The Problems that Christianity has Created for Itself

It’s amazing how blind anyone can become because of fear to see what may be too alarming or disturbing.  It makes little difference whether you are knowledgeable in the Scriptures and devout in your religious tradition.   It is very easy to become conditioned to certain rote comebacks, explanations of scripture and parroting the same answers to an objector.   Listening to the Democrats during the impeachment process in Congress and now before the Senate is an excellent example of those who have an agenda that will not be altered by the facts.   The same problem exists in the religious environment, as well.   Human beings reach a point of decision, whether made for them under a system or after arduous study, that can not be easily altered.  It reminds me of a High School friend who was so certain that he evaluated the Geometry problem without error that the answer given in the teacher’s edition had to be wrong.   His problem was not the answer to the equation.  His problem was setting up the wrong equation.   Likewise, so many people do not even understand the problem, not to mention the solution to the problem.   In many cases, solutions are given to what they believe to be the true problem and they know the math from the equation is absolutely correct. 

One such problem is the assumption that the church is something into which people enter and have membership in order to be saved.    Now, which part of this statement is incorrect?   What is problem?  The equation is wrong to assume that what needs correction is that the church building is not the church.  The build this straw-man of the error to tear down would solve nothing because while it is a problem, it is no problem that needs solving.   So, dismiss all of your patented answers about the building not being the church.   

I thought I knew the answer to this problem years ago when I would teach that the church is a collection of saved people that did certain acts of obedience to be saved.    All one had to do, then, is determine what one needed to do to be saved and we have the answer to who are the saved and therefore, part of the church.  This is not the problem that needs solving.  The problem is assuming that the church is something that we have to get in and stay in as if it were an institution/organization that one is baptized into (universal body of saved) and joins (local church membership).  

This religious thought promotes the theory that “church” has two different meanings, depending on the context.   One is the proper noun that defines a body of saved people from all time and locations and the other is defined as local church organizations without affiliation to denominational ties. 

However, we need to back up and reaccess the use and meaning of the word “church.”   I’ll not spend an exorbitant amount of time addressing its definition, here.   For our purpose, the Greek word that is translated “church” is one that describes a class of people; literally, a called-out people.   That definition is repeatedly used throughout the New Testament.  When referring to people living in a region or city, it is still the called-out individuals in those specified areas.   The problem is that human beings have created a substitution for our Greek word (ekklesia), that fits the institutional concept supported by Roman Catholics and the Church of England, which in turn dispenses the sacraments and blessings on the people.  Clearly, the church becomes something other than the people.   

Still, there is another element to this problem that can be explained historically.  When Protestant influence translated the word ekklesia “congregation” when speaking of the called-out in a city, they were responding to the heretical idea that the Roman Catholic Church was the church of Christ.   They were responding to the abuse of power in the institution that controlled the propagation of all doctrine and true teachers of the church.   The real problem was not power and control of religious life in the hands of one institution but in the hands of any amount of institutional/sectarian control.     It makes no difference whether we are discussing one huge organization over which a hierarchy rules or many organizations over which local bishops rule.    The size and degree of power is not the problem.   Further, the word “church” adequately describes the organizational power and control that King James and his brothers wanted.   But, the “called-out” never described such an organization, large or small.   

Once we accepted the idea of the institutional church, whether applied universally (like Roman Catholicism) or locally (local church rule), we conditioned ourselves to think that the church is one thing and the people are another.   The answer to the problem is not getting rid of the powerful universal institutution in favor of local autonomous power in congregations.    The answer is understanding the problem of “rule” that Jesus taught against and the true nature of the the “called-out.” 

Once we accept any deviation from the divine plan, any problem created from the deviation cannot be fixed by reforming the system, or correcting abuses.    Such so-called “solutions” are short-lived, at best and usually create other problem.   In an effort to be Biblical, we find laws and rules that fit this institutional plan and if we can preach loud and long enough by the use of proof-texting, we can validate our right to exist and in some cases advocate that we are the only one that has a right to exist.

Consequently, we have created a host of problems from this human innovation for which there is no biblical antidote.   So many “church issues” would never exist if we didn’t support the church institution from the start.   All attempts to find a solution to those church issues are bound to fail.  The ony solution is to start from scratch and take a step further back in accessing the real problem.   Until we do this, there will always be religious division.     

