The Need for a Christian Deconstructionist Movement (warning: long)

[absyntheNsugar]

After watching Mel Gibson's passion, I came upon an epiphany. Here were 2 torturous hours based on three, maybe four lines in a given gospel. The camera zooms around with pornographic glee at the violence which is laid out at Jesus' body, and through the course of the movie it never lets up. This could be understood if the movie was about Jesus - but it's not. Nowhere to be found are the teachings of Jesus, the life of Jesus or the resurrection of Jesus. Instead it concentrates on pain, and then death. If Gibson intended to bring people into the church with this, then you could have fooled me.

But it got me thinking about Christianity, and how we see it as a culture. The Chritianity we practice is a far cry from the Christianity that existed as little as 200 years ago. The Christianity we practice is based on (1) Pre-millenial Dispensationalism (Evangelicals and Fundamentalists), (2) Wesleyan Perfectionism (Methodists, Lutherans and Reformed Church) or (3) Ecumenical Anglicanism-Catholicism (Episcopalians and Catholics). We are far from practicing the philosophies and practices that Jesus asked us to live. All three of these movements are 300 years old at best, and many were radical reinventions of Christianity.

And so Gibson comes along with a reading which, although it does not fall into these categories, gives us the Catholicism of the 1300’s, in which self-flagellation was an act of faith, and all comfort was seen as sin. This too, misses the mark (which, for you Hebrew scholars, is the literal definition of the word ‘sin.’) All of this is a far cry from the Christianity that the disciples practiced.

What we need is a Christian Deconstructionist movement, one which leaves no sacred cows – and tears down and re-investigates everything about Christianity as we know it. Why, for example, does a Church in a rich neighborhood spend less on the poor than one in a poor neighborhood? Why is it fundamentalists are banned from drinking, yet their personal savior turned water into wine? Why is it Jesus Christ is worshipped as a God, yet he never said he was God to anyone – and he chastised the disciples when they called him God?

Most important, the Bible itself needs to be re-investigated. Who put it together? Any Christian knows the bible as we know it didn’t exist until several hundred years after Christ. Rome, under a decree from the Emperor, decided which texts were heresy, and which were scripture. Can we, over a thousand years removed, trust this emperor? When has it ever been safe to trust an emperor – especially at a time of a power crisis when there was a great deal of uncertainty in the air, and the people were harder and harder to control.

The Bible, and Christianity thereafter, were put together as a matter of State Control. Soon after, all other strains of Christianity were deemed illegal, and followers were punished by death. Those who read the texts (now known as the apocrypha) were labeled heretics and sent to their deaths. Rome was beginning anew, with a new state doctrine and a new ‘holy cause’ of which to push it forward. Is it any wonder the letters of Paul, who was a Jewish Roman citizen, are included in the bible as the word of God, yet many Gospels were thrown out? Try reading the Gospel of Thomas some time – you’ll see what I mean.

Christianity today has become exactly what it was against in the first place – a cadre of priests who make its followers obey the letter of the law, but fall horribly short of seeing the spirit of the faith.

[keopeli]

1. Bravo, absynthnsugar! Well put!

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Yeah, there are plenty of liberal Christian churches, they just

need to get in the limelight more so they can state their cases for a liberal view of Christianity.

http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/liberalchristians.htm

[BR_Parkway]

5. But if they don't preach FEAR, it won't fill the plates

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. Not necessarily true, though

Unless you mean strict churches switching over. At that point I am sure po's members will withhold their checkbooks as punishment. *l*

But already liberal churches with a happy-to-be-there congregation must surely be doing all right as far as collections go. :)

[earthsea wizard]

23. Better to have a deconstructionist Chritianity..

than a "liberal" Chritianity. Deconstruct the philosophy and you get a liberal tradition anyway, if followed through with accuracy.

Best to let this type of reform come from within rather than without, don't you think so?

[GreenPartyVoter]

24. But that's what many of the liberal churches have done

and hence the reason why they don't sign onto the inerrancy clause when it comes to the Bible.

[earthsea wizard]

26. Are you saying...

That many liberal churches have not applied an overcoat of liberalism to modern Christianity, but in fact have deconstructed the philosophy so as to reveal the natural liberlistic state of the original teachings of Jesus?

