Out of Touch: Issues with White Christianity

"If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?" 1 John 4:20 KJV The Church does this often, and that's a problem.

There's a particular ministry that I started listening to back in 2011 that really helped me in my spiritual journey. They have a plethora of sermons and articles about Biblical truth that answered many of the questions I had as a young believer. I am greatful for their ministry, but that doesn't mean I haven't noticed a fatal flaw in it as well.

Last night, they kicked off a series that I thought might be interesting so I set my alarm and made sure to tune in to YouTube in time to catch the broadcast. The pastor was only moments in when he mentioned dressing up like pilgrims and "Indians" as a kid, associating it with the quintessential American experience. He followed that up with the backstory of why the pilgrims came to America, and doubled down on the heroism of the pilgrims by asserting their bravery for traveling to the undeveloped "New World." In the midst of this narrative he casually repeated what people would have been saying about America: "there are cannibals and savages there; you could be eaten!" As though that weren't cringey enough, he continued down this theme of glorifying the pilgrims with a phrase similar to "we are pilgrims passing through the Earth."

It was at that point that I had to stop listening. I want to try to provide some balance and discussion about this issue, because I see it often, and it does more harm to the Kingdom of God than I believe those who perpuate it realize.

Meeting Halfway

Let's start with the fact that none of what this pastor was saying was untrue. At 33 years old, it is true that if you dig through my mother's photo albums you will in fact find a photo of 3 or 4 year old me at my preschool dressed up as a Native American. He was not wrong in the assumption that most people his age had that experience as a child or that many would relate to that sentiment. What is wrong with the statement is that there is no acknowledgement of growth.

First, the pastor refers to indigenous tribes as "Indians" without any indication that this is an incorrect term. This would be like him refering to black people as "Coloreds" or "Negros"—can you image a pastor standing before the people saying "We all gathered around to watch the Negros play sports when we were kids"? Yes, I know, pilgrims and Native Americans sounds weird to the ears because we're used to the phrase "pilgrims and Indians," but that brings me to the second gaffe in his sermon.

Each of us starts life in ignorance. As I said, I too grew up in the era where it was normal to dress up as a Native American (particularly once Disney release Pocohantas and people were dressing up specifically as her for Halloween[2]). However, 33 year old me is aware that this is disrespectful and could be likened to black face in terms of how someone from an indigenous tribe might feel. If I were to show a picture of myself from childhood partaking in the activity, I would acknowledge my growth from that point in my life until now; I would point out that even though it was common practice then it's not acceptable now. This is the major issue with the sermon in general, lack of awareness or acknowledgement.

The pastor is probably right that people in England viewed America as a place were there were "savages" and "cannibals"—it is factually correct in stating that is how Europeans felt about the native population. Again, what he said isn't wrong, but the way he said it was so casual and the reason he was able to say it so casually is because he is removed from the situation. The words are not offensive or hurtful to him because they were not aimed at his people. To him this is simply a piece of history that everyone already knows. In fact, he may have mentally assumed people knew it was wrong, but he didn't verbalize that the way Europeans saw Native Americans was both inhumane and un-Christianly.

Out of Touch

How is it that I, as a black person, can listen to the sermon and instantly feel uncomfortable for my Native American brothers and sisters, but this white pastor remained oblivious? How is it that I, as a "lay person," can see how this would turn people away from the gospel, but an ordained pastor cannot?

In many cases, pastors deliver sermons that probably have a profound meaning hidden in there somewhere, but it is lost by the insenstivty surrounding it. This particular sermon was on the fulfillment of prophecy in the arrival of the pilgrims to America, which is actually a profound topic. Knowing the symbolism of Revelation, I saw exactly where he was trying to go with the sermon and that message is what made me interested enough to tune in. If I didn't already know that symbolism, I'm not sure I would have saw where he was going and the whole point would be missed.

Minorities, and people who are able to understand the minority point of view, are leaving the body of Christ because the gospel is buried under this type of rhetoric. We fail at representing Him when we behave this way and we fail to introduce Him to others when we behave this way. There will be a lot of people explaining to the Most High that their disbelief in Him was caused by our ignorance and mishandling of the gospel and He's going to hold us accountable for that.

The Fantasy of it All

I could stop right there, but there's one more thing that pastor said that is mixed up in this. We spend a lot of time distancing ourselves from this world and focusing on the Kingdom to come (I was actually reading about just that before the sermon![3]). In truth, we are Biblically commanded to do so. We can find evidence of this Biblically. While both Paul and Yeshua/Jesus instruct us to be respecful of government (Matthew 22:21; Romans 13), we see both men (along with Daniel), disrupt the govenment when it conflicts with God's kingdom (Matthe 6:24; Acts 26; Daniel 6). The Bible clearly instructs us to store our treasures in Heaven, not on earth (Matthew 6:19-21). In truth, the Bible supports the statement that this is not our home; we are just passing through (as the pastor said). I even have a podcast episode where I echo a similar sentiment about us merely being ambassadors for the Kingdom as opposed to citizens of the U.S. (or whatever country your citizenship is with).

