Why Orthodoxy Has Allowed the Acquisition
of Things to Supplant Christ.
All
contents copyright © 2014 by M.L. Wilson. All rights reserved. No part of this
document or the related files may be reproduced or transmitted in any form, by
any means (electronic, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the prior
written permission of the publisher.
I* *
*
Undoubtedly
this will be another one of my commentaries which some will regard as
contentious. Hopefully it will bring the reader information rather than
contention. It is not my intent to bring division, but rather to instruct. Truth
should always take precedence over a lie no matter how convenient or expedient the
lie may be. When one is teaching on God Almighty, there is no excuse not to
speak the truth. In our modern churches today, that appears to be a tall order
as tradition seems to trump truth at every turn.
In truth, few of us
have ever experienced “church” outside a building; we associate God and Jesus
with going to a building, regarding such a Holy Place, “God’s House” as it were.
This holds true even for those of other faiths. Jews attend Temple, Hindus and
Buddhists have shrines (although Buddhism is more a philosophy than a religion
in the strictest sense), Islam has Mosques; even Atheists have their own type
of “church”, gathering in a designated structure which is set apart. We as a
people have become inculcated with the notion of church being the building.
Without the building, there really is no church, but rather just the people.
Obviously this thought is completely in error. God’s House now rests within
those who claim Him. WE are God’s House now, not a brick and mortar structure,
not a temple or mosque.
The question which may
come to mind is, “Why does any of this matter? If we worship in a building or
in a field, whose business is it to anyone?” That is a good and legitimate
question to ask. Ultimately one can find union with God in any place; the
location and surroundings are immaterial. However that having been said, it
does matter to those who claim to be followers of Christ. The reason it matters
is because Christ is nothing if not truth. When we as Christians begin to apply
to Christ that which is not true, what does that make us? Jesus was not much of
a fan of Organized Religion; He saw the inherent danger in iconic worship.
People would soon begin to venerate the material rather than the spiritual.
Amongst other issues, the Pharisees took extreme exception to Christ’s opinion
regarding their religious trappings.
It is of interest to note that when God
ordered the construction of the Ark of the Covenant, He did so with the command
it have handholds so it could be carried anywhere. Likewise the Tent of Meeting
which housed the Ark was just as mobile (Exodus 25:12-14). The early tabernacle
was dynamic, not fixed - essentially mirroring God. The subsequent temple which
David wanted to build was constructed not out of necessity, but rather out of
pride. David explained to Nathan the disparity he noticed with him as an
earthly king living in a palace when God was merely “living” in a tent. God, of
course, had a different opinion on the matter and questioned David’s intents.
In the end He allowed for David’s son Solomon to build the temple, but it would
only stand for as long as His people were obedient to Him (2nd
Samuel 7:1- 16). This required obedience
didn’t last too terribly long for the Israelites and the temple was destroyed by the army of
Nebuchadnezzer in 587 BC after 410 years of use—a far cry from the “forever” which was imagined. The
second temple built by King Herod fared even worse and was destroyed completely
after barely 70 years (and while still under construction) by the Romans. By
contrast, the Cathedral in Notre Dame is over 850 years old. Thus the French
Cathedral has lasted longer in one incarnation than both the Jewish temples by
almost 400 years. (Perhaps the 12th Century Catholic Bishop, Maurice
de Sully, had greater success because he didn’t ask God’s permission before
building the cathedral.
Today it is clear that
Christians regard the mark of a successful church as in direct proportion to
its size. A mega-church with a membership of five thousand people and a staff
of degreed pastors (a few ThD’s in the mix certainly doesn’t hurt either.)
denotes a church that is wildly successful. But is it? Is a church so large the
pastor (s) do not know the people occupying their pews really the example
Christ spoke of? It is just as clear that one reading the scriptures would find
the Apostles would have taken exception to the Mega-church model as what was
intended. Such an edifice lent itself to an impersonal environment and not one
conducive to the familiarity necessary for the health of the body. The church
they take such pride in may be large and growing, but so is a tumor.
