purtell@reed.UUCP (Lady Godiva) (04/03/85)
In a class today one of the students made the statement that even
though Peter denied Christ, later on he repented, accepted him, and
became a follower. My professor's reply was one that I had never heard
before, and so I thought that I would post it to the net in hopes of
getting some discussion on it. He said that he thought that through
Peter's actions he continued to deny Christ. Another student asked what
he thought Peter had done to deny Christ. His reply was that Peter went
and set up a church, and that there was nothing that could deny Christ's
teachings more than setting up a church.
I'm definitely not looking for a discussion on whether or not
churches have any useful purposes. I think that most people would agreee
that there are at least a few churches that provide very good social
services. Nor am I looking for a discussion on which denomination is
better. I would like to hear some thoughts on whether or not Christ
taught that a church (organized religion) should be set up in the first
place. Did he teach it, did he teach against it, or was he silent on the
subject?
I have always highly questioned the concept of organized religion,
especially after I became a Christian. So I tend to lean towards
agreeing with my professor's statement. But I'm not going to give a full
fledged opinion until I do a little reading about it, and what Christ
did say.
I think that I should add that the class was not a religion class.
It was a class in American drama. The statement was just a statement of
opinion, not something he was trying to teach the class.
Anyone have any views on this?
elizabeth
(Lady Godiva)root@topaz.ARPA (Root) (04/06/85)
> he thought Peter had done to deny Christ. His reply was that Peter went > and set up a church, and that there was nothing that could deny Christ's > teachings more than setting up a church. This depends upon what you mean by a church. If you mean an organization that is into exercizing power over people, and excluding people they don't like, then he is right. This is exactly the kind of organization that arranged for Jesus to be crucified. (NB: I am not accusing the Jews as a whole of crucifying Jesus. I am saying that a certain Jewish bureacracy, which looks suspiciously similar to later Christian bureacracies, did it. The best Christian piety has always maintained that if Jesus came again, he would be crucified again, but this time by good Christians.) But it would certainly be going too far to say that Jesus was somehow opposed to people gathering in congregations to worship together. Jesus is shown going to services in a synagogue (Mk 6:2). He seems to be interested in worship at the Jerusalem Temple. (The cleansing of the temple, Mk 11:15-19 does not show opposition to the idea of a temple, just to the corruption that was currently attached to it.) He trained his disciples for leadership (Mat 10:5-15). In summary, I think it would be more accurate to say that Jesus was opposed to the sort of things that religious (and other) bureacracies do all too often, but not to the idea of people gathering together. Consider for example Mat 18:20: "For where two or three come together in my name, I am there with them." And consider the fact that he instituted the Lord's Supper, which is a community activity. I think true Christianity includes the idea that we each represent Christ to each other. Also we each try to help them other when someone goes astray (Mat 18:15-17, although I should warn you that some scholars consider that the current form of this passage has been influenced by the needs of the church). The idea that you can be a Christian by sitting at home reading the Bible is absurd. Christianity is about your relationship with other people. The problem is that dealing with people is difficult. So is keeping groups of people in line with their original ideals, and resisting the natural pressures that make organizations grow rigid and intolerant. But just because something is difficulty doesn't mean we can avoid it. To answer your original question, I think Christ assumed that his followers would gather together, and made some provisions for the worship and leadership of the resulting body of believers. However I do not think he had anything specific to say about church organization. I do not see that he either supported or opposed nationwide bodies, or organizations such as the Council of Churches. He most certainly opposed many of the things that such bodies do, however.
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (04/08/85)
I think the drama teacher had it wrong, although there are certainly good arguments for the statement that "the churches have entombed Christ." The eucharist (holy communion for you protestants), is however, a quintessentially communal activity. And Jesus did command them to spread the word. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe Alleluia! Christ is risen. - The LORD is risen indeed; Alleluia!
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (04/09/85)
In article <1237@reed.UUCP> purtell@reed.UUCP (Lady Godiva) writes: > > In a class today one of the students made the statement that even >though Peter denied Christ, later on he repented, accepted him, and >became a follower. My professor's reply was one that I had never heard >before, and so I thought that I would post it to the net in hopes of >getting some discussion on it. He said that he thought that through >Peter's actions he continued to deny Christ. Another student asked what >he thought Peter had done to deny Christ. His reply was that Peter went >and set up a church, and that there was nothing that could deny Christ's >teachings more than setting up a church. Peter did not go out and set up a church. Christ said, "I will build my church..." The disciples were told to wait in the upper room for the coming of the Holy Spirit! GOD started the church that day, The day of Pentecost! The disciples, including Peter, preached the Gospel message and thousands chose to believe on Christ that day! From that time on, the disciples, including Peter, continued to do what Christ had instructed to do, Preach the gospel to every living soul! Hardly an act of denial! More like obedience! The church, an assembly of people called out and set apart from the world for Gods purpose, was the result!