I'm just trying to clarify, thanks :)

[supernova]

27. Yep

It's important to emphasis that some very long standing denoms, such as the UUs and Quakers have worked from within christianity.

There are also others such as myself who are working to effect change for more inclusiveness within mainline denoms. ;-)

[GreenPartyVoter]

28. If you visit the link I posted about denominations

you can visit some of those denoms' websites. That'll give you a better idea of which ones have pulled the faith apart and rebuilt it after much examination.

But yes, it seems to me that many, especially those like UU and UCC have made the faith as much a philosophy as a religion. Very different appraoch than that of the evangelicals and fundamentalists which is what one generally thinks of when the word "Christian" is brough into conversation.

[VelmaD]

3. And all the people said...

Amen

Well said. :)

[Warpy]

4. Print it and start nailing it up on church doors

It worked for Luther, whose reforms were pretty much discarded after a power structure took over, but which had a great effect on the hitherto unchallenged Church of Rome.

It seems these guys need reminding quite often, or they stray into power and control, and banish Rabbi Yehsua's teachings completely.

[arendt]

7. Interesting subject

I am digging into this as well.

It turns out that there are two flavors of "end times"
nut cases: the Dispensationalists and the Dominionists.
(As with all Christian sects, they despise and anathematize
each other.)

The Dispensationalists have been around since about 1840
(started by a nut named Darby in the UK). They are the
"rapture" nuts. In their favor, they sort of buy the
Apocalypse - that the world will wind down to a moral
sewer and that Jesus will then come for the last judgement.
They believe the world is doomed, and a Christian should
concentrate on saving souls.

The Dominionists are even newer and even nuttier. Founded
around 1920, they have decided that the Bible is really
telling Christians to take over the government and establish
a theocracy so as to provoke the final days. The Dominionists
are the fruitcakes who support all the PNAC warmongering.
I think Dominionists are called "Reconstructionists". Still
researching - but following these guys is like being a
shrink listening to raving schizophrenics. It gets to you
real fast.


Anyway, the Deconstructionism you refer to has long since
been excommunicated by these lunatics. The Catholics denounced
"modernism" (a movement inside the RCC) in 1910. The Fundies
think any kind of textual criticism is blasphemy (unless it
is the "official" Talmudic midrash(commentary) of the
Scofield Reference Bible). But, there is a loose community
of scholars called "the historical Jesus", which is using
honest archeological methods to try to investigate early
Christianity. This is the group which is popularizing the
Nag Hammadi gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I'm bookmarking this for later reference.

Thanks

arendt

[Maat]

11. I glad you came to the same conclusion I did.

Six months ago, I researched religious in order to find one to which it was acceptable to take my 7-year-old. I had separated from the church about years before as a teen. Trying to put the words that described the religion into a practical meaning was nearly impossible. But I did find out that, yes, the Reconstructionists have a connection to both PNAC and Dobson and Kennedy and their National Policy org. Scary, huh?

I found Church of Relgious Science, a liberal church, much like the Unitarian-Universalists. I love it -- we incorporate the wisdom of many different religions, including Native American traditions. We believe Divinity is within us all, not just Christ. Jesus was a Master Teacher, as was Buddha. It is a positive environment -- no Heaven, Hell, Redemption, You Have to Live This Way -- we focus on affirmative prayer.

[arendt]

13. UUs are great. Believe in democracy, very politically active...

I call their hymnal the "socialist international songbook".

The first time in my life I have not felt uncomfortable
in a church. The people are intelligent. The minister
is a genuine mensch. I am shamed by the energy the
congregation brings to every little detail.

My church had been bugging the Massachusetts legislature
about the gay marriage business before the SJC decision
which started the whole war.

Way progressive folks.

I will have to look up the Church of Religious Science.

Thanks for your info.

arendt

[GreenPartyVoter]

15. More denoms to consider here

Look under Fellowship heading: http://www.geocities.com/lib_christian_2000/liberal.htm :)

[Maat]

25. Thank you for the input.

My understanding is that the main difference between UU and SOM (Science of Mind/Religious Science) is that we refer to the 'Great Spirit,' the 'Cosmic Muffin,' God or whatever you want to call the cosmic consciousness or universal energy. Anyway, my congregation is like mainstream affirmative meditation/prayer and singing. I'm glad people are finding out about the liberal religions.

