CHRISTIANITY: A HISTORY

ckristo2

Hi Wolfsbane,
thanks for your reply to my message. I'm still a bit puzzled why Paul rounded on Peter as related in Galatian 2:11. Paul who wrote the letter says that James, Peter and John- whom Paul calls the "Leaders" (presumably the leaders of the church of Christ in Jerusalem)- recognised that he Paul had been given the task of preaching to the Gentiles and that God had by the same token given Peter the task of preaching the gospel among the Jews.
Later on at the same meeting Paul writes that an agreement was made that Paul and his fellow missionary Barnabas should preach among the gentiles and "they" (presumably the leaders of the "Jerusalem church) would preach among the Jews.
So when Peter comes to Antioch and was eating with the gentiles what was Paul's reaction? "Great you've decided to come over to my side and ignore the differences between Jews and Genties" as Paul himself wrote in 2 Collossians 3:11.
No his first reaction is "What about our agreement"? And worse he was doing a "solo run" without the permission of James and John.
It seems to me that Paul was mad with Peter for breach of an agreement that Paul held to be very important.
I suppose that one can interpret scripture any way one wishes but with the letters of Paul we have less room for interpretation he writes in good Koine Greek in a very direct style and the letters we have from him are almost certainly from his hand. What he says is what he means.
He was not a team player and pretty much said what he thought regardless if it conflicted with the vews of Jesus' own brother and the rest of the discples.
Well that's what I take from it. All the best John.

wolfsbane

ckristo2 wrote: »

Hi Wolfsbane,
thanks for your reply to my message. I'm still a bit puzzled why Paul rounded on Peter as related in Galatian 2:11. Paul who wrote the letter says that James, Peter and John- whom Paul calls the "Leaders" (presumably the leaders of the church of Christ in Jerusalem)- recognised that he Paul had been given the task of preaching to the Gentiles and that God had by the same token given Peter the task of preaching the gospel among the Jews.
Later on at the same meeting Paul writes that an agreement was made that Paul and his fellow missionary Barnabas should preach among the gentiles and "they" (presumably the leaders of the "Jerusalem church) would preach among the Jews.
So when Peter comes to Antioch and was eating with the gentiles what was Paul's reaction? "Great you've decided to come over to my side and ignore the differences between Jews and Genties" as Paul himself wrote in 2 Collossians 3:11.
No his first reaction is "What about our agreement"? And worse he was doing a "solo run" without the permission of James and John.
It seems to me that Paul was mad with Peter for breach of an agreement that Paul held to be very important.
I suppose that one can interpret scripture any way one wishes but with the letters of Paul we have less room for interpretation he writes in good Koine Greek in a very direct style and the letters we have from him are almost certainly from his hand. What he says is what he means.
He was not a team player and pretty much said what he thought regardless if it conflicted with the vews of Jesus' own brother and the rest of the discples.
Well that's what I take from it. All the best John.

John this statement is entirely in your imagination: No his first reaction is "What about our agreement"? And worse he was doing a "solo run" without the permission of James and John.
It seems to me that Paul was mad with Peter for breach of an agreement that Paul held to be very important.

Here's what Paul actually says:
Galatians 2:11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Peter refusing to eat with the Gentiles was the cause of Paul's anger, not him eating with them.

hivizman

The last programme in the series Christianity: A History earlier tonight, with Cherie Blair looking at Christianity at the start of the 21st century. A strange programme, I thought. She seemed to have two main themes. The first was that the Roman Catholic Church needed to give women a more central role (though what that might be wasn't explored very far). The other theme was that the Christian Church in more general terms needed to become more like the "megachurches" that seem to be springing up across the USA. She featured one such megachurch near Chicago that looked like a cross between a shopping mall and an airport terminal, with an auditorium seating 7,000 people (apparently it's the largest theatre in the USA).