However, there's a tiny flaw with the way we opperate after internalizing this belief: we leave the world to crash and burn. Yes, we know that it will eventually crash and burn literally, but has God called us watch the world plummet into darkness, or has He called us to be lights in the darkness (Matthew 5:14)? Often, though, we let our focus on the spiritual to allow us to forget that there are people in need physically amongst us.

In my podcast episode Christianity and Climate Change, I touched on the fact that despite the fact that Adam's given role at creation was to take care of the earth, the Church has nothing to say about the topic. We aren't promoting lifestyles that produce less waste, concious purchasing (re: buying from companies that are not harming the planet in the production of their products), or conservation of resources (e.g., not wasting water, fuel efficent/electric cars). Yes, I know that this earth will be destroyed, and a new purified earth will take its place (though increasingly, I wonder if this verse is meant literally or spiritually--that's another blog post though). I know that this earth is doomed, but does that mean it's ok to help sabotage it? If we aren't cultivating and exemplifying behaviors that protect and care for our home now, how are we suddenly going to be able to do so in the Kingdom?

The same conundrum exists with issues of diveresty and socio-economic disparity. If we are unable to make all feel welcome in our midsts on this earth, how will we learn how to foster an inclusive society in Heaven?

References & Footnotes

1. 2CDBN Tv. "America's 11th Hour with Scott Ritsemal". YouTube. November 26, 2021
2. This is not an endorsement of Halloween either. Please see my post Halloween for more on that topic
3. Jeremy Myers. "Meeting Physical Needs to Get at the Spiritual". Redeeming God"; visited November 26, 2021

Promoting a Culture of Inclusion

Defining Inclusion

Ironically, my job just did a survey about diversity inclusion and one of the definitions given for an "inclusive environment" was the ability to be your authentic self. Even after desegregation, black people were considered unprofessional if we wore our hair in it's natural state. Our way of talking, our style of dress, etc., are often dubbed as "ghetto" and labeled inappropriate. There's a long standing tradition of black people "turning off" their identity to fit in to white spaces. The multicultural church I attend often plays CCM during service, and will even sing from the catalogs of Tasha Cobbs or Travis Greene, but they've never brought in Christian rap. In fact, on one occasion I searched for a song they'd sung in service and found there is a "rap" verse in the song that they just skip over. Most Christians, regardless of race have framed their entire view of Christianity and holiness out of Eurocentric ideas. In doing so, we force people to hide the ethnic parts of themselves to fit in. To have a truly inclusive church, it's not just about being polite to those entering the building. We have to make people comfortable being themselves.

In high school, most of my close friends were white because I was often the only black person in my class. I didn't talk to them about racial things I experienced because I didn't think they'd understand or care (and it's embarrassing). My Asian friends didn't tell me about the things they were experiencing. It wasn't until we were out of college that we started truly expressing ourselves to each other. I felt alone in high school, but in the past few weeks, the people I was afraid to be my authentic self around in high school were the first people to condemn what was happening and ask if I was ok. How can I be your sister in Christ if I don't know you?

Because our society is broken, there are issues specific to each culture. There are things immigrants go through that I do not. There are injustices being done to people in the Asian and Hispanic/Latino communities that I may not understand. An inclusive church does not bury these topics to avoid offense, but instead seeks to educate its members on how to assist those effected.

It is important that we create an environment where people feel comfortable bringing their whole self into the relationship. Regardless of race or class or gender, you should be able to tell me something is bothering you or that you're excited and I should be able to cry with you or join you in celebration. You shouldn't have to clam up because the topic makes me uncomfortable and I shouldn't be clueless to your experiences in this world.

Subconscious Racism

In the U.S. we talk about racism as though it's a black and white issue (I mean that literally and metaphorically), but it's a lot more complex than we want to talk about. Most people think as long as they aren't using racial slurs and actively hating people who are different than them, everything is ok. Unfortunately, there's subconscious racism. Subconscious racism is a bias toward what society has told us is good versus bad. We do it without thinking.

The mind is a lot like a computer, or rather computers are modeled after the mind. In computer science there is a field called machine learning, in which the goal is to train the computer to make decisions based on data. This is how Netflix suggests movies for you to watch. If you watched every RomCom in the database, there's a high probability that you'll like the newest RomCom. Similarly, if the only people you've ever seen with tattoos have been inmates, you will start to associate tattoos with criminals. That's how our brains work.

The problem is that our circles and the media are biased, so our brains are making correlations with corrupted data. Let's compare my own circle to national stats for an example. About 4% of the U.S. population has a PhD,[1] but probably 60% of my friends have a PhD. About 5% of the U.S. is Asian,[2] but closer to 70% of my coworkers are of Asian descent. The numbers in my personal experience are skewed; if I didn't look outside of my circle, my perception of the world would be off. When I was in college, I did an internship in which I met a girl who had never had a conversation with a black person before. She was from the middle of nowhere Iowa and everything she knew about black people was what was taught to her by white teachers or shown to her on TV. I have a whole series on the blog about how the media portrays black people so we won't derail the conversation to get into details. The bottom line is that regardless of your race, everything you consume is shifting your perception of the world and we live in a Eurocentric society. Each of us is conditioned to think European ideals are the standard (if you are unfamiliar with this, please take this time to research The Doll Test[3]).

