Christianity Is Broken, but Can Be Fixed

I'd like to put this in debate topic form, because I have a "resolution" for folks to be for or against:Resolved: that1.) Christianity as it is known today is a failure and does not produce what it promises2.) "The Faith," is it was once known, has not always been a failure, and once produced what it promised3.) If the problems are corrected, "The Faith" is capable of producing a lifestyle that is recognizable by most people as "the way it ought to be."There may be a better way to word point 3, but I'm actually quoting words we have heard repeatedly.Faith & Belief forum, I assume.I thought I'd leave my defense of this resolution to the body of the thread.

First, to Jar...lol. In point 1, I would be talking about Christianity, Inc. In points 2 & 3, no; which is why I dropped the term Christianity in those two points. I couldn't get myself to use that term. No. You are welcome to include yourself among the judges of what "the way it ought to be" is. There's very few people who consider the Dark Ages "the way it ought to be." I hope not. For me, I am not speaking about a hypothetical culture, but the one I live in, which has been described as "the way it ought to be" on a pretty regular basis.My thoughts on the "the way it ought to be" is a lifestyle in which people take care of one another, love one another, and are friends. I don't remember Maslow's hierarchy of needs, but I do remember that it includes confidence of survival, societal needs being met, and ends with "self-realization," or some phrase like that.Insurance is one of America's way of assuring confidence of survival. Even welfare is supposed to be a form of insurance, though it's abused a lot. The idea of insurance is that a large group of people can handle the disasters that may afflict an individual, while an individual can't handle it himself.The community of faith, also known as the household of God, is supposed to be that way. If I die or am disabled, I know that my family will be taken care of. My friends, together, can bear the loss of my income, whereas my family would not be able to do that on their own. My friends can replace me as father to my children, and while they are not free to replace certain roles I play as husband, they most certainly can provide for the safety, comfort, and emotional security of my wife. (As Ms. Clinton said, it takes a village to raise a child.)That's some general thoughts. I'll address my OP in the next couple hours after I get a little work done.

quote:

---

Origen, Against Celsus III:30 (c. AD 230)

​

"The churches of God which are instructed by Christ, when carefully contrasted with the assemblies of the districts in which they are situated, are as beacons in the world; for who would n ot admit that even the inferior members of the church, and those who in comparison with the better are less worthy, are nevertheless more excellent than many of those who belong to the [public non-Christian] assemblies in the different districts?"

---

quote:

---

Tertullian Apology 30 (c. AD 200)

​

"We lift our eyes [to heaven], with hands outstretched, because free form sin, with head uncovered, for we have nothing of which to be ashamed."

​

ibid., 37

​

"Banded together as we are, ever so read to sacrifice our lives, what single case of revenge for injury are you able to point to, though, if it were held right among us to repay evil by evil, a single night with a torch or two could achieve an ample vengeance?"

​

ibid., 39

​

"The tried men of our elders preside over us, obtaining that honor not by purchase, but by established character. There is no buying and selling of any sort in the things of God. Though we have our treasure-chest, it is not made up of purchase-money, as of a religion that has its price. On the monthly day, if he likes, each puts in a small donation, but only if it be his pleasure, and only if he is able...These gifts are, as it were, piety's deposit fund. For they are not taken from there and spent on feasts...but to support and bury poor people, to supply the wants of boys and girls destitute of means and parents, and of old persons confined now to the house; such, too, as have suffered shipwreck...

​

"It is mainly the deeds of a love so noble that lead many to put a brand upon us. 'See,' they say, 'how they love one another,' for they themselves are animated by a mutual hatred. 'How they are ready even to die for one another,' for they themselves will sooner put to death...But on this very account perhaps, we are regarded as having less claim to be held true brothers...because the family possessions, which generally destroy brotherhood among you, create fraternal bonds among us. One in mind and soul, we do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one another. All things are common among us but our wives."

---

quote:

---

Justin First Apology 14 (c. AD 150)

​

"We who valued above all things the acquisition of wealth and possessions, now bring what we have into a common stock, and share with everyone in need; we who hated and destroyed one another, and...would not live with men of a different tribe, now, since the coming of Christ, live familiarly with them, and pray for our enemies."

