Testament doctrine. Here are some statements he made:

Plainly therefore we ought to regard the bishop as the Lord Himself. (Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians 6:1)

Therefore as the Lord did nothing without the Father, [being united with Him], either by Himself or by the Apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and the presbyters. (Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians 7:1)

Be obedient to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ was to the Father [according to the flesh], and as the Apostles were to Christ and to the Father, that there may be union both of flesh and of spirit. (Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians 13:2)

In like manner let all men respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, even as they should respect the bishop as being a type of the Father and the presbyters as the council of God and as the college of Apostles. Apart from these there is not even the name of a church. (Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallesians 3:1)

Follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles; and to the deacons pay respect, as to God's commandment. (Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnans 8:1)

He that honoureth the bishop is honoured of God; he that doeth aught without the knowledge of the bishop rendereth service to the devil. (Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnans 9:1)

The bishop is now on the level of Christ? Paul, on the other hand, did not follow in this idea: "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ" (1 Corinthians 11:1), "And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another" (1 Corinthians 4:6). Moreover, "For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me. And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure" (2 Corinthians 12:6-7).

Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building. (1 Corinthians 3:5-9)

With Ignatius, the bishop is not only the follower of the Apostles, he is the embodiment of power—the focus of the Christian community. Salvation seems to stem from him for Christians. He has a mystical quality even though there is no record of them producing any miracles. In fact, like Irenaeus, Ignatius was not a fan of prophecy. He constantly had conflicts with those claiming to have prophetic gifts.²² The problem with Ignatius is that he brought mysticism to things that have no power. He deified governmental power and structure in the community (governments was just one of gifts listed in 1 Corinthians 12). This made him no different from the Egyptians or the Chinese who assumed that their emperors were gods. By believing that the bishop was the mediator between the church and God, he assumed the position and status of the man Christ Jesus. As a result, the embodiment of Christ became the bishop giving him the power to stand between the community and God. Nowhere does the Bible validate this belief. The bishop stands under Christ the same way everyone else does. It is clear that even though he was the bishop of Antioch that he did not follow the scriptures of those who preached at Antioch.

Clement Bishop of Rome (2nd Century)

Our main points thus far have been established. There was a shift in the doctrine of the church to validate gifts that do not require the immediate interaction with the Holy Ghost or gifts that can easily be manipulated to serve the end of Satan, government. Secondly, we saw that as these beliefs became prominent in the church at the relegation of other gifts that the prominent gifts received divine significance. The bishops began to assume the role of power in the church community even exalting themselves to the place of Jesus Christ. Clement, the bishop of Rome, lays out the next piece of data that became relevant. If the bishop is the head of the particular church community, then there must be a bishop who unites all the church communities. Monarchial leadership came to be popular with Clement. Before him, church communities had power spread throughout but after him the bishop became the focus. Although we do not know much about him, Clement was a kind of Episcopal secretary²². He argued for the unification of the church and consolidation of its power in the force of the bishops. Not everyone at the time agreed that this was the way that the churches should have been organized. He is important to us because he represents the turn the church took towards Rome. The Roman Catholic Church, beginning as a party, a sect within the Christian community, argues that Clement was either the second or third bishop after Peter. Peter, an Apostle who also called himself elder—never bishop, was supposed to be the first. As was explained by Irenaeus, the Catholic party was supposed to be aligned with the physical traditions of the Apostles. Since, as they said, Peter was in Rome and was the leader of the Roman church. And since Peter was the head of the church, the one Christ chose to be the rock on which the church was built; Rome became the seat of the church of God. It was the place where the authority of the whole church rested. Whoever followed Peter from there would also be the head of the church. Roman Catholics believe that the Pope is the follower of Peter, he is in line with all of the men chosen from the time of Peter until now. There is no proof of this whatsoever. In addition to the fact that they have no such evidence for this in the scriptures, Roman Catholics themselves have debated this lineage. Catholics have debated the validity and power of the Papacy. No real agreement on the power of the pope came until the rulings of Vatican I. The point is the same: Rome became important for the church because of this man's influence and now the largest group called Christian in the world does not call itself the Church at Rome. This name would be more biblical. Instead, because the city itself took on divine significance they call themselves the Roman Church. This should come as a shock because Rome has done some hellish things throughout history. It was a Roman cross that killed our Lord. But for many this does not matter and we will see why as we move further along in our journey through history.