These ideas are deeply implanted into our brains. Most of the time, we don't understand the complexities of them ourselves. No matter what our religious affiliation is, we bring this baggage with us. If we live in a Eurocentric society, it makes sense that people giving their lives to Christ may have a Eurocentric ideas. They bring those into the Church.

Eurocentric Worship

A major ramification of subconscious racism is the Eurocentric style of worship. Conservative churches, both black and white, often consider things associated with black culture to be unholy. In the conservative black church I grew up in, we weren't allowed to have drums during worship. Amazing Facts, a conservative 7th Day Adventist organization, condemns Christian rap (and Christian rock).[4] Shouting, praise dancing, and many other forms of ethnic worship styles are often seen as inappropriate.

Usher Gloves

If you attend an old black church, you've probably see ushers in their white uniform, with white gloves. Did you ever wonder why? There was a time when black and white people did attend church together. Black people sat in the balconies, segregated from the white people, or served just as they would on the plantation. The black people that served during the service were ushers. While ushers are responsible for many things, their biggest role in the service is collecting offering. It is rumored that white people didn't want to risk touching a black hand or have those black hands touching the money/collection plate, so they made the ushers wear gloves. The discipline and stance of ushers that was kept when black people formed their own churches likely stems from the internalization of how they were treated and expected to behave previously.

Music

The first time I went to multicultural church and they started singing, my first thought was "oh, this is why we have separate churches." If we're being honest, music is cultural. How you grow up influences your taste in music; this isn't always racial, but statistically, you'll probably find more black people favoring genres such as Jazz, R&B, Reggae, Hip-Hop/Rap, etc. and more white people favoring genres such as Country, Bluegrass, Rock, etc. One person may feel the Spirit when they hear hymns, another when they hear Gospel, and another when they hear CCM. Unfortunately, like Amazing Facts, many ministries have dubbed whole genres of music inappropriate simply because it isn't their cup of tea. The Amazing Facts website uses Philippians 4:8 to justify their stance, yet one could literally take the words of a hymn and make it into a rap song, after all rap is just poetry over a beat. By condemning Christian rap they imply that either the music is unholy or that there is something unholy about the way the words are expressed. If I were to contact someone from Amazing Facts about this, I'm sure they would say it has nothing to do with race, after all they condemn Christian rock too, and I believe in their conscious mind and heart, its true. They don't have a problem with black people. They have a problem with people who don't fit into their definition of Christianity, which is based on European standards. Despite being predominately associated with white culture, if you trace the roots of rock, it was inspired by R&B and black culture.[5] Many churches (black churches included) still shy away from ethnic music in service because of the way they've been taught Christianity.

History in the Church

The black Baptist church I attended always celebrated Black History Month. We did Black History Month plays and speeches the same way people put on productions for Easter and Christmas. Black churches do this because our history isn't taught in school. If we're already bringing pagan holidays like Easter and Christmas in to the church, why can't we celebrate the history of different cultures in our churches?

The multicultural church I attend is proud to have a multi-ethnic pastoral staff and to host sermon series with pastors from various backgrounds, but we don't anything for Black History Month, Asian & Pacific Islander Heritage Month, Hispanic Awareness Month, etc. What if we allowed people to speak to their unique experiences? What if we learned about their unique experiences in Christianity? What if we made it a priority to understand other people? What if we invited people to truly share themselves with us?

References

1. "About 13.1 Percent Have a Master’s, Professional Degree or Doctorate". Census.gov. February 21, 2019
2. "QuickFacts". Census.gov. July 1, 2019
3. "The Significance Of “The Doll Test”". Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc; visited June 4, 2020
4. "FAQs". Amazing Facts; visited June 4, 2020
5. Greg Kot. "Rock and roll". Encyclopædia Britannica. April 4, 2019

Acts 6-8 & 10-11: The Transition

A major transition happened in the course of Christianity after the stoning of Stephen--the Word began to be preached to the Gentiles! In this episode we cover: Acts 6-7: The Stoning of Stephen Acts 8: Philip Preaches to the Samaritans & an Ethiopian Acts 10-11: Preaching to the Gentiles We'll get back to the conversion of Paul in Acts 9 next week! Also, what exactly does it mean to be a Gentile?

Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands...Acts 7:48 KJV

The Stoning of Stephen

When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.Acts 7:54 KJV

Stephen was one of the deacons chosen to assist the widows. He is devout man who performs many miracles within the community which enrages the Jews who don't follow Christ. Because of this, they accuse him of blasphemy—which was a very serious crime in Israelite society. When Stephen addresses the issue, he doesn't defend himself. Instead he gives a history of the Israelite nation, pointing out the similarities of his contemporaries to the forefathers who struggled with idolatry. This enrages them even more, so they kill him. Among the Jewish leaders who take part in this is Saul (later known as Paul)! Like Christ, Stephen's last words are a plea of forgiveness for those killing him.