I don't know whether I'm being fair to her, but I came away with a message that Christianity in the West has been declining since the 1960s because of the attractions of a consumer society, so the way to bring Christianity back is to make it more like that consumer society. So if people aren't going to church on Sundays because the shopping mall is more attractive, make the church more like a shopping mall. Cherie Blair stressed that the megachurches have become successful (measured in terms of "footfall" - how many people visit each week) by applying modern management techniques. As use of these techniques by banks may well be a major contributor to the current economic situation, does it really make sense to transfer them over to religion?

philologos

I found it interesting that as a congregant of probably the most traditional and institutionalised church in the world that she thought that the church had to modernise as it had done in the USA.

I don't agree with her that this has to happen in Europe. It is happening though and I've seen one of the newer type of Evangelical churches here although on a smaller scale was still quite impressive.

What I do agree with however is that to keep the faith alive, we will have to make it relevant again. Teaching from the Gospel and how one can practically apply it to their lives is imperative. What else was interesting was the discussion she had with Laura Bush about the misrepresentation the media had of George Bush and Tony Blair "praying together" amongst other things.

Fanny Cradock

That sounds quite bizarre. If anything I would have thought such a direction would be one to avoid. Mirroring that which you feel in undercutting your principals seems rather self defeating.

These mega churches have always appeared to me to be chiefly concerned with profit, and not with ushering in the Kingdom.

Nodin

hivizman wrote: »

The other theme was that the Christian Church in more general terms needed to become more like the "megachurches" that seem to be springing up across the USA.

Good to see shes keeping 'spiritual values' to the fore.

Rather ironic that shes seeking examples from an area where they often preach both creationism and the most crude forms of social darwinism from the same pulpit. Neither of the Blairs seem to have a well tuned hypocrisy meter though, so I suppose it was to be expected.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

These mega churches have always appeared to me to be chiefly concerned with profit,

...and of course theres demagogery and a large 'cult of personality' attached to the whole thing too.

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

Rather ironic that shes seeking examples from an area where they often preach both creationism and the most crude forms of social darwinism from the same pulpit. Neither of the Blairs seem to have a well tuned hypocrisy meter though, so I suppose it was to be expected.

Well, I think this is a bit harsh and is generalising a lot, not all American Christians are as you have described.

ckristo2

Hi Wolfsbane,
I can see we're never going to see eye to eye on this one. I still find a little confusion surrounding the event which probably really happened in Galatians. It is clear that Paul was indeed angry with Peter but it is not clear why. If Paul was happy to see Peter eating with the Gentiles he probably would have said so. Next when Peter stopped eating with the Gentiles on the arrival of James or some of his companions wouldn't Paul's reaction have been to say to Peter "Have courage do not be afraid of James, live the courage of your convictions and go back to the Gentiles I'll support you." Instead he nearly takes the head off him. My interpretation was because it was because Peter broke a promise he made (With James and the other Jerusalem Church leaders) to more or less stay away from the Gentiles but I may be wrong, it's just what I draw from it. We will probably never know the real relationship between Paul and Peter but these guys were hard men, they had to be and that's was why I originally compared them to the Sopranos. They certainly knew how to stand up for themselves. Anyway It's probably time to close this debate and say adieu. All the best. John

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

These mega churches have always appeared to me to be chiefly concerned with profit, and not with ushering in the Kingdom.

A mega-church is simply a large church (it used to be defined as a church with a weekly attendance of more than 1000, but they are two-a-penny nowadays so now a mega-church is technically a church that averages more than 2000 weekly - an example of inflation in action!).

I've preached in many such churches, and I know a large number of pastors of such churches, and I find they are no more concerned with making a profit than small churches - often less so.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

Well, I think this is a bit harsh and is generalising a lot, not all American Christians are as you have described.

Note the caveat -

where they often

hivizman

PDN wrote: »

A mega-church is simply a large church (it used to be defined as a church with a weekly attendance of more than 1000, but they are two-a-penny nowadays so now a mega-church is technically a church that averages more than 2000 weekly - an example of inflation in action!).

I've preached in many such churches, and I know a large number of pastors of such churches, and I find they are no more concerned with making a profit than small churches - often less so.

