“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”
Jesus of Nazareth’s parting ‘great commission’ to his followers, as reported in Matthew’s gospel, provides a good starting point for a critical reflection on this television series on the history of Christianity. The imperative to go to ‘all nations’ is well illustrated by Diarmaid MacCulloch’s travels, starting in Jerusalem, like the Christian Church itself, but then journeying as far east as China and Korea and as far west as the United States and Mexico, with numerous stops in between. In an ideal world however, he would have travelled even more widely, taking in for example, the ancient churches of Ethiopia, the long history of Christianity in south India, the distinctive Scottish Presbyterian tradition both at home and abroad, the profound impact of nineteenth-century Christian missionaries on the islands of the Pacific and the growth of Pentecostalism in twentieth-century Latin America.
It’s inevitable that much has had to be left out, but these examples serve to reinforce the underlying message of the series that Christianity is, and always has been, a global religion, and one that’s proven itself remarkably, but often confusingly, adaptable to an enormous variety of cultural and social settings. For much of its history, it’s also co-existed and interacted alongside other religious traditions, from Judaism and classical paganism in its origins, Buddhism and Hinduism in its expansion into Asia, Islam in the Mediterranean world, militant atheism in Soviet Russia to perverted neo-paganism in Nazi Germany. While historical contexts of Christian religious monopoly have certainly existed, the series shows that these instances have been less common than is often supposed.
While Jesus’s commission might at first sight seem straightforward enough, the process of implementing it and interpreting it has, as the series well shows, produced numerous divisions. Above all, how should we view Jesus Christ himself? The centrality of Christ has both held Christianity together and bitterly divided it, largely because of repeated efforts at reconciling the twin concepts of a being who is simultaneously both human and divine. What’s more, although all Christians acknowledge Jesus’s ultimate authority, who mediates that authority today? Is it the text of Scripture, the teachings of a church hierarchy, your own conclusions or the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit? These questions and others besides have been major sources of tension and conflict.
How does an understanding of the history of Christianity help us better to evaluate its significance and future prospects in today’s world? Well, it’s important to remember that although programmes 5 and 6 cover the same timespan, from the eighteenth-century to the present, they reach very different conclusions due to their European and non-European perspectives. Moreover, constraints of space have precluded detailed treatment of other important narratives within the same timeframe. For example, one would have covered the renewal of Roman Catholicism in the nineteenth century, its reform in the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s and the impact of John Paul II’s papacy at the end of the twentieth century. Another key narrative is that of the diversification of religious life in the West, emphasising not so much secularisation, as the arrival of other faiths into previously Christian strongholds both with the migration of major world religions and the advent of new religious movements.
Whilst it is broadly true that Christianity is continuing to decline in Europe even as it grows in Africa, Asia and Latin America, even that generalisation can conceal fascinating complexities and diversities. On the one hand evangelical and Pentecostal churches in London still draw congregations of many hundreds, while on the other the Christian integrity of some growing churches in the developing world can be compromised by their social or political connections. In the end, although God may sometimes appear to be in the dock, the jury is unlikely to ever reach a clear verdict.
Login or Register to post comments
Comments on: "Defining Christianity"
TimN has started a thread discussing Defining Christianity.
I did find it disappointing that the modern Spirit filled Christians were mentioned in little more than a sentence. From the birth of the church until now all major revivals of the church have been instigated by an outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The 'Church' that God has made is one where the individual has a personal encounter with God and is not an institution that one adheres to. I am not saying that all religions lead to god just that being in a denomination does not automatically make one a Christian. The program though being historically correct about the institution that is the church, did not talk about the works of God that have occurred to make the church today.
What Does "Spirit-filled" Christian Really Mean?
John Dunkley, all those, who are following Christ on the narrow way, that is, all those who are Children of the God of Israel, are spirit-filled.
There are no exceptions to this, although the many, who are singing and dancing along the religious broad way, do not have the spirit within them.
The spirit is God's divine nature, so that those, who are spirit-filled, have received his divine nature into their human beings.
The person, who has God's spirit within him or her, is a Child of God by faith in Jesus Christ.