Turning Point

This marks a major turning point in the history of Christianity. Before Stephen's murder, the gospel was only preached to the Jews. After his death, we see focus shift to spreading the gospel beyond the Israelites. This is important to remember as it often comes up in discussion about prophecy!

The Star of David?

⁴²Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness? ⁴³Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon.Acts 7:42-43 KJV

During Stephen's speech to the Jewish leaders, he quotes Amos 5:26, which mentions the star of a foreign god that Israel has made "their star." The star in reference is the star known today as the Star of David—the hexagram. This star actually represents idolatry.[6][7][8] It is interesting that Amos condemned them for it in the Old Testament, Stephen condemns them again in the New Testament, and today that star is on the flag of Israel...

Preaching to the Gentiles

What Does Gentile Actually Mean?

The dictionary definition of Gentile is non-Jew, and this is how most Christians define it. However, if you pay close attention to the Bible, this definition seems amiss. Throughout the text we see Biblical authors refer to Hamites (descendants of Ham) and Semites (descendants of Shem) by their tribe names—Ethiopian, Egyptian, Canaanite, Philistine, etc. We never see the Israelites refer to these people as Gentiles and in Genesis 10:5, we see the "isle of the Gentiles" reference a place where Japheth's descendants reside. Furthermore, the Jews have a particular dislike for the Gentiles that is unlike their "separate-ness" from others. The Israelites frequently intermarry with the tribes from Ham and non-Israelite Semites, and we see in Acts 8 that Philip has no problem speaking to the Ethiopian or the Samaritans. Yet Peter has to get a divine message from God to feel comfortable meeting with the Roman Cornelius, and it is only after Peter shares the gospel with these Gentiles (Romans) that the disciples get together to demand answers.

The Samaritans

Acts 8:1-24 covers Philip preaching to the Samaritans. There were already believers in Samaria, many who had already been Baptized—remember when Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well? However, the Samaritans had not received the Holy Spirit, so Peter and John were sent to show miracles and bring the Holy Spirit to them. We are told multitudes were saved there.

Among those multitudes was a sorcerer named Simon who converts. Despite believing, Simon still doesn't fully understand. He desires the abilities Peter and John have (giving the Holy Spirit). He proposes paying for the abilities and is promptly rebuked. Simon's desire to skip the work and jump straight to the power is more common than we think. While many of us would not suggest we "pay" for God's gifts, many do have a desire to skip the process of working and expect all the benefits of a full relationship with Christ. Christ Himself said some things can only be done with prayer and fasting, which means we have to grow in our relationship with Him to be able to perform certain miracles (Matthew 17:19-21).

The Ethiopian

Philip also preaches to a man from "Ethiopia." I put Ethiopia in quotation marks because it is important to remember that here Ethiopia does not reference the country we think of today but rather a broad region in Africa including Cush, Ethiopia, and Nubia. This man is already a believer in the God of Abraham, but he is unsure of how Christ fits into the picture. After asking Philip, he receives the gospel and requests Baptism.

Candace

Many think "candace" is a proper name in Acts 8:27, however it is actually a title similar to pharaoh.[2][3]

Eunuch

There's a bit of a debate over whether the term eunuch is always literal in the Bible. [5] At the very least it refers to a man who is celibate, though if taken literally, it also means he is celibate because he is disfigured. It was common during the ancient days for those who guarded queens (and concubines) to be emasculated so the king wouldn't have to worry about these guards sleeping with the women [*resists urge to go off on a rant about the sexism involved here*].[4]

Cornelius

Cornelius is a Roman soldier who is a man of God seeking truth. God visits him and sends him to Simon Peter. This is the interaction that requires a vision from God to both men (Cornelius and Simon Peter). When Peter visits Cornelius (and his household), the Holy Spirit falls on everyone in there, including the Gentiles. It is this event that prompts the disciples to convene and discuss whether the Gentiles are to be included in the gospel, ultimately understanding that God has included them in salvation.

Baptism

Baptism is featured heavily in in these chapters. There are a few things I noticed in these chapters that I wanted to point out. One of the issues I had trying to get baptized in our time is that people don't want to baptize you into the Body of Christ, but into their denomination. When I brought this up to the pastor who eventually baptized me, he made a point about that fact that just as God meant for babies to be born into a family, so He meant for babes in the faith to be born into a family. On the surface this sounds great, but if you read Acts 8, it's apparent that after baptizing the Ethiopian, Philip leaves. Similarly, it does not suggest that anyone stays permanently in Samaria after baptizing the Samaritans.

Another issue I take with the way some congregations/denominations handle baptism is the requirement of baptismal classes. Philip shares the gospel with the Ethiopian, who is baptized on the spot because he truly believes. While we aren't told how much time elapsed during the journey, it doesn't seem to be more than a few days at most and could very well have been a few hours for all we know!