Yes, indeed - dangers of over-generalisation!

On the issue of the use of modern management techniques, two points. The impression I got from Cherie Blair's programme was that she was suggesting that "modern management techniques" such as marketing and efficient adminstration were enough in themselves to help reverse the decline in church attendance in recent years. In this, I may be unfair to Mrs Blair. The other point is that there has recently been quite a bit of research into the use of accounting (as an example of a "management technique") in religious organisations. This research shows two things: in some organisations, the accounting is subservient to the spiritual objectives of the organisation - it remains a tool that assists the organisation in fulfilling its primary objectives. However, in a few organisations, the accounting seems to take over, until the researchers get the impression that the organisation's objectives are being measured in accounting rather than religious terms.

Having been to jam-packed services with over 2,000 people crammed into a medieval cathedral, I've no problems with large congregations (and how many people were there when Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount?), and at least the megachurch that Cherie Blair showed looked comfortable.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

A mega-church is simply a large church (it used to be defined as a church with a weekly attendance of more than 1000, but they are two-a-penny nowadays so now a mega-church is technically a church that averages more than 2000 weekly - an example of inflation in action!).

I've preached in many such churches, and I know a large number of pastors of such churches, and I find they are no more concerned with making a profit than small churches - often less so.

It's a fair point. I guess I have this prejudice that when things become bigger that they automatically become more corrupt.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's a fair point. I guess I have this prejudice that when things become bigger that they automatically become more corrupt.

I feel the same but take it to beyond the symptom. Its peoples desire to be lead, and other peoples desire to lead that makes for the corruption scenario IMO. Nodin mentioned 'the cult of personality'. That to me is the issue. Some people like to leave their thinking etc, in the hands of another, and there are some people who like to have this power. Its why I hate this whole Creed stuff.
'I believe in the risen Christ, and I promise to be honest'. There's your creed right there.

Nodin

It has to be said that the whole "megachurch" thing is loosely defined. Theres a difference between a large well attended church, and a church thats packing in 5,000-10,000 with its own branded goods, channel, gym etc as part of the membership.

darjeeling

hivizman wrote: »

The last programme in the series Christianity: A History earlier tonight, with Cherie Blair looking at Christianity at the start of the 21st century. A strange programme, I thought. She seemed to have two main themes. The first was that the Roman Catholic Church needed to give women a more central role (though what that might be wasn't explored very far). The other theme was that the Christian Church in more general terms needed to become more like the "megachurches" that seem to be springing up across the USA. She featured one such megachurch near Chicago that looked like a cross between a shopping mall and an airport terminal, with an auditorium seating 7,000 people (apparently it's the largest theatre in the USA).

I don't know whether I'm being fair to her, but I came away with a message that Christianity in the West has been declining since the 1960s because of the attractions of a consumer society, so the way to bring Christianity back is to make it more like that consumer society. So if people aren't going to church on Sundays because the shopping mall is more attractive, make the church more like a shopping mall. Cherie Blair stressed that the megachurches have become successful (measured in terms of "footfall" - how many people visit each week) by applying modern management techniques. As use of these techniques by banks may well be a major contributor to the current economic situation, does it really make sense to transfer them over to religion?

Cherie Blair was really giving a campaign presentation here. Her case was that Christianity must be in tune with how people live and must agitate for social justice in the here and now.

The programme maintained that the historic churches of Western Europe had failed to respond to social change and had institutionalised inequality, particularly in the way they treated women. As a vision of where the religion should be going, Cherie Blair chose a couple of large churches in Chicago, one of America's biggest and most cosmopolitan cities. These churches, we were told, rejected ceremonial formality and fully welcomed everyone regardless of gender, race or sexuality. They set aside denominational argument and attempts to pin down the supernatural and unknowable, and instead preached a message of urgent social activism to heal the world's ills, beginning in the local community. As a non-Christian, these are the aspects of religion that I like, and that I think will be missed if religion continues to decline and secular institutions fail to take up the baton.

