I actually agree with most of what you said this time :).

Religions, whether right, wrong, on purpose or just happens do naturally exclude. It just is a fact. The exclusion shouldn’t be made the point, because it has to be so.

Funny thing you mention the “concept” of church. When Jesus talk about his church, he is referring to the people who follow him. It isn’t a building, event, experience, or organization. It is just the people who follow Jesus.

I agree that Jesus didn’t form Christianity in one aspect. It is true that it is just a continuation of Judaism, but this isn’t believed by everyone. There was a shift after him and while his followers are really the ones that should get the credit, many establish him as the creator of a new religion.

I do disagree with one point though,

If you drop two leaves into a rivers current, they are following the other’s lead. Yet, like you said, they are guided by the river’s current. They might be guided or moved by the current, but they are still following the leaf before it. This also may be taking the analogy beyond its implications.

Religion requires that you believe to belong. The concept of “church” merely further reinforces the diversification and separation that religion’s demand.

If I believe in God, but not in “membership” will I still be saved? The church upholds the idea that “membership has its privileges.”

I often wonder why many Christians continue to espouse the theory that Jesus “formed” Christianity and the Christian church. This justification is claimed essentially through one simple quote by Jesus, “upon this rock I will build my church…” If Jesus condemned the churches and priests of his day why would he desire the same in His name?

In addition, I would kindly disagree that leaves “follow” leaves. Leaves simply “follow” the current. The current, or status quo, determines direction not the first leaf. Thank God we have fallen tree limbs scattered along the length of the river to break up that status quo.

I respect that you allow for difference of opinion on your blog and in your interviews. I believe It will be that allowance that will keep readers returning.

Thanks,
Mike S

Good question Big D. Here’s some quick thoughts.

1. Lets stay away from using religion and church interchangibly. In some aspects they can be used that way, but not in this article. Church is a group of people or anorganization that follows a teacher, religion, or philosophy. It the us.

On the other hand, religion is the authority [the leader] by which a church follows. Two completely separate perspectives.

Church = follower
Religion = leader

2. Now we can move to the claim that the church is the same church that Jesus formed 2000 years ago. Both the Catholic and LDS claim that they are this, but this is an impossible claim. A church follows the guidance of a leader (teacher, religion, philosophy) that is here today. it is much like how I said that we weren’t alive when the original teacher gave his message - the church of today wasn’t alive when the teacher gave his message.

One of my favorite analogy’s to use is a river and it applies here. You throw a leaf into the river and it begins to move. Afterward you throw a second leaf in the river then it begins to follow the first, and every subsequent leaf follows the one ahead of it.

When God gave us Jesus he was created in a certain time. As time (the river) flowed, people were born and began to follow his path; yet they are distant from him. They can only follow the ones that are ahead of them.

I’m not sure I agree with you on the basic message of Jesus. He did talk about serving others, and the love of God, but the central message of Christianity is our sinfulness, and the redemption of Christ through his death. Our service to man and God should be from our gratitude for this redemption. To me, this is what set Christianity apart from other religions. Other traditions teach service, and a loving God, but no other current religions teach of any redemption apart from the works of the individual.

I definitely agree that all religious traditions contain valuable truths. As a matter of fact, one of the many reasons I left the church was the insistence that the Christian bible was the ultimate arbiter of truth. As you said, all religions are man made. Ultimately, we all end up with a faith in some world view that is probably not representative of a pure religion in any way.

The real struggle comes when the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) claim exclusivity. As nice as it sounds to find nuggets of truth in other religious traditions, in the end, Christianity and others claim to be the sole source of salvation. The idea of interconnected truths may make us feel good, but the central message of many religions is one of Us vs Them, the saved and the unsaved, the clean and the unclean. When the end comes, those who do not accept the One Truth will end up in hell. How can there be any sharing of truths when the bedrock of Christianity and other religions is based on such exclusivity?