By faith in Christ, they have been declared to be righteous and, therefore, sinless in God's eyes. For you cannot be both righteous and sinning at one and the same time. They are opposite sides of the same coin.
The person, who has been born from Above, has received spirit, that is, divine nature from God in that process of being born of God.
Once God's spirit is within the person with faith in Christ, then God passes his grace into that spirit, which is now resident within the constitution of the human being, who now has faith in Christ.
It is possible for a person to be so emotionally moved when someone they regard as superior to them tells them about Christ. I am thinking about those miners at Kingswood in Bristol, who listened to both George Whitefield and John Wesley telling them that God loves them.
They stood there and wept, so that their tears created pink furrows in the black coal dust over their faces. I wonder, however, how many of those men received God's spirit, his nature, into their beings.
As uneducated, down-trodden, poor, hardworking, exhausted men, they come across this preacher from the high levels of society, speaking directly to them with great earnestness, appealing to them to put their trust in Christ.
I know that many evangelicals believe that the 18th century revival was a work of God. However, I think that for the vast majority, it was a psychological change of heart and mind so that they could now cling to religion, which was showing its interest in them. Before that, they were so alone with no one, but no one, caring for them as human beings.
But most of these miners and the others converted in the 40 or so years of the Great Awakening in Britain under Wesley and Whitefield did not have faith in God as Abraham, God's friend, had faith in him. How so?
Because they knew little about the content of the New Testament when they experienced their psychological, emotional change of heart towards the Christian religion. They knew little and would have understood even less.
For a person to have faith in Christ, such that they receive spirit from God and are, therefore, spirit-filled, information about the God of Israel and about the Son of God must be passed to them for them to know enough in order to be converted.
I believe that many of today's so-called "spirit-filled Christians" are not actually filled with God's divine nature. Instead, they are experiencing and expressing a psychological response to people speaking to their inner, very human-religious nature.
Their expressed love for God is for the Holy Spirit and not for Jesus Christ. Their lack of interest in the New Testament and what it says about the Son of God is huge. As long as they get their "fix" of what they describe as being "spirit-filled", then they have no interest in the Truth as revealed to us by Christ and his Apostles.
In other words, the entrance to the broad way is wide, very wide, and there are many, many who go through it on to the broad way, which leads to personal loss.
Few there are who get through the narrow gate to walk on the narrow way, for there is pressure and the carrying of the cross, often outside society as a societal reject, for those who walk on to salvation on the narrow way.
And they, and only they, are filled with God's divine nature, otherwise known as the spirit.
BTW, I see I am replying to your first post on this blog. May I say welcome to you and thanks for your post, which I thought was very worthwhile replying to. Best wishes!
on reading this forum you class yourselves as intellectuals but instead of whittering on at each other why don't you explain christianity in laymans terms so it is more believable - this is likened to a slanging match between pompous knowalls.
Re: Comments on: "Defining Christianity"
Sorry to be so long in replying, and so far only the unspeakable hans has raised an eyebrow...
The Faith Guide for Dummies... (no slur intended my friend)
1. God is, always was and always will
2. God created the heavens and the earth, plus all creatures including you and me
3. So God loves His creation and wants relationship with us
4. Man had different ideas and got in a right mess – just look around you today
5. God has dealt with all your mess (sin) 2000 years ago
6. Just accept what He has done for you in Christ Jesus – yes just believe
7. Start to want to know more about your heavenly Father, understand Him and His Word
Jesus taught: “Eternal Life is to know (have fellowship with) God the Father and God the Son through God the Holy Spirit”
And also “Repent (have a change of heart) and believe (what God has done for you)”
SIMPLE – so when will you start?
Re: Comments on: "Defining Christianity"
once upon a time along, long, long way away...
don't want much do you?
... ...get some practice in, start with watching, "The Wizard of Oz" and believe it's a documentary.