Fanny Cradock

darjeeling wrote: »

and talk of the supernatural and unknowable

Doesn't sound very much like a church.

darjeeling

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Doesn't sound very much like a church.

I'm overstating it, and trying to be concise. Still, this was an element of the programme, even if I suspect Cherie Blair and the programme makers went to some pains to put this slant on their message. We were told that there were no images of crosses in the mega-church they visited. Cherie Blair also said that there was very little mention of ultimate heaven or hell, and that the preaching was centred on the present moment. Of course there was an emphasis on God, but we saw no attention to the finer points of the supernatural cosmos and creation that are dwelt on in more literalist churches.

ScumLord

I liked the idea of the mega-churches as described by Blair, I've always thought the Catholic church has become everything Jesus wanted to change in the Jewish faith.

But I don't like the idea of people just deciding that they'll worship this way or that and make up their own rules. The established churches are either right or wrong. How can people be expected to make the right decision about second hand knowledge, 2000 years after the fact?

I have no problems with Christianity as long as it's based on Jesus the man. You can't be expected to understand the man when your looking into space waiting for your imagination to come up with something that sounds good in your head.

philologos

ScumLord wrote: »

I have no problems with Christianity as long as it's based on Jesus the man. You can't be expected to understand the man when your looking into space waiting for your imagination to come up with something that sounds good in your head.

What's so wrong with Christianity being centred around Jesus the Son of God as in the Biblical text? Just interested taking into account your emphasis on Jesus the man rather than Jesus the Son of God. Although I may have taken it out of context.

wolfsbane

hivizman wrote: »

The last programme in the series Christianity: A History earlier tonight, with Cherie Blair looking at Christianity at the start of the 21st century. A strange programme, I thought. She seemed to have two main themes. The first was that the Roman Catholic Church needed to give women a more central role (though what that might be wasn't explored very far). The other theme was that the Christian Church in more general terms needed to become more like the "megachurches" that seem to be springing up across the USA. She featured one such megachurch near Chicago that looked like a cross between a shopping mall and an airport terminal, with an auditorium seating 7,000 people (apparently it's the largest theatre in the USA).

I don't know whether I'm being fair to her, but I came away with a message that Christianity in the West has been declining since the 1960s because of the attractions of a consumer society, so the way to bring Christianity back is to make it more like that consumer society. So if people aren't going to church on Sundays because the shopping mall is more attractive, make the church more like a shopping mall. Cherie Blair stressed that the megachurches have become successful (measured in terms of "footfall" - how many people visit each week) by applying modern management techniques. As use of these techniques by banks may well be a major contributor to the current economic situation, does it really make sense to transfer them over to religion?

Yes, you have indentified well the mentality of the mega-church movement.

Numbers is the game, so 'seeker-friendly' means a down playing of anything that would put off a sinner. Everyone likes the idea of living a more honourable life and so going to a better place when one dies. But the idea that we are sinners heading for hell if we do not repent and trust ourselves entirely to God - that is not so comfortable. Add to that the idea that sex must be confined to heterosexual marriage. The Christianity of the Bible definitely needs updating if we are to please man.

The difficulty for the movement is that it does not really satisfy the spiritual need of man. Just as casual sex leaves one empty of true love, so humanistic religion cannot deal with our separation from God. After a while the discontent becomes too much and the seeker goes off elsewhere in search of a fix. Only Christ can give them true peace in their heart. And He does it on His terms, not the sinner's:
Luke 14:25 Now great multitudes went with Him. And He turned and said to them, 26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. 27 And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.

wolfsbane

ckristo2 wrote: »

Hi Wolfsbane,
I can see we're never going to see eye to eye on this one. I still find a little confusion surrounding the event which probably really happened in Galatians. It is clear that Paul was indeed angry with Peter but it is not clear why. If Paul was happy to see Peter eating with the Gentiles he probably would have said so. Next when Peter stopped eating with the Gentiles on the arrival of James or some of his companions wouldn't Paul's reaction have been to say to Peter "Have courage do not be afraid of James, live the courage of your convictions and go back to the Gentiles I'll support you." Instead he nearly takes the head off him. My interpretation was because it was because Peter broke a promise he made (With James and the other Jerusalem Church leaders) to more or less stay away from the Gentiles but I may be wrong, it's just what I draw from it. We will probably never know the real relationship between Paul and Peter but these guys were hard men, they had to be and that's was why I originally compared them to the Sopranos. They certainly knew how to stand up for themselves. Anyway It's probably time to close this debate and say adieu. All the best. John

