A Tale of Two Christianty's

"The best way to understand the cultural scenario is to realize that there are two different types of Christianity. One is a movement of people who want to live and be like Jesus. The other (and far more common, far more powerful) is a civil and political religion that is simply named Christianity. The civil political religion named Christianity is addicted to both political power and violence, and thus finds the message of Jesus offensive."

~Benjamin L. Corey

Mr. Corey makes an excellent point but I think he does not go far enough.

There are definitely two different types of Christianity in America - the authentic and the pseudo. I have tried to express this before, just using different terms. The "civil political religion named Christianity", as Mr. Corey puts it, is what I call the Ideological Christianity and it has two sides. Both sides will use politics, propaganda and even violence to gain power, just that they employ slightly different methods.

One side infuses the Christian Faith into national patriotism. The politics of this side will trend toward less government spending on social programs and more on industrial and military funding. It will favour more of the wrong kind of regulation and less of the right kind. When this side is in power long enough business and economy tends to be profitable but the poor suffer. The propaganda of this side will resonate with slogans of how America was founded as a Christian Nation and will champion a return to traditional moral values and Biblical principles. The violence of this side will usually take the form of political sanctions and or military action in foreign nations' affairs under the guise of promoting liberty & democracy and protecting America's interests and/or allies. It will also take the form of legislative action which results in the restriction of personal freedoms under the guise of providing for the domestic security of the American people. This ideology can be seen in many denominations and will use the Bible and the Church's Tradition to justify its ambitions and methods.

The other side of this "civil political religion named Christianity" infuses the Christian Faith into social democracy. The politics of this side will trend toward more government spending on social and environmental programs and less on military and industrial. It will favour more of the wrong kind of regulation and less of the right kind. When this side is in power long enough business and economy tends to be recessive and the poor still suffer. The propaganda of this side will resonate with slogans of social & economic equality & justice and will champion the cause of democracy and civil rights. The violence of this side will usually take the form of political sanctions and/or military actions in foreign nations' affairs under the guise of promoting liberty & democracy and the protection of human rights. It will also take the form of legislative action which results in the restriction of personal freedoms under the guise of serving the common good of the American people. This ideology is present in many denominations and will also use the Bible and the Church's Tradition to justify its ambitions and methods.

Infusing the Christian Faith into either of these ideologies/philosophies - or any permutation thereof - constitutes the same thing: a hijacking of the Classical Christian Faith and a distortion of what it means and looks like. There is no political/social ideology/philosophy that is compatible with the ancient and true Christian Faith; to try and make it so is to create a pseudo-Christianity. And in fact, the greater majority of what is perceived as Christianity by the modern culture is just that. 

There are, no doubt, many good-hearted, devout Christians who have been seduced by these ideologies through their sincere desire to set right what is wrong and make the world a better place. Certainly we have a responsibility to be good stewards of what has been given us and there are a lot of good things we can and should do. But we are not going to 'save the planet' or effect the outcome of history. 

If the Lord does not build the house, in vain do the builders labour (Psalm 127).

The other type of Christianity, as Mr. Corey describes it "is a movement of people who want to live and be like Jesus". But what does this mean? I think it means different things to different people, depending on how they perceive the Person of Jesus and how they understand His teachings. For some it means accepting everyone in whatever way they self-identify, in whatever kinds of relationships they choose and in whatever sort of lifestyle they live, regardless of whether this conflicts with the entirety of Scripture and the Tradition. For others it means being a kind of moral crusader, going around pointing out people's sins. The motivation for both these attitudes is said to be love. For the former, love = non-judgmentalism; for the latter, love = converting sinners. But both miss the mark, both mis-characterize the Person of Jesus, His teachings, and especially love. The defining character of love is that it is sacrificial. Jesus showed us what that looks like in His sacrifice of Himself on the Cross, and His teachings, rightly understood, reveal the same thing.

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross (Phil. 2:5-8).

To "live and be like Jesus" means to sacrifice, to empty ourselves - of our will, our desires, our opinions, our feelings - and bear whatever crosses these bring to us, patiently, humbly, without complaining. Along with this is regarding all people as being worthy of love and salvation and forgive everyone, for everything, all the time. This must be our attitude and our actions must reflect it. Does this mean that we are to say nothing about anything? Of course not. But we must be very discerning in what we say and especially how we say it. Speaking the truth in love is only possible by grace.

