I grew up believing my Mennonite religious tradition originated as a part of the Anabaptist movement. I would’ve been incredulous if someone had told me then that our theological underpinnings originated from a completely different source and most of our practice comes from a much later time.
It has taken me decades to fully come to the realization that conservative Mennonites (and especially those in the Charity movement) are not Anabaptist anymore. We have, in fact, as a result of absorbing teachings from other sources, morphed into something quite different.
The evolution has been slow over many generations, but the difference is profound and the implications are deep. We might self-describe as Mennonite or Anabaptist, but are, in reality, something else entirely and very different from our ancestors.
If you want to see the contrast, compare us (conservative Mennonites) to our Old Order cousins and consider how differently we approach things. We share the same genetic origins (and surnames) yet not much as far as our theological ideas and practices.
So, who is real and who is the impostor?
Consider that everything from Sunday school to revival meetings, four-part singing, our eschatological perspective, and Zionism, is not originally Mennonite. Those were things added (sometimes with great controversy) often only a generation ago or within the past couple centuries. They are things that originated from various Protestant movements.
Our relatives from a generation or two ago swallowed fundamentalist theological innovations hook, line, and sinker. They did so without realizing the divergent path this represented. It might have begun with a subtle change of focus, but the difference in final outcomes is huge. We have gone from from a question of “is it Christlike” to “is it biblical” and many of us don’t even know why that’s a problem.
Our ancestors might have been radical followers of Jesus. Yet, most of us, despite our additional Mennonite packaging and a little Anabaptist flair, added back in to make us feel special about ourselves, are plain old biblical fundamentalists.
What is biblical fundamentalism?
It is a new idea. It is a conservative Protestant reaction to modernism. It is a hermeneutical system that reimagines “word of God” to be a book to be read rather than something far more dynamic and alive. It turns belief in Jesus into a process of finding a code of ethics in Scripture and creating doctrine—but misses the essence of what it means to truly follow him.
Biblical fundamentalism is an extension of a Protestant idea. In fundamentalism the religious experience is centered on Scripture alone (sola Scriptura) and neglects a large swath of Christian tradition. It is a heresy only possible since the invention of the printing press. Before Johannes Gutenberg’s invention, in 1440, and widespread literacy, it would have been a hard sell to convince people that God’s word came to the masses primarily in book form.
Fundamentalists have literally deified a book, they made it an object of worship, and yet have irrationally thrown aside the institution of the church that delivered it to them. They have essentially made Holy Scripture an coequal part of the Trinity, synonymous with Jesus Christ, usually at the expense of the Holy Spirit and almost always at the expense of church unity. If we look at the long-term results the fruit of the Protestant reformation has undeniably been the the fracturing of the church into smaller and smaller bits.
The Scripture-alone view has led to many bizarre interpretations of the text and a hyper-individualism that makes our unbelieving neighbors seem forbearing and cooperative by comparison. It has led to a religion characterized by legalism and dogmatism. Making the Bible into an infallible object has led to weird fixations on particular translations, like KJV-onlyism, that make no sense considering that the original text wasn’t written in old English.
In many cases biblical fundamentalists are simply conservatives stubbornly reading their own preconceived ideas back into the text (or proof-texting) rather than taking an honest and open Berean approach. Fundamentalism started out of fear and as a defensive posture against higher criticism and modernism. It is limited because it is based on assumptions that are wrongly taken as infallible truths.
It is a religious perspective that never leads to unity or true brotherhood because it is based on personal interpretation rather than a collective and historical understanding through the church body. In Protestantism everyone has become their own pope and their own individual understanding of the Bible their only god.
When did biblical fundamentalism enter the Mennonite church?
Anabaptism quickly lost its way after a good start. It soon devolved from radical faith, that challenged everything, into a religious tradition that couldn’t be questioned. But despite that, it maintained a distinct community ethic and (after reigning in violent factions) developed a strong peace witness. Ideas like non-conformity and non-resistance were passed down as a teleological “who we are” rather than a theological argument.
However, that “who we are” was too often missing the spiritual component that inspired it. As a result, many Mennonites over the past few centuries started to look for energy from outside of the Anabaptist tradition. Protestant movements that led to biblical fundamentalism have long had an appeal to conservative-minded Mennonites. Pietism, revivalism and biblical fundamentalism have all breathed life into what had become dead orthodoxy. But these movements did not share the same theological underpinnings of original Anabaptism. And, instead of help, they have further eroded the Mennonite community, as many splits since then bear witness.