OK, John, all the best. Let me just leave you with this: Peter's sin was public, so it was not appropriate for Paul to rebuke him in private. It was so serious a matter that an immediate public response was required. This was Paul's teaching for the whole church:
1 Timothy 5:19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. 20 Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.

ckristo2

Hi there,
I just read Darjeeling's response to the Programme on Cherie Blair claiming that Christianity must be in tune with what people think and agitate for social justice...Cherie Blair/social justice...The wife of the man who launched neo colonialism and was reponsible for the deaths of probably close on a million Iraqis....Social justice......well it just goes to show you being Religious is no vaccine against being a total and utter C#*%.
All the best. John

darjeeling

ckristo2 wrote: »

Hi there,
I just read Darjeeling's response to the Programme on Cherie Blair claiming that Christianity must be in tune with what people think and agitate for social justice...Cherie Blair/social justice...The wife of the man who launched neo colonialism and was reponsible for the deaths of probably close on a million Iraqis....Social justice......well it just goes to show you being Religious is no vaccine against being a total and utter C#*%.
All the best. John

It was more a summary than a response. I thought most of the comments in this thread missed the point the programme was trying to make, and saw it in terms of Christianity either being left behind by or trying to copy consumerism. I thought this missed out on the attention given to the role the anti-Vietnam war protests and civil and women's rights movements played in changing society, and the way the churches have adjusted to these changes.

Cherie Blair probably does know a thing or two about politicking, so no surprise that she can come up with an appealing and saleable (my nod to the critics of consumerism) vision of religion that glosses over some of the less attractive parts. She may believe in this vision herself, and she may even believe that her husband was promoting a similar agenda whilst in power. Other people will think that she and he are deeply hypocritical. However, that's a separate matter from the argument she was making, and I'd still be interested in what people thought of that argument.
.

hivizman

ckristo2 wrote: »

I just read Darjeeling's response to the Programme on Cherie Blair claiming that Christianity must be in tune with what people think and agitate for social justice...Cherie Blair/social justice...The wife of the man who launched neo colonialism and was reponsible for the deaths of probably close on a million Iraqis....Social justice......well it just goes to show you being Religious is no vaccine against being a total and utter C#*%.
All the best. John

So wives are to be held responsible for the offences of their husbands?

Cherie Blair was an active member of the Labour Party when Tony Blair was playing his guitar in a rock band. She was a leading human rights lawyer. I wasn't convinced by her strategy for bringing Christianity back into a central role in society, but I'm glad that Darjeeling has stressed the other aspects of the programme. I would certainly not want to label her as a hypocrite when she emphasised the potential of Christianity as a positive force in the struggle for social justice (and don't forget, she managed to bring Tony over to Rome - not sure whether this is a good thing or not ).

Fanny Cradock

hivizman wrote: »

So wives are to be held responsible for the offences of their husbands?

Cherie Blair was an active member of the Labour Party when Tony Blair was playing his guitar in a rock band. She was a leading human rights lawyer. I wasn't convinced by her strategy for bringing Christianity back into a central role in society, but I'm glad that Darjeeling has stressed the other aspects of the programme. I would certainly not want to label her as a hypocrite when she emphasised the potential of Christianity as a positive force in the struggle for social justice (and don't forget, she managed to bring Tony over to Rome - not sure whether this is a good thing or not ).

Poor Tony. His place as popular leader was assured in history until...

Still, even if there is a greater woman behind each great man, I don't think Cherie can be blamed for her husband's most regrettable legacy.