Not too long ago, one
of these mega-churches crashed and burned very publicly. The Crystal
Cathedral in Garden Grove, California was a wonder in its day boasting a
seating capacity of over 2700 people. It possessed a state of the art audio and
visual system which produced programs for a weekly television program called,
“The Hour of Power.” The building was striking in its architecture, sporting
glass walls and ceilings in the main sanctuary which allowed for the Southern
California sun to bath the parishioners in its warm glow. For all intents and
purposes, this was a thriving, dynamic church. The lead pastor was Robert
Schuller who had started this congregation in 1955. In its earliest days,
Schuller held services in a drive-in movie theater. Interestingly enough, this
early incarnation was closer to the 1st Century church model
envisioned by the Apostles than the behemoth it later became. What made it so
was its simplicity and intimacy. It soon grew beyond that formative state and
Schuller eschewed the division talked about by the Apostles, opting to merely
grow one single body instead.
The Crystal Cathedral
was built in 1970 and grew to give Schuller world-wide fame. He wrote many
books and hosted his television show for more than thirty-five years. In its
time, the Crystal Cathedral stood as an overwhelming success to the power of
God, having been host to world leaders and United States presidents and the
most watched religious themed T.V. Program in the world. But was it a success,
or did it just give the earthly appearance of success?
By 2010, the Crystal
Cathedral was bankrupt with debts exceeding more than $55 Million. The building
still had a mortgage in 2010 of more than $36 million. Drowning in debt which
had severely limited its outreach, the Hour of Power ceased broadcast in 2006.
In the next four years, there was an exodus of parishioners from the
congregation as internecine battles amongst the Schuller family became known to
the general public. By mid-2012, the Roman Catholic Diocease of Orange had
purchased the Cathedral and renamed it Christ Cathedral. Schuller was retired, and for all intents and purposes the church he had built was no longer. One has
to wonder what would still be remaining today of Schuller’s church had he
followed the Apostolic model rather than the model of man.
Many might say that
Schuller’s example was an anomaly and not representative of the church
experience in general. To those who say that, I would point to the many
churches one can find in just about any community with dwindling congregations.
The dynamic aspect of God is antithetical to the fixed aspect of a brick and
mortar building. Thus when the congregants grow and move on, when the older
generation dies off, the building—and its many sundry needs—remain. How can a
congregation believe they are serving God with their tithes and offerings when
the bulk of that money is going to the mortgage, the heating, water and
electrical bills as well as the administrative over-head? Most churches may
only apportion five percent or less of their intake for actual ministerial
outreach. All the rest of this money goes to fixed expenses. (2013 study
conducted by Ministry Advisory Panel. https://www.eccu.org/resources/advisorypanel/2013/surveyreports20 )
When one stops to
contemplate the trend occurring with the modern church and then realizes this
is only the fiscal impact, the other damning aspects of the modern church is
akin to throwing gasoline on a blazing structure in a vain attempt to
put out the fire.
Consider the modern
church structure is to seat a large group of people in a room. These people are
seated so as not to see or interact with one another, but rather to face
forward and be apart from their fellow man. After an appointed and limited time
of pleasantries (in many of the churches I’ve attended, this is a time
caustically referred to as “grin and grip.”), we assume our places, sing a few
songs about Christian brotherhood and then we are to sit in silence while we
listen to the opinion of one person for the next half hour to hour (depending
upon the individual speaker). None can
raise their hand to ask for a clarification on point as this is regarded as
“rude” and not in keeping with protocol. The subtext here is clear: The pastor
is the educated one, not you. The pastor is the one versed in the subject
matter, not you. The pastor is the one anointed by God, not you. Ergo, if you
do not understand what the pastor is saying, the problem lies with you.
Of course many pastors
have allowed for a time when they will answer your questions at some other
time, but depending upon the size of your congregation, you may never get that
chance. I have personally attended two churches as an adult where I never even
met the lead pastor. His time was far too valuable to be bothered with such
banal questions from someone like me. For that, there was another tier of people
who would clarify the point for him. Additionally, there were home groups where
the finer points of his sermon could be discussed—discussed, but not
necessarily answered to anyone’s satisfaction. Few of these discussions would
ever make it back to the ears of the one who first spoke them. Thus, any errors
pointed out by members of the congregation remained unchecked.