Biblical fundamentalism took root in the Mennonite culture when the longtime standard of the Schleitheim confession (established in 1527) was supplemented in 1921. The adoption of “Christian Fundamentals” represented a dramatic change of thinking from anything truly Anabaptist. It mirrored the polemic (or apologetic) style of the Protestant theologians and borrowed language from their work “The Fundamentals” which is the basis of ‘Christian’ fundamentalism. The shift in priorities is clear, we went from a more practical lived-out ideal to an argumentative obsession with our “doctrines” and a new fixation on a particular brand of biblical literalism.
Our more scholarly and fighting approach has backfired. The Mennonite church has split multiple times along “conservative” and “liberal” lines since then, both sides using their own interpretation of the Bible as their basis and coming out at different conclusions. Our going from a perspective that prioritized loving submission to each other to one that elevates an individual’s own (personal, dogmatic and inerrant) interpretation of Scripture has not worked well for us. It continues to bear the same fruit of division in our denomination as it did in Protestantism in general.
Sadly, we have increasingly farmed out the discipleship duties of the church brotherhood to “Bible institutes” and foolishly turned to fundamentalist icons like Bill Gothard, Michael Pearl or Ken Ham for our understanding of Scripture. And worse, while a liberal arts education is viewed as a potential pitfall, biblical fundamentalist schools like Bob Jones (where racial segregation was enforced until the 1990’s) and Liberty University (who’s founder gave his full-throated endorsement to a divisive and immoral political candidate) are not seen as dangerous.
Because we have become something different from what we claim to be.
Fundamentalist indoctrination has now become woven into the fabric of our Mennonite experience and is indistinguishable from our authentic Anabaptist heritage to most born into our denomination. We teach our children lyrics like: “The B-I-B-L-E, now that’s the book for me, I stand alone, on the word of God, the B-I-B-L-E!” or “I love the Bible, I love the Bible, I love the Bible, it is the word of God.” Which is cringe-worthy when you consider those songs are fundamentalist propaganda with little basis in Scripture and are priming a child’s confirmation bias for life.
In their embrace of fundamentalism, conservative Mennonites have lost the fight for the soul of Anabaptist tradition. Many of have confused the fundamentalism of the past century with a “third way” Anabaptist heritage and are fooled into thinking they are winning the war when they are actually fighting for the other side. In reality, while we think we are still Anabaptists, we have been invaded and conquered by our former persecutors.
How was authentic Anabaptism different?
True Anabaptism, while having very high regard for the Holy Scripture, understood the importance of community of faith and attempted an orthodoxy around simple obedience to the instructions of Jesus. It was Christocentric rather than bibliocentric, meaning that the words of Scripture were to be illuminated through the life of Christ and via the Spirit. The focus, as a result, was less on theological navel-gazing and more on living true evangelical faith or real world application.
Gelassenheit, or the idea of self-surrender and resignation to God’s will, meant submission to the body of believers. Early Anabaptists understood the importance of community of faith, the part that community (and discipleship) played in salvation of the individual, and taught that faith produces a practical change in lifestyle. Fundamentalism, by contrast, puts emphasis on personal experience, stresses the importance of dutiful Bible reading, takes a cerebral (modernist) approach to understanding Biblical text and often gets mired in the theoretical.
Authentic Anabaptism was more teleological than it was deontological in that it was more about just “being” rather than it was interested in creating theology or a system of rules. While fundamentalism reduces Jesus to the level of Moses, a man trying to establish a code of ethics and a new doctrinal framework as a means to salvation, the Anabaptist perspective was to take emphasis away from the individual, to place an individual in a community of faith (representative of God’s kingdom) and then practicing love towards each other. It was less “the Bible says so” (supported by a position paper) and more “this is what we are” using spiritual fruit as evidence.
Our Old Order brethren still carry on at least the vestiges of an Anabaptist perspective with their focus on maintaining a community of faith. That, at very least, provides them with some stability and a little protection from being blown hither and thither by the winds of doctrine. I can see this in my Amish coworkers who exhibit a simple practical faith as if it is breathing for them. Sure, they might not loudly proclaim themselves “born again” or be able to give a detailed explanation of every practice, but they do have something we as modern “conservative” Mennonites have lost.