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Still, even if there is a greater woman behind each great man, I don't think Cherie can be blamed for her husband's most regrettable legacy.

Behind every successful man is a surprised woman!

Nodin

hivizman wrote: »

(and don't forget, she managed to bring Tony over to Rome - not sure whether this is a good thing or not ).

There was little point, seeing as he'll probably go to the grave thinking he has nothing of great import to confess.

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

There was little point, seeing as he'll probably go to the grave thinking he has nothing of great import to confess.

It depends on what you make of the morality of war. If Tony and Bush held to the Augustinian view of Just War, a war to liberate many under oppression they could see the Iraq War as something that is justifiable, and that casualties are lost in every war. Bear in mind I'm not saying that this is my stance, but it could well be theirs.

wolfsbane

Jakkass wrote: »

It depends on what you make of the morality of war. If Tony and Bush held to the Augustinian view of Just War, a war to liberate many under oppression they could see the Iraq War as something that is justifiable, and that casualties are lost in every war. Bear in mind I'm not saying that this is my stance, but it could well be theirs.

I'm a Just War person myself, so I agree it is possible to believe the Iraq War was just. But to do that one would have to believe in the WMD case. None of the other factors - overthrowing a dictator, etc, weigh anywhere near the harm done.

So the issue becomes, What did Tony think about the WMD case before he joined in the war?

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

It depends on what you make of the morality of war. If Tony and Bush held to the Augustinian view of Just War, a war to liberate many under oppression they could see the Iraq War as something that is justifiable, and that casualties are lost in every war. Bear in mind I'm not saying that this is my stance, but it could well be theirs.

O I presume that theres some such double-think at work - 'This man is evil so I am just in working to falsify evidence of his evil to remove him'.

(I'm not a pacifist myself btw, but I don't support violence for the conquest of territory, control of resources or the subversion of others to those ends)

Fanny Cradock

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm a Just War person myself, so I agree it is possible to believe the Iraq War was just. But to do that one would have to believe in the WMD case. None of the other factors - overthrowing a dictator, etc, weigh anywhere near the harm done.

So the issue becomes, What did Tony think about the WMD case before he joined in the war?

Well, it is possible - though unlikely - that he was duped about the whole WMD thing. Colin Powell suggests that he had the wool pulled over his eyes when he stood up in front of the UN council and showed them some grainy pictures of 'mobile laboratories' etc.

Nodin

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, it is possible - though unlikely - that he was duped about the whole WMD thing. Colin Powell suggests that he had the wool pulled over his eyes when he stood up in front of the UN council and showed them some grainy pictures of 'mobile laboratories' etc.

Given that this is what he and his cabinet were privvy to and thinking in private, its highly unlikely.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece

I've read the Butler report, and the section where they compare the documentation with the 'sexed up' version which was used to get commons support for the war is illuminating, to say the least.

Likewise.....
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/the%20white%20house%20memo/161410

ckristo2

You are being very kind indeed to suggest that either Tony Blair and Colin Powell had the wool pulled over their eyes wiht regard to the WMD reason in the invasion (and continual occupation ) of Iraq. One does not get to be the Prime minister of Britain nor the Secretary of State by being so stupid. I would look at word like extreme dishonesty to describe them but hey I just remembered they're both politicians and dishonesty is part of their structural protein.

wolfsbane

ckristo2 wrote: »

You are being very kind indeed to suggest that either Tony Blair and Colin Powell had the wool pulled over their eyes wiht regard to the WMD reason in the invasion (and continual occupation ) of Iraq. One does not get to be the Prime minister of Britain nor the Secretary of State by being so stupid. I would look at word like extreme dishonesty to describe them but hey I just remembered they're both politicians and dishonesty is part of their structural protein.

Yeah, I'm just thankful for any shred of decency or conscience in them. I try not to be cynical, and am encouraged by a few individuals who seem to be genuinely concerned for the welfare of the nation and humanity in general.

But so much fine words, so little fine action. Self-serving corruption seems the norm, and any benefit the masses get is only there if it serves the purposes of the leaders.