Beyond Religion Section 3

Section 3: A Bit of Background - Why Has the Church Been So Divided?

Although much good came from the formative years of the early Church, history cannot overlook the fact that the Church also began to increasingly syncretize “worldly” elements of the surrounding culture into doctrine; a practice not unlike Israel (God’s people) did in the Old Testament.  Fallen humanity, in the attempt to “be like God”, forever seemed bent toward taking matters into its own hands rather than trusting in what God says (Revelation). Regretfully, the temptation to create religion (religious humanism) has always been with us even until today.  There is a continual battle between God’s revelation and Man’s religion, and it is this battle that still rages in dividing the Church. 

As early as the second century the Church began to be contentious over issues of “legitimacy” and influence from various regions.  As the Church in Rome began to increase in influence it also began to syncretize elements of the surrounding culture resulting in a “Romanization” of the Western church.  Likewise, the Church in the East less under Roman influence began to syncretize elements of the surrounding culture resulting in an “oriental” or Eastern church.  Later these developments eventually led to the “Great Schism” between the Eastern and Western churches in AD 1054.

In the West mounting issues regarding the understanding of Church “authority” and abuse came to a crisis resulting in a call for a “reformation” of the Church.  Finally, in 1517 Martin Luther was able to mobilize a significant portion of what had become the Roman Catholic Church to demand change.  This eventually led to a further division resulting in the Reformation and what would become the Roman Catholic and the Protestant Western Church.  Added to this, the lack of a unified understanding of what was to be “reformed” led to further splits within Protestantism.  Nevertheless, from the Reformation five “Solas” emerged as the heartbeat of the movement.  These were:

·      Sola Gracia (Grace Alone - Ephesians 2:8-9)

·      Sola Fide (Faith Alone - Ephesians 2:8-9)

·      Solus Christus (Christ Alone - Hebrews 4:15)

·      Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone - II Timothy 3:16-17; II Peter 1:20-21)

·      Soli Deo Gloria (To God Alone be Glory - I Corinthians 10:31)

It was from these five declarations that the Roman Catholic Church would be challenged.  Without question, the most offensive “Sola” to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church was to be that of Sola Scriptura, which proclaims that the final authority of church doctrine would be based upon the Scriptures.  This perspective regarding “authority”, in essence, is the pivotal point between what might be understood as the Christian faith in contrast to that of the Christian religion.  The Christian faith is essentially grounded in theism while the Christian religion is essentially grounded in humanism. The perspective of the Christian faith rightly understands that humans can never speak infallibly, as only God is infallible.  Humans, unlike God, are limited while nevertheless continually striving to be faithful to the infallible One.  While not denying that much can be gained from church history and tradition, in the end, the Christian faith holds that the Scriptures alone ultimately determine what is to be considered as “true” regarding the Christian faith.  It would be by the Word of God that Christ would sanctify His Church: “… as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish” (Ephesians 5:25-27). 

The Latin phrase "Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda, secundum verbum Dei” (the Church reformed, and continuing to be reformed, according to the Word of God) has sometimes been described as the central focus of the Reformation.  This perspective emphasizes that the effects of the Fall necessitate the Church continually needing purification until the return of Christ. (Ephesians 5:27; II Corinthians 11:2; Philippians 1:10; Titus 2:14; Revelation 19:8).

Those of the Christian religion may protest that the infallible Scriptures demand an infallible interpreter as God would have never given His people His infallible Word without some entity that could interpret His Word infallibly.  Thus, there must be some special human or elite clerical community who would be able to interpret the Scriptures infallibly.  The counter to this argument is that God gave His people His infallible Word so that His people must continually remain humble in their limitedness, ever resisting the temptation to exalt themselves to be “like God” by claiming any notion of infallibility. God’s people must submit themselves to Him, ever depending upon Him to guide them in interpreting His Word faithfully, however, not infallibly, ever reminding themselves of their incapability in doing so in a Fallen world.  Therefore, holding humans, in any way, to be infallible in what they are capable of doing, would reflect the “garden problem” by suggesting that humanity could in any sense obtain any attributes of God restricted to Him alone.  Furthermore, this would prevent humans from claiming the authority to develop infallible doctrines or traditions equivalent to the authority of the Scriptures, possibly becoming guilty of adding to or subtracting from what God has proclaimed (Deuteronomy 12:32; Proverbs 30:5-6; Revelation 22:18-19).