Re: Comments on: "Defining Christianity"
Having been an avid bible student for many years, I believe with all my very being that the Lord Jesus Christ is the created Son of the only living and True God, Jehovah the God of Israel. It is by means of his sacrifice at Calvary ,that many humans including myself will see the real life that Jehovah always intended for those who truly love him and those who will recognize ,that Jehovah alone rules this universe and that Jesus Christ the Son of God is his appointed King. May the Lord Jehovah and his dear Son bless all those who love them.
Re: Comments on: "Defining Christianity"
Hello Keith,
You left out the Holy Spirit? Or are you still in Jerusalem?
Even your King James bible majors on the re-birth and Baptism in the Holy Spirit - that is the true defininition of Christianity - to be Christ-like in other words Annointed by the same Holy Spirit as Jesus was and to do that same things as Jesus did - and even greater things.. wow what a God!
Bless you as you obey all He commands (that is how Jesus knows you love Him)
I do not think the above "guest" has any right to amend comments by kingdoms warrior. You behave in a completely negative way and have not taken progressed this discussion in any way. I was going say about the original comment that it felt very human and I feel he/she has experienced something very special and no one has a right to take that away from them.
Re: Comments on: "Defining Christianity"
As original posts are not visible, here is the start of the thread
I would like to disagree with any definition of Christianity as a religion; that puts it on a par with Islam and Buddhism etc. My Lord and Saviour did not sacrifice Himself to create any form of religious system, all religions are man-made systems. No, to be a true believer and follower of Jesus means that we are Christ-like, i.e. anointed by the Holy Spirit baptism; that is the derivation of Christ from Messiah which means Anointed One – and Jesus Himself said we would do that same as Him even greater and that is only possible by this Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Forget my infant sprinkling!!
Only is Jesus do we find a relationship with the Father, all my sins are covered with the blood of Jesus, the Father sees me through that blood – in Christ. No religion can make me acceptable, otherwise all religions are claiming salvation by works and NOT BY FAITH.
I prefer to call myself a ‘believer’ because if I say to a person ‘I am a Christian’ I am immediately pigeon-holed as something I am not by that person.
A believer demonstrates the Kingdom of God, not talks about it.
Re: Comments on: "Defining Christianity"
TimN says: My Lord and Saviour did not sacrifice Himself to create any form of religious system, all religions are man-made systems.
Well, yes sort of. But "religion" (probably) has an etymology coming from the idea of "binding". And this can properly refer to the inner compulsion that makes us determined to "walk as Jesus did" (1John 2:6, and see John 6:29 & Psalm 118:27). Note also that God binds himself to his word. This is why we are sure that the sun will rise in the morning (see Psalms 19:1 and Genesis 1:14).
Christianity involves what TimN says at the existential level, but it also involves a coherent view of the text of the Bible (as a whole) at the intellectual level. One important reason for its continued existence after 2000 years is precisely that it is systematic. I agree the system is man-made, but we are ourselves made "in the image of God" (Genesis 1:26f; 9:6) and in my view any truth that we apprehend is by inspiration, especially Christian truth. Christianity is a systematic account. Is it true?
I think it is a mistake to get hung up on the word "religion". Whatever we call ourselves we will get called religious anyway. I think it is more profitable to point out that one's "religion" is what makes one tick, one's "world view" or philosophy. From this point of view everyone is religious!
Re: Comments on: "Defining Christianity"
CJ: I like your first “Yes” but not the “sort of”... you seem to like big words beginning with e..
Faith is the complete opposite of religion (a system of justification by works):
and is really is very simple:
[LIST=1]
[*]In myself there lies nothing good to warrant God saving me from a terrible judgement
[*]There are no good works I can perform to get into His Book of Life
[*]Repent (turn away from religion) and believe (in God’s Faith- Jesus)
[*]You need to be re-born by the Spirit of God (only then can you enter His Kingdom)
[*]When you have received your pentecost do works of faith, according to His will – not yours!
[/LIST]
Philosophy is probably not the right forum in which to discuss the Faith of God
The etymology of exegesis and existential intellectuals is the basis of dead works.
Yes God created you “in His image” but surely you know that image became corrupted at the fall? Without your re-birth you remain corrupted...