/>

References

1. "Gentile". Merriam Webster; visited May 19, 2020
2. Joshua J. Mark. "The Candaces of Meroe". Ancient History Encyclopedia. March 19, 2018
3. Brent MacDonald. "the Bible and the Kingdom of Cush - so called "Ethiopia"". Not Just Another Book. 2014
4. "Eunuch". Bible Study Tools; visited May 19, 2020
5. Megan Sauter"Eunuchs in the Bible". Bible Archeology. January 21, 2020
6. "Remphan". Bible Study Tools; visited May 19, 2020
7. George Lujack. "Star of David or Star of Remphan?". Scripture Truth Ministries. March 21, 2018
8. "In Acts 7:43, what are “the tabernacle of Moloch” and “the star of Remphan”?". Hermeneutics - Stack Exchange; visited May 19, 2020

Book Review: Pagan Christianity?

Pagan Christianity? by Frank Viola and George Barna dives into the traditions of most modern churches. The authors research the history of each tradition and contrast it with the early Church described in the New Testament.

Pagan Christianity?: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices by Frank Viola and George Barna was recommended to me by a friend from church. Many of the young adults I know have been on a quest to sort out what's real and what fake, what's mandated by God versus man, and what God truly intended His Church to look like. So when my friend mentioned the book, many of us were excited to read it. It didn't live up to my expectations, but I think it's still worth the read for many.

Summary

Frank Viola and George Barna cover many traditions, such as the order of service, dressing up, the building itself, and the division of the body into clergy versus laity. In each chapter of the book (perhaps purposefully numbered at 12), the authors walk us through the history of a given tradition, starting with the original New Testament Church, following the twists and turns to the modern tradition. Essentially, the book is a history of how certain pagan traditions became intermingled—often to the point of being sacrosanct—with our current church.

Bias

The authors are clearly biased toward a particular narrative, only presenting the traditions they disagree with. It is also evident that the authors write from a Protestant point of view, as many Catholic traditions such as praying to Mary, bowing to statues, creating saints, etc. are not given much attention. There is no mention of the pagan origins of Easter or Christmas, and only two to three sentences about Sunday not being the Sabbath. This is one of the reason I only give the book 3 stars. Clearly the authors did a lot of research, in fact there are countless footnotes and citations within each chapter. So why did they only present certain pagan traditions?

The History Aspect

For me, there wasn't anything particularly shocking in the book. Many of the traditions that aren't Biblical are pretty easy to spot if you read the word often or do even a little research on your own. However, I did like the historical context provided for each topic. Having that background makes it easier to discus with those who are deeply immersed in a particular tradition.

Redundancy

The book is written in an academic format in which each chapter contains a summary of the chapter and the final chapter is actually a summary of the whole book. If the concepts were more complex, or perhaps if I had picked this book up before I'd done any researching on my own, I might have appreciated this. However, since the topics were fairly simple, it just came off as redundant to me. These summaries did not provide new information or clarify anything in the chapter, so after about the fourth or fifth chapter I started skimming the summaries.

The Follow Up

Many reviews I read criticized the authors for not providing solutions, but I will give them credit that they have a follow-up book that is supposed to do just that. I, however, was not impressed with this book enough to read the second one.

Overall Thoughts

Overall I think this is a good book for people who have solid faith but have never questioned what they've been taught in church. Many intertwine faith in God and faith in the Church, so if your relationship with God is not strong and you lose confidence in the church, your faith crumbles. For this reason, I say proceed with caution. For some, this could be the eye opener that strengthens their faith, because they've been questioning the church anyway. However, for those who are unable to separate the traditions of the church from the Word of God, this may be more confusing than helpful. If you are new in your walk with Christ, or have not spent much time in the Word, but are curious, I would recommend reading the book with someone who is more seasoned and has a deeper understanding of the Word.

References and Footnotes

1. Frank Viola and George Barna. Pagan Christianity?: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices. December 31, 2007

The Beginning of the Church

And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. Acts 2:42 NKJV

I have a more in depth overview of Acts 1-5 here
This is the first episode in a series covering the book of Acts and the history of the Church

When is the last time you heard a sermon on the book of Acts or the history of the Church?
Usually you learn the history of organizations you are part of:

• Fraternal Organizations
• Universities
• The country you live in

Small Groups

Small groups are a way to foster intimacy within large congregations. They also function as a way to disciple members and help spiritual children grow into spiritual adults.[2]

I'm not going to name the book that we used because it's simply a personal opinion that I didn't like it. While I disagree with some of the things the authors said, I don't think there was anything "dangerous" about the book that would warrant me calling it out publicly.

The book of Acts is the history of the Church. It tells what happened after Christ was crucified—what did they do, how did they try to spread the gospel, what kind of structure did they set up, and what was the expectation of the disciples to follow through with the mission Christ had given them.

The promise and deliverance of the Holy Spirit is key and leads the book.

