Jesus-Centric Christianity

A note to pastors and teachers...

5  While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud said, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!"

6  When the disciples heard this, they fell face down to the ground and were terrified.

7  And Jesus came to them and touched them and said, "Get up, and do not be afraid."

8  And lifting up their eyes, they saw no one except Jesus Himself alone.

Matthew 17:5-8 (NAS)

I'm increasingly unwilling to condone actions that communicate that Christianity should be focused anywhere but Jesus Himself alone.  Now you men and women who have the weighty responsibility to teach will all agree with me in word, but how about in deed?

When you teach, is it from His teachings?  We have four major Gospels (which Westerners simply think are biographies) and I know that many of you treat them as such.  But embedded within the four most important books in the Bible are the treasure of wisdom that passes all other treasures; the true and precious teachings of the One that God the Father told Peter, James, and John to LISTEN to: yes, above Moses and above the Prophets, Elijah being their representative in this passage.

Okay, maybe you think you know and teach His perfect lessons, and that you have become a follower of Jesus.  Really? 

What did it mean to become a disciple (follower) of Jesus then?  It didn't mean one simply followed Him around and tried to learn whatever he could.  It didn't mean revering Him so that they simply worshipped Him as they traveled.  It didn't mean one followed Him as He taught pop-psychology 'life-lessons' about being married and about how to manage their money, ETC.  It didn't mean that when He had gone that they were privileged and elevated by simply having known Him. 

When a first-century disciple followed their Master, their Rabbi, they were doing so with a single-minded purpose.  They were there to learn by heart and then perform their Master's yoke - which was a group of very specific teachings - and eventually to pass on these +specific teachings+ to others.

The disciples of Jesus were priviliged and elevated after His departure because they were in possession of, and charged with dispension of, His treasure, the +specific teachings+ of the Great Rabbi, Jesus.

Most Christians sadly believe that the disciples simply learned 'life lessons' from Jesus.  And today many model their "discipleship" after this ill-informed idea, which is usually called mentoring.  The mentor's lack of knowing, memorizing, and living the +specific teachings+ of Jesus is the reason why many think that this form of discipleship is okay.  A first century Hebrew would have thought this pure nonsense - utter bullshit (skubala, Philippians 3:8).

Don't miss this point: If you are not teaching Jesus' +specific teachings+ then you are not discipling them according to the Great Commission.  Read the GC again and understand the command, '...teaching them to observe all that I commanded you.'  If you are trying to 'disciple' people from Paul (remember, Paul doesn't write of Jesus' specific teachings or actions), or if you are trying to teach them how to live to the best of your ability, even with ordinary Christian principles, you are not discipling people to Jesus.  You are discipling them to Paul or yourself.   

Do you KNOW, pastors and teachers, the +specific teachings+ of Jesus by heart? each and every one of them?  Are you consciously living them out daily?  Are they your focus?  By the way, you cannot LIVE them unless you KNOW them.  Having them referenced in your Bible will not translate into personal, physical action.  Mark that down.  Are they worked into EVERY lesson or sermon, or better yet, are they the centerpiece of each?   

Yes, Paul had some good things to say, but remember, as we've seen and learned before, the Apostle to the Gentiles doesn't even mention the earthly actions and teachings of Jesus the Great Rabbi within his letters (not denigrating Paul here.  See the previous series of posts, The Truth About Paul to understand why).

What if Paul had been there with Moses, Elijah, and Jesus, too?  Would God have said "Listen to my Son and Paul?"

The way most teachers operate today, one might think that The Father surely would've said, "Listen to Paul and My Son."

But I remain completely convinced that had Paul been there as well, we still would be reading this verse as it was originally written by Matthew:

And lifting up their eyes, they saw no one except Jesus Himself alone.

P.S. The tone of this blog is about to turn positive (although I'm not giving up my right to rant every now and again).  What does it mean to be Jesus-Centric?

 

Who should we be listening to?

1  Six days later Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up on a high mountain by themselves.

2  And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light.

3  And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him.

4  Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, I will make three tabernacles here, one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah."

5  While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud said, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!"