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (04/10/85)
>... He said that he thought that through >Peter's actions he continued to deny Christ. Another student asked what >he thought Peter had done to deny Christ. His reply was that Peter went >and set up a church, and that there was nothing that could deny Christ's >teachings more than setting up a church. > >I would like to hear some thoughts on whether or not Christ >taught that a church (organized religion) should be set up in the first >place. Did he teach it, did he teach against it, or was he silent on the >subject? > I have always highly questioned the concept of organized religion, >especially after I became a Christian. So I tend to lean towards >agreeing with my professor's statement. But I'm not going to give a full >fledged opinion until I do a little reading about it, and what Christ >did say. > Anyone have any views on this? -- elizabeth (Lady Godiva) Perhaps he was referring to the descriptions just prior to Christ's transformation: Matthew 16.18-23 And I say to you, that you are Peter, and on this (rock = Peter) I will build my(?) church, and the gates of hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth shall be released in heaven. Then he warned the disciples lest they should relate that he is Christ. From that time Jesus Christ began to describe to his disciples how He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things and be killed and be raised on the third day. And {helping, taking hold of}* Him, Peter began to {rebuke, appraise, honor}** Him saying: May God help you, Lord, by no means shall this happen to you. *proslabomenos \ Both these verbs, curiously enough, **epitiman / have several contradictory meanings! Later on, after Christ's transformation: Matthew 17.9 And coming down from the mountain, Jesus joined them {Peter, James, John} saying: Relate this vision to nobody until the son of man is raised from the dead. Mark 8.30 - 9.9 and Luke 9.21 are similar. These parts of the Bible are as beautiful as they are confusing, but it does seem that one interpretation is that: 1) Peter was to remain silent until after the crucifixion. 2) Peter's fault was his desire to prevent Jesus from being crucified. No doubt other interpretations are possible. -michael
purtell@reed.UUCP (Lady Godiva) (04/10/85)
In article <1131@topaz.ARPA> root@topaz.ARPA (Root) writes: >This depends upon what you mean by a church. If you mean an organization >that is into exercizing power over people, and excluding people they don't >like, then he is right. This is exactly the kind of organization that >arranged for Jesus to be crucified. I agree with this most definitely. But I can't really speak for my professor, so I won't say what he may have meant one way or the other. Although I do plan on asking him about it, so if what he says would seem to be of interest I will post it. >But it would certainly be going too far to say that Jesus was somehow >opposed to people gathering in congregations to worship together. I agree. I think that there is nothing wrong with people getting together and worshiping. I find that with the right group I have had wonderful experiences both in worshipping God, and in sharing with the people in the group. But I do question it when these groups start excluding other church groups because they disagree on one or two minor points. Or, I should say, what I consider minor points. I strongly question the "Christianity" of the different protestant groups. This is NOT to say that I think that all church groups are non-Christian, or that the Catholic church is the only "right" church, or even a better church. (I am not Catholic). But I do question why these denominations insist on being separate from one another. Even within certain denominations there are different factions, i.e. within the lutheran church. I guess what really bothers me is not so much the fact that there are different denominations as much as the degree to which some of them dislike the others. >In summary, I think it would be more accurate to say that Jesus was opposed >to the sort of things that religious (and other) bureacracies do all too >often, but not to the idea of people gathering together. I agree. But you can see why when there are so many problems in churches, (and then there's the moral majority which is not thought of too highly around here, including by me) that someone would say what my teacher said. >The idea that you can be a Christian by sitting at home reading the Bible is >absurd. Christianity is about your relationship with other people. The >problem is that dealing with people is difficult. So is keeping groups of >people in line with their original ideals, and resisting the natural >pressures that make organizations grow rigid and intolerant. But just >because something is difficulty doesn't mean we can avoid it. I don't know if I agree entirely with the first statement. I mean, I tend to think that we all have different reasons for "being", so to speak, and I don't think that everyone is meant to go to church every Sunday, or lead the choir, or work in social organizations. There are many different ways to spead the gospel. I think that Bach (as well as many others) did it through his music, C.S. Lewis through his writings, and Mother Theresa through her life. But we are not all Mother Theresas, and I don't think we can hope to be. I'm sure that we're not always meant to be out there, making friends and helping people, we need some time to ourselves and some time alone with God. This may be just fifteen minutes every morning, or it may be a few years in some sort of seclusion (monastery, cabin in the wilderness, etc.). John the Baptist spent quite a few years in the wilderness before he began preparing the way for Christ. >To answer your original question, I think Christ assumed that his followers >would gather together, and made some provisions for the worship and >leadership of the resulting body of believers. However I do not think he >had anything specific to say about church organization. I do not see that >he either supported or opposed nationwide bodies, or organizations such as >the Council of Churches. He most certainly opposed many of the things that >such bodies do, however. I do agree. And I think that the things that they do now that he opposed are judgement, bigotry, self-righteousness, a desire to "take control of this nation (moral majority), putting too much emphasis on the Bible (not to say that it should be ignored, but it shouldn't be the ultimate end either), and putting too much emphasis on the Holy Spirit. (This is for charismatics mainly, of which I would basically consider myself one. The explanation that I gave for my comment about the Bible applies here too.) But, please take note, that these are just general statements and I don't necessarily mean them to apply to all Christians (after all I am one), all churches (I do attend a church regularly), and possibly not all religions. Any other thoughts anyone? elizabeth g. purtell (Lady Godiva)