None of this requires a political ideology or philosophy, nor can it be enhanced or improved by adopting one. Yes, we live in the world and we are constantly confronted with its issues and problems. But to become so caught up in it that our emotions are inflamed when we see something on television and we have to run to the social networks and talk about it, or even worse, run out into the streets and protest it, then we have given in to passion and allowed ourselves to be distracted from living and being like Jesus.

Jesus never told His disciples (and by extension, us as well) to solve the world's problems or to be social/political activists. He told them to watch and pray lest they fall into temptation. Allowing political ideologies/philosophies to influence and inform our Faith is a temptation of the Adversary. God does not need Conservative or Progressive Christians, Democrat, Republican or Libertarian Christians. He desires true disciples of Jesus Christ who hear the Word of God and keep it.

In political matters, I believe we should give only the necessary amount of attention to make a conscientious decision of how to vote - if we decide to vote - and if there is something we can actually, practically and personally do to help someone, do that. 

In all else watch and pray, 

work and pray, 

do what is right, 

love what is good, 

and walk humbly with God.

Topics of Succession

The following is a discourse I had with a friend on Facebook. He calls himself the "Abnormal Anabaptist" and he is a good man of sound and profound faith. His concerns with the Orthodox and Catholic teaching on Apostolic Succession is illustrative, I think, of the misconception some of our Protestant brethren have regarding this doctrine. I hope perhaps it will be helpful to others who may have similar concerns. 

I guess I see "Apostolic Succession" as the doctrine that gives men positions of authority because they are in some way connected directly to men of the past. If that's the case, all believers who study the Scriptures fall under Apostolic Succession because, to some degree, they have all received teaching handed down from the apostles to their followers. I see this as distinct, if only by certain nuances, to the discernment used to determine what is canon and what is not. The difference is that it was followers of Jesus trying to discern what were the important texts to hand down in order to test and hold men accountable. Apostolic Succession is where the men themselves are the standard to which men are held accountable and I see that as a bit of a problem.I know the differences are subtle and that the authority of the men who determined the canon comes from some sense of the succession...but now that we do have the canon as the standard, those men who come after should then submit to that authority imparted to the canon because of that purpose. [ ]

.... I do not feel that there is an inherently hierarchical nature to the intended structure of the church. Yes, some men and women are wiser, more learned, but I don't think necessarily they should be placed in a position where they cannot be called to account for deviations from the standard that the church as community agreed upon. So if a pastor or elder or overseer strays from that standard, the lowliest believer who recognizes it can call them to account...not for pride, but for the good of the whole body. As I have seen Apostolic Succession invoked by some (perhaps not here), this does not seem to happen...the priest, pope, father, is unquestioned...their word is considered on par with the truth of the canon...and that I don't feel is right.

This is not what Apostolic Succession is; that is not it's purpose or function. Christ said that all authority was His and He transmitted that authority to His apostles in a direct way when He breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit; that which you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, that which you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven ... " and, "... those whose sins you forgive they will be forgiven, those whose sins you retain will be retained." (I'm not going to give citations here because I know you know the Bible well enough to know where all these are.) He gave them His own authority, the power of forgiving sins and binding and loosing and commissioned them and sent them out to "make disciples of all nations" and to baptize. They received the fullness of empowerment at Pentecost. What they received they transmitted to their successors. It had to be transmitted because the "gifts of God are irrevocable" and His word "does not return to Him empty but accomplishes the purpose for which it was sent". All of this was set in place not to give men positions of authority but to ensure that the sacred deposit of Faith in its fullness would be carried on and safeguarded, which resulted in the setting of the Canon and the Creed and would continue beyond and alongside these. 

Apostolic Succession does not make some men the standard to which others are held accountable; it makes those upon whom it is bestowed accountable to the Good Shepherd and to His sheep, because He told them, "Feed my sheep", and because "to those whom much has been given, much will be expected". This is a heavy burden, one not to be coveted. I know because it has been given to me and it will be expected of me. There is far more to Apostolic Succession than a believer studying the Scriptures and receiving teaching from them. Deacons and Priests (and other types of ministers) are *ordained*; Bishops are *consecrated* and there is a reason for this distinction. There is a mystical and transcendental connection that comes from the essential element involved in the Sacrament of Holy Orders, that being, the Laying-on-of-Hands. This is distinctly different than the general notion of laying-on-of-hands in that one can only confer/transmit that which one already possesses. In the sense of the "priesthood of all believers" all Christians can lay hands for the purpose of healing and a number of other things. The Bishop is consecrated by the laying-on-of-hands by three other bishops for the distinct purpose of conferring/transmitting Apostolic Succession and the authority of Christ. The laying-on-of-hands in this sense evolved from the Jewish practice of the father bestowing the hierarchical blessing on his firstborn and heir (as in Isaac and Jacob, Jacob and Ephraim / Manassah, etc).