Systematic Christianity is precisely the problem we have today – the intellectuals and the religious leaders have removed the people from a living relationship with the Father, so like our brother Moses – let us say to the religious leaders “LET MY PEOPLE GO!”
Re: Comments on: "Defining Christianity"
TimN, faith is not the opposite of religion! If anything they are synonyms! We all believe something, and surely it is better that we believe coherently? I assume that you have no great desire to talk nonsense? That is why you are in a philosophy forum!
Why is Moses your brother? Because he and you are children of God! See the Song of Moses (Deut.32:6,19).
We need to "repent", as you very correctly say. But repenting is turning away from our evil deeds, and note that Asaph quotes Jeremiah 31:18 ("turn thou me and I will be turned") in Psalm 80:3,7,14 ("turn us, O God" (twice), then "turn to us, O God" quoting Numbers 6:25). Repenting is not "turning away from religion"!
We are corrupted, yes. But are we irredeemably corrupted? No! See Paul on corruptibility, particularly the resonant and exceptionally dense passage at 1Corinthians 15 and particularly v54 which ends with the triumphant "Death is swallowed up in victory!"
Mathematicians search for truth (in a rather limited way!). Considering they are people, and people are corrupted, can they find anything that is true? Actually, yes they can, since theorems are necessarily true (that is the point of them!). But it turns out that the "searching" itself necessarily involves a prior belief in the existence of truth. (This is the consequence of Goedel's theorem, as explained by Roger Penrose.)
My point is that even in the most rational activity we can do, our beliefs are still central. We can avoid neither the existential level, as described by TimN, nor the intellectual level. Indeed, we should seek to integrate our responses.
Re: Comments on: "Defining Christianity"
Hi CJ – for a moment then I thought you were going to be simpler until I got to Goedel's theorem!
I loved maths when I did my engineering degree – put simply was Goedel's trying to say what I saw in maths: that unless assumptions are made (which are actually not true) then the maths doesn’t work? The assumptions made do allow it to fit the physical models BUT only to a point, beyond that is our God and His little foibles like loge and all those lovely constants that are empirical.... anyway enough of maths and back to faith sir!
Religion v Faith:
Religion is mentioned maybe only twice in Scripture, once in the prophets and once in the new covenant.
On both of these occasions God chastises His people for their religious spirit (i.e. heavy handed rules and burden’s) whilst ignoring “true religion” which should be caring for the elderly, the sick, the lame, the outcasts, the possessed even – show me where I can truly see today’s religious systems doing this (because the world cannot see it either).
However I do see people of faith doing this, outside of the religious churches in what I would call “True Church”.
So I maintain religion and faith are poles apart.
Repenting: I believe there is a better definition than the one offered here.
Turning back to God involves turning away from the world and self. Religion teaches justification by works and that is clearly anti-Christ in nature. The world is corrupted and under a curse, and man’s innate self-centredness is what got us into that mess in the first place, thank you Adam.
Corrupted? As I said originally without your spiritual re-birth you remain corrupted. The old (corrupted model) needs to die and the new incorruptible put on – a new creation. – have you been re-created yet?
Your last point: Did not Jesus praise His Father for not revealing the truth to intellectuals? They only kill faith. Intellectuals offer religious systems, oh yes you can call them your beliefs but then God does not look upon your beliefs, only those whose self is truly dead “in-Christ”, I REPEAT THAT IS FAITH – WHAT GOD HAS DONE IN JESUS.
May God bless you directly from His throne, AMEN
Re: Comments on: "Defining Christianity"
Oh dear, TimN. Let me start by pointing out that Jeremiah and the Psalmist were not really into definitions! You are falling into your own trap! They are trying to get at something which they hope and trust we will understand, with the help of the Spirit (without whom no-one understands anything, actually).
This was my point about Goedel's theorem. You are quite wrong when you suggest that maths doesn't work without false assumptions. You really have entirely the wrong end of the stick. The formal maths doesn't work without what the mathematicians call metamathematical help. But the whole point is that nevertheless the truth of the theorem is firmly established, even though formal methods were not available. Truth cannot be reduced to formality. I am surprised that you do not find this a very comfortable idea. But anyway, you may as well get used to it since it is undoubtedly true.