6  When the disciples heard this, they fell face down to the ground and were terrified.

7  And Jesus came to them and touched them and said, "Get up, and do not be afraid."

8  And lifting up their eyes, they saw no one except Jesus Himself alone.

Matthew 17:1-8 (NAS)

The Problem with (our view of) the Bible

One thing that has bothered me for a while - and I know some of you think I'm really bothered - is that Christians view the books of the Bible as all equal.  And what I mean is really that most Christians see any study as being a good study.  Now I won't argue too long with that.  I do think it's all in some way profitable.  But...

There are sixty-six books and thousands of pages in the ordinary Bible.  That's a lot of territory to cover.  And the problem I have is we've continuously neglected the most important books within the whole.  Those of you who've been following my blogs will undoubtedly know which books I believe are the pinnacle and worthy of 90% of our time and effort.  They are the Gospels, of course.

I believe that most Christians believe like I do.  The whole of Scripture points to the coming of the Messiah.  In that Person, all is fulfilled, all is revealed.

But most people's Bible study is like an astronomer looking out into space.  Myriad of constellations keep him from settling on a single place to observe.  He sees a lot of stars but KNOWS none of them.

If Elijah were here.  If Ezekiel were here.  If Jeremiah and Noah and Moses were here.  They would - I believe - understand the Torah in a whole new way.  They would see their writings and their work as a foreshadowing of that which was to come.  Jesus is His name.  And if they were to have an opportunity to read about Him in the Gospels, they would throw rocks at the OT and at Paul, too.  Understanding that the OT leads us to the climax of the story, even to the whole of the story, allows us to see the Gospels for what they are.  They are the PINNACLE of the Bible.  Everything leads us to Jesus and His words and deeds, which reveal to us the Father.  But we are content with Paul and Psalms and Isaiah.  I simply am not.  The Revelation has come and His name is ...

Now maybe they wouldn't throw rocks.  But because they are from a different perspective and a more right one, I believe they would concentrate their existences - each and every one of them - on the Christ, the Messiah, the Prophesied One.   

Why is it that people prefer the Psalms to the Gospels?  Why do they insist on Paul over the Gospels?  And don't give me that 'all Scripture is profitable'.  Jesus has come and if you've seen/known Him, then you've seen the Father. 

I want to see the Father.    

A Few Final Thoughts on Paul

Did the first century churches see Paul's letters the way we see them?  Did they conduct their primary teaching from his letters as our pastors do today? 

If so, then where and how did the earliest Christians learn about Jesus?  How did they come to know Him and His ways; come to know Him as Savior AND Lord?  How could they have become disciples of His, seeing that it took an intimate and thorough knowledge of His deeds, words, and teachings to do so? Paul simply does not write about the details of Jesus' earthly ministry.  And remember, there weren't no such animal as a New Testament for the earliest Christians to fall back on. So then, how did they know about the head of their religion, Jesus?  I implore you; do not pass over these questions without some level of meditation.

And if they utilized Paul's letters as their primary teaching, then they must have ignored the teachings of Jesus.  How could this be?  I'll tell you how.  They didn't.

I'm convinced that if Paul could speak to us today, he'd say to the pastors and teachers, "Cease at once from using my letters as your primary teaching".  I believe he weeps even today over this.  Jesus, His words and deeds, was Paul's primary teaching, only it wasn't in written form.  It was in verbal form, transmitted in person, face to face, planted there as the cornerstone, the focal point, and prize possession, at the inception of each congregation, consisting of the Jesus Tradition, or that which now resides in/makes up the Gospel forms, passed on in accordance with the rules of Holy Oral Tradition.

But our pastors and teachers are content to teach Paul's letters as though they are the highest form of Scripture.  They simply are not and I firmly believe that those in the earliest Pauline churches would wholeheartedly agree with me.  The Gospels, which contain the revelation of God the Father through Jesus the Son, that which the righteous and wise men LONGED to see and hear but didn't, is found not in Paul's letters, but in the person and teachings of Jesus Christ, the fulfillment of the OT and all the covenants.  The pinnacle of all Scripture is Jesus Christ, Himself.

Why did Paul refuse to mention the words, deeds and teachings of Jesus in his epistles? 

Because he'd already delivered the highest teaching to them in person, the Holy Oral Tradition regarding Jesus Christ (again, the rules re: Holy Oral Tradition forbade it's written form).  His letters were merely supplemental (I didn't say unimportant).