Sylvester Bishop of Rome (4th Century)

Around the 4th century, The Church took an entirely new turn. Before this point, it was subject to persecution from many different fronts. First, there was persecution from the Jews. Second, there was persecution from Rome. Afterwards, there was persecution from other nations. All of this changed when the church joined hands with the Roman state. At that point, Christians were not subject to political persecution, they became a state sponsored religion. Although Constantine declared freedom of religion for all people with the Edict of Milan, it was clear that he particularly favored Christianity. During this time, the church took its biggest leap away from its biblical foundations towards a compromised lifeless religious system. Sylvester the bishop of Rome best illustrates this. Sylvester exemplifies the change that took place in the churches acceptability. At first, they were struggling to hold property but now they were living in palaces:

Thank God for the Emperor! repeated Bishop Sylvester to himself as he retreated to the cool of his palace. Formerly the residence of Fausta, the Emperor's second wife, Constantine had donated it to the Bishop of Rome. There Sylvester reclined on a large couch. It also was a gift from the Emperor ... and the servants ... everything in sight was from the Emperor—even the silk brocade robes the Bishop wore ... [Constantine] had approved plans for magnificent shrines to be built in Bethlehem, the birthplace of Christ, and in Jerusalem at the site of the Holy Sepulcher. Rome was to be adorned with three large basilicas: one for Peter, one for Paul, and one for the Bishop of Rome.²⁵

What happened? It seems that a people who first called themselves pilgrims and strangers finally found a home, a big one too. But let us be clear; the people were not prospering, the leaders were. Sylvester is a shining example of how all the dogma that had been building up from the 2nd to the 4th century could allow a Christian to accept such excess. When the bishop becomes exalted above the people, then it becomes necessary to make sure that the bishop lives above the people as well. He does not need a house he needs a palace. Linen or cotton robes would not do for him, he must have silk. He cannot clean up his own house he needs servants for that. We can find many analogies for this in today's church, which is quite sad. The problem is that people claiming to hold to the traditions—in every way—of the Apostles no longer wanted to be like the Apostles. Paul said that he believed Apostles were a spectacle to both angels and people (1 Corinthians 4:9). The new Church did not agree with this; they did not want to be the "offscouring" of the world: they wanted acceptability. They wanted to be stars, honored and revered by everyone (see "Flattering Titles"). The only way to do that was to be liked by the ruling powers of the society. Christians were ready and willing to make that leap. This is why the creation of a state-church was inevitable. Here, we also see the rise of church buildings as important places. Places of worship became more than just places of worship. They were worshipped themselves. The places became more powerful than the people in them. The reason is because of the fact that the bishop was so important. His palace was important and the place where he ruled was important too. So far, the first four hundred years of the church was characterized by steady divinization of physical things (see "Images of Jesus"). First, there was the bishop, the leader. Second, or almost at the same time, was the deification of the "traditions" or the rituals that many claimed were Apostolic. Third, there was the place of worship itself that received divine significance; first it was the city of Rome that became theologically central. Afterwards, it was the actual church building, as we saw with Sylvester, which became synonymous with spiritual power. None of these things are justified by what we know God says in the scriptures.

THE CHURCH OF CONSTANTINE

It is difficult to say that there was a "Constantinian Church." The term itself is contradictory. Constantine was not a Christian. He worshipped the Roman gods until his death. In fact, he was not baptized (a common way of being known as Christian) until he was on his deathbed. He was a warrior-king who fought many battles and did many evil things, so how could we associate him with a church? As much as a contradiction as the concept is, it actually happened. History has witnessed the rise of a Constantinian Church. As we described earlier, Constantine was a supporter of the Catholic Party and thereby was a supporter of the reigning Christian Church at that time. The problem is that he was much more than a supporter he became essential to that church. It existed in communion with him and his image. It spread across the world as a product of its connection to Constantine and we have seen its effects throughout history. This is why the church was able to commit such atrocities because it became one with an emperor and his empire. Whenever the church is involved in empire, it must be involved in imperialism. Imperialism thrives by ruling others through conquest. If these two, the church and empire, become one, then the church will take on the nature of its companion. It too will spread through conquest.