And come on, TimN, are you really trying to say that the churches are not leaders in "caring for the elderly, the sick, the lame, the outcasts"? And not only churches, but many organisations started or supported by those in churches. Can you find some churches doing bad things? Yes! Do these bad people take away from the good that the many do? Absolutely not! It seems to me that you should be paying attention to Isaiah 5:20, Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
And by the way, Jesus was referring to those "wise in their own eyes" (Matt.11:25, and cf. Is.5:21). I am concerned for what is true. What do we know? How do we know it?
Re: Comments on: "Defining Christianity"
CJ, I really have only the words of Jesus to fall back on – “Unless you die to self..” How much further can you repent than that! The words of Jeremiah and the Psalmist were only a shadow of the real thing.
I don’t like these forums where too much is read beyond the comments made – there is a limitation compared to a cosy chat over an espresso to two. But all maths and physics depend on God’s Word to uphold everything we see in the physical. Can you really have Truth and Theorem in the same sentence, the point of a theorem is that it is not proven 100%?
Your last point: no I was not trying to say that of real “churches”, only religious systems. We can all do works to appease our guilty consciences and try to get into God’s good books, but these are called dead works in my bible. Works of faith are complete obedience to the Holy Spirit. One day all our works will be exposed and I expect loads of burnt straw in my case but hopefully some everlasting fruit with remain.
Precisely, an intellectual is “wise in his own eyes”
Re: Comments on: "Defining Christianity"
God made me an intellectual. Are you arguing with God?
You are right to say that it is God's word that upholds all the physical things. In my posts I was trying to elaborate the same idea, believe it or not. You ought to be finding common ground with me!
Instead you fall into several errors in your brief post. The first is to falsely divide the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. Remember the noble brethren of Berea, who "searched the scriptures daily [to see] whether those things were so" (Acts17:11). They would be looking at Jeremiah and Psalms too! The "scriptures" here are of course the Hebrew Scriptures (no others yet existed!). And remember Jesus expounding the same "scriptures" to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13ff). Our God is the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb.13:8). The history of Christianity cannot be understood without recognising the unity of the Old and New Testaments.
And the point of a theorem is that it is proven 100%! A theorem is necessarily true. It is a tautology. Note that Jesus told us that the Spirit will "guide [us] into all truth" (John 16:13). We must not call false what is true. Pythagoras' theorem may not be very interesting or spiritually enlightening to you, but it is certainly true!
As for works, they are not necessarily dead! Indeed, James insists: "faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone" (2:17f). Here is Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount: "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." (Matt.5:16).
You don't like "religious systems". Well, I agree, there is plenty to dislike about them! However, whatever we do, to do anything we have to be systematic. There is no virtue in any argument which is not rational (that includes this forum!). The very existence of the Internet, which underlies and enables this forum, is due to systems. The same applies to Christianity. The very fact that it has survived is a testament to the coherence of its account of the world, the universe and everything. Of course, this does not make it true, but were it incoherent it would certainly be false!
Re: Comments on: "Defining Christianity"
See reply #16 (at the end)
Yes I agree, brother CJ – I’m located near the OU – are you anywhere close?
As Berea was in Greece they may be using the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures) as it was in existence up to 300 years before Silas and Paul visited Hallelu-Yah, I couldn’t agree more. So I’m not sure why you thought I was coming in a different direction? Maybe a cup of coffee will clear it all up?
My scholarly Hebrew friends put it like this: Yeshua is the fulfilment of the TaNaKh in a sense of “completion” – there is no greater revelation than Jesus, the Jewish King!
God did not choose Israel because of their good deeds, but only so that God’s Name would be glorified
So also God did not choose me for anything I did – but so that His name would be glorified in the works of faith that the Holy Spirit does through me (again: not my own works)
But I need His “Light” in me first so that it can shine, that is what define a ‘Christian’
I’m glad God’s plan for the return of Jesus does not depend on the internet. God is not a system or otherwise we would be able to force Him to act....
Re: Comments on: "Defining Christianity"
You two do a pretty good job of defining christianity... ...