Disciples/Apostles

• There were more than just the 12 disciples follow Christ before the crucifixion; the 12 we generally think of were the inner circle
• In the upper room there were 120 disciples!
• At this point "the 12" has become "the 11" since Judas Iscariot betrayed Christ
• 12 has Biblical significance, which is probably why they felt the need to replace Judas
  • 12 Tribes of Israel
  • 12 represents God's people or a nation
• They pray over the decision

Baptism by the Holy Spirit is more important that water baptism

Speaking in tongues

The disciples begin speaking in languages other than their own. Diverse people in the crowd miraculously hear the words in their native language. There are many controversial opinions about speaking tongues. The most important thing to remember (in my opinion) about tongues, is given in 1 Corinthians 14. You should not be speaking in tongues if no one understands it. Someone should be able to interpret it.

To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:1 Corithians 12:10 KJV

Behavior of the Church

• The Church is a group of people, not a building
• They met daily—it was not a once a week occasion
• They met in each other's homes and shared meals together.
• It is mentioned 4 times that they meet daily withering the first 5 chapters (Acts 2:46-47; 3:2; 5:42)
• I googled "the significance of sharing a meal" expecting to see information on Jewish culture of Biblical references, instead I found secular sources proclaiming the importance of sharing meals. From child development sites expressing the importance of family meals to mental health sites expressing the effect of eating with others on our mental health.[3]

People sold their land and other possessions, then gave everything they had to help the group as a whole. The objective was to make sure everyone was taken care of. Behaving in this manner helped established a familial community.

Most people would give the clothes off their back for their child, but would you do the same for your neighbor? A stranger you just met? That's the type of community Christ called us to build.

References

1. Ree Hughes. "Acts 1-5: The Early Days of the Church". PSALMS to God. May 12, 2020
2. Carolyn Taketa. "Why Small Groups". Christianity Today. June 25, 2012
3. "Search: The Significance of Sharing a Meal". Google; visited March 9, 2020

What is the Bible?

⁹Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
¹⁰For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: Isaiah 28:9-10 KJV

The Bible, though often thought of as one book, is actually many books by many authors, inspired by one Holy Spirit.

What does Bible even mean?[6]

• "Bible" is from the Greek biblio
• It means "The Book"

How many books are in the Bible?
It depends on who you ask...

• Protestant: 66
• Eastern Orthodox: 79
• Catholic: 73

What is the difference between Dueterocannical and Apochyrpha?

definition

apochyrpha[1]

noun

1. : writings or statements of dubious authenticity
2. capitalized
   a: books included in the Septuagint and Vulgate but excluded from the Jewish and Protestant canons of the Old Testament
   b: early Christian writings not included in the New Testament

definition

deuterocanonical[2]

adjective

: of, relating to, or constituting the books of Scripture contained in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew canon

Why aren't these books in the "standard" Bible?

• There are lots of references online containing the arguments for or against the apocrypha.[3][4][5] Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox Bibles are all slightly different because of this.
• The primary arguments against them is their exclusion from Hebrew Scriptures and errors found within the texts (suggesting that they are not inspired by the Holy Spirit)
• Allow the Holy Spirit to discern where they belong in your heart

There are lots of books about Biblical times that are not canon
There are books that may be in the Catholic Bible but not in the Protestant Bible (i.e., 1 Maccabees), but there are also books that are not in anyone's Bible (i.e., The Book of Enoch).[4] Those that fall in to the latter are considered false writings by most scholars. Since I have neither read them in full nor done extensive research on the matter, I cannot say which side of the argument I fall on.

How did we get chapters and verses?

• The original scriptures didn't have verses or chapters
• The first Bible with both the modern chapters and verses in each book was printed in the 1500s![7]
• Even though it is convenient, we should be steadfast in countering scriptures quoted out of context. We should try to quote in context and when studying or being presented with a particular verse, we should always check the context.

Bible verses often taken out of context

• "It's not what goes in your mouth that defiles you, but what comes out" (Matthew 5)
• "Slaves obey your master"
• Relationship between wives and husband (Ephesians 5:22-23)

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.Hosea 4:6 NKJV

References

1. "Apocrypha". Merriam-Webster; visited May 5, 2020
2. "Deuterocanonical". Merriam-Webster; visited May 5, 2020
3. Matt Slick. "Errors in the Apocrypha". Christian Apologetics Research Ministry. February 27, 2018
4. "What are the Apocrypha and Deuterocanonical Books?" American Bible Society; visited May 5, 2020
5. "What are the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books?". GotQuestions.org; visited May 5, 2020
6. Jason Soroski. "What Does "Bible" Mean and How Did it Get That Name?". Bible Study Tools. May 31, 2019
7. Don Stewart. "Why Is the Bible Divided into Chapters and Verses?". Blue Letter Bible; visited May 5, 2020

Fracturing the Church

There are over 40,000 Denominations in Christianity; let's talk about where they came from and what the major differences are.

Introduction

Denomination is defined as "a religious group, usually including many local churches, often larger than a sect" or "a group having a distinctive interpretation of a religious faith and usually its own organization."^[2] There are an estimated 41,000 denominations of Christianity, though in the number would include splits in a major denomination like Baptist, such as Freewill, Missionary, and Southern Baptist.^[1] As a child I wondered why there were so many denominations, and when a Freewill Baptist church was built across the street from a Southern Baptist church I was confused as can be.