The earliest churches knew the tradition, focused on the tradition (and not on Paul's letters), lived out the tradition, and changed the world.

We need to change our perspective as well.  Paul's letters are fine.  They are good and useful to a smaller degree, much smaller than the Gospels of Jesus Christ.  I'm only saying what I firmly believe Paul would say if he were with us today. 

Paul-centric Christianity cannot change the world.  Jesus-centric Christianity has already proven it can.   

The Truth about Paul, part 4

To rightly understand Paul and his letters, we must identify with the audience to which he wrote. 

I contend that Paul did teach his new congregations about the Rabbi Jesus (he obviously knew perfectly the Jesus Tradition, or otherwise the leaders at Jerusalem would have never bestowed upon him the title of Apostle).  I believe with my whole heart that he also did this through the convention of the Hebrews known as Holy Oral Tradition, which meant he taught them in person and by word of mouth only.  I find I cannot explain otherwise the fact that Paul refuses to mention Jesus' words and deeds in his letters (again, Holy Oral Tradition was forbidden to be written down).  It's not as though he mentions Jesus' words and deeds infrequently in his letters.  It's not as though he uses them rarely within his correspondences.  He simply makes no mention at all of his Master's earthly words, deeds, or teachings within the letters he wrote to his churches. 

Even still, I'm convinced that Paul taught the early congregants in each city about Jesus, and this seminal teaching regarding the Resurrected Rabbi - not Paul's later letters - were at the core of their faith. 

Yes, the earliest Gentile churches were focused on Jesus the Resurrected Rabbi.  They were focused on memorizing, understanding, and living out the stories and teachings that eventually made up the Gospels.  So at the heart of the earliest churches - the ones that received Paul's letters (Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, etc.) - the congregants were constantly learning about and meditating on the teachings of Jesus the Rabbi.  There were no other distractions, such as other books of the NT.  There weren't countless books on 'Having Your Best Life Now" (what a load of crap).  There weren't mortgages on massive buildings and so much other BS.  There was Jesus the Rabbi and the Holy Oral (Jesus) Tradition that was passed from person to person.  Paul's letters - which pastors and teachers currently treat as primary texts - were secondary (subordinant) to the Jesus Tradition within the earliest churches.   

As time went on, obviously, Paul needed to write letters of clarification on such intellectual subjects as sanctification, justification, and other such topics.  He, at times needed to admonish, sometimes to scold, sometimes to encourage and sometimes to settle debates.  But when he needed to reinforce the Rabbi's specific teaching he did it in person, or sent Timothy to remind them face to face (in keeping with Holy Oral Tradition).  Paul's letters were not seen by those first Christians as primary texts.  The Jesus Tradition was their penultimate and primary 'text'.

We too should see Paul's letters as subordinant yet garner from them whatever they might yield.  But even moreso we must realize that a teaching that preceded and superseded these letters was given to the earliest churches regarding the Savior, the Rabbi Jesus.  This teaching was the Jesus Tradition; a group of memory texts that now make up the Gospels.  The teaching regarding the Master had to be the foundation of their faith and therefore, their congregations.  Otherwise are we to assume that all they knew about Christianity was what was in Paul's Jesus-free letters?  Surely not. 

Indeed, the earliest churches were focused on the Person of Jesus and His teachings regarding the kingdom of heaven. 

Likewise, the Jesus Tradition (the Gospels) should be our focus, not Paul's letters.  Return, O Bride to the Resurrected Rabbi, Yeshua.   

The Truth about Paul, part 3

The earliest Christians were the most successful in history.  We need to understand why. 

Holy Oral Tradition played a huge (read primary) part in the practice of their faith.  Memory texts - the ones that make up the entirety of the Gospels - were how the earliest Christians knew their Resurrected Rabbi, the focus of their faith. 

The earliest Christians had no New Testament.  They didn't have the letters of Paul or even the Gospels.  They didn't have other writings from other apostles, either.  But instead, they collected in their memories the stories about, and teachings of, Jesus, handed down person to person by word of mouth.  Don't let this fact escape your understanding.  It's of utmost importance.

