Christianity in the 21st Century - A New Way

There has been a large body of scholarship recently on making Christianity relevant in the modern age. There has also been a resistance to change from the traditionalists of Christianity.

I think the result has been a general turning away from the church and that many have tried to embrace other religions instead of staying within the Christian faith as it seems irrelevant and counter to modern values.

If we look at Europe we see a general lack of interest in religion, Christianity in particular, as seen in the dearth of congregations in churches of all denominations. In the U.S. there still remains a commitment to Christianity, especially in the Evangelical denominations. In the Southern Hemisphere Christianity has remained very traditional and yet strong.

We see schisms occurring in the worldwide Anglican community because of the acceptance of gays and women bishops. The Catholic Church has staunchly maintained its bias against women priests, and is in no way waivering from its traditional stance. Likewise in the evangelical movement in America.

I think that the state of the Christian faith today is wholly due to the centuries of dogma which forbade the questioning of whatever denomination one belonged to. By today, education has become universal in scope and allowed ordinary people to think for themselves. This, I believe, has been the main reason why people have questioned Christianity as being relevant in light of the knowledge the world has gleaned over the centuries and which is now widely disseminated.

This knowledge has shown the weakness in much of the dogma that was taken for granted for so long. We have opened the bottle and let the genie of knowledge out. There is no way that it will return to the bottle. The question then is, "How do we progress from here and does Christianity have to be re-constituted to reflect this added knowledge?"

I believe wholeheartedly that a thorough understanding of Jesus' message to the people of his time, and the way he led his life can give us a better way to conduct our lives without losing our Christian faith. Christianity has strayed too far from the original teachings of Jesus, simply by becoming a partner of the State Power structure.

What do you think? Add your comments below.

Over the last seventeen centuries, Christianity has focussed on Jesus as the Messiah, the Savior of us all, who was born to save us, and died cruelly on the cross to save us.

There is another interpretation of the meaning of his life as well. To many today, Jesus is seen as a prophet, from the long line of Jewish prophets, going back to Samuel in King David's time. In the New Testament, Jesus begins his ministry by reading from the prophet Isaiah in the synagogue (Luke 4:18,19). Christians have been taught that this was to show that Jesus himself was the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy, but we can also interpret it as being the fulfillment by the ministry that he was to embark on. In other words, he was going to do what Isaiah had said should be done as God's will.

In addition, it has been widely believed in organized Christianity that Jesus' death on the cross was ordained by God as a means of saving humankind, but this belief only grew through the teachings of Paul, and especially during the next two hundred years, culminating in the Council of Nicea in 313 CE which gave us the Nicean Creed.

What do you think? I have a poll below that you can take to voice your opinion. Was Jesus the Messiah, as we have been taught, or was he a prophet?

We hear a large amount of verbage today from all points of the political and religious spectrum about the fact that each is "consistent with the Faith of our Founding Fathers." Everyone, politicians and religious leaders, want to wrap themselves in the Flag by referencing the Founding Fathers.

I was glad to hear this morning on "Speaking of Faith" on NPR Radio, Steven Waldman who is the author of "Founding Faith", speak of the disparate views that abounded even in those times among the Founding Fathers about the separation of church and state.

Thomas Jefferson was even given a gift by Evangelical Christians from Western Massachusetts when he was elected President, for his stand for separation of church and state.

By the way, the gift was the largest cheese ever produced, measuring 4 feet in diameter, and 17 inches high, weighing 1235 lbs. (Is this where we got the expression "the Big Cheese"?).

The reason that the Evangelical Christians were so pleased was that the mainline churches wanted a closer relationship between church and state, and the Evangelicals were not mainline. Jefferson had strong views about the need for a separation, so much so that his enemies called him an atheist, which he certainly was not.

The main proponent of separation was James Madison, himself an Evangelical Christian from that bastion of Evangelical sources - Princeton University! How the United States has changed in the last 250 years! We see today how Evangelical Christians have become so political, a 180 degree turn from the days of the Founding Fathers!

So, the next time you hear a politician or church authority talk about the Faith of the Founding Fathers, remind them to read Steve Waldman's book, and tell them to thank the Evangelical Christians for the separation!

Reading the Gospels in the New Testament is not like reading a book, where you see the facts on a page, and you do not look any further for a meaning. But that is the way many people today read the Bible.

I heard one of our most progressive theologians, John Dominic Crossan, give a marvelous talk in which he pointed out that although we know about parables by Jesus, there are also parables about Jesus.

His example was from Luke's Gospel, Luke 24:13-35, about the famous meeting and walk along the Road to Emmaus. He said that it does not matter whether we believe the story as fact or not, that there is a meaning in the story which makes it a parable.

In the story, two people are walking to Emmaus and discussing the recent crucifixion of Jesus. A stranger approaches them and they walk together and he interprets Scripture to them as they walk, explaining that they should have expected Jesus to be killed, as were the prophets in the Scriptures. When they come to their house the stranger acts as if he is going to continue on, but they ask him in and inside they offer some food, the stranger breaks the bread and they instantly recognise him as Jesus, and he disappears.

