My Church is a Cult!

by diotrephes 23 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  diotrephes

  Narkissos: I don?t agree with your picture of early Christianity as of movements with some common ideas but bluntly conflicting with one another. I don?t believe that entities like the ?Johannine Community? or James? ?Christian Judaism? or Paul?s ?pagan Christianity? have ever existed. I consider such an approach as a modern, speculative and secular reading of those early writings. I?m more inclined to consider those texts as highlighting different facets of one single complex reality. True, it can?t be denied that in the Christian community there were differences on sensitive issues, like circumcision, but in time they were settled. And that the apostles? goal was to reconcile differences rather than promoting diversity by ?personalizing? the teaching, is clear by their writings:

  (Romans 12:5) S o we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

  (Romans 15:5,6) Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus: That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God.

  (1 Corinthians 3:8) Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one

  (1 Corinthians 12:20,25) But now are they many members, yet but one body. That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

  (Ephesians 2:21) In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

  (Ephesians 4:3,25) Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 025 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.

  (Colossians 3:15) And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body.

  Accordingly, early Christians viewed themselves as a whole (a ?brotherhood? ? 1 Peter 2:17, Greek a·del·pho´te·ti ; ?your brethren that are in the world? ? 1 Peter 5:9) not divided in fighting groups or factions.

  Thus, divisions and sects were discouraged and looked down upon:

  (Romans 16:17) Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

  (1 Corinthians 11:17,18) Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

  (Galatians 5:19) Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

  (Titus 3:10,11) A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

  As to the ?supposed founder?s? intentions about the nature of Christianity, what did he have in mind, ?diversity? or ?unity?, when he said: ? And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd?? (John 10:16) and when he prayed ?that they all may be one? (John 17:21)?

  Diotrephes
• 

  Narkissos

  Diotrephes,

  Sorry for the delay. I now understand your opinion better, and I sincerely respect it though I can't share it anymore. To me the whole picture of "United Christianity", as set in Luke-Acts which makes up the core of any Church catechism, is just a pious fiction. And in this perspective all the verses you quote are just the well known calls for unity by leaders of rival movements -- including those put in the mouth of Jesus by the Gospels. About Jesus himself I think the old Loisy's saying still stands: "Jesus expected the Kingdom of God, but what came is the Church."

  Yes, in time everything was "settled" as you said. The Church according to Ephesians and the Pastorals prevailed upon "christian judaism" and "johannism"; what remained of these was shunned as "heretic" (in the form of the 2nd-century judeo-christianism and gnosticism respectively); their most venerable texts were appropriated by the "Great Church", their interpretation being subjected to the mainstream theology.

  Of course this is just my view, and you'll find many others on this board. Isn't that great?
• 

  Euphemism

  Narkissos... I happen to agree with you. Since I'm a nitpicker, however, I would question whether Gnostic Christianity can properly be said to be a descendant of the Johannine community, given that the Elder, in 2 John, anathemizes the Docetic heresy.

  But I'm no expert, so I could be wrong, of course. Gnostic ideas certainly seem to parallel Johannine thinking in other areas.
• 

  Narkissos

  Euphemism,

  There is a very wide agreement as to the "protognostic trend" of the Gospel of John, at least in its first editions (chapter 21, for instance, being clearly a later addition). Ironically enough, it's the very reason why it sounds so "spiritual" to many "orthodox" readers. It was received by Gnostic circles before being accepted by the Great church, and the first commentaries of it are gnostic.

  The main problem is where do the Johannine epistles (and the last redactional strata of the Gospel) belong in that picture. When the gap became too wide between the "main Church" and Gnostic circles it seems clear that the Johannine communities were divided as to which side to choose. The position of the Epistle's author is a question of interpretation. The traditional reading has him side with the main Church, and so we usually read his comments about "flesh and blood" (also in the addition to John 6) as anti-docetic. But you can also see it the other way round, if you only think that he was not so much interested by the "historical Christ-event" as by its "eternal present" realization in the community. For example, his affirmations about "Christ come in the flesh" are not in the historical aorist tense, but once in the perfect and once in the present. For such reasons, a minority of scholars, such as Vouga, would call the Epistles of John "a first Christian gnostic synthesis", implying that the so-called "apostates" leaving the community are in fact rejoining the "Great Church". The majority, after scholars such as R.E. Brown, would rather hold that the "apostates" are rejoining a more clear-cut kind of gnosticism and that the author still hopes to stand in a somewhat medium position... At the very least, he is still against the system of authority prevalent in the Pastoral churches. Anyway, the fact is that the original "johannism" disappeared in the final opposition between "Ecclesiastical" and "Gnostic" christianity.