Now, not all of the earliest Christians knew how to interpret each of the teachings or sayings.  Not all believers even had access to all of the stories.  But within each vignette of the Jesus Tradition, there were layers of meaning and understanding that had to be learned in a discipleship manner, that is, being taught the meanings by one who had been taught by one who had been taught by an original apostle (we can find many instances in the Early Church where the references of teachers were checked.  Those who learned wanted to make sure that the teacher's origin could be directly traced back to one of the original disciples, thus insuring an uncorrupted transmission of the original teachings).  But rest assured, the earliest Christians knew by memory many of the stories and teachings of Jesus.  This, even though these memory texts weren't written down.

Back now to Paul.  Our modern teachers and pastors and theologians teach Paul's letters as though they were the basis and foundation of the early churches faith.  Today, sermon series come from Romans and Corinthians and Galatians, etc.  Our leaders believe these letters to be primary texts.  They teach them as primary texts.  But I don't believe that the early churches would have seen them that way.  One clue is these 'hallowed' letters don't mention, recall, or recount the earthly deeds and sayings and teachings of the One they called Lord.  Their focus - Paul and the churches both - was on Jesus, not on the letters that Paul wrote.  Paul encourages them in their faith and clarifies too, so we can accept his letters likewise.  But they were not the primary texts for their faith, as some of our modern leaders have made them out to be.

Why Paul's Letters Should Not be Viewed as Primary Texts 

The fact that Paul refused to mention Jesus' words and deeds in his letters is a mystery to most.  I would also say that most have never even realized that Paul consciously avoided writing about Jesus in his epistles.  Strange for sure.  But the question of why merits our most careful thought and examination, especially if we still choose to see Paul's letters as the highest Scripture available to us as Christians. 

Some theologians have promoted the idea that Paul neglected Jesus because he wanted to form his own sort of religion, relegating the Messiah to figure-head only status.  Paul could then mold the religion to his own liking while ignoring the teachings of Jesus.  But this seems rather ludicrous when we read of his undying love for his Savior within the pages of his letters AND his willingness to suffer great hardship and even death because of his faith in the Resurrected Rabbi.  The more likely truth is that the words and deeds of Jesus were first seen as Holy Oral Tradition.  Again, in Hebrew culture, Holy Oral Tradition was meant to be memorized and expressly forbidden to be written down, passed along only by word of mouth.  This would account not only for Paul refusing to include these things in his written work, as well as for the bafflingly long period between the Resurrection and the appearance of the First Gospel. 

What if Paul transmitted the Holy Oral Tradition regarding Jesus to the leaders of each church at its inception?  This seems most likely considering the combination of these facts:

1.  Paul refuses to mention the words and deeds of Jesus in any of his letters

2.  The rules governing Holy Oral Tradition forbade its written form

3.  Holy Oral Tradition was only to be passed on 'by the mouth'

4.  Holy Oral Tradition often contained stories and teachings of Sages and Rabbis

5.  If we assume Paul was not a charlatan intent on hijacking a new religions, then we must also believe he - as the founder of many early Christian churches - taught them about the person and teachings of Rabbi Jesus.  But again, he doesn't do that in his letters

When I first learned about how the Hebrews viewed the Holy Oral Tradition (from Sages and Rabbis) and that they considered it too holy to be written down, I was appalled by what I perceived as their arrogance.  The written Word was much more holy than their opinions, I thought.  But here's how the ancient Hebrews defined the difference between the Written and Oral Traditions:

The Law (The Written) is like a father who tells his children what to do.  The little one, still immature, may not even understand the command or how to fulfill it.  The Oral Tradition then, is like the child's mother (she's more mature and knows the father well) who explains what the father meant and the best way to go about obeying.  Holy Oral Tradition was meant to help the initiate live by the Law, or by The Way.  Memorizing kept it on the mind and heart and tongue.  Simply brilliant and quite effective.  If one was to pass it on, then they had to know it by heart.

The Ancient Hebrews wisely prohibited the writing down of the Tradition for a very specific reason.  It wasn't because there was a shortage of paper.  It wasn't because most people didn't know how to read and/or write.  It was because the Rabbis knew the enormous pratfall caused by relegating that which was intended to be written on the heart into books. 

We've downloaded Jesus from our minds and hearts and tongues into lifeless books. 

