The
Way Ahead
Wikipedia says that some of the things I reject are "fundemental to Christian teaching". OK I am happy to describe myself as a "Follower of Jesus of Nazereth" rather than a "Christian". When all said and done no one called "Jesus Christ" ever walked this earth. "Christ" was not his name yet in Church he is referred to more often as "Christ" than as "Jesus". Ironically "Christ" means "God's Chosen one" which the Church is adement he isn't.
It is not wrong to review one's faith. It is worth remembering that if God comes into your life it is not an endorsement of what you believe or the Church to which you belong but because you have let him. The Church is failing God in that today's generations are not hearing the message of Jesus. It is legitimate to ask why.
Wikipedia says that some of the things I reject are "fundemental to Christian teaching". OK I am happy to describe myself as a "Follower of Jesus of Nazereth" rather than a "Christian". When all said and done no one called "Jesus Christ" ever walked this earth. "Christ" was not his name yet in Church he is referred to more often as "Christ" than as "Jesus". Ironically "Christ" means "God's Chosen one" which the Church is adement he isn't.
It is not wrong to review one's faith. It is worth remembering that if God comes into your life it is not an endorsement of what you believe or the Church to which you belong but because you have let him. The Church is failing God in that today's generations are not hearing the message of Jesus. It is legitimate to ask why.
Can you really believe that Jesus accepted a terrible death on the cross to bring us an inadequate message from God? I can't. God said he was well pleased with Jesus. Neither can I believe that the faith as taught by St Paul - before anyone had formulated Doctrine - was inadequate. On the contrary I see the purpose of Jesus' teaching as being to replace convoluted Old Testament rule based teaching which wasn't working, with something simple with the same aim in view. Something simple enough for uneducated fishermen and the like to promote. Something so simple even I can understand it.
Far too simple!! You can't justify the existance of an international organisation with high status executives (Bishops et al) if its sole purpose is to promote the teaching of Jesus. The Church's greatest asset are the wonderful people who make up its congregations, many of whom I freely admit put me to shame, but surely it is not difficult to see that they are wonderful because they try to follow Jesus and love their neighbours and not because they believe this or that Church doctrine. Jesus' message is still in there somewhere and they have found it and responded to it as have generations before them but a modern generation isn't going to find it as the Chuch presents them with a barrier. My views can be seen in terms of priorities. - what is really important? God gave us Jesus and telling people about Jesus and promoting his message is what will bring people to know God and be followers of Jesus.
Doctrine is the reason why there are about 40 different Christian denominations instead of one, yet I have found that my own faith is stronger without any of it. I simply accept that Jesus tells us all we need to know on how God wants us to live our lives.
Unfortunately I don't think change is likely to come from the top. In any academic discipline those who rise through the ranks and those who reach the top will have embraced orthodoxy at every stage - anyone questioning it having been filtered out each step up the ladder. Those in the upper echelons of the Church are perfectly sincere in their belief in both the importance and validity of Doctrine. They see it as the result of hundreds of years of scholarship by learned men. Doctrine is what they themselves have studied and are learned in. It is what gives them status. The reluctance of congregations to accept change is but nothing compared to the reluctance of the institution of the Church to accept change. Take for example the the Doctrine of Apostolic succession, a claim that clergy are not mere mortals called to the ministry but that they inherit a degree of divinity via an unbroken chain of Bishops from Peter and ultimately from Jesus by the laying on of hands. This Doctrine prevented a merger between the CofE and the Methodists in the 1960's. Sections of the Anglican communion no longer accept the Archbishop of Canterbury as leader because of the appointment of women Bishops. Jesus only layed hands on men they argue. I dispare! To me it is like complaining the band is out of tune on a sinking Titanic.
One would need to be an extreme
optimist to believe the Church has a future. I can't see a
way forward. I don't
think belief is what is important and I am happy to worship
alongside people who try to follow Jesus though they believe things I don't. I support
my local Church in those ways that I can and will continue
to do so - at least until someone chucks me out.
Maybe at the grass roots faith
leaders can at least shift the
emphasis from Church Doctrine to the teaching of Jesus in
our worship.
“The Church’s one
foundation is Jesus Christ her lord” - IF
ONLY THAT WERE TRUE!!
| INDEX | ARTICLES
|
|
| Home [LINK] What Jesus taught [LINK].. Modern Perspective [LINK] Was Jesus God [LINK] Nicene [LINK] Jesus on sin and sacrifice[LINK] The sacrifice of Jesus [LINK] |
|