Even so, this is not to mean that His people would be left to themselves to interpret the Scriptures in any fashion they would like, therefore having no credible basis for interpretation. Instead, this would necessitate that God’s people as a community must be taught how to faithfully interpret the Scriptures according to sound principles of hermeneutics.

Sadly, God’s people in the Old Testament found themselves in such a situation that over the years the clerical class sought increasing authority within a faith that had been eroded greatly by human religiosity.  The Jewish people came to falsely believe that because they were God’s chosen people, they could not truly go off the rails.  The clerical elite, blinded by their pride, exalted themselves in such a way as to believe that they could act with the authority of God by developing rules and traditions beyond what God had plainly given to His people.  The result was Judaism, a counterfeit of the original faith that God had given to His people.  In the end, this clergy class of Judaism, assuming that they were acting on God’s behalf, sought to crucify the very Son of God.  Christians of today must learn from history and not be deceived by those who declare that they can act infallibly as God’s representatives.

We must never forget that we still live in an ongoing spiritual battle with the world, the flesh and the devil that began long ago in the Garden. The apostle John reminds us that in this world it is the desires of our flesh, the desires of our eyes and the pride of life that so strongly beset us (I John 2:16).  Likewise, the apostle Peter warns us (I Peter 5:8) that Satan continues to pursue us as a roaring lion seeking to devour us by every kind of religious deception from his smorgasbord of counterfeits on offer.  Again, it is the apostle Paul’s urging for us to put on the whole armor of God so that we will be able to stand against the schemes of the devil (Ephesians 6:10-17).  This armor consists of His truth and righteousness along with the gospel of peace, our faith, and the assurance of our salvation as our defense as we march forward with the Word of God as our weapon against Satanic attack.  It is on the question of whether we give in to religion or hold fast to revelation, that the future balance of the Church will hang.

“Seven Destructive Developments” of the Early Church

Often there have been what some have called the “sevens” of the Church.  Most of us are familiar with the “Seven Sins”: lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride along with the “Seven Virtues”: the cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, temperance, and courage (or fortitude) coupled with the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity.  In this same vein, what is being proposed here may be described as the “Seven Destructive Developments” of the early Church (from Pentecost until AD 500).  These are: ecclesiastical institutionalism, elitism, authoritarianism, sacerdotalism, mystical materialism, asceticism, and monasticism.  While it is certain that some would fervently contest these developments as being destructive; history, on the other hand, clearly demonstrates that these seminal notions have proven to be some of the most divisive within the body of Christ.

Ecclesiastical Institutionalism:

Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees…  Luke 12:1

It is quite understandable that when trying to find a structure for organising a body of people the temptation toward “institutionalisation” can often become very enticing.  After all, the more one becomes institutionalised, the more secure one may feel.  Those of us who have ever worked or lived in a more confined environment such as a military base or a medical compound or even on an academic campus can certainly acknowledge how these types of environments can lend to a sense of security.  One can even form a sense of identity associated with such environments.  In psychological terminology, those who find themselves greatly gravitating toward becoming overly dependent upon being in such settings are often described as becoming “institutionalised”; sometimes, to the point of finding it difficult to function outside of these settings.  In a sense, these people have become “captivated” by the institutional system.  Admittedly, those who greatly invest themselves in such environments and become highly indoctrinated with certain values, practices, or beliefs; their lives may become increasingly less “open” to any outside or opposing input, often seeing such as threatening to their security and identity.  The most infamous extremes of such institutionalisation can be found in numerous isolated cults operating throughout the globe.