So how should we then see the Pauline letters, the letters that make up the bulk of the New Testament?

To be continued.   

The Truth about Paul, part 2

Ever heard of Holy Oral Tradition?

The Hebrews had just such a convention.  And I believe it's one of the missing links in our study of the earliest Christianity.

In Jewish antiquity, memory played a large part in their religious life.  Stories were memorized and as such, were kept at the forefront of their minds and lives.  The treasured vignettes provided patterns to follow or patterns to avoid.  It was a tradition of memory and speech, perscribing right attitude and action, anchored in their hearts and poised on the tips of their tongues.

Today, we've downloaded our memories into books and computers.  We don't need to memorize anything anymore.  We have blackberries and palm pilots and cell phones freeing our minds to better ambitions, like trying to remember where the stylus or ear bud was left.  We don't need to memorize what Jesus said either, cause we have it several times in the different Bibles we have at home.  If I want to know what He said, I can just go and look it up.  Yes, we're more advanced than ever.

Since the first Christians didn't have 5 Bibles for every believer, or even one for that matter, how did they know about Jesus, His words and His deeds? 

Most all theologians agree that the first Gospel written (whichever it might've been) wasn't written for many, many years (20-45 years) after Jesus' death, burial and resurrection.  Now does that make any sense to you?  I mean, the disciples who wrote Canonical Gospels, Matthew and John, could've written, should've written their accounts immediately and had them publised by Zondervan.  What kinda book deal could they've gotten?  And what a disservice they committed by neglecting to write those things down immediately for those who wanted to read/know about Jesus? 

Enter the Holy Oral Tradition.  The stories of Jesus and His miracles and deeds were known from the beginning.  They were remembered and their wording crafted so as to be easily memorized by His disciples and later committed to memory by others who followed.  They were stylized and repeated with precision.  For many years the mythical Q was in existence.  Only it was in the minds of countless Christians.  The fact that these short quips and stories found their way into the Gospels, albeit in very similar forms, testifies that these were memory texts.  That's one reason why there are small variances from one Gospel to another. 

So why didn't they write these things down immediately?  Simply enough, it was against the practice of the Hebrews to convey Holy Oral Tradition in writing.  For years and years the Jesus Tradition was passed from person to person, from memory to memory, living in the minds and hearts of His followers as Holy Oral Tradition.  They didn't need a WWJD bracelet.  They had His words and deeds emblazoned on their hearts.   They knew exactly what He'd do because His words and deeds had invaded their minds.   

Today, Jesus is not the central focus of most churches.  When I say most, I mean over 95%.  And I believe it's even closer to 100%.  Jesus has been relegated primarily to a figure-head status.  Why aren't His words and deeds focused on each and every week?  Why aren't people fixated upon Him alone?  Why haven't they memorized His words and deeds?  He is God's Wisdom revealed.  He is what the wise men and the righteous had longed to see and His teachings hear, but they did neither. 

You think I've forgotten about Paul. 

I believe - with my whole heart - that today, Paul would be sorely disappointed in the way we use his letters.  Our pastors and teachers and theologians prefer his letters to the pericopes of Jesus.  But this was not the way it was in the First Century.

Paul, when he started a church, went to a specific city.  He spent much time wherever a church was started.  And I'm convinced it was then and there that Paul delivered the Foundation, which was the Jesus Tradition, to them in person.  It was Holy and it was Oral and it was the Basis, the Centerpiece, on which they believed. 

To be continued. 

   

The Truth about Paul, etc.

You won't hear what I'm going to tell you from your pastor.  He probably hasn't even thought about it.

Here is a great mystery: 

Paul virtually never quoted Jesus or spoke of His earthly deeds in his Epistles.  This even though he called Him Master and Lord, meaning that he considered Jesus his authoritative example. 

Doesn't this strike anyone else as nothing short of amazing?  baffling?  sad?

Because of this oddity, some theologians have surmised that Paul wanted to start his own religion with Jesus as a sort of benign figurehead.  This way Paul could have a great say in how this new religion was molded and shaped.  I guess they could be right if it weren't for what we can surely see as Paul's real love for, and devotion to, his Savior.  But other than those few, I haven't been able to find many who'll address this enigma.