It’s amazing how blind anyone can become because of fear to see what may be too alarming or disturbing.  It makes little difference whether you are knowledgeable in the Scriptures and devout in your religious tradition.   It is very easy to become conditioned to certain rote comebacks, explanations of scripture and parroting the same answers to an objector.   Listening to the Democrats during the impeachment process in the Congress and now before the Senate is an excellent example of those who have an agenda that will not be altered   by the facts.   The same problem exists in  the religious environment, as well.   Human beings reach a point of decision, whether made for them under a system or after arduous study, that can not be easily altered.  It reminds me of a High School friend who was so certain that  he evaluated the Geometry problem without error that the answer given in the teacher’s edition had to be wrong.   His problem was not the answer to the equation.  His problem was setting up the wrong equation.   Likewise, so many people do not even understand the problem, not to mention the solution to the problem.   In many cases, solutions are given to what they believe to be the true problem and they know the math from the equation is absolutely correct. 

Once such a problem is the assumption, then the church is something into which people enter and have membership in order to be saved.    Now which part of this statement is incorrect?   What is the problem?  The equation is wrong to assume that what needs correction is that the church building is not the church.  The build this straw-man of error to tear down would solve nothing because while it is a problem, it is not the problem that needs solving.   So, dismiss all of your patented answers about the building not being the church.   

I thought I knew the answer to this problem years ago when I would teach that the church is a collection of saved people that did certain acts of obedience to be saved.    All one had to do, then, is determine what one needed to do to be saved and we have the answer to who is saved and therefore, part of the church.  This is not the problem that needs solving.  The problem is assuming that the church is something that we have to get in and stay in as if it were an institution/organization that one is baptized into (universal body of saved) and joins (local church membership).  

This religious thought promotes the theory that “church” has two different meanings, depending on the context.   One is the proper noun that defines a body of saved people from all time and locations and the other is defined as local church organizations without affiliation to denominational ties. 

However, we need to back up and reaccess the use and meaning of the word “church.”   I’ll not spend an exorbitant amount of time addressing its definition, here.   For our purpose, the Greek word that is translated “church” is one that describes a class of people; literally, a called-out people.   That definition is repeatedly used throughout the New Testament.  When referring to people living in a region or city, it is still the called-out individuals in those specified areas.   The problem is that human beings have created a substitution for our Greek word (ekklesia), that fits the institutional concept supported by Roman Catholics and the Church of England, which in turn dispenses the sacraments and blessings on the people.  Clearly, the church becomes something other than the people.   

Still, there is another element to this problem that can be explained historically.  When Protestant influence translated the word ekklesia “congregation” when speaking of the called-out in a city, they were responding to the heretical idea that the Roman Catholic Church was the church of Christ.   They were responding to the abuse of power in the institution that controlled the propagation of all doctrine and true teachers of the church.   The real problem was not power and control of religious life in the hands of one institution but in the hands of any amount of institutional/sectarian control.     It makes no difference whether we are discussing one huge organization over which a hierarchy rules or many organizations over which local bishops rule.    The size and degree of power is not the problem.   Further, the word “church” adequately describes the organizational power and control that King James and his brothers wanted.   But, the “called-out” never described such an organization, large or small.   

Once we accepted the idea of the institutional church, whether applied universally (like Roman Catholicism) or locally (local church rule), we conditioned ourselves to think that the church is one thing and the people are another.   The answer to the problem is not getting rid of the powerful universal institution in favor of local autonomous power in congregations.    The answer is understanding the problem of “rule” that Jesus taught against and the true nature of the “called-out.” 

Once we accept any deviation from the divine plan, any problem created from the deviation cannot be fixed by reforming the system or correcting abuses.    Such so-called “solutions” are short-lived, at best and usually create other problems.   In an effort to be Biblical, we find laws and rules that fit this institutional plan and if we can preach loud and long enough by the use of proof-texting, we can validate our right to exist and in some cases advocate that we are the only one that has a right to exist.

Consequently, we have created a host of problems from this human innovation for which there is no biblical antidote.   So many “church issues” would never exist if we didn’t support the church institution from the start.   All attempts to find a solution to those church issues are bound to fail.  The only solution is to start from scratch and take a step further back in accessing the real problem.   Until we do this, there will always be a religious division.