As a body, the Church initially may have been understood to be an “institution”, but only with a very small “i” in the same way that a family as a system is likewise organised as an institution.  The original organisation of God’s people was that of a spiritual “family” which is fundamentally organic in nature and not to be patterned after some highly governed hierarchical body.  From her inception, the Church was composed of small intimate groups of people who shared life together and were accountable to one another.  This understanding harkens back to God’s people in the Old Testament who were organised primarily by biological family systems of believers coming together in community and adding to their number with those who were coming into the faith.  Leadership in these communities was representative and conciliar.

Regretfully, as the early Church became more organised and publicly recognised and accepted, there was an increasing tendency to “institutionalise” the Church, much like the institutions of power in the surrounding culture.  This developing tendency of depicting the Church as an “Institution”, alongside that of, for example, the institutions of the Government or the Military, completely distorted the original understanding of who the Church was.  As a result, the Church became highly politicised and at times operated as a serious powerbroker in determining the course of nations.  Added to this, the Church accumulated great material wealth and property.  In time, the Church steadily rose to dominate the overarching “psyche” in almost every aspect of common life.  Finally, the Church, now as a powerful “Institution” in society, became a controlling force even to the point of laying claim to each person’s eternal destiny.  Religious leaders appointed from above by their own elite hierarchy often became the new Pharisees of the emerging Church.  Eventually, the Church became more identified with outward expressions such as buildings, vestments, rituals, artwork, music, etc. than with real people living real lives.  The original understanding of the Church increasingly took a backseat to an external religious façade.

Elitism:

… not domineering over those in your charge,

but being examples to the flock.   I Peter 5:3

One of the most contentiously debated passages of the New Testament is Matthew 16:13-20 where Peter confesses Jesus as the Christ.  Why this passage has become so hotly debated throughout history has often left many quite curious as to the real intentions behind why those of the clerical elite in the Church have chosen this passage to be such a matter of theological discourse.  How this passage has been approached by various theologians is one of the most outstanding examples in demonstrating what may be called an eisegesis (a “reading in”) rather than an exegesis (a “drawing out”) of the meaning of a passage.   The prevailing suspicion is that those who have been overly invested in the issue of ecclesiastical “legitimacy”, “authority”, or “power” utilise this passage to “read in” a preconceived assumption to press their case rather than to correctly understand the actual context of the passage: that is, the truth claim of this passage that focuses on who Jesus is rather than who the Apostles were and certainly not on who Peter was.   Furthermore, this passage does not address the office of bishop (not quite yet in the picture of church history) or any other ecclesiastical or clerical matter.  The direct question of the passage is whether Jesus is recognized as the “Christ, the Son of the living God”.  The matter at hand is that Jesus is God, who forever is described in the Old Testament as the Rock (Deuteronomy 32:4; II Samuel 22:2-3; Psalm 18:2, 89:26, 95:1; Isaiah 17:10).  It has become more than scandalous regarding how theologians have become completely side-tracked and even obsessed in focusing on the person of Peter, let alone arguing over the meaning of his name, or even referring to any of the Apostles in and of themselves as becoming the Rock of the Church.

Again, it is humanism that drives so many to focus on the elevation of sinful “Man” rather than to focus on God alone.  The foundation of the Church can never be grounded in any mere mortal but only upon He Who is sinless, a flawless foundation.  The Church is established upon the fact that Jesus is God, the solid Rock, who reconciles Man to God.  This understanding is the very essence of the entire passage.  How tragic is the day to observe where even such plain common sense in understanding Scripture seems to illude the minds of theologians to stray so much off the mark.  Why any Christian could be contentious over such a plain passage of Scripture is certainly a mystery.

The “keys” of the Kingdom is this glorious truth, the Gospel, that Christ’s followers are privileged to proclaim to all of humanity which will result in either their eternal freedom or captivity.  This truth is why Jesus came into the world.  This is about His Kingdom, which is not a kingdom of this world, not even a religious kingdom of this world.  Furthermore, the notion of establishing a religious empire with a clerical nobility is completely foreign to Matthew or any writer of the New Testament.