Modern Mennonites, like other fundamentalists, are taught to depend on themselves and take an extremely individualistic approach to matters of faith. We do not see ourselves as our brothers’ keepers (other than to argue with them in men’s Sunday school class) and are quick to split over what we see as “more biblical” based on our own personal interpretation. We have lost the concept of the body of Christ (and our being the incarnation together) that once made us unique.
Why Has Anabaptism Failed?
Anabaptism started on the right track, but subsequent generations have abandoned what was a teleological (and Spirit-led) faith for something manufactured, deontological and fundamentalist. Sure, we have more theological knowledge than ever, but we lack spiritual wisdom to contextualize, comprehend or properly apply what we know.
It is bizzare that we cling to fundamentalist innovations of the past century as if all truth depended on it (things like revival meetings, Sunday school, modern eschatological interpretations and Creationism) yet neglect the richer traditions of the church. Even our Amish brethren celebrate important days on the Christian calendar (Pentecost and Ascension Day) that are forgotten by most of us. Anabaptism has failed, in part, because it separated itself from the greater cloud of witnesses and universal church that together represent the body of Christ.
We failed also because we, like many religious fundamentalists today, study the Bible thinking a book alone can lead us and this is a complete rejection of the means that Jesus said would be provided for those who believe. Jesus promised that we would have the Holy Spirit to “teach us all things” and stressed living in simple obedience through those means—with loving submission to each other as something central. That is something quite different from a mental assent to a bunch of religious doctrines or dogmas.
We fail because we face backward towards our ancestors as if they hold the answers for today and forget that those before us looked forward full of the Spirit. They did not dwell in the past. Instead, they were dependent on each other and had Christ as their head. We should not be trying to recreate their movement or looking for fundamentals. We should instead be in full and sincere pursuit of faith as they were.
What to do?
I believe we would do well to be humble about our heritage, consider the fallibility of our own inherited base assumptions, and reach for an understanding broader, deeper and richer than our own. Yes, being a Mennonite is as good a place to start as any other, but it cannot be where we remain or it leads to spiritual stagnation.
Living faith fossilized into mere Biblical fundamentals is no better than the dead orthodoxy or the faithless modernism it was supposed to protect against. Faith is something that is supposed to be lived out while moving boldly in a direction and is not something reducible to a set of theological propositions.
A biblical fundamentalist reads Scripture as a lawyer does a legal code. Rather than read like the Bereans, who were open-minded and therefore receptive to the message the Apostle Paul preached (Acts 17:11), many people read with an agenda to prove their current beliefs.
Religious fundamentalist scholars are often able to find what they go looking for, and at the expense of what is true. Their diligent search, rather than being a quest for Truth, is an effort to find proof-texts for their own theological presuppositions (often inherited positions), and is not guided by the Holy Spirit.
Some are very knowledgeable and respected people in their respective circles. They parse words looking for specific permissions and prohibitions, or only to justify their existing doctrinal stances.
They are scholars of conservative or liberal persuasion and dogmatists for any denomination.
They all have their loyal followers.
They all believe they are right.
But they are also no different from those whom Jesus confronted when he said:
…the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. (John 5:37-40)
Those who were addressed by Jesus in the passage above had Scripture (graphé) and studied it “diligently” according to Jesus. But they were missing something. Jesus told them they lacked the word (logos) of God dwelling in them, thus they would not come to him for life. They were impoverished when it came to true faith and the indwelling word of God.
There are many who have only Scripture and not the Spirit to teach them.
We are told there will be tares sown in the wheat (Matthew 13:24-30). This means that there will be those who appear righteous on the outside, but they reject the most foundational concepts of faith. Despite their many good works, they are spiritually dead and lost.
I recall discussions with a man unable to conceptualize the idea of a triune God. Time and time again he would come back to his own flawed understanding and insist that I was polytheistic for believing in one God… three persons. He also could not accept that the sonship of Jesus made him divine like his Father in heaven.
Sadly there are many who reject Jesus in a much more subtle way and by this I mean they have not placed their faith in the Spirit he promised:
Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me. All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. (John 14:23-26)
They claim to have faith, but are agnostics when it comes to the idea of the Spirit teaching “all things” as promised. And, despite their Biblical religion, they have the same “worldly” perspective that Jesus describes:
The world cannot accept [the Spirit of truth], because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. (John 14:17)
They are as Paul describes:
The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, for, “Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ. (1 Corinthians 2:14-16)
Many who profess to believe have recast the Spirit’s work as mere emotionalism and cling to circular reasoning and poor understanding of the text. They have a form of godliness; but, despite their diligent study and careful religious devotion, they are spiritually impotent because they lack the “mind of Christ” or the indwelling word of God.