But it is the truth, Paul's lack of a physical connection with Jesus in his letters.  Think about it or even take the time to survey his work if you like.

Now before you label me as 'Paul-basher', let me put you at ease.  I'm doing nothing of the sort.  Paul was a follower of Jesus and a great one at that.  He was even an Apostle and this acknowledged or granted after an examination by Peter in Jerusalem.

Here's another truly baffling question.  What constituted the examination that was administered to Paul?  What did Paul say or demonstrate that caused the other disciples to bestow the lofty title of apostle onto this former Christian killer?

The clues necessary to answer these questions, I believe, are found in a common, ancient Jewish convention; one lost completely within modern Christianity.

But before I write about that convention, I'd like to visit one special letter: Q.

For so many years scholars have supposed the existence of an early Christian document they've titled - you guessed it - Q.  Some have assumed that it was the original collection of the Jesus material in written form.  From this point, they've guessed how the gospels were written, or copied as it were from this collection and/or then from one gospel to another.  Now many an egghead (see also this blogger) have dedicated themselves to understanding how the gospels came into existence.  Some say Matthew was written first, some say Mark.  But most of 'whoever' say that one copied from the other and then added more of the original material (Q) to their gospels.  For those of you who are familiar with this branch of scholarship, you know how detailed their theories can be.  They've put a lot of time and effort into their work. 

But I don't believe in the mythical Q, at least not in any written form.  First of all, nary a copy has been found (I do realize this is not sufficient evidence to preclude its existence).  Secondly, many times when scholars suppose one has copied from another, there are slight differences in the text.  The act of copying should produce no variance.  Third, there is another hypothesis that is much more plausible. 

It's the convention I spoke of earlier.

To be continued.          

Not an Anarchist

It's really easy to criticize.  To tear down is simple. 

Some of you may not like what I write.  But I'll bet there's not many of you who will say our churches are really changing the world for Jesus.

George Barna's book Revolution has been a big hit - or miss - as some might interpret it.  But I don't think the man has some ridiculous agenda as some have accused.  Instead, I believe he is telling the truth - millions, yes millions, of Christians have left the organized Church because they are completely dissatisfied with its leadership, its direction, its suffocating presence, and its reluctance to let people be who they are in Christ.  Many churchians will condemn these people as backslidden or worse.  Whatever. 

The truth is I know people who have left their local church; quite a few of them.  The funny thing is they are working harder than ever for the cause of Christ.  Barna says that on the whole those who have left the church for the right reasons are doing far more than those who remain.  Shock you?  Most churchians might find what he's saying to be a little unbelievable.  "Out there on their own?  Out of the will of God!  Sinners!" I can hear them say. But having examined it (and experienced it) for myself, I don't find it unbelievable or dangerous at all.  Instead, I find it quite logically brilliant.  Why you ask?

Somehow we've been led to believe that each individual believer's ministry is tied to the local church; that this institution should govern our work; that our work should be done through it.  Sorry, can't find that in the Book (and more specifically in the Gospels).  As a matter of fact, I can't find a basis for having a hovering institution at all.  Instead, the man-made portion (which is by far the greatest part) of this institution has hijacked Christianity's physical and financial resources.  Now I'm back to my previous posting.  Check your church's budget and then poll the congregation as to how they spend their time devoted to Christian service.  Where are people's resources going?

They're going to feed an institution that seems more interested in herself than anyone else on the planet. 

I recently asked a friend of mine these simple questions:  What if your church of 2000 people decided to sell their building?  (they're struggling terribly to pay the multi-million dollar note even now)  What if they decided to sell the property?  What if they decided to break into smaller groups that met in homes?  What if each family took their tithes and invested them back into the community (like helping a family down the street who has come on hard times? or into a one parent home?  or buying blankets for the homeless and using time formerly spent at church to pass them out?)?

The resources of thousands of Christians would be pointed outward into the community instead of inward into a building, etc.  Whereas now the church is stagnant, she would be making new friends left and right.  And if individual believers were empowered to invest their own tithes into the community, the addictive delight they'd experience would surely scare the minions of darkness and bewilder the unattached.  If this were to happen, well, I think you know how the world around us would be impacted.