Even so, Man, with his seemingly unending lust for power and control would find any scheme to justify its attainment.  Later, when the concept of bishop (episkopos, Gk.) was originally introduced into the Church as one serving as an elder (presbuteros, Gk.), having oversight among the elders of several churches, this was not to be some royal “blueblood” overlord appointed along some “spiritual bloodline” traced directly back to the Apostles themselves.  Such a monarchical concept was not in the mind of the first-century Church.  A bishop was vetted as holding to the faith and teaching of the apostles.  It was the “content” for what the Apostles stood for that mattered in one becoming an elder or bishop rather than that of belonging to some sort of spiritual bloodline or pedigree.   Sadly, it was this misguided understanding of church officers as belonging to some spiritual royal lineage that produced a class system within the Church that became exacerbated as elders were relabelled as “priests”, resulting in a “clergy/laity” class split. While the Eastern/Oriental Church balked at the Roman monarchical interpretation and chose rather a more conciliar structure; still, it nevertheless faltered by backing a similarly false notion of “apostolic succession”.  It is heart-breaking that such a pernicious notion as it has evolved over the past two millennia has proven to be so devastating to the Christian witness.

Authoritarianism:

… they have rejected me from being king over them.  I Samuel 8:7

Any student of comparative governmental systems understands that governments, like all things, have familiar dynamics of form vs freedom, unity vs diversity, community vs individuality, etc.  These dynamics can often be expressed in governmental systems ranging from highly autocratic to highly democratic systems. PreFallen Man, being created in the image of God with Him as their King, naturally embraced his need for someone or something to have “authority” in his life to give him direction.  Sadly, Fallen Man, in rejecting God, began to promote himself or someone other than God to be the “king” of his or her life.  As has been said, “Everyone serves someone.”  Of course, God plainly stated that no human is designed to bear such authority.  We find this in the story of Samuel (I Samuel 8-12) where Israel began doing what was “right in their own eyes” (i.e. people declaring themselves to be king of their own lives) leading to societal chaos having no king outside of themselves to rule them (Judges 21:25).

However, instead of returning to God as their rightful King, Israel turned to the ways of the world around them to solve their problem by desiring a king like other nations.   Indeed, a very poor choice.  Yet, God, knowing beforehand that Israel would choose this direction, accommodated Israel allowing them to have a “king like other nations”.  Sadly, this choice would be a disaster in that for the following half-millennium God’s people would hardly have a handful of kings who were worthy of any honourable mention; David being the best of the lot, who was both a murderer and an adulterer. Yet, in the irony of it all, God would establish a covenant with David and his lineage which would one day provide God’s people once again with their true King (God) in Jesus Christ.  Sadly, the world since its conception has suffered horribly at the hands of autocratic rulers (even from “good kings”) seeking more power and covering the earth with blood.  This is not to say that other types of governments have not done evil, but the lion’s share of evil has without question been under autocratic human rule.  Even for those autocratic rulers who in times past have tried to faithfully serve God, it is a most difficult struggle with a system that allows them such great power.  It is no wonder God particularly warned His people against this type of governance.

Moreover, autocratic systems tend toward elitism, creating ruling classes such as nobility, and less privileged common classes of people.  It is not that other governmental systems exist without people who may personally hold some degree of class consciousness.  The problem is that autocratic systems have a built-in bias that is endemic to the system itself making it difficult to hold all people as being created “equal” regarding their intrinsic worth before God.

The early church of the Greco-Roman world existed within a culture drenched in autocratic rule – a world of mighty kings and emperors.  It is quite understandable that the temptation to legitimise and protect the Christian faith under such a system would be very strong.  No doubt, setting up a system of “ecclesiastical monarchism” through claims of an “apostolic succession” would be quite appealing.  Needless to say, the opposite notion of “unbridled democracy” and the high individualism of the Western 21st century would likewise have been a rather foreign notion to the culture of this era. 

