History of Christianity

[jlay]

Hey Bart is still alive!

America is and is not a 'Christian' nation. Confused? Yes, Christians influenced this country, and the moral fabric of this country is most definately Judeo-Christian. Christian tradition flowed harmoneosly with the early life of our country. However the essence of Christianity is that there can be no Christian nation, per se. Even if 99% of the people in the nation are Christian. Faith coerced is not faith at all. Never was the intent of our FFs to force Christianity, or to exclude another faith. The intent was to avoid the disaster of state run religion. The idea was to protect the church from government. Not vice versa. America was a nation that practiced Christianity and welcomed all faiths. It did not force Christianity, nor did it banish or refuse other faiths.

15th century Rome was a 'Christian' nation. Is that what you want? No, and neither did our FFs. Christians can be politicians, and a country can have its policies and laws influenced by Christian faith, but America is not a 'Christian' nation in that the practice of the faith is mandated by the state. Nor can it be. A person is free to practice the faith of their choosing as long as that faith does not break the law or violate the rights of another. That does not mean that Christianity was seperated from being recognized in the government. It most certainly was. And the evidence is etched on walls of the Supreme Court, Congress, monuments, etc. etc. Seperation of church and state is not a constitutional concept. It is the work of an activist court imposing itself into the law of the land. The reality of a republic is that the majority rules and the minority is heard.
"The fundamental principle of [a common government of associated States] is that the will of the majority is to prevail." --Thomas Jefferson to William Eustis, 1809

This is NOT what is happening today. The minority rule. By displaying the 10 commands in a school or court house, no one is being forced to subscribe to a particular faith. No one is being forced to be a theist by having 'in God we trust' on the currency. No one is forced to believe in God just because we say, one nation under God in the pledge. The minority has the right to disagree. This is not what is happening. The courts have overstepped their checks and balance and are violating a very principle of a republic. They are saying that the majority does not rule, but that the minority can in fact rule. Gay marriage comes to mind.

I don't see how the Christian principles are being removed. What is the difference between the secular government of the founding fathers and 'state atheism' ?

The big difference is when we intentionally exclude Christianity. Such as in public schools. Saying kids can't sing a Christmas song. Which sadly, does happen today. Prohibiting a prayer at a football game or assembly because one or a few might be offended. Things like removing the 10 commandments from court houses. A lot of people don't know that our FF instituted days of prayer and fasting. It didn't mean they forced anyone to do these things. And what happens now, is in an attempt to not offend a few we offend the many. Now I will acknowledge the other side of this coin many people do not want to. If the majority of the country is Atheist, then the atheists rule. Christians can still practice their faith. If the majority want to remove 'In God we trust," they can. The Christians are free to disagree, and practice religious freedom. If the majority want to remove tax exempt status from churches, and charities, they can. If the country is a majority muslim? Well watch out.

[qqMOARpewpew]

Age;

I did notice, although as a non christian I wasn't looking, I simply heard about it in the news and on the church channel. (although I wasn't born until the 1990s dude so most of this was already done before I went to public school)
I am glad there is no prayer in school. And I just mean prayer over the intercom, every school is required to have a moment of silence for morning prayer. Kids can bring bibles to school and pray whenever they want as long as it doesn't interrupt class.
As for public buildings, and government, how would you feel if they were some other god, not the christian one, posted with your tax money in places you helped pay for?

Times are alot different today, the church is not accepted by as many people in america as it was, and there are an influx of immigrants with other religions. Christianity has been the bees knees since roman times, it ruled over Europe, and early America, now it is time for everyone to have an equal go, which means the government not favoring Christianity over all the others just because when this country started it was 99% of the populous's choice.
And its not like its all heading that way. The pledge of allegiance had the words "Under God" added to it during the cold war (if I remember correctly, I will have to check). And money will probably have in god we trust until we go all electronic. (After all its just a piece of paper with ink, we need to trust someone or something to give it value in the future since its not all backed by gold anymore)

I'm sorry but I don't see the state atheism happening. 90% of people in the world believe in some kind of god, there wont be in these states a restriction on religion for the foreseeable future.

[qqMOARpewpew]

I don't see how the Christian principles are being removed. What is the difference between the secular government of the founding fathers and 'state atheism' ?

The big difference is when we intentionally exclude Christianity. Such as in public schools. Saying kids can't sing a Christmas song. Which sadly, does happen today. Prohibiting a prayer at a football game or assembly because one or a few might be offended.

Its not because people might get offended, its because americans like to sue. Where I am at they still allow christmas songs at the schools, but we call the christmas break a winter break. Christmas is almost a secular holiday anyway, so I could see a reversal of this current trend.
As for football games, at least where I live, I'm fairly sure they still pray as a team, just not over the loud speakers.