Those previously mentioned individuals out there are gloriously unencumbered.  And that is why they are making inroads and friends for Christ.  They are using their tithes to feed people and clothe people and love people.  100% of their monies goes directly into use.  And their time?  Just the same.  Oh and by the way, they still have church.  It might be at Starbucks with another Christian for a cup of coffee or it might be a Wednesday night "prayer meeting" disguised as a handful of friends (who just happen to know Jesus) taking a trip to a nursing home to visit with the lonely and forsaken within our communities.

Kinda like what was happening in the First Century.

And no, I'm not an anarchist. 

   

Finding 'His Way'

I can still remember - some 30 years ago - sitting in church and listening to my pastor.  I was probably 14 or 15 at the time.  He'd just begun a series on the Old Testament prophets.  If I remember right, it was going to be about a 3 month ordeal.  To tell the truth, I really wasn't that interested in what he had to say.  I was interested in the pretty girls sitting beside me, to the right and left, in front and behind.  But even though I wasn't tuned in to the sermon of the week, I was still tuned in to Jesus.  I took my faith as seriously as a hormonal teenager could. 

But I did have a question, one that continued to bother me for years.  For many months prior, we'd been studying Paul and the NT epistles.  Ever noticed that Paul never quoted Jesus?  Ever noticed that he almost never spoke of His earthly deeds?  And now we were going to spend several more months in the Old Testament?  Where in the world was That Guy?  You know, the One I was supposed to be following? 

And another thing, too; what about Wednesday nights?  You know, where they talked about the business of the church.  I was a 'good' Christian and went whenever the doors were open.  I don't think I heard His name once during those meetings.  So much was said about so little, colors of carpet and sometimes the odd fight.

To me, church seemed little to do with the person I thought was supposed to be in charge.  His name was Jesus, not Nehemiah or Paul.  This peculiarity of teaching everything but Him has always bothered me.

Fastforward to September 1, 1999. 

On that date I began to diligently research a single book in the Bible.  That's right, just one book.  Bizarre, I know.  But I dedicated myself to this project full-time.  Metamorphosis. 

And that book?  Matthew, the first gospel of the New Testament. 

Benefitting from this work, I came to realize that Christianity wasn't about this organization we call church.  This was in some way, new to the formerly hypnotized me.  You see, I used to be an avid believer in church.  Now I no longer go to an organized, normalized, budgetized church.  Why?

Well, I finally realized that nothing had changed.  Churches today continue to be concerned with many different things: budgets, staffs, buildings, carpet, light bills, insurance, lawsuits, activism, politics, agendas, specialized services, Sunday morning productions, gregarious leaders/pastors/communicators, advertising, slogans, parking lots, gimmicks, etc.  Any informed reader knows I could long continue to list their blah blah blah before naming You Know Who.  And Paul-centered teaching seems even more prevalent now or some hip 'fix-me-up' study in four easy 45 minute sessions designed to fit on a mailer to the community.  What a load.  The person of Jesus (and just as importantly His teachings) seem relegated to an undercard billing status, if even that. 

I love Jesus.  Honestly, I do.  Very much so.  But do I want to be part of the local church in her current state?  No.  Our churches, for the most part, have become extraordinarily ineffectual if not detrimental.  They meet and worry primarily about their self-preservation.  Pastors worry about their job security and the furtherance of their local creation.  Likewise the staffs.  They are not focused on Jesus.  Oh sure, they'll say they are, but look at their budgets.  How much money goes to missions and to the poor?  1-2%?  Wow, now that's an accomplishment.  How much to their salaries and to the light bill and to insurance, etc?  Consequently, I've grown really tired of all this bullshit.  Really tired.

But I have become convinved through the study of the earliest believers, that there are critical examples that can save Christianity from herself. These ultra-important lessons obviously come from the First Century; examples of how the first individual believers were concentrating on Jesus, His teachings, and little else. 

Those who were focusing only on Jesus changed the world while the church of today just seems to exist or even piss off those who might otherwise be interested.  Think this is some sort of madcap science? 

If you're a Christian (or even if you're not) and you're looking for Jesus, you might not find Him in many of the organized churches.  But don't worry, He's still around.  I hope to share some meaningful insights with those who'll take the time to visit my blog.