However, even more disturbing in this tendency toward Church authoritarianism was the notion of the clerical elite being somehow endowed with the sole authority to interpret the Word of God even to the point of being able to make “infallible” proclamations outside of Scripture.  In time, as the general population gained less personal access to the Scriptures, they became increasingly dependent upon the clerical elite regarding their understanding of the Christian faith.  As a result, the clerical elite had less and less accountability from a biblically informed populace thus giving themselves a rather “free hand” to rule as they saw fit.  Eventually, people began to be indoctrinated by the elite clergy even to the point of believing that when the elite clergy spoke; God spoke.  Such a grab for power by the clergy was without question, the pinnacle of religious humanism.

Now being quite aware to have made a great many people very unhappy in what has been described as a well-intended, but largely man-made worldly system of church authority as it evolved throughout early church history; it is not to be suggested that the Church does not have a system of governance endorsed by God.  Thankfully, since the earliest days of recorded history, our Lord has supported a system of government that avoids both the extremes of authoritarianism as well as unfettered democracy.

Sacerdotalism:

It is finished, …  John 19:30

The apostolic faith of the Church in the New Testament is a faith that is “faithful” to the teachings of the Apostles as found in the divine revelation of the Scriptures.  There is no notion in the Scriptures of a worldly line of succession of an elite clergy class stemming from the Apostles.  Furthermore, there is no notion of establishing some sort of “Christianised” religious kingdom or empire on this earth ruled by an elite priestly class. The word “priest” (hiereus, Gk., or kohen, Hb.) denoting an office in the Church has no place in the New Testament.  This misnomer is found only in later Latin translations where “priest” (sacerdos, Lat.) is ascribed to the biblical office of elder (presbuteros, Gk.).  The basic reason that the New Testament writers purposely did not use hiereus or “priest” for the office of elder is fundamental to the Christian faith.  A priest, hiereus or sacerdos, in the Old Testament, presided over the administration of a “sacrifice”, thus referring to a sacrificial system or a “sacerdotal system”.  The fundamental good news of the Gospel is that Christ, the final High Priest, administered Himself on the altar of the cross as the Final Sacrifice.  There was no further sacrifice nor further representation of a sacrifice necessary.  Christ Himself summed this up in His final three words on the cross that have echoed throughout the ages – “It is finished!” (John 19:30). 

Therefore, reinstituting a “sacerdotal system” into the Church requiring a priest makes a complete mockery of Christ’s ultimate sacrifice.  Even worse, the later Latinized redefining of “elder” to that of “priest” to “fit” the reintroduction of the notion of a “sacerdotal” system of the Eucharist (Lord’s Supper) by influential leaders in the early Church hugely misrepresents the Great Mystery of the Eucharist as that which is focused not on a sacrificial meal nor a representation of a sacrifice, but that of thanksgiving, a celebration, in remembrance of the finished work of Christ on the cross and in His resurrection.  As such, the reinstatement of a “priestly office” has no place in Christianity.  The only legitimate priests in Christianity are Christians themselves as they present themselves continually as a “living” sacrifice to God (Romans 12:1; I Peter 2:5).  Therefore, the usage of an “altar” in Christian worship is unfounded.  If any furnishings in Christian worship are to be utilized, it is the Lord’s table of communion that would now be legitimate.

Mysticism and Mystical Materialism:

Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths.  I Timothy 4:7

Mysticism is a long-held practice whereby one commonly seeks a type of religious ecstasy, often in the desire to become “one with God” or with some sort of Absolute and is considered to be an exalted level of experience to be pursued.  Mysticism is highly subjective, sometimes even producing an altered state of consciousness in being “caught up” in the notion of “mystery”.  While certainly the Christian faith contains aspects of mystery whereby some concepts will never be fully grasped or explained such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, Creation, Salvation, etc. and thereby may be described as holding a “mystical” quality; this is a far cry from seeking esoteric experiences or being “caught up” or consumed by mysticism.  While there are those in the Bible who at times found themselves experiencing dreams or visions from God, there are no examples in the Scriptures of God’s people who made it a practice of seeking altered states of consciousness or to “lose oneself “in the practice of mysticism.  This is not to say that the Christian life is merely that of scholasticism or “cognitive-behavioural” Christianity that is devoid of an experiential and supernatural faith.  The Christian’s entire existence and worship involves a supernatural God.  However, seeking an altered state of consciousness untethered from divine revelation found in the Scriptures can become a conduit for satanic deception and false notions.  The Scriptures call us to maintain a sound and sober mind (Colossians 2:18; I Timothy 3:2; II Timothy 1:7; Titus 2:2).