[Canuckster1127]

In terms of the original question on this thread, I'd note that I've found the book, "Pagan Christianity" by Frank Viola and George Barna very interesting and with some valuable insights in the area of Ecclesiology, as it pertain the the US and Protestant Churches. That book itself is pretty much a deconstruction. Frank Viola, followed it later with "Reimagining Church" which seeks to build an ecclesiology from the Scriptures and early church as to what church originally looked like before the influences noted in Pagan Christianity took hold.

blessings,

bart

Hey Bart!! One thing that I would be concerned about with the early church--and following the way they did things--is ritual carried over from the Jewish traditions. What does he say about that?

There is no standard model per se even in the early church. The Church at Jerusalem was certainly predominantly Jewish and can be said to have probably modeled itself on the Jewish Synagogue. The synagogue model isn't a highly religiously prescribed model to begin with. It arose in the aftermath of the defiling of the temple under Antiochus Epiphanes and became a model of social life for Jews when the Temple System was not in operation.

When you look at the early churches, most of them were not Jewish and would not have been set up on a synagogue model. A church in the NT never referred to a building or set services. The church was the people and it was assumed that all the christians in a community were tied together. Meetings were usually in homes and involved meals together and there was not a designated clergy. Elders typically arose within the churches and the title was given to those who were already functioning as elders within the congregation and to whom respect was given because of the manner in which they were already ministering. You can identify about 5 - 6 different base models for how early churches were founded.

I think there's a significant amount of room within the models for cultural and organizational differences. What I think Barna and Viola point our very well is that the vast majority of those in the west who accept the typical church model and read the scriptures as if it were referring to what we practise in our churches today, knew what the real roots are of most of the traditions that are followed in our church today do not have a scriptural foundation. Much is drawn from pagan temple practices that have become accepted and sanctified and are unquestioned by the average christian today. Early churches we expressions of community, people living and interacting with one another daily and services were participated in by all with little or no hierarchy. Services today have more in common with theater presentations than how Christians in the early church expressed themselves as the body of Christ.

That's very threatening to many. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong necessarily with being in an institutional church. Culturally however, with Christian tradition it's assumed the institutional christianity is the norm and that there is something wrong with those who chose not to enter or to leave it.

I don't mind sharing that that is where I am in my walk now. I'm beginning to gather with local believers in my community and we are in the process of beginning an organic church. We still have a long way to go, but we're on the way and I'm excited about it.

Hope that helps. I can go into more detail if needed and discuss the history and traditions in institutional christianity today that have no real scriptural roots. I'd rather address more positively however, what I think the Scripture actually teaches and models with regard to ecclesia and koinania. There's a lot of freedom there and room for cultural differences and other elements.

bart

[ageofknowledge]

qqMOARpewpew - The BBC and the History Channel are terrible sources. I'm not aware of any mainstream media that gives high quality coverage on on history, or science, or even politics. They are mostly characterised by sloppiness and spin.

So are authors and historians going back before biblical times, people munipulate information to control the masses.

We know that books and gospels have been banned from the bible for instance. (gospel of Mary Magdalene, The Book of Enoch, The
Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas)

Do you have specific examples of trickery from bbc/ the history channel?

I just saw one, I'll have to get the title for you later, where the narrator asserted that Christianity was a polytheistic religion and that a single event in the dark ages where Christians purged 3,000 Arians happened to be the greatest toll of internecine death ever recorded, etc.. etc.. etc...

It was misunderstanding after false assertion after misunderstanding followed by material ommission followed by another false assertion and it went like this for two hours. I couldn't believe it. And people wonder why people like you are wandering around out there with all kinds of strange ideas about Christianity and history that are completely untrue. You got them from watching the History Channel!!!

[jlay]

The HC just had a show LAST NIGHT. Full of rumor, innuendo, and speculation about Jesus.

[ageofknowledge]

Most of the general public has no idea that the History Channel is not scholarly but rather nothing more than popular entertainment. Shame on the History Channel for pretending they are something they are not and shame on the public for choosing to remain so ignorant they can't tell the difference.

[Canuckster1127]

History always assumes a point of view and the point of view assumed is often more determinative of how events and persons are viewed than the facts themselves.

[qqMOARpewpew]

The HC just had a show LAST NIGHT. Full of rumor, innuendo, and speculation about Jesus.

Do you know what the show was called?

[towiel]

Here is a link to an article that basically summarizes the Christian religion and the Christian law specifically mentioning the concept of Apostolic authority of the Bishops and the Traditions that came thereof. http://www.exploringsalvation.info/chri ... istian.htm