More than anything, Constantine wanted political power. He was sure to do anything to attain it. The very reason why he embraced Christianity was because he claimed to have seen a symbol through which he would conquer. This sounds nothing like Jesus. Why would a man who set out to conquer the world through turning the other cheek commission someone to conquer through violence? He would not. But that is not how the Christians of the day saw it. They believed that Constantine was a man of God. Even though he did things like this:

Publicly he continued to mix Christian piety with devotion to the high solar deity, the Invincible Sun, which had become popular with the emperors of the previous century. When he declared in 321 that Sunday be set apart as a special day of worship, it is not clear whether it was the Invincible Sun or Jesus whom he intended to honor ... the same emperor had to accommodate the devotion of the Roman gods if only for political purposes.²⁶

Christians most likely accepted this because "their religion was identified as the favored imperial faith, their clergy for the first time exempt from imperial taxes"²⁷. Christianity had become secularized. It united with the system that had so thoroughly persecuted previously. Churches were no longer places that housed "peculiar people" but regular citizens. People who could cope with everyday life and embrace society's tenets; the results of such acceptance were almost predictable:

As churches became more visible and accepted in the civil arena, they absorbed more influences from the world around them. Periodic persecution and martyrdom had played a significant role in attracting many to the Christian faith, but they had also helped maintain a distinctive Christian identity that set Christians apart from those around them. Now Christian identity seemed to require less of a break with previous lifestyles and even religious practices than it had once demanded. We begin to see church leaders addressing questions about Christians consulting soothsayers and local healers for problems they were facing, for instance. Amulets that were sold by local magicians to ward off evil spirits were noted as being popular among some of the Christians in various cities. Prior to the year 300 there had been no consensus among Christians concerning the date on which to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. Some argued for a spring date, but others suggested December 25. That latter date was the day celebrated in honor of the Invincible Sun, who had grown in imperial favor through the third century. Through the course of the fourth century most Christians came to accept December 25 as the celebration of the birth of Jesus, integrating elements of this solar monotheism with Christianity. Imperial embrace brought ... new forms of imperial domination. Episcopal appointments in major sees [a seat of a bishop's office, power, or authority] now came under the emperor's scrutiny.²⁸

Force of violence became part of the churches practice: "The only means bishops had to enforce church discipline or maintain church teaching prior to 315 was through excommunication. To this traditional instrument Constantine now added ... imperial edicts backed up by troops."²⁹ The church was not the same any longer. The salt had lost its savor. These people were no longer the people of God they were simply people. All of this happened because leaven (sin) was in the church from the beginning. From the beginning of Christ's teaching onward, people embraced the parts of his message that most appealed to their sensibilities. Some like John and Paul accepted all of what Jesus said. Others like Judas, Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Timothy 2:17-18) distorted the faith and taught many Christians false doctrines. Over time, during the 2nd century, people like Marcion arose who taught doctrines completely contrary to the doctrine of the scriptures whereas others people taught tainted doctrines infused with secular concepts of authority and piety: our list above will serve as examples. What we see is the rise of little falsehoods to full blown anti-Christian practice operating just 200 years after the churches formation.

For the next 1200 years the church spread like wildfire. Much of the spread came from conquest and some came from doctrinal persuasion. The dilemma is that the church that was being spread was a tainted church. It was a church that had lost touch with its founder, Jesus Christ. Although it still claimed him as its founder, they were not following his commands. Many idolatrous concepts became Christian and therefore Christianity became a tradition filled religion. It was no longer the power of God unto salvation but a philosophy for living life in the world; it was just another religion, it was just another way for people get along in the world, a tradition. The church, however, still needed to have a means to reach its people. If it could no longer show its power through signs and wonders (they had rejected prophecy as a practice long ago) they had to convince the people that this tradition was necessary for salvation. By the 12th and 13th centuries, people believed that the "priests and bishops administered the rites that granted individuals access to eternal life"³⁰. The church was expositing a doctrine that human authority was necessary for salvation. All of this led to a desire for change among the people. A new movement was coming that would combat this tendency. They resisted the institution of the church and the papacy but did not deal with the primary issue, the foundation of church, built on rejection of the Word of God.