Related to mysticism is that of mystical materialism whereby a material object may hold some sense of efficacy, energy, force, or power in and of itself.  It is a notion closely related to that of animism.  The attraction to mystical materialism stems from the belief that one can attain some benefit whether in healing, assistance, blessing, etc. from an object.  Often, it is in such a visible, tangible, or concrete object that many seek to find some assurance that their faith or belief as being “real”.  While such a notion can be readily found in pagan belief systems throughout the world, such a notion as normative to the faith of God’s people has no Scriptural support.

            One may find isolated instances where God chose to use a material object such as Moses’ staff (Exodus 21:8-9) or handkerchiefs (Acts 19:11-12) to bring an effect.  Certainly, in the Old Testament God temporarily used a sacrificial system of animals or other tangible offerings as a concrete foreshadowing of the final sacrifice of Christ.  However, the notion of people placing their faith in objects rather than in God brings about an understanding that borders on idolatry.  Even the use of water in baptism or bread and wine in Communion is not to be understood as placing one’s faith in the objects themselves to bring about an effect.  Such material objects are utilised only to signify something beyond the object.  The object of our faith is not in the object itself but in God.

Regretfully, the notion of mystical materialism eventually found its way into the Church.  Church leaders began to promote the use of objects as channels of God’s blessing.  This is found in the veneration of holy relics, holy water, the concept of baptismal regeneration, transubstantiation, misuse of imagery, and many other practices that would be foreign to the teachings of the Christian faith as found in the Word of God.

Asceticism:

… some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons … who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods …

I Timothy 4:1-3

The notion of asceticism was common to the minds of those who lived in the Greco-Roman world.  To some, this meant a simple, minimalistic lifestyle; to others, this could be bodily mortification, habitual self-infliction of pain and even self-martyrdom. While Jesus and John the Baptist may have chosen to live a rather simple lifestyle, this did not mean that they promoted a rejection of the material world or human pleasure.  Jesus, as God, created the material world and created humanity to enjoy pleasure, declaring these as “good”.  Sadly, fallen humanity tends to twist what God has made and misrepresent His purposes for His creation.

Throughout Church history, Christians have struggled with asceticism.  The common practice of asceticism was characterized by abstinence from sensual pleasures often to pursue some spiritual goal.  This might take the form of renunciation of material possessions and physical pleasures, possibly to spend more time in fasting, prayer, meditation, and reflection. Often, in everyday life, this translated into sensual inhibition, particularly regarding sexuality, and the exaltation of celibacy.  Many Christian Fathers often struggled with asceticism, varying widely in their interpretation of the Scriptures in the light of the culture around them.  Such examples can be found in Origen, Jerome, Ignatius, John Chrysostom and Augustine.

Sexuality often appeared to be extremely troublesome for many of those in the early Church and has too often been misrepresented throughout most of Christian history as well.  To be sure, one could certainly attest that the worst place to learn about matters of sexuality is from the “secular world”.  However, one might also hold that the second worst place to learn about these matters has too often been within the Church.  Just hear a sampling of the voices of some of our most respected leaders in Church history: 7 & 8

·      ‘We Christians marry only to produce children.” (Justin Martyr – 100-165 AD)

·      “If a man marries in order to have children, he ought not to have sexual desire for his wife.  He ought to produce children by a reverent, disciplined act of the will.” (Clement of Alexandria – AD 150-215)

·      Regarding women, “Do you not know that you are each an Eve?... You are the Devil’s gateway.” (Tertullian – AD 150-230)

·      “Matrimony is always a vice… Do you imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?  He who is too ardent a lover of his own wife is an adulterer...Woman is the root of all evil.“ (Jerome – AD 347-420)