Jesus addresses those “blind guides” who love the letter of the law while rejecting the Spirit:
Woe to you, blind guides! You say, “If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.” You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? You also say, “If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gift on the altar is bound by that oath.” You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? Therefore, anyone who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And anyone who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. And anyone who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it. (Matthew 23:16-22)
Jesus started by ridiculing a legalistic controversy about what made an oath legitimate. He dismissed the dispute as silly by taking a third position that supercedes the others and then continues:
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. (Matthew 23:13-24)
These religious scholars missed the forest for the trees.
They were so focused in on legalistic details of application that they “neglected the more important matters—justice, mercy and faithfulness.” Jesus insults these religious authorities, he calls them “blind guides” and knocks them off their proverbial pedestal.
Paul expounds on the blindness of those who only have Scripture and the need for the Spirit as guide:
Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit. (2 Corinthians 3:12-18)
Biblical fundamentalists get things in reverse, they say we need the Scripture to understand the Spirit. The truth is opposite, we need the Spirit in order to understand Scripture or we will be no better than the “blind guides” who diligently studied Scripture and yet never embraced Jesus (and the promise of the Spirit) who brings life.
Are you a minister of the new covenant powered by the Spirit?
The new covenant is different from the old. In the new covenant, God’s dwelling moved from a temple of stone and gold to the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12), which is to say the individual bodies or collective mass of those who follow after Jesus and constitute the church. The new covenant is a law written on hearts rather than on tablets of stone (Hebrews 8:7-13, 10:15,16) and that is the work of the Spirit:
Such confidence we have through Christ before God. Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (2 Corinthians 3:4-6)
The silly controversies that divide the church are not caused by the word of God or the Spirit. They are caused by those who have their own interpretation of Scripture, who believe their own opinion of the language is infallible, and yet do not have the indwelling word of God or life of the Spirit.
Without the Holy Spirit to guide our study, we will “strain out a gnat but swallow a camel” and be no different from those whom Jesus condemned: blind guides with veiled hearts and puffed up with biblical knowledge, yet unable to correctly understand…too focused in on the technical details to see the bigger concepts of faith.
Jesus may have said his yoke is easy. But it is not easy for someone born and raised outside the Mennonite culture to become Mennonite—especially not a woman who does not fit with our traditional ideals.
But conservative Mennonites are not the only ones that demand conformity to a list of cultural expectations. Fundamentalist sects all have their fundamentals, their own special set of rules, cultural expectations, or doctrinal essentials that they use as tests for membership.
For example, a very sincere and sweet Christian friend of mine was asked about her view of Once Saved, Always Saved. Her questioner, someone who believes in eternal security, did not like her answer and now counts her as lost. To them salvation depends on our ability to parrot a theological position, a work of the mind, and no nuances are allowed.
And these false dichotomies, based on personal opinion, exist at all levels. If your hermeneutic allows for some flexibility interpreting the creation narrative of Genesis, then Ken Ham (including his partner in self-promoting pseudo-scientific dogmatism, Bill Nye) will insist that you should be an agnostic.
Nothing is further from the truth.
Jesus rebukes religious gatekeepers and damned missionaries.
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are. (Matthew 23:13,15)
Jesus confronts the religious elites, who had positioned themselves as the final arbiter of truth, and he rudely knocks them off their pedestal. He confronts them for shutting people out who might otherwise enter and says they make those few they do convert “twice the child of hell” as that they are. That is a shocking reproach for those who are diligently religious.
Missionary service is typically unquestioned and perhaps that is because many of us feel guilt for not doing enough ourselves? But missionaries get no free pass from Jesus; on the contrary, he rebukes them even more severely and describes them as being counterproductive. I hope, after considering that, it goes without saying that missionary service can be a false indication of sincere faith and love for God.
There are many reasons why a person might want to be a missionary other than pure love for God and other people. Traveling, in our day and age, is fun and many enjoy the adventure. There are also the duty-bound “do-gooder” religious types, motivated more by fear than love. But there is an even more insidious reason why a person may choose to be a missionary service, and that is the power over others it offers:
1) Power of peer respect: There is no question that being a missionary is considered honorable amongst religious people. It draws positive attention. Those who have served in a visible way are often given special praise and in my church it is almost a prerequisite to being ordained. It can become a basis for ranking members of the church into higher and lower tiers. When used that way, it goes directly against the admonition of Jesus to be a brotherhood of equals ealier in his sermon.