Growing up I noticed that as soon as there was a disagreement in a church, the congregation would split and these splitter churches would appear. These disagreements can be from differences in opinion on doctrine or just personality clashes. I've seen discussions surrounding the large number of denominations in which people assert that it "proves" God doesn't exist. They argue that God should have made His Word simple and plain to understand.^[3] However, they fail to account for several key factors that have a hand in the development of separate denominations:

• Not everyone who has an opinion on the Word studies the Word
• Some people see the Word as opportunity for personal power, so they purposely twist the Word to suit their purpose—this method works because a large number of Christians don't actually read the Word, let alone study the Word, and will easily accept anything they are told by Church hierarchy
• Similarly, not every church/denomination is of God—just because they claim to represent Jesus, doesn't mean they actually follow the Word of God
• The devil's aim is to destroy;^[4] by causing confusion he not only deters believers from the true word of God, he fuels the doubt in a disbelievers heart and keeps them from seeking truth

The Bible clearly states that you have to study to be worthy, but many non-believers are quick to assert that they deserve an easier path to God (though I'm not sure they would have an answer as to why they deserve an easy path to God). They also refuse to acknowledge the spiritual warfare occurring—the devil can quote scripture too.^[5]

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.2 Timothy 2:15 KJV

It is not a trivial task to identify false doctrine or study the Word of God in general. The devil is committed to keeping us confused, and we will naturally lean towards doctrines and interpretations that suit our own wants. This post will identify and discuss some of the larger denominations within Christianity, highlighting points of contention between denominations, as well as some history on major splits within the Church.
Top

The Formation of Denominations

There have been 3 easily definable periods with regards to the church and denominations. Each of these periods had an effect on the denominations we have today and how we interpret scripture.

The Early Church

Christianity could be seen as having started the moment the first person believed Jesus was the Son of God—this would date its origin at His birth as Mary, Joseph, and all those who traveled to meet Him, acknowledged He was the Son of God. Of course, Christianity is expressed in John 3:16, thus the true point of origin for the Christian Church is the moment the disciples believed He would die and rise from the grave. The disciple were the first pastors of the church and the Bible clearly shows us their misgivings: Judas betrays Jesus, and Peter denies knowing Him. Remember at this point in time there was no physical church, just people gathering to sharing their faith and Jesus' message. In the early days of Christianity there was a group known as the Gnostics. Gnostics deny the divinity of Jesus and identify Him as a teacher instead. Surviving writings of this group exist as the Codices and the Nag Hammadi library. The true Christian church (I say true, because only those who believe the words John 3:16 are Christians, eliminating the Gnostics) consisted of Christ's disciples, Paul, and all those who came to hear their testimonies of Jesus.
Top

The Catholic Church

The Catholic Church is probably the most "popular" branch of Christianity and has come to wear the face of Christianity. Catholics claim their version of Christianity was proclaimed by Jesus in Matthew 16:18-19 and that Peter was the first pope.

¹⁸And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. ¹⁹And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.Matthew 16:18-19 KJV

Of course in Acts 9, after Jesus appears to Saul on the road to Damascus, Jesus Himself says that Saul is to be the voice for the Gentiles, kings, and Israel. Why did God need Saul to become Paul if Peter was to spread the Word?

15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:Acts 9:15 KJV

Regardless, a some point someone got the idea to start the Catholic Church. Constantine was the first Roman Emperor to embrace Christianity, but it was Emperor Theodosius who made Christianity the official religion of Rome in 380ad.^[6] Presumably the Catholic Church we know today began to form and rise to power during this time (after all it is the Roman Catholic Church).

With the rise of Catholicism, Christianity spread across Europe like wildfire. Eventually the kingdoms of Europe and their kings answered to the pope. In addition to introducing millions to the gospel, Rome co-mingled much of its pagan religions with the their version of Christianity (such as praying to statues, repeating the rosary, sun worship—all to be discussed in due time). The Catholic Church commission several crusades "in the name of God" in which they claimed it was ok to massacre non-Christians (no where in the Bible does it say that, by the way—God command the Israelites to kill the pagans when they took the promised land, but He didn't tell them to massacre the rest of the world, and Jesus specifically says to go out and preach the gospel, not go out and kill).^[7][9] In addition to the Crusades, the Catholic Church also employed the Inquisition who policed "heretics" (i.e. people who opposed the teachings of the Catholic Church).^[8][9][11] Top

The Reformation

In those days, reading was a luxury and a privilege; the average person did not read—especially not the Bible which was only available in Hebrew, Ancient Greek, and Latin. Most could not read the Bible for themselves and were forced to rely on a priest's interpretation of the Word for guidance. This began to change as the Bible was translated into the common tongue (the English translation was written by John Wycliffe in 1380ad). With the invention of the printing press and the Gutenberg Bible, the Word, as written became more available to the common man. This would eventually lead to Martin Luther's 95 Theses and the Reformation. The reformation brought about Protestantism, which lead to the formation of most of the denominations we have today.
Top