---

quote:

---

Athenagoras A Plea for the Christians 11 (c. AD 170)

​

"But among us you will find uneducated persons, and artisans, and old women, who, if they are unable in words to prove the benefit of our doctrine, yet by their deeds exhibit the benefit arising from their persuasion of its truth: they do not rehearse speeches, but exhibit good works; when struck, they do not strike again; when robbed, they do not go to law; they give to those that ask of them, and love their neighbours as themselves."

---

All of the above were either written to the current emperor of Rome or to the public at large. I could add more. The Letter to Diognetus is earlier than any of the above, and it has a description of the Christian lifestyle that is like these.In fact, across the board, this is the description of the Christian life through the mid-3rd century. This description was subject to public refutation.Secular sources are limited, but the accusations levied against Christians tended to be incest and bizarre rituals that included child sacrifice, not dishonesty, drunkenness, selfishness, or any sort of moral flaws that could be seen by neighbors. I think you'll find that Christians of the 2nd century were described as quiet, minding their own business, and honest.With some hunting, I could find quite similar descriptions of the 16th century Anabaptists, the 13th century Waldensians ("The Poor"), and I would love to appeal to Franciscans at the time of St. Francis as well.The promise of the faith is that it could unite its adherents into one body, with a mutual love, caring for one another above themselves, sharing in all things, and who are giving, kind, and non-vengeful to those around them. I think the evidence is very, very strong that this is what the churches had until it began collapsing in the 3rd century (which produces a 200-year success story), and was repeated on quite a large scale by the Anabaptists in Europe. ...edited for formattingThis message has been edited by truthlover, 11-15-2005 04:56 PMThis message has been edited by truthlover, 11-15-2005 04:58 PM

If that is the promise, then no one has any way of knowing whether it is a failure.The fact is, the promise was that Y'shua's disciples would love one another with a love significant enough to prove they were his disciples (Jn 13), that they would have a unity that would cause at least some people to believe that the Fathers sent the Son (Jn 17), and that his disciples would bear much fruit (Jn 15). Those are just examples. There are also promises that sin wouldn't have power over disciples (Rom 6:14) and that they would all be growing in faith (Php 1:6).Since finding those things is as rare as still finding gold nuggets in the Sierra Nevada foothills, despite hundreds of thousands of churches, I think the failure of Christianity is obvious.It also makes a claim that it is sending people to heaven quite dubious. Well, since I hear people saying it, I don't think it's too idealistic or unrealistic. The road that leads to life is cramped, and the gate is narrow. Few there be that find it.The Faith has never claimed it will convert the whole world. So you don't believe the teachings of Christ. You're not the only one. I do believe them, however, and I really wish that people who don't would admit they're not Christians and not believers in Christ, because people like you are the reason it's broke.

I don't know if it can be adopted by an entire nation, but I don't think it will be. Christ himself said there would be few that found the way to life, so I don't think he ever expected to convert nations.I am not suggesting community necessarily, either. Maybe the church was always meant to be a community. It was certainly meant (and commanded) to be one heart, one mind, one soul, and intent on one purpose. However, I'm not sure that requires community, even though that's what happened to us here in Tennessee.I am suggesting that when Jesus (Y'shua) is believed and followed, that the Faith produces the things it promises it will produce, holiness, unity, love, happiness. It produces it so well and so powerfully, that it's very difficult for anyone to speak against it.

I agree with this. I don't think the faith of Christ promises no problems and zero people falling away.I do think it promises that grace will transform a person, and that the Spirit of Christ will come and create a loving, unified, and holy people out of his disciples.I do not thing Christianity today is producing such a grace, nor such a people, and my premise is that the real faith is capable of producing such grace and people and has a history of doing so.You can't fix something if you can't admit it's broken. Proven by history to be absolutely true. So that's one quite obvious thing that would have to be fixed wherever it's the case.