Crossan explained the parable this way. In our context today, meeting the stranger means that you don't know when you will be visited by Jesus. Jesus is with you when you study the Scripture. It allows you to gather knowledge, but is insufficient for you to recognise Jesus. Reading Scripture is only preparatory. It is only when you invite the stranger into your home and share food, God's food (the Eucharist) that you will recognise him.

So, we can conclude that the story of the two persons on the road to Emmaus can, and does, happen today. We must do two things, read Scripture, and invite the stranger in to share God's food with us.

What do we know now about Jesus that puts us in a position to question the veracity of what we have learnt from an early age, and which is unquestionable in many eyes? How did Christianity develop from the early days to the present day? Why do so many people turn away from the Church and say it is meaningless?

These are the questions I intend to probe on My Blog. I hope that you, the reader, will comment with constructive criticism, and correct my words when they are wrong.

Was Jesus a Christian? I think not. He was born a Jew, raised as a Jew, and preached and taught the Jewish people. He lived, moved and stayed within the bounds of Judaism. The first term used for Jesus and his followers was that of "Followers of the Way", and they were seen as a Jewish cult for many years.

Indeed, Paul would always go first to a synagogue in any new city that he entered and preach there before turning to the gentiles. In the "Acts of the Apostles", the Church in Jerusalem, headed by James the brother of Jesus was the centre of Jesus' followers for a number of years. There is a great debate chronicled early in the Acts of the Apostles where Paul asks that gentiles who were embracing the teachings of Jesus be given a dispensation not to follow the strict Jewish law, as some of the followers were demanding.

The final break with Judaism did not occur until after the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE, around 75-80 CE. Up to that time, the followers of Jesus were seen as a cult within Judaism. Again, the Acts of the Apostles documents that the term "Christian" did not appear for some time after Jesus was crucified, and it was in Antioch that his followers were called "Christians".

The historical Jesus is only met in the Bible, and then by gospel writers, not historians. The gospels were all written between 70 and 100 CE, and not by Jesus' immediate disciples, who could not have survived until that time. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were followers of Jesus whose writings reflect the "experience" they would have had of him well after his death. Their gospels reflect their biases, conscious of their audience, which were varied.

Mark's gospel is the first, and briefest. Indeed, scholars now believe that the ending to his gospel was written well after he had finished it, to reflect the understanding at that time of what the early followers were commissioned to do by Jesus. His gospel starts when Jesus is a grown man, not at his birth, and ends immediately after the women flee from the empty tomb. Modern scholarship claims that verses 9-20 were added later.

Matthew writes to the Jews, as we can see from his gospel which alludes to the fulfillment of prophecy that he believed Jesus was. These are typical of the "Mishra" tales of Judaism, where old tales of great men are re-told to show the importance of the contemporary person in the story.

Luke writes mainly to the gentile world and emphasises the communal aspects of the life of Jesus. Luke may have been a convert to Judaism, or one of his parents may have been a Jew. He accompanied Paul, and wrote the Acts of the Apostles as a continuation of the communal life of the early Christians.

All three have similar chronology and history. Matthew and Luke based their gospels on Mark, and the "Q" documents (which have never been discovered).

John's gospel was the last to be written, and does not follow the chronology of the other three, and is not at all interested in the historical Jesus, only in the mystical and spiritual Jesus. He, like Mark, does not give any birth story, but implies that Jesus was with God at the beginning of time. Immediately afterwards, he begins with Jesus' ministry.

To get more information go to My Blog

I have often wondered what would Christianity be like if Ireneaus, in 180CE, had not banned other gospels which had been written by other authors than Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.

Now that we have seen some of those gospels which were revealed in the last 60 years, have we been able to say that we have a better knowledge of Jesus' message. I think that what we have learnt is that some of the gospels, for example, Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Judas, have given us a new perspective of Jesus and his message.

There is still a lot of controversy, especially from the established church, but if we honestly look at these writings as being those of Jesus' followers who had a slightly different vision of him, we might be able to open our thoughts to a deeper understanding.

As a scientist, I believe fervently in the pursuit of the truth, wherever it will lead us. Hopefully in the next few years we will come to see the Gnostic Gospels as just so many more ways of understanding the true meaning of Jesus' message.

What do you think?

Leave a comment on this lens.

Being a true follower of Jesus is extremely difficult. I remember a story about Clarence Jordan, a farmer, New Testament Greek scholar and author of the Cotton Patch translations of the New Testament. He was talking about faith with his brother, who was a successful businessman, and asked him if he was a follower of Jesus, to which his brother said he was. Clarence then asked him if he was willing to give everything away and work for the poor of the town. His brother, after some thought, said "No", at which Clarence said, "You are not a follower of Jesus, you are an admirer of Jesus."

I believe most people are like Clarence's brother, admirers of Jesus, because it is extremely hard to give up everything and follow Him. That is why most people read the Bible as history, or as stories about a people long, long ago, which do not pertain to them. "They did it, so that we don't have to". Sacrifice is not an easy path to follow.