PROTESTANT REFORMATION OR BUFFET CHRISTIANITY?

After centuries of darkness under the autocracy of the Roman Church, a glimmer of light shined in the 1500's. Many people, including some in the Roman institution (Erasmus of Rotterdam), chose to abandon many of the doctrines of the church. People were fed up with things like indulgences, penance, and papal domination. This time is known to us as one of reformation and particularly called the Protestant Reformation. The fundamental basis of the Modern Church and all modern protestant doctrine has its origin from the questions that arose from this time period. Here we note three thinkers we deem the most influential to help us make our overall case: Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, and John Calvin. These three men serve as major antecedents for most of all the protestant movements that we know today. Thus it is imperative that we understand what they believed and why what they taught has led to the squalid condition of today's church. The result of what we shall find is that they, like many others, allowed the leaven of tradition into their doctrines. Coming out of the context of Catholicism it makes sense that they would allow some Catholic doctrine into their teachings. We begin with Luther.

Martin Luther is best known being one of the most significant reformers. His supposed posting of the Ninety-Five Theses on the Wittenberg door served as a clarion call for all of the Christians desiring change. He was a rebel in the eyes of the Roman institution and he fled for his life as a result of his beliefs. He was a great man and scholar but there are some problems that he had that tainted his theology. Even though we admire him for his courage, and his faith, the things he taught never got the church to where it should be. His doctrine reformed the church but did not transform it. Instead, he exemplified what we call a buffet kind of doctrinal change. He picked the certain parts of the theology he liked and left the others. Martin Luther believed in consubstantiation—different from transubstantiation, because he did not believe that at the Lord's Supper Jesus left Heaven to come into the bread and wine. Rather, he taught that the Lord's presence was in the bread and wine but also in Heaven at the same time. In all reality, this is but a slight variation from the doctrine taught by the Roman Catholics because it holds to the emphasis of the sacraments over other things involved in the Supper. It brings the focus on the actual articles making them inherently holy—meaning that if one of them fell to the ground that the Lord himself had fallen to the ground. Some may disagree but we argue that this is simply a remnant from his Catholic past. Luther argued the doctrine of Solo Scriptura against the Roman church holding that only scripture was necessary for revelation. But he was very clear that certain scriptures did not count as the Word of God. He completely disqualified James as canonical arguing that works were completely unimportant to the gospel. When he said that someone was saved by faith alone, he meant that faith is all that counted in the eyes of God and that works were completely meaningless towards the end of righteousness. In one respect he is correct, faith justifies us without the works of the Law, but even Paul said that we should show a pattern of "good works" (Titus 2:7). His belief in his doctrine overruled the power of scripture to challenge him, which comes from the Catholic belief of tradition and Scripture. He argued that tradition was negligible but then at the same time argued that his own theology should guide what counted as scripture. Finally, Luther—even while believing in Solo Scriptura—believed in infant baptism. This doctrine connects him Zwingli and Calvin together. All of them believed that an infant was saved for life if he or she was baptized. This is a doctrine that cannot be found in scripture. There is no correlation in the New Testament. The Old Covenant necessitated the circumcision of babies so that they would be included. The New Covenant, however, is different because it requires belief. Believing in Jesus grants a person access to eternal life. Scripture says we are justified by faith; however, Luther deviated from his own doctrine in this respect because he held to a remnant of Catholic teaching. Again, it was an attempt by the church to circumvent the need for real faith—they went to the Old Covenant to live after the flesh. Luther was a great man—no doubt—but his teachings did not extricate the body from the bondage it was under because of its contaminated connections.