2) Power of material resources: I know missionaries who go out like Jesus sent his disciples (Mark 6:7-13) in the power of the Spirit and with little more the shirts on their backs. Unfortunately, we do not embody that kind of faith anymore. Our missionaries rely on the power of their own calculations and often with enough resources to live comfortably beyond the reach of the people they are trying to evangelize. This can create a situation where people serve the missionaries’ whims for no reason other than attaining access to their resources. Being treated as royalty can also be gratifying to those who hold this power.
3) Power to be a religious gatekeeper: Everyone, including the religious elites condemned by Jesus, believes they are right, and that sanctimonious feeling can be the basis to becoming an evangelist. Recently a friend shared the testimony of Megan Phelps-Roper who was raised in Westboro Baptist Church and joined in their protests as a child. It was through conversation with the “other side” that she realized her spirit was wrong and repented.
Unfortunately, there are many who never do get knocked off their pedestal, never do humble themselves in the light of God’s grace, and do damage to the cause of Christ. They position themselves as the final arbiters of truth, as gatekeepers to the kingdom with the licence to shut people out, and the words of Jesus apply to them just as much as they did to the religious elites in the original audience.
Knowledge can become a barrier to truth when it leads to dead religion rather than following in faith.
We shut people off from the truth when we center our faith on our own religious “knowledge” rather than on the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. These “all or nothing,” black-and-white propositions are a distraction from the substance of Christian faith. Obsession on theological minutia causes confusion rather than bringing clarity, and our additional requirements take away from the simple truth of the Gospel message:
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Romans 10:9-13)
We should remember what Jesus said to his disciples when they took issue with someone speaking in the power of Jesus’s name outside their exclusive club:
“Master,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.” “Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.” (Luke 9:49-50)
It should be noted that in the verse just prior to this, the disciples were having an argument over who amongst them would be greatest. Jesus answers them by bringing a child beside him and declaring that whoever would be most welcoming to that child in his name would be greatest. I’m guessing that child wasn’t 100% theologically correct.
We should serve others in truth of self-sacrificial love and in humility rather than in superiority of knowledge.
There are many who go out in the strength of their own knowledge. They never do comprehend the significance of God’s grace, and are blind though they think they see:
We know that “We all possess knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. But whoever loves God is known by God. (1 Corinthians 8:1b-3)
Some say it is the thought that counts.
It is also said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
But before we say or think too much, we should take heed of what Jesus said and consider it a warning against an idea that our salvation comes from our religious diligence or right ideas. Instead we must be an example of the grace shown to us while we were yet dead in our sins.
We need to hold the door open for those wishing to enter and lower the threshold, rather than trip them up with our own pet doctrines.
We are not called to be gatekeeper; instead, we are called to serve in love and humility.
Let’s let God be the final arbiter of truth.
The world loves distinctive dress and titles.
If I wear an expensive suit and fancy tie to an event, that will probably result in my being treated differently than if I show up in street clothes. Having “PhD” behind my name would earn me more respect in some circles.
The world judges by outward appearance.
People rank and categorize other people based on what clothing they wear and what positions they hold. Wear the wrong dress to an occasion and expect to be shamed in the gossip columns. The climb up the social ladder can be brutal.
The church, unfortunately, is not much different. The expectations and dress standards might vary, but the harmful focus on distinction of title or outward appearance is the same.
What did Jesus say about obsession with dress and titles?
Jesus, continuing his rebuke of unhelpful religious elites, said…
Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called “Rabbi” by others. ‘But you are not to be called “Rabbi,” for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth “father,” for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted. (Matthew 23:5-12)
The religious elites were obsessed with what other people thought and how they appeared.
Jesus mentions the “phylacteries” and “tassels” they wore, meant as symbolic reminders of their devotion to God, became about drawing attention to themselves. They pranced to the front benches, loved to be noticed when out in public, and sought titles to impress their religious peers.
Jesus was unimpressed. It is apparent that their religious devotion was not about God’s glory and honor as they would claim, it was all to draw attention to themselves and prideful. Jesus again alludes to the tables being turned and roles being reversed—a time when the first shall be last and last shall be first.
But how is this applicable today?
Nobody I know wears phylacteries or tassels.