... that I do not feel that there is an inherently hierarchical nature to the intended structure of the church.

Honestly, I don't know how anyone that studies the Scriptures can miss it. The implication is everywhere, in both Testaments. In the OT God said of Himself that He was king over His people. He called Prophets to prophesy and Judges to judge. Then the people wanted a king to rule over them so He gave them one which led to the Davidic Dynasty from which Christ descended. In Jewish temple worship there was a hierarchy of ministers, at the top of which was the High Priest descended from Aaron. It's obvious that Christ throughout His ministry recognized this hierarchy even though He Himself was not subject to it. He told the leper to "go and show yourself to the priest" and again, “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." In the Book of Acts, where we see the very beginnings of the Church, we see the foundation of hierarchical structure when the Apostles appointed subordinates - the seven Deacons (deacon from diakonos meaning "one who serves") - so that they could concentrate on the primary mission of preaching the Gospel. In fact, all four "orders" which form the government of the Church - laity, deacons, presbyters and bishops - are clearly visible in St. Paul's first letter to Timothy. The laity are also called "saints", the "faithful" and "brethren". Presbyters or "elders" are visible, their ministry from the start being to "rule", "labor in the world", and teach true "doctrine". St. Paul appointed elders in every local church and later instructed his apostolic apprentice, Titus, to do the same. 

(In no way is the ordained Christian priesthood seen as a throwback to or a reenacting of the OT priesthood. Rather, joined to Christ Who is our High Priest "according to the order of Melchizedek", Orthodox and Catholic priests are likewise ministers of a new covenant that supersedes the old.) 

The bishop is the "overseer" of the congregation and clergy in a given area. (Often the terms "bishop" and "elder" are used interchangeably in the NT with the bishop being the leader of the elders.) Nonetheless the bishopric is a specific office both in the NT and in the early Church. The Twelve were the first to hold this office (in Acts 1:20 "office" could literally be translated as "bishopric"). Early records show James was the bishop of Jerusalem by AD 49 and functioned accordingly at the first council there (Acts 15). Peter is on record as the first bishop of Antioch prior to AD 53 and later first bishop of Rome where he was martyred about AD 65. Perhaps the strongest early reference outside the NT to the presence of the four orders in church government occurs in the writings of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch from AD 67 to 107, the very heart of the New Testament era. To the church at Philadelphia he writes of "Christians [laity] at one with the bishop and the presbyters and the deacons". In another letter he writes: "Let everyone revere the deacons as Jesus Christ, the bishop as the image (literally "icon") of the Father and the priests as the senate of God for without them one cannot speak of the Church". 

In Orthodoxy spiritual authority is present in all four orders, with the bishop providing the center of unity. His authority is not over the church but within the church. He is an icon of Jesus Christ, "the Shepherd and Overseer [bishop] of your souls" (1Pet.2). Church leadership does not consist of one or more of the orders functioning without the others. Rather, the Church, with Christ as Head, is structured and conducted like a family, the Body of Christ, where all the members in their given offices work together as the dwelling place of the Holy Trinity.

Now, the sad thing is that, over time, as *the* Church evolved, some jurisdictions (even I daresay Orthodox ones) have become more "institutional". Bishops have become more administrators than shepherds and arch-pastors, priests more academics than laborers and the diaconate has come to be regarded as little more than a "stepping-stone" to the priesthood. Also the laity, in some cases, have either come to exercise too much control over the clergy or they have become more "sheeple" than sheep. All of this represents imbalance in the church which leads to disorder, disunity, scandal, heresy, schism and all the rest. This is partly why our Religious Community is only "affiliated" with that institution called the Anglican Communion. As a bishop I am of course accountable to Christ and to the people whom He has entrusted to me but I also must be accountable to a group of bishops that even the "lowliest believer" can appeal to in the event (God forbid!) I go astray. But that is as far as my institutionalism goes. I believe that the balance within the family of God and the Body of Christ is best achieved and maintained in the small Eucharistic Community. This is not to say that I deny "The Church" - the Church is real and it is really present in the world; it is mystical but not invisible. But I also believe there is such a thing as the Church of the Heart, and in such a sense we are all really One.

+ + +