[absyntheNsugar]

12. The Historical Jesus

AKA the Jesus Society. What's funny is theyre the ones who created the red-letter Bible, which puts all of Jesus' words in Red. The Evangelicals love these bibles, even if it does get them away from Paul.

I just hope somewhere out there a church gets started that makes no assumptions, and practices a Christianity that doesn't rely on the Niciene influenced Empire's version.

From what we know, Christianity before Roman control was a much more meditative religion. That was the original idea of monasticism - to meditate on the Lord and experience him that way.

[VelmaD]

14. I LOVE the red-letter bible

You can't hardly go wrong if you just pay attention to the parts in red. Lots of stuff about love and forgiveness and tolerance in the red parts. :)

[blondeatlast]

8. Absolutely agreed. Where do I sign?

Excellent analysis; you should expand this and publish!

[supernova]

9. Agree totally

And re: the history of the bible and the church. There are many xtian denoms who do not review the history of the formation of the church or the creation by committee of the entity now known as "the bible." As a result, you have many people ignorant of their own church history. It's embarassing, really.

I'd also recommend anything by John Shelby Spong. Talk about reinventing xtianity!

[JPace]

10. The bible is complex and if interpreted literally

gives many examples of cruelty that can be
passed off as God's word. That justifies
doctrine based on instilling fear and avoidance
of rejection. There are many passages where
Jesus speaks of compassion and tolerance yet
most of what passes for Christianity is a list
of rules about behaviors. Seems to me that organized
religion is rather judgmental and rigidly focused
on controlling human behaviors.
You put it much better than I could....

[d_ashley]

16. as a Christian...

i have trouble with some of what you wrote, but especially the part where you said that Christ never claimed to be God. First of all there are countless verses in which Christ refers to God the Father, as His own Father (John 3:16-21 comes to mind). Here are some more verses:

Matthew 4:6-7
6 And said to him, If you are the Son of God, cast yourself down: for it is written, He shall give his angles charge concerning you: and in their hands they shll bear you up, lest at any time you dash your foot against a stone.

7 Jesus said to him, It is written again, You shall not tempt the LORD YOUR GOD.

who would you assume Christ is speaking about if not Himself? And if He spoke of God the Father as His own Father, who exactly do you think that He thought He was? I could list more verses to back up my position but i'm more than a little interested to hear your response. Can you site any verses which prove your point?

[xchrom]

17. he was not speaking of himself

i've never read that verse and thought christ was speaking about anybody else than god.
the issue is tempting god -- and that would be a major sin according to the christ's view.
and christ says several times when people try to pin god-head on him that is ''they '' who claim that not him.
in fact -- that's one of his more charming attributes to me.

[absyntheNsugar]

19. Agreed (with xcrhom)...and keep in mind I'm not saying Christ isn't God

I'm just saying in no Gospel, synoptic or apocrypha, does he ever say "I AM GOD." He will say I AM, referring to his being the Messiah predicted in Issaiah, but he never says "I AM GOD."

True, from the verses you quoted it might be interpreted that he is saying he is God, but he might be referring to his being on a holy mission and that tempting him is tantamount to tempting God himself.

It's just very unclear. Just as it is unclear whether there is a trinity (also never mentioned in the Bible.)

ON EDIT: But I'm glad you are considering these things - its that reflection, reinvestigation and self exploration that really needs to happen.

[GreenPartyVoter]

18. Read "Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time" by Borg

and you'll get some very interesting answers to those questions.

[undergroundpanther]

20. Check This out!

http://www34.brinkster.com/cpme/RelDom/RelDomIndex.html

[absyntheNsugar]

21. Excellent site

Revelation is not about the end of the world, but about the destruction of Jerusalem. It was a coded text sent by Christians and Jews in Rome who knew it was coming, and wanted to warn the city. Nero is the beast (aka 666) and it was talking about 90 AD, not next week!

[GreenPartyVoter]

22. Thanks

Have bookmarked it for closer inspection over the weekend. :)