Ulrich Zwingli demonstrates the influence of the traditions of the church as well, especially with respect to issues of authority. Zwingli differed from Luther in that he believed that the Lord's Supper was purely symbolic. Yet, he and Luther agreed on the utility of Infant Baptism. For him, this practice was essential Christian doctrine. Beyond this, Zwingli believed that the church and the state could be one. He participated in persecuting many Anabaptists and others who disagreed with his doctrine. Killing people in the name of the Lord is in direct contrast to the doctrine of the Apostles. If people disagree with right doctrine, one must pray for them. This is only recourse we have. Clearly, Zwingli disagreed with this and this is why he died in battle physically fighting for what he believed. Again, this represents another vestige from Roman tradition. John Calvin, similar to Zwingli and Luther, taught and believed in Infant Baptism. Somewhat like Luther, he emphasized the doctrine of predestination—that Christians had been chosen by God, regardless of their will, to be Christian (see "Doctrine of Election"). He interests us because he also continued the rule of tradition in the church as he also attempted to be a political ruler as well as a Christian leader. He supported a state church in Geneva, which led to epithets that regarded him as a ruthless dictator³¹. These three thinkers interest us because of one primary issue: they—despite their power in causing protest against Roman authority—still ended up bringing Roman Catholic doctrine into the Protestant Movement. The dilemma is that this doctrine makes the church the temple and the church leader a priest. Consonant with this perspective, the priest is necessary to perform sacred rituals, in this case, baptism. Baptism itself became more powerful than the beliefs about baptism. With such power, the baptizer also attains power and the place where the baptizer baptizes becomes powerful as well. This returns the church back to the Law of Moses, which relied on human authority to achieve a relationship with God, particularly the High Priest. For the church, that authority is Jesus Christ who took away the need for an earthly, human authority.

The state of European Christianity bespeaks the lack of change these men brought to the church. Most churches in Europe are as ritualistic as their Roman forbearers. The state-churches these men created thrive. But many Europeans choose not to be Christian anymore. The Reformation has done more for the rest of the world than it has for modern Europe. This is why Pentecostalism and other Charismatic traditions are gaining so much speed in these regions because they pump life into the traditions of the church. Other than this, the churches are, for the most part, dead. For example, the Arch Bishop of Canterbury, the head of the Anglican Church in England, supported the ordination of an openly gay bishop. How could a lively and powerful church even consider such a thing? The answer is quite simple; they are neither lively nor powerful. They do not function on the present help of God's presence through the Holy Spirit. Instead, they operate on the guidelines of previous decrees and beliefs of the church, in addition to the current accepted ideals of our society. The church does not necessarily stand on the precepts of God but on the highest ideas and teachings of humanity. By focusing on promoting humanity's ideals, the church loses sight of God; as such, it is both dead and powerless. After the Reformation, people began to question both and Protestant and Roman Churches authority. People were getting tired of the church holding the power. They chose to rebel against its structure. Beyond the Papacy, the church itself came under fire for claiming power over against "regular" people. Luther may have preached "the priesthood of all believers" but that somehow did not translate into making people believe that all the church was one—that the ministers were not above them. This all led to the Enlightenment.

THE ENLIGHTENMENT AND THE DEMISE OF FAITH

Mistaking Darkness for Light

The coming of a "new age" in the form of the Enlightenment gave many folks hope that the church's reign over humanity was over in the 18th century. The churches in Europe were coming under question from the people. They were fed up with religious wars, they were tired of the church's power and they wanted to question everything. Philosophers and secular Theologians became the new powerbrokers in the society. Rationality was the rule of the day; people were attempting to question all structures from the rule of logic. The issue with logic is that there is no set definition of what it actually is. And worse, logic is grounded in a human being's ability to understand the world. Ascertaining the life of God cannot function from this perspective. After all, God said his thoughts and ways were higher than ours. But philosophers, teachers, and others were unabated in their quest to reason their way to conclusions about the world. To their credit, questioning these institutions was a good thing. It led to many scientific and social developments. People were finally asking the right questions and learning that most of the things in the society that were conventional made no sense. Their attempts, however, to understand the world led to the demise of their faith. They exchanged logic with belief and believed that their rationality was unbiased and objective. They forgot that they were culturally and socially influenced which affected their conclusions and believed that their findings were absolute truth. If there was truth to be found, reason was the only way to attain it. Thus, those that could reason the best were not superstitious or deluded; they were considered bearers of light. These are the ones who know what is real and what is false. Satan took his opportunity during this time, using their pride, to enter into the discussion and bring darkness but making people believe it was light. It ultimately led to the belief that believing in God brought one into darkness and ignorance; a rational person believes in real things—a rational person is enlightened only believing in what he or she can touch, taste, see, feel or hear.