We come from a lot of different backgrounds, those of us who are getting together here. I have to admit, I do not understand why you are asking this question, so I wonder if I even understand the question. So if my answer is way off the mark, I suspect we have different enough ways of thinking that I'm just not following where you're going. A little effort may get us on the same page.I'm talking about fixing Christianity so that it produces what it promises to produce. Most of us have an idea what that is. I'm trying not to get too specific, because we might argue about details, that I think miss the point. We all would agree that Christ promised to produce a community of love that took care of one another, did good, helped the poor, etc.Everyone, except some really annoying and obnoxious types of Christians, agrees that Mother Theresa was an awesome Christian. If everyone who believed in Christ turned out like Mother Theresa, then everyone would have to agree that Christ had immense power to transform people.I don't believe everyone is supposed to turn out just like Mother Theresa. But I do believe that Christ claimed that he would send his Spirit to anyone who believed in him, and that person would change for the better--everyone across the board. He also said that he would unite them into a people for himself, and the love of those people would be noticeable and would affect the people around them.That is not happening except in the rarest of instances. Therefore, Christianity looks powerless, and possibly even evil. It's therefore either not the real faith, or it's some broken version of it, and I'm arguing that the real faith has produced and can still produce all I've described above.

Is Welfare supposed to be a form of insurance, or is it abused a lot? I couldn't tell which one you were asking.

This was like a chess problem for me. I literally did not have a clue why you said this or what you were talking about. But after a bit, I think I follow.You're saying that the things I described (the larger group bearing the problems of the individual, etc.) can happen without faith. Is that your point?If it is, I'll grant you that, and I'll grant you that it's happened repeatedly, though it's becoming rarer all the time.My point is that the faith of Christ is supposed to produce that sort of life, and it's supposed to produce the sort of people who will live that sort of life, and that almost everyone who sees it admits it's good. Christianity is not producing it now, but that's not because the faith of Christ lacks the power to produce that sort of people.That's my point, and if that life can happen outside of faith, that's fine. I don't see that as negating my point.I have some thoughts on why it's just as rare, and becoming impossible, among the non-religious as it is in Christianity, but that'll have to be for another thread, because that's a complicated and emotional type discussion.

Well, I obviously think so. I don't know any statistics, nor whether it would be possibly to accurately know this. (If it were possible, then a stop would be put to the abuse, I'd imagine.) I'm talking about real people with real faces, but no real motivation or incentive to do any work or take any responsibility for their lives, and I've met enough of them to think it's way too common.

Yes. Honesty. That it cease to be a horrible embarrassment. That it become more known for its unity than its division. That its nominal membership become less than the majority. That Barna's statistics would show that Christians are significantly different from non-Christians on issue that are supposedly significant to Christians, such as divorce, abortion, and teen pregnancy. No, if I ignored all the things in the paragraph I just wrote, then I would imagine it's very much alive and well.Ray Comfort once told a story (fiction, fortunately) about a parachute company that created a faster, easier way of packing parachutes. The unfortunate side effect was that 90% of the time, the parachutes wouldn't open. When the complaints began coming in, they were offended at the insensitive people who ignored the 10% of people who had fallen from 10,000 feet and more and landed safely because of their parachutes.Ray Comfort was addressing that to you, jano. You're living in a dream world.

Christ came to offer the Spirit of God and grace. I think that's not at question. I say that this is a powerful offer that has produced and still will produce the benefits I've been describing.What happens if people ignore that offer is not really my concern in this thread. In fact, it's not really my concern at any time. I am simply arguing the terrible lack of results that Christianity produces today is not Christ's fault, nor it is a fault with the original message. I believe the original message is powerful, provides the Spirit of God and grace and fruits of grace, and that it has produced and can still produce these things.I will add that, personally, I don't believe Christ "paid the price" for sin on the cross, because I believe God has always been merciful, and I believe he has no need to kill innocents in order to be merciful. I believe Christ's death was to change us not God.