However, I believe the warnings against obsession with appearance still apply as much to religious people today as it did then. We have different versions of the same prideful behavior in our churches today.
Here’s what we are doing:
1) Seeking the important seats: I sit anywhere in the church because it does not matter. There is nothing wrong with sitting in the back benches in an age of microphones and amplifiers. Socially awkward people do not enjoy parading up to the front of the church; they don’t want the attention. And so what if the rebels sit in the back, at least they are at church, right?
Funny how some Mennonite leaders have apparently not gotten the memo about those who love the “place of honor” and “most important seats” in a religious setting. From the way they commend people who sit in the front benches you might be led to think that Jesus said that makes a person special or better.
Yes, there is something to be said for accommodating visitors and mothers with young children. There’s also something to be said for not creating a distraction by yukking it up with your buddies. We should always be considerate of others.
That said, seating position is no indication of spiritual condition.
2) Loving important titles: There are some people who use the letter of what Jesus said as a means to bash Catholics for their use of “father” in reference to church leaders past and present.
Unfortunately they entirely miss the point being made and in their arrogance are potentially slandering those who appropriately use these terms. The admonition against calling anyone “teacher” or “father” is not about the specific words used, but about how and why they are used.
How do I know this?
Well, the Apostle Paul refers to himself as “father” (1 Corinthians 4:15, Philippians 2:22) and I’m doubtful he did it in ignorance of or contradiction to what Jesus said. I believe he used it as a description of his true fatherly love and affection for the children of the faith and not vainly as a means to secure unearned respect from others—which is what Jesus was speaking about.
Sadly, those who turn the words of Jesus into a legal code miss the spirit of what he is saying. Sure, they might never use the words he mentioned to describe themselves, but they do use words like “reverend” or “evangelist” in the same way as a Pharisee. With different words they embody the same self-seeking spirit of the religious elites condemned by Jesus.
And we do this too. We may not seek fancy titles outright. However, I was turned down by a young woman who wanted someone who used “missionary” or “pastor” to flaunt their ambitions and I was uncomfortable describing my calling in those terms. Love of religious importance is not unusual amongst Mennonites even if not as openly stated.
There is nothing new under the sun when it comes to spiritual pitfalls. As my sister would say: Same manure, different piles. Except she doesn’t use the word “manure” when she says it…
3) Dressing distinctly: It blows my mind how far off the mark people can be when it comes to matters of dress. There are some churches where people will frown on those who do not wear a suit and tie (while some conservative Mennonites will frown on those who do) and for some reason carrying a big leather-bound Bible is important too.
It makes me wonder what these proper religious people would do if a man like John the Baptist showed up in camel’s hair. They might be suffering from the same ailment as Saul’s daughter; Michal, when she saw David dancing in a “linen ephod” and called him a “vulgar person” for it (2 Samuel 6:14-23). Apparently God was not impressed with her judgment of propriety according to what I read.
That is not to say we should intentionally draw attention to ourselves and dress in a provocative or ostentatious manner.
Which leads to my next point…
Many conservative Mennonites look to distinctive dress as a means to be a witness. They claim this is an act of “non-conformity” and taking a stand against “worldly” fad and fashion. And I do appreciate the idea of not being jerked around by every whim and fancy of the mainstream culture.
Unfortunately, this non-conformity of outward appearance does not always reflect change at a heart level. We might not look like our “worldly” neighbors in the way we dress and yet many of us are even more obsessed with fashion than they are. The smallest differences (the number of pleats in a dress or the collar of a suit coat) can lead to venomous accusations and division.
Distinctive dress has become a stumbling block for conservative Mennonites. We judge each other based on our differences, we shut people out for not meeting our own dress standards, and forget to love each other as Christ commanded. We have taken Scripture that instructs Christians to be focused on inner change rather than outward adoring (1 Peter 3-4, 1 Timothy 2:9-10) and turned it into a fixation about outward appearance.
Perhaps we forget what Scripture tells us about pride and clothing?
Peter describes the true distinctiveness of being “clothed” with sincere faith:
All of you, clothe yourself with humility toward one another, because, “God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble.” Humble yourself, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. (1 Peter 5:5-6)
We are told to be distinctively dressed. However, that distinction of dress means to “clothe yourself with humility” and to “clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ” (Galatians 3:27, Romans 13:14) rather than with our own religious works–that is a far deeper distinction than mere outward appearance. Our distinctiveness should be less about what we wear on the outside and more about being a manifestation of this:
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. (John 13:34,35)
Distinguished titles and distinctive outward appearance is vanity when it causes strife or leads to a pecking order. We must embody the character of Christ by loving each other as he commanded. It is not about looking different or having a fancy title, it is about being different in heart.