·      “In Eden, it would have been possible to beget offspring without lust.  The sexual organs would have been stimulated into necessary activity by willpower alone, just as the will controls other organs.   Then, without being goaded on by the allurement of passion, the husband could have relaxed upon his wife’s breasts with complete peace of mind and bodily tranquillity, that part of his body not activated by tumultuous passion, but brought into service by the deliberate use of power when the need arose, the seed dispatched into the womb with no loss of his wife’s virginity.  So, the two sexes could have come together for impregnation and conception by an act of will, rather than by lustful cravings.” (Augustine – -AD 430 City of God, Book 14, Chapter 26). “I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children.” (Augustine in a letter to a friend)

·      “As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten.” (Thomas Aquinas -AD 1225-1274)

Robert T. Francoeur, a Catholic priest and a fellow of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex and Professor of Human Embryology and Sexuality at Fairleigh Dickenson University summarizes how Christianity became so negative regarding marriage and sexuality: 9

To understand the evolution from the early sex-affirming Hebraic culture to Christianity’s persistent discomfort with sex and pleasure, we have to look at three interwoven threads: the dualistic cosmology of Plato (i.e. the soul and mind are at war with the body), the Stoic philosophy of early Greco-Roman culture (i.e. nothing should be done for the sake of pleasure), and the Persian Gnostic tradition (i.e. that demons created the world, sex and your body – in which your soul is trapped, and the key to salvation is to free the spirit from the bondage of the body by denying the flesh).  Within three centuries after Jesus, these influences combined to seduce Christian thinkers into a rampant rejection of human sexuality and sexual pleasure.     

No wonder Christians have too often been the target of many jokes regarding sexuality.  While it would be completely unfair to suggest that all early Church leaders were negative on marriage and sexuality, one must admit that the overall tone set by many early leaders cast a rather dim view of these matters among the people of God.  Even with the increased embracing of sexuality over the past century by Christians, there is still much work to be done. 

Thankfully, as always, one must again simply refer to the Scriptures to gain a proper understanding of marriage and sexuality.  Regard the following:

·      Marriage and the sexual relationship were part of Creation itself – “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24)

·      Proverbs describe finding a wife as a blessing (Proverbs 5:18-19; 18:22)

·      The Song of Solomon is a beautiful description of marital sexual love

·      The apostle Paul, addressing the church at Corinth, calls for people to marry to avoid sexual temptation (I Corinthians 7:2)

·      Marriage is depicted as being compared to Christ’s relationship to the Church (Ephesians 5:22-33)

·      In holding a church office, being married is endorsed (if not required):

(I Timothy 3:2; 12; Titus 1:6)

·      Finally, in Revelation, we find at the consummation of all things, the Marriage Supper of the Lamb to His Bride, the Church (Revelation 19:6-9)

From the Scriptures, we find that sexuality is a part of all human existence, whether one is single or married.  Marriage and the bearing of children are mandated in God’s creative design as being good.  How the Church could have ever come to the notion of measuring one’s spirituality or ability to serve in all of Christ’s Church based upon being more or less sexual as a human being certainly ranks high in theological absurdity.  Such an understanding has no basis in the whole counsel of the Scriptures.  Only when snippets of biblical texts are taken out of context can one draw any other conclusion.  Asceticism is humanistic and worldly to the core, regardless of how Christians have justified it in the past.  In the apostle Paul’s letter to the Colossians, he particularly warned against the temptation toward asceticism (Colossians 2:18 and 2:23).

Monasticism:

I do not ask that you take them out of the world,

but that you keep them from the evil one.  John 17:15

A logical extension of asceticism is that of monasticism, often depicted by living as a hermit or cloistered, being labelled as “religious”.  Typically, as a monastic, one renounces “worldly” pursuits to devote oneself fully to spiritual work.  However, living as a monastic has no basis in the Christian faith as described in the Scriptures.  While there were those such as Elijah and John the Baptist who would spend much of their lives in a somewhat nomadic fashion, none were called by God to live as a hermit or to cloister themselves away from normal people.  Without question, Jesus intended that His followers be in the world as His witnesses and live life fully integrated within all of God’s people.  Even the more mendicant orders, such as the Dominicans and Franciscans as well as more recent religious congregations such as the Missionaries of Charity (often identified with Mother Teresa), while involving themselves in the lives of those outside through evangelisation and humanitarian relief, still adhere to taking ascetic vows.