Clarence Jordan is the modern embodiment of Jesus' teaching. In 1942 Clarence, his wife and another couple, Martin and Mabel England, and their families moved to a 440 acre tract of land near Americus, Georgia, to create an interracial, Christian farming community. They called it Koinonia, a word meaning communion or fellowship that in Acts 2:42 is applied to the earliest Christian community.

With a radical commitment to embodying the teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, the Koinonia partners bound themselves to the equality of all persons, rejection of violence, ecological stewardship, and common ownership of possessions. For several years the residents of Koinonia lived in relative peace alongside their Sumter County neighbors. But as the civil rights movement progressed, white citizens of the area increasingly perceived Koinonia, with its commitment to racial equality, as a threat. They had to suffer abuse, isolation and government disregard. But they persisted, and Koinonia is still a thriving community.

In 1965 Millard and Linda Fuller visited Koinonia and stayed. Together with Clarence Jordan they developed affordable housing for poor people, and in 1976 that became Habitat for Humanity.

So, the life of this visionary farmer shows clearly why it is still possible to live as Jesus intended us to. Clarence Jordan committed to do the acts that were right at a time when it was still dangerous to follow the path that we take for granted today. His life is an example to all Christians of how to follow Jesus' teachings in a modern world.

A review of the teachings of Jesus in the Four Gospels indicates that they can best be summarized in the Beatitudes of Matthew'a Gospel.

We have constructed a chart which shows the relationship between the various Gospel teachings and the Beatitudes.

Clicking on the following link will take you to my blog and a link to the chart showing the Gospel references that pertain to each Beatitude.

Gospel References to the Beatitudes

Instead of looking at the Beatitudes as a wonderful theoretical idea that is quite impractical in the modern world, we have studied them and have concluded that the only obstacle to their inclusion in everyday life, i.e., at work, at home, in the community, in the nation, and yes, in the world, is our attitude which insists that they are only applicable in an historical setting, when life was far simpler.

The truth is, that they are applicable today, and can be a part of our lives. In fact, they can be a model for our lives in the 21st century which could revolutionize our state of minds and our relationships with other people and other nations.

This is a powerful book that summarizes both the process and results of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission set up in South Africa after apartheid had been terminated, and the new government had realized that a new way of thinking was necessary to bring closure to the horrors of apartheid and to enable the country to move forward.

Bishop Tutu was chosen by President Nelson Mandela to head the commission. He helped establish the rules and policies of the commission to assure equality and fairness in its dealings.

In the book, Bishop Tutu spells out how the members of the commission were chosen, the obstacles that the commission members had to overcome, and how it took three years to complete the commission's work.

This was a pioneering effort to approach the task by giving amnesty to all who volunteered to give their stories honestly and fully. It included people from both sides, police and enforcers, as well as the members of ANC who had perpetrated evil on the people. In addition, victims of the crimes were allowed to give their stories of atrocities committed against them or their family members.

Anyone who asked for amnesty and gave a full account of their part in the horrors of apartheid were not charged with crimes. This was a distinct split with past commissions, like the one in Nuremberg after World War II, where criminal charges were brought against the perpetrators. Bishop Tutu emphatically states that the reason this was done was to ensure that the truth would be made public, and so those who confessed their part in apartheid could be free to tell the whole truth.

It certainly was not plain sailing, but good will among the commission members allowed them to see the process through to the end, and so the completion of the report to the country enabled the people of South Africa to move forward in peace, without the recriminations and negative feelings between peoples that have been evident in other circumstances.

Bishop Tutu sees the commission's work as being ground-breaking to enable other entities to approach reconciliation and re-building in a positive and ennobling manner.

I thoroughly recommend this book as an example of how we, as peoples of the world, can approach horrible situations with new approaches and get better outcomes for all concerned.

Born in Germany as Ulrich Tolle, he took the name "Eckhart" as a tribute to the 14th century German Theologian, Meister Eckhart.

He now resides in Canada, and is a leading spiritual teacher, motivational speaker and writer. Oprah Winfrey speaks highly of his books, and has featured his book "a New Earth" as a 10 week live online seminar in March 2008.

Christ Community Church of Spring Lake, MI is producing an ecourse called:

Awaken Your Christ Consciousness! - A New Christianity For a New Earth e-Course Beginning Monday, September 22.

You can learn more about this course by clicking here

It is fascinating to see how many different God(s) we encounter in the Bible.

From the Creative God through to the Tribal God, the God of the Priests, the God of the Prophets and to the God of Jesus. It shows the development of the idea of God, from the primitive to the sophisticated.

Which God do you worship? Are you worshipping the God that will intervene in the world on your behalf? Are you worshipping a God that demands ritual and sacrifice to be pleased? Or are you worshipping a God that asks for you to "...do justly, to show mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God." (Micah 6:8)?

I believe that most people play it safe, and stick to the first two ways. The third way is very hard to follow, but is the way I see that leads to God.

What do you believe?