Re: Comments on: "Defining Christianity"
Confused....
How would you define truth?
What do you mean by Christianity being systematic?
How would you define Christianity?....Since it is the forum is about.
Also, how must intellectuals "be wise in thier own eyes"? Cannot someone consider another person an intellectual? How would this "intellectual" then be "wise in thier own eyes?"
TimN and CJ,
I've just started reading a bunch of your threads and I'm really impressed with your knowledge and perspectives on Christianity. Just thought I'd let you know :)
Re: Comments on: "Defining Christianity"
Jesus is the the Truth - Truth is a person!
I'll leave that one to CJ - but any system of religion is not The Truth, the Truth is a relationship with the Father, through the Son by the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit
Jesus is the the Truth - Truth is a person!
Glad to get back to the beginning again.... I wish the word never existed, it was introduced an insult to the early believers "Oh those nutters the Christians are at it again, etc"
The early believers were called "Followers of the Way" (see the NT book of the "Acts of the Holy Spirit" - and Yeshua El Messiach (Jesus the Anointed One of God) was indeed that way - He claimed, rightly so, to be "The Way, The Truth, The Life"
Christianity is NOT just believing in Jesus - even the devil believes that.
You are NOT a Christian because you were born to believing parents either.
Neither are you a “Christian” because you go to church!
A believing Christian is someone for whom God has done something...
There is Wisdom from God and wisdom from the Fall. There was a certain fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil that God commanded man not to eat because by eating it you “will surely die”. Well thank you Adam and Eve, so that is why I have to die.[LIST]
[*]Recognise that you can’t work your way into the Kingdom
[*]Surrender to His saving work on the Cross
[*]Be immersed continually with His Holy Spirit
[/LIST]
An intellectual without the baptism of the Holy Spirit is from that fruit of disobedience. I have never met an intellectual who is full of the Holy Spirit – they are far too humbly to claim an intellect of their own. However the seven-fold Spirit of God (Isaiah 11) has Wisdom as one of its features, but that is God’s Wisdom not anything given by an act of natural birth but only by that Spiritual re-brith that Jesus said we must have – see John 3:4-12.
I hope that was of some help?
May God bless you ever so richly as you surrender to His Will, AMEN
Re: Comments on: "Defining Christianity"
my own encounter is all I can talk about, I was in a prison cell I knew my life was a mess. I did not know if there was a God or not, what I did know if there was I would need Help! I remember asking if you are there God would you help me. I remember the feeling of hopelessness and my life was a mess because of my own actions, but as I asked God for help The cell filled with a peace, I could feel that peace and I knew there was a presance; I could point to where it was. Without words I knew it was Jesus and for the first time in my life I knew Jesus was real. This happened 15 years ago. The thing I have learned is that the Bible as replaced the God, Jesus is as able to speak today as He as always been able to speak, to those that are willing to listen. It seems to me that many put the Bible in the place of God alone there is the Bible and nothing else, yet God can speak very clearly today. The idea seems to be be that it is possible to find God, well God is not lost but many people are. The program is not on doctrine, I say thats good..But Jesus is real and able to do what He did 2000 years ago today as then. The question is not is Jesus real to Me for me the question is are those saying they are His followers real. That is why you see an History of sinners and saints and more sinners being used by God than those who think themselves saints. The words "By their furits you will know them". God is love I wonder how many people you spoke to in making that program could offer God's love to you? The one thing that as never left me is that certinty Jesus is teaching me how to love, my life as been difficult for sure, but I have learned, you can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink. May be so many are so near yet so far from the truth because they think it is not possible to Know Jesus other than read about Him. A Personal relationship with Jesus is very possible noTv program could ever bring that truth home. But asling questions is always good Just ask Jesus your self and wait for Jesus to answer, you may find you do not have to wait as long as you thought .
Re: Comments on: "Defining Christianity"
The above quote has been altered, kingdoms warrior, has if you like been mis-quoted.
See if you can spot the changes without relying on the colour red for clues.
Once you have done this please explain any differences.
You might like to try this with your friends and perhaps share their answers.