If a person professes faith in Jesus, then accept them as a brother or sister and don’t be a religiously pretentious snob. Jesus, as far as I know, did not dress like a Mennonite, Amish man or Baptist. I’m doubtful he was much concerned about solids or stripes and the size of floral prints.
In a non-zero-sum game everyone can be a winner. It is a non-competitive or competitive circumstance where all participants can achieve optimal results and be successful. In an abundance of resources and opportunities and assuming equality of abilities this is the case.
A zero-sum-game is a circumstance where when someone gains another loses. This is true of sports where there is a score kept and a winner and loser at the end. It can be true of the marketplace when two people desire the same property but only one can possess it. It is true of any limited resource.
The right-wing or conservatives prefer the non-zero-sum explanation. They assume that all things are equal besides effort then they are free to look the other way at those who have not achieved what they have. This is not always uncaring or completely cold-hearted either—these people have worked hard, often have overcome obstacles (while playing by the rules) and believe others can as well.
However, the left-wing or progressives tell us, and rightfully so, that it is not that simple. We can certainly say “when life gives you lemons make lemonade” and yet what does one do when life gives you rocks? I suppose then you throw the rocks at those telling you to make lemonade?
Those who argue that life is largely a non-zero-sum experience and that those who put forward an adequate effort are too quick to dismiss differences in circumstances—they often do not appreciate providence of their own advantages enough. Sure, people reap what they sow, but can we assume that everyone has the same soil, seeds and weather to work with?
Do people get what they deserve?
We like the idea of karma, that people get what they deserve and everything we have was somehow earned. This absolves us of responsibility to those with less and allows us to enjoy our advantages in life without guilt. This is an explanation of things that works for those who are relatively successful and have basically gotten what they want.
Many religious people, to cover for their lack of compassion, go a step further and assume that disability and disaster is a result of sin.
That is why Job’s friends added insult to injury and accused him of having some hidden sin because of all awful things that happened to him. They were wrong for their assumption that he deserved what he got.
People getting what they deserve is not the reality that Jesus describes. When asked who’s sin caused a man’s blindness he answered that it was nobodies sin and used the opportunity to bring glory to God by healing the man. He also used a couple events as a basis for a rhetorical question and answer:
Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.” (Luke 13:1-5)
His answer seems to go directly against those who try to attribute calamity to God’s judgment and see success as a sign of God’s favor. He muddies the water for the sanctimious religious elites with their simple (and often self-congratulatory) black and white explanation. He defies their people should get what they deserve logic:
You have heard that it was said, “Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:43-48)
It is interesting that the parallel account in the book of Luke uses “merciful” rather than perfect. Assuming that they are both a paraphrase of the actual words of Jesus and accurate (as opposed to one being unreliable) we can probably combine the two ideas to approximate the correct message. I believe we are to be perfect in our mercy or perfectly merciful like God.
The message that seems clear in the teachings of Jesus is that nobody gets what they deserve. He says that unless people repent they too will perish—that neither sunshine nor rain is distributed by who deserves or does not—and with this undermines those who want to put all blame for failure on the individual.
Furthermore, there is no excuse for indifference. Even our enemies, people who deserve our contempt for things they have done, we are told to treat as we do those who are deserving of our love. We are to be perfectly merciful because we can do nothing to deserve God’s love and yet are loved despite that.
That is the essence of the Gospel, to do unto others, not as they deserve, but we want God to do to us. We will be shown mercy we we show mercy and judged as we judge. If we live by the sword then we can expect to die by it as well. If we forgive others then we will be forgiven by God.
If nobody gets what they deserve, then what?
Truly believing in the goodness of God is not about crowing on social media when things go right. No, that is only triumphalism covered in religion and brings no glory to God whatsoever. Again, some good people suffer terribly for their righteousness while many evil people in the world are both materially and socially successful.
A big bank account or beautiful girlfriend is not proof God’s goodness or else Job’s friends would have been right to torment him further trying to find a hidden sin. Success is only proof that circumstances tilted in favor of the outcome you desired and attributing it to God’s favor is only to dance on the backs of the bruised.