Whoo whee! I love this question!I am a history buff. I love church history. I have read everything the 1st and 2nd century Christians wrote. I have read a lot of what the 3rd century Christians wrote, and less of later works. I have read three histories of Christianity written in the 4th century as well (Eusebius, Socrates (not the philosopher), and Sozomen).The change begins small, but early. I would point to Ignatius of Antioch, who was martyred in AD 110, as an instigator of the change. He was trying very hard to squash the gnostics in the church. Paul & John wrote against them in strong terms, but Ignatius took action to shut them down by increasing the authority of the bishop and decreasing freedom.Later, you can see the transition from a spiritual people, reliant upon God, to a more instructed, formalized people reliant on doctrine (based on a growing "apostolic tradition"). This produced a more controllable population with less problems with mavericks, but also a weaker, less committed people.By the time Diocletian and Constantine pulled the great judo throw on Christianity, they were ripe for it, anyway. Doctrinal battles were beginning to rock the church. Once Diocletian pushed the church with the great persecution, then Constantine pulled it in with the Edict of Toleration, it was all over. The change at that point is dramatic.Bishops became public officials, and there was motivation for corrupt and ambitious men to pursue church leadership roles. Much of the population joined the church, almost none of which had really embraced the faith. Politically appointed bishops began deciding doctrinal issues, which now had to explain how you could be in the church yet not live like a disciple. It became normal, as it always is in large groups, for a small group of people to handle all the decisions and programs.That's the structure changes. The action changes were dramatic. Bloodshed and political intrigue became common. In Constantinople, two feuding churches fought till blood ran in the streets over a dead bishop's casket. Simply awful.The ban on warfare ended not too long after that. Most people don't realize that military service was universally rejected by Christians until AFTER Constantine. Even in Constantine's day, it was forbidden. The Council of Nicea (the same one that produced the Nicene Creed) decreed that anyone who joined the military "like a dog returning to its own vomit" would be banned from communion for up to 13 years (Canon 12, I think..may have been Canon 20).Really, "the church" never recovered. The Orthodox and Roman Catholics are correct in their claim of being of direct organizational descent from Paul, John, & Peter's churches. However, those organizations clearly bear no resemblance to the churches of Acts.There have been reform movements that have varied in their success, but I believe that those who have simply become believers in Christ, attempting to follow all he taught, have been astonishingly successful at producing a life and a people that are beautiful in their lifestyle, admirable in their character, and kind and beneficial to the society around them.The churches of America, almost across the board, cannot make this claim. They're just like everyone else; some good, some bad, most in between. The terminology I chose is difficult. I'm really trying to say two things with that. One, that there is a lifestyle that Christ said he was trying to produce, based on the Sermon on the Mount and all his other teachings. Two, that this lifestyle is recognizably wonderful to almost everyone.I am not saying that everyone agrees that premarital sex is wrong. I am not saying that everyone agrees than drunkenness should never happen. I am saying, though, that the faith and teachings of Christ produce a Spirit and power that provides a loving, kind, joyful, united lifestyle that is recognizably wonderful, as well as producing the "holiness" that he prescribed. Of course, I think the holy behavior and the lifestyle go hand in hand, but I'm not asking anyone to agree with that in this thread. I'm specifically avoiding that subject.So, the reason I know that there is a lifestyle that is "the way it ought to be" is based on looking at people's reactions to it, and knowing what virtues are universally honored in all societies, even among atheists. The question is, will faith in Christ produce a grace that will produce such an honored lifestyle among his disciples.My point, my argument is that it will.

Maybe if I was writing a thesis on the reform of our welfare system, it would be sloppy thinking, and a lot more research would be required. But I'm not. I simply made a comment, based on a small personal poll. Such polls produce a margin of error. Since my poll is limited to Arkansas, Tennessee, and parts of California, it is not applicable outside those areas. But in those areas, it's certainly valid enough to comment that abuse happens a lot.This is way off topic, anyway, although we're adding few enough posts that I haven't resisted commenting on this in order to talk with you.

I wouldn't address "the individual Christian (and by extension the church)." I've answered this question already, so I'll just paste it in from earlier:

quote:

---

That it cease to be a horrible embarrassment. That it become more known for its unity than its division. That its nominal membership become less than the majority. That Barna's statistics would show that Christians are significantly different from non-Christians on issue that are supposedly significant to Christians, such as divorce, abortion, and teen pregnancy.

---

It is trying to comment on the individual that causes someone to say, "Hey, 10% of the people who jump out of airplanes from 10,000 feet or more land safely due to our parachutes," and ignore the 90% who crash to their death.