Again, it is this concept of being “religious” by taking vows of self-denial of material possessions or of renunciation of human pleasure (particularly sexual pleasure) that finds its roots in asceticism.  Even more distorted is the idea that being “religious” would have anything to do with being more spiritual or closer to God.  Again, this does not mean that one may temporarily fast or periodically take time away to spend more concentrated time with God.  However, this is much different from taking on an existence of isolation from the normal Church community or of self-deprivation from normal human pleasure.  Such thinking is a total misunderstanding of true spirituality. 

Summation

The syncretism of elements such as these into the Church created an increasing “heterodoxy” – a blending of foreign ideas with Christian orthodoxy.  This process led to understandings, assumptions, practices and doctrines which later resulted in confusion and division among the people of God.  A “merited” system for justification, purgatory, misuse of imagery and an increasing focus upon and exaltation of human beings rather than on God alone are such examples of a “humanistic” shift.  Sadly, over the past two millennia, the results of syncretism have gradually resulted in Christians being deceived into thinking of our faith as that of a “religion" to be held alongside and compared with other religions.

It is generally agreed that when the Church begins to look more like the surrounding culture rather than existing within the culture and reflecting a separate distinction from that culture, then something has seriously gone wrong.  Likewise, when the Church begins to look more like a “religion” rather than as a way of grasping “reality” and living out of this reality, then something equally as serious has taken place.

As one reflects back through history and recounts what happened to God’s people in the two thousand years from Abraham until the Advent of Christ, it is the accumulation of “religion” that suffocated the true revelatory faith of the Jews into becoming merely the “Jewish religion” (Judaism).  It was this religiosity that blinded the eyes of the Jewish religious leaders to the point that they failed to even recognize the incarnate Son of God, and thus sought to exterminate Him as a threat to their arrogant pride and religious system.

Could the same not be said that the accumulation of religion over the past millennia since the Advent of Christ (resulting in the “Christian religion”) is also that which has suffocated the true revelatory faith of those in Christ?  Could well-intending humans fabricate a “Christianized” religious system eventually resulting in different renditions of traditions, denominations and movements be the crux of why the Church has become so divided?  Would it be possible, that God’s people will someday become more honest with themselves (something with which people have great difficulty) and pursue Truth to set them free from the entrapment of religion that has so long plagued Christ’s Bride?

So now we come to the central point of this manifesto.  What is being set forth here is that we all, as believers, have to some measure, become deceived by replacing a truly theistic worldview with a humanistic worldview, or what may specifically be described as a “Christianized” religious humanism. In coming to this realization, everything, yes, everything, becomes challenged.  Our entire understanding of Christ, the Church, the Bible and even our understanding of Reality and Truth comes under a reevaluation. This realization is more than merely upsetting; this realization places us in a crisis of faith and life far beyond just a mild revolution in our thinking.

Coming into the understanding that our God has never had any interest whatsoever nor investment in Religion, but that His interest lies ultimately in Reality; is quite disturbing, to say the least.  If this is true, then what have we been playing at for all these millennia?  Even more so, why would our loving heavenly Father allow us to be so deceived?  Or maybe, could it be that we have just not been listening?  Could the “world” around us, regardless of time or culture, have been far more of an influence on our understanding and experience than we have been willing to acknowledge? How could our human pride have blinded our eyes or closed our ears to the light or voice of God to such an enormous degree? Ultimately, it is most likely because our fallen humanity is so innately drawn to ourselves and to humanism rather than to God and theism.  The call then is to return to a truly theistic worldview and thus to Revelation, as being the source of our reality testing and what the Christian faith entails.