The primary problem
with such a church structure is that it does not really lend itself to
Christian fellowship. One goes to church today to be indoctrinated, not to get
to know their fellow Christians. Doctrine is used as a measure and an indicator
of one’s “Faith.” To question what is taught is akin to being an adulterer and
such a person is questioned on their beliefs and if there is no change, they
are excised from the body post haste. This church structure, of course, was the
desired intention since the first of the Nicene Councils began to codify
Christianity under the Roman Emperor Constantine in 325 AD. If one were to go
to a church service and expect to be able to engage the speaker in a Q & A,
one would be sorely disappointed and would be asked to remain silent or leave.
In truth, few pastors are equipped to engage their congregation in that manner.
Most approach the dais with a prepared and practiced sermon and any deviation
is simply not tolerated. (I’ve witnessed multiple services with the same pastor
giving the same sermon without much deviation. Even the humorous anecdotes,
timing and rhythm of the sermon remains unchanged from service to service. How
can a pastor engage his congregation when one is unable to deviate from the
script or speak on the subject matter extemporaneously?)
A personal
anecdote: Years ago I asked a pastor of
a small church I was attending a question regarding the passage in Matthew
27:52-53. The passage dealt with the bodies of many saints coming out of their
tombs and going into town to preach to the people about Christ. I was terribly
confused about this passage as it almost appeared as though the Bible was
talking about zombies. To his credit, the pastor neither dismissed me nor tried
to give me a contrived answer. He looked at the passage, looked back at me and
shrugged his shoulders saying, “I don’t know.” I remain in his debt for his
response because he displayed true humility and respected me enough not to try
to explain that which was beyond him. It pushed me to discover the meaning
behind the passage for myself and the spiritual significance, but that is for
another commentary.
As I write this
commentary I am listening to Johann Sebastian Bach. While Bach wrote for many
noblemen of his day, his primary employer (as with Michelangelo) was the
church. It could be said that despite its failings, the institutionalized
church has also given us many wonders we otherwise would not have experienced.
The Sistine Chapel is one such wonder to behold as are the many cathedrals
throughout Europe (and even here in the modern day United States with such as
the Crystal Cathedral). I raise this issue only to let the reader know that I
am well aware of the seeming benefits of the institutionalized church over the
centuries. However, to presume that God in His eternal wisdom would not have
still graced humanity with the talents of these many people is to diminish God.
Is this not the same rationale that David used in wanting to construct the
first temple? The better question to ask is how many gifted individuals would
we have been graced with had the institutional church NOT stood in their way?
Such people are now lost to history irrespective their talents and abilities
because of the church’s intrusion and restrictions. The modern church by its very structure does
not lend itself to utilizing the talents of its congregation. There can only be
ONE pastor. Should there be others with spiritual insight amidst the
congregation, they are ignored. There is no church division and the only church
planting which will occur has to first be sanctioned and planned for by the
Church Association. Budgetary concerns have to be addressed and, of course, qualified, licensed, degreed pastoral candidates must then vie for the position; they must interview for the job - like any other prospective employee.
As a component of the modern church, this is truly a sad commentary and not at
all what Jesus intended. It may make temporal sense to those in charge, but is
excludes the eternal power of the Spirit to work in the body.
What is the solution
then? While I have raised many issues (and there are many more), what is the
solution? In his book, “The Problem of Wine Skins – Church Structure in a
Technological Age”, Howard A. Snyder is rather direct. He asserts we ought to
do what Christ commanded which is to sell everything and give it to the poor
(Matthew 19:21). Is this a realistic solution? Many churches have a great deal
of money tied up in real estate and other property. There is also the attendant
responsibility they have taken on in administrative overhead. Selling off the
building would effectively put the pastor, associate pastor, music minister,
youth pastor, accountants, secretaries, custodians, et al. out of their jobs. Yes,
that is true. But consider this novel approach and one which was used by the
early church which met with great success: The pastor volunteers his time and
works elsewhere for his income. (Paul remained a tent maker and Peter a
fisherman while they planted churches and preached.) The congregation can meet in private homes
until they reach a certain predetermined size and then break off and start a
new congregation. Any administrative roles needing to be filled would utilize
the congregation, an eclectic mix of people with varied talents heretofore
ignored by the modern church. In this way, all have a part and all are
included; no one is left out and pride will not have opportunity to take root
in any one individual. (Even a degreed and lettered pastor does not know
EVERYTHING and should not proceed upon that false premise.)