Immanuel Kant, Hegel, D.W.F. Schleirmacher, David Hume, John Locke, all of these men represent this kind of thinking. They all questioned the church—its point of view—from the perspective of rational thinking. Each one of these attempted to look at scripture and retell the story of scripture from another point of view, logic. Their attempts led the church to retreat from the broader academic world. Academic theologians, instead of pastors, became the official spokespeople for real doctrine. Trust in logic, instead of faith in God, led to a distinction that still stands today: the Jesus of history and a Christ of faith. The Jesus of history is the real Jesus, the one the academic theologians tell us about and the Christ of faith is the Jesus of fairytales, the one we hear about in church. This is what is called a public/private dichotomy. Belief in a Jesus of history, a man who may have done miracles but was not God is the public Jesus taught in our schools and universities. The Jesus who is God is our private Jesus the one we discuss in our churches. Due to the Enlightenment, people became tired of the state bearing the name of God. All state action became separated from the church and thus the modern liberal democratic society was born. Therefore, the public became synonymous with atheistic beliefs that emphasize pluralism. We must remember that people were attempting to live their lives without faith, without God, through reason; this is why all of this developed. And eventually men influenced by this kind of thinking founded America separating the public and the private—that belief in God was a kind of superstition.³² Liberal society thrives on the doctrine of the democracy as sovereign. To maintain its preeminence, democracy must also relegate all religious beliefs to the realm of the private so as to remain the prevailing belief. Hauerwas notes that,

In countries where we have freedom of religion it is very difficult to make serious reference to God in the public arena. Of course we are not prohibited from confessing our belief in God in as long as we make the appropriate social gestures that we understand such belief has no implications for our fellow citizens who do not hold such beliefs ... Charles Taylor notes that the crucial change in modernity is that "even in societies where a majority of people profess some belief in God or a divine principle, no one sees it as obvious that there is a God."³³

Hauerwas believes that the Enlightenment project resolved to live on the justification of "rationality qua rationality," which is another way of claiming that rationality justifies itself. It is the ethic to which we as people in this society should appeal. The American experiment is an excellent example of the Enlightenment project at work in a society, George Will proposes:

A central purpose of America's political arrangements is the subordination of religion to the political order, meaning the primacy of democracy. The founders, like Locke before them, wished to tame and domesticate religious passions of the sort that convulsed Europe. They aimed to do so not by establishing religion, but by establishing a commercial republic—capitalism. They aimed to submerge people's turbulent energies in self-interested pursuit of material comforts. Hence religion is to be perfectly free as long as it is perfectly private—mere belief—but it must bend to the political will (law) as regards conduct. Thus Jefferson held that "operations of the mind" are not subject to legal coercion, but that "acts of the body" are. Mere belief, said Jefferson, in one god or 20, neither picks one's pockets nor breaks one's legs. Jefferson's distinction rests on Locke's principle ... that religion can be useful or can be disruptive, but its truth cannot be established by reason. Hence Americans would not "establish" religion. Rather, by guaranteeing free exercise of religions, they would make religions private and subordinate.³⁴