References

1. "Appendix B: Methodology for Estimating Christian Movements". Pew forum on religion & public life. pg 95. 2011
2. "Denomination". Dictionary.com. 2015
3. Hatfield, Eric. "How Many Christian Denominations Worldwide?". The Way?. November 23, 2012
4. John 10:10
5. Matthew 4:5-7
6. "Conversion of Constantine". Religion Facts. 2015
7. "Crusades". History.com. 2015
8. Flamehorse. "10 Shameful Moments in Catholic History". List Verse. June 2011
9. Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The crusades: A history. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014
10. Bethencourt, Francisco. The Inquisition: a global history, 1478-1834. CUP, 2009.
11. McFarnon, Emma. "Your 60 Second Guide to Heresy". BBC History Magazine. January 2014
12. Martin Luther's 95 Theses

Forming the Bible Cannon

How did we decide which books were inspired and meant to be in the Bible?

Introduction

In most Protestant Bibles, There are 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament. The Catholic Bible also includes the Apocrypha, which contains an additional 15 books. Then there are the Gnostic writings known as the codices, which were found in Nag Hammadi. With so many texts floating around how did they know what was supposed to be included and what wasn't?
Top

The Old Testament

There are two versions of the old testament—the original Hebrew which does not include the Apocrypha, and the Greek translation which does contain the Apocrypha^[5]. By the time of Jesus, there was an accepted canon of which Jesus frequently quotes^[1][2]. Jesus also confirms the Old Testament by referencing the three divisions of the Old Testament in Luke 24:44. BiblicalTraining.org has a thorough article on the canonization of the old testament which can be found here. Many discoveries concerning the Old Testament stem from the archeological find of the Dead Sea Scrolls
Top

The New Testament

The New Testament is much more complicated in terms of how the cannon was determined. Jesus confirmed the books of the Old Testament by fulfilling prophecies, quoting the scripture, and not condemning the books. If there was a problem or forgery in the Old Testament, Jesus would have called the Pharisees out on this error (after all He called them out on many other misguided practices). However, we don't have that luxury for the New Testament. In addition to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, there are has also been found gospels attributed to Mary Magdalene, Peter, James, Thomas, and others^[3]. How did people determine which should be included and which should not? Also, how do we know they chose the right books? Bible.org gives an overview on the canonization of the New (and Old) Testament in the article The Bible: The Holy Canon of Scripture. Most believers use the following criteria to confirm scripture as canon: Authorship, Witness of the Spirit, and Acceptance^[4]. Prayer and relationship with God is the only way to know for sure what is right. The best covering of this topic I've found can be found in the article entitled "How Do You Know that the Bible is Divinely Inspired."
Top

The Apocrypha

Coming Soon!
Top

Gnostic Writings

Coming Soon!
Top

Current Books Considered Canon

The following table lists the books currently considered to be inspired by some (or all) denominations within Christianity.

Old Testament Canon

1. Genesis
2. Exodus
3. Numbers
4. Deuteronomy
5. Leviticus
6. Joshua
7. Judges
8. Ruth
9. 1 Samuel
10. 2 Samuel
11. 1 Kings
12. 2 Kings
13. 1 Chronicles
14. 2 Chronicles
15. Ezra
16. Nehemiah
17. Ester
18. Job
19. Proverbs
20. Psalms
21. Ecclesiastes
22. Song of Solomon
23. Isaiah
24. Jeremiah
25. Lamentations
26. Ezekiel
27. Daniel
28. Hosea
29. Joel
30. Amos
31. Obadiah
32. Jonah
33. Micah
34. Nahum
35. Habakkuk
36. Zephaniah
37. Haggai
38. Zechariah
39. Malachi

New Testament Canon

1. Matthew
2. Mark
3. Luke
4. John
5. Acts
6. Romans
7. 1 Corinthians
8. 2 Corinthians
9. Galatians
10. Ephesians
11. Philippians
12. Colossians
13. 1 Thessalonians
14. 2 Thessalonians
15. 1 Timothy
16. 2 Timothy
17. Titus
18. Philemon
19. Hebrews
20. James
21. 1 Peter
22. 2 Peter
23. 1 John
24. 2 John
25. 3 John
26. Jude
27. Revelation

Apocrypha

1. 1 Esdras
2. 2 Esdras
3. Tobit
4. Judith
5. The Additions to the Book of Esther
6. Wisdom of Solomon
7. Sirach
8. Baruch
9. Story of Susanna
10. The Song of Three Children
11. The Story of Bel and the Dragon
12. The Prayer of Manasseh
13. 1 Macabees
14. 2 Macabees

Top

References

1. Robinson, Rich. "Jesus' References to Old Testament Scriptures". Jews for Jesus. September 2008
2. "The Canon of the Old Testament". BibleScripture.net. 2015
3. "Noncanonical Literature-Gospels". Wesley Center Online. Northwest Nazarene University. 2011
4. The Canon of Scripture. BlueLetterBible.org. 2015
5. McDowell, Josh. "What is the Apocrypha? Why Aren’t These Books Found in the Protestant Bible?". Josh.org. 2014

Top