Is such a solution
unrealistic? No, but it will meet with great resistance. It is a human trait
that people do not like to give up stuff. A pastor or a degreed theologian has
worked hard at his career and is not going to entertain for one second the
possibility of simply throwing it all away. They will dip into their years of
knowledge of the scriptures and parse same to contrive a valid excuse as to why
God called them to create their monoliths and why God has personally sanctioned
their church and continues to bless them. Of course they will; the pull of the
flesh is strong and the enemy is cunning. So cunning, in fact that even the
elect can be deceived. Humility must be a component of the pastorate. These are
positions which are supposed to be above the traps laid by man. As Christ
Himself said, “… If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and
take up his cross daily and follow me.”( Luke
9:23)
History has shown us
that such as the modern church construct is inevitable. Humans like control and will do
what is necessary to make certain control is maintained always. The Jews first wanted a king and later King David decided to build the temple. Much later, Constantine the
Great established the church under his rules and regulations for just this
reason. He needed the people of God, but only on his terms. Once his primary
goal was realized (a united Empire with him at the head), the established
church structure was used merely to keep the masses “in line” and prevent
further insurrections. Neither tactic worked very well and the established
church structure survived him by only 150 years. With Rome’s fall in 486 AD,
the remnant of the church bunkered in monasteries and was for all practical
purposes, useless to the people at large.
Whatever people did learn
about God and Christ came from small home studies. This was the new reality of
humanity throughout the known world until early in the 10th Century.
When the Holy Roman Empire was born, the structure of the church was changed;
the people in charge were not at all the “good Christians” one would have
imagined they should be, but rather were ruthless despots. Again, any such
learning was done in the home and usually to their earthy detriment. Those who
did not conform to the strictures of the Holy Roman Empire were brutally
tortured and then executed. It is safe to say that little Christian learning
was gleaned from orthodoxy during this dark period, despite its supposed
legitimacy.
There is an even
greater danger to the body than that of the hubris and pride many modern pastors
suffer from which is the brutal facts of history. As early 20th Century philosopher George Santayana famously stated, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." What has bedeviled humanity before is prophesied to visit us again. The Bible prophesies a
coming darkness before the rise of the dawn and eternal Light. In that time,
the established church will not be in existence as it is today. Whatever
“legitimate” church will reign over the earth will not be one which will imbue
humanity with the goodness and the Grace of God Almighty. If we, as God’s face
to our fellow man, do not begin to plan for this eventuality today, we will not
be equipped to handle what is to come tomorrow. In effect, by maintaining these
faux “houses of worship”, we are actually “…placing
our light under the peck measure.” Our growth will remain, but again what
kind of growth are we aiming for? If it is unity and harmony of the body of
Christ, we’re failing and failing spectacularly. Just as in the Dark Ages, the Church today is
filled with people hurting and in desperate need of others, but do not feel
safe. Those who have created their livelihoods on the name of God are not going
to be too quick to cede the power and position they’ve worked so long to
attain. Jesus has some startling news for such people, “… they have received their reward in full.” (Matthew 6:2)
We are entering what I
believe to be the final phase of humanity in this earthly state. It could all
end tomorrow, or in a hundred years or more, but the end is coming. For now there
is still a sliver of light which we can enjoy and take advantage of, but it will
soon grow dark. In those times, will planting yet another brick and mortar
building, will adding yet another financial obligation, placing the awesome
burden of debt upon a congregation really be what Christ intended? Must we as a
Christian church always firmly plant our feet and demand that the lost come to
us, rather than our being dynamic enough to go to the lost? When darkness once
again falls upon the world (and it is a historical certainty that it will), these
brick and mortar monoliths will fall as well. The hard work which was expended,
the dollars wasted on new carpeting, paint, tile and administrators will be
seized by the authorities and the occupants imprisoned, killed or otherwise
turned out. (Think China, Cambodia, USSR, etc.) Meanwhile, many who could have
otherwise benefited from those funds never will; many who could have shared in
the unity of a dynamic body will have missed the chance while meeting after
endless meeting was convened to deal with issues of zoning, taxes, apportioning
of funds for maintenance, etc.
Unless and until we as
a true church decide to stop wasting our time and effort on icons, on an
edifice which we place before us to feel important and display our earthly
worth and wealth to our fellow man as an indicator of “God’s love”, we will
have failed in the primary objective given to us by Jesus Christ, “Therefore go
and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,
the Son and the Holy Spirit.”
No comments:
Post a Comment