The American ideals are offspring of Enlightenment "theology." The twist is that this kind of "theology" was bereft of any particular god. As Lord Herbert of Cherbury, a major Enlightenment thinker, demonstrated, the Enlightenment ethic sacrificed the specific gods of different religious beliefs comporting that all are the same. Each particular religion basically posits the same thing: all human beings believe in some kind of ultimate concern. And one discovers the truth about all religions by using reason. For Lord Herbert of Cherbury, logic became the mechanism by which belief should be judged. Thus, the logical conclusion of one's evaluation of religion should be that all religion is the same, we all believe in the same god. Subsequently, beliefs that made reference to Jesus Christ as Lord could not be considered reasonable because it places contention to the lordship of Thor or any other god. For wherever contention arises, there is also potential for friction, which can lead to fighting and war. All beliefs need to be sacrificed for the greater good so that all people can live in peace. Public religion, from this perspective, has to be neutralized, taking all of the exclusivities out of it for a democratic religion. This kind of religion is supposed to be the American ideal. It is the reason why the existence of God is not obvious. Our major concern is not supposed to be worship of God for the purpose of a relationship but having a God who gives one a good moral identity.

Thomas Jefferson, a chief architect of this country, had much of this in mind when he endeavored to establish this nation. This is why he made a Bible excised of every single reference to Jesus' divinity including the resurrection. His influence troubles us today because we still do not whole-heartedly believe in Jesus' resurrection much less the miracles he performed. Jefferson's Bible was meant to be devoid of superstition; only the parts of the New Testament that abided by "reason" were to remain. Despite the pluralistic and quasi-atheistic influence, the country still had a very strong Christian presence. Most of the features of our government involve some sort of Christian practice (swearing over the Bible, saying prayers in Congress). Yet, the seeds were planted very early on. The spirits (private/atheistic Christianity, unbelief, tradition (trust in the authority of men)) had already been introduced at the founding of this country; there is no doubt that it will develop into a more pernicious evil over time. Christianity is irrational, in a sense—but not in the sense they claimed. For they made it appear that Christian thought had to be confined to the home or the church. It was separate from the public arena. The reigning theology cannot be any particular faith. It has to be a civic faith: a faith that induces a sense of social conviction, one that binds the citizen to the nation-state. Christianity had to be modified to suit the new state. So the notion that accompanied the faith was that it had to be kept in a certain place, away from the real world safe and sound in our personal theologies.

In the end, the whole world was affected by this questioning; this exchange of faith for logic reverberated and was spread throughout the world. We are therefore infected by this system that relies on unbelief to know God. We simply do not worry ourselves with knowing God as much as we are concerned with knowing what God can do for us. Belief in a god is welcomed in our world, indeed, it is encouraged for it makes one a better person. This is not what Christianity is about, this is not why Christ died for the ungodly. The challenge of producing a logical Christianity led to many theological responses. The Protestant and Roman Churches responded to this challenge hoping that reason could prove the existence of God. Many theologians argued Natural Theology, a belief that the existence of God was proven by creation (How can there be a watch without a watch-maker?). Others attempted to show God's reality through reason. But the fight got worse because biblical theologians began questioning the very foundations of faith. On into the late 1800's and early 1900's, theologians began to question the authorship of scripture and even the authority of the text itself. It all began with questioning the church's power. So the church was driven farther away from the world of reality, the world of reason and was limited to the world of myth. Responses from the church relied on the church's witness. People argued that they had personal experience of God. Logic would not fail them for they had been able to touch, taste, see, hear and feel God.

The task of presenting a logical Christianity overcame the church. Many people just gave up on Christianity. Atheism, Deism, Agnosticism, began to become more popular, and people were beginning to believe that Christians did not have the answers like never before. Many churches themselves lost faith in their ability to adequately address the questions offered by the world. We saw the rise of many radical movements, people resigned to believe that the Bible did not offer truth and believing in Jesus as a good teacher made one a good Christian. Others believed that all that was necessary was doing good works: feeding the poor, clothing the naked, and those kinds of things. Still others went to explore other religions. The power of faith had departed. But there was another response: people still wanted to have an experience with God. They were tired of the arrogance of Enlightenment thought and its conclusions. But motivated by their unbelief they sought out to find a visceral God, a God who showed himself in signs and wonders—a God who was real to them in every way.

DRAFT V2010-06-28T4:47:26 PM