True thankfulness to God is using the means we are given to help others. Those with loaves and fishes didn’t thank God loudly then gorge themselves in the presence of the hungry crowd. No, they responded to the call of Jesus, gave up what many would argue they were entitled to through their foresight and by their sacrifice we have the miracle of five thousand being fed.
It is on us to be an answer to prayer using the means provided to us, being an answer to prayer—that is our thankfulness to God. Your success or failure in an endeavor says nothing about God’s plan. Only your willingness to step out in real faith, the faith of going outside of comfort zone and sacrificing for those who deserve judgement, is evidence of God’s goodness.
True repentance is realizing that you deserve nothing and treating others as if they deserve all of your love. If we truly appreciate God’s grace we will show it in humble actions of service rather than pompous claims of God’s goodness to us. It was the Pharisee who stood on the corner thankful to God at the expense of others and was condemned for his pride—he knew nothing of God’s goodness:
The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: “God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector.” (Luke 18:11)
Sadly many conservative Mennonites and other religious fundamentalists are like that Pharisee. Even in their thanking God they are self-congratulatory and can barely hide their self-righteous pride under the pretense of praise—evidently they forget pride is the first sin. In context of the passage above it was the man who prayed “God have mercy on me, a sinner” who left justified before God.
Those who know they are undeserving do not boast in God’s goodness towards them. No, they share it with others by helping carry the burdens of others who were less fortunate than themselves. True faith is not about bragging about things we do not deserve—it is about our self-sacrificially serving those who do not deserve.
Perhaps God is not multiplying our effort today, like he did in the Acts church, because we pretend to be thankful for His goodness in our words and yet withhold grace from those whom we feel do not deserve?
Maybe God could turn our zero-sum game into an over-abundance when we let go of our own calculations and plans to trust Him?
Shut up about your good life—people already know! Instead, thank God by being an answer to prayer to someone who didn’t have your advantages.
Actions speak louder than words.
I was struck the other day by a quote in an article I read about Michel Foucault, a French philosopher, and a conversation about that quote is some of the reason for this blog post.
“Was not the death of God, in fact, revealed in a doubly murderous act that, at the same time that it put an end to the absolute, assassinated man himself? Because man, in his finitude, is inseparable from the infinite, which he both negates and heralds. The death of God is accomplished through the death of man.” (Michel Foucault)
It was a response to the statement “God is dead” used by Nietzsche to describe the crisis those have who reject the established religious morality as he did. The quote is an acknowledgement of the cost of western rationality, a philosophical perspective that depends solely on revelation through the physical sensory and dismisses spiritual experience.
Western thinking focuses on what can be known through natural or rational means. The result of this pursuit of knowledge has been greater understanding of the world and technological advancement. But this has led many to abandon all belief in the supernatural as superstition, it has undeniably come at the cost of moral purpose, and I know because I’ve been there.
The unbelieving believer phenomenon and lack of faith in the church.
Many in Western religious communities, while thinking themselves to be at odds with this western rejection of God, have a very worldly perspective of reality and are simply unaware of the implications of following their own theological ideas to completion.
Many Biblical fundamentalists, with their complete dependency on book-based circular reasoning and human interpretive ability, seem to actually be agnostics who simply have yet to come to the realization of their own real lack of faith.
Yes, the language of these ‘Christian’ religious unbelievers is often the same or similar to those of true faith. Yes, they will emphatically declare up and down that they believe that the Bible is true, call the book the “word of God” even, and yet these unbelieving believers reject the very means of revelation described in the Bible. They, like their more reasonable and logically consistent secular neighbors, have made human knowledge gained by natural means their god.
This pathology of unbelieving belief comes in many degrees and in various forms. But underlying is always a reliance on human perception of physical evidence (inspired books or reliable science) and a partial or complete rejection of direct spiritual means of revelation.
It is actually humanism, disguised or hidden in a cloak of religious devotion and spiritual sounding language, because it depends primarily on human decision rather than something divine. It is faith based in ones own ability to experience God through means of human effort.
It is what Paul addressed in the early church as foolishness:
“You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?” (Galatians 3:1-3)
The idea that God is primarily revealed through physical media or other intermediary mediums (institutions) is logically incoherent and ultimately a rejection of the teachings in Scripture. Paul describes the Galatians as foolish because they were reverting to completely human means to know God and rejecting the primacy of the Spirit as the only true agent of spiritual revelation.
When little gods replace a big God there is division rather than unity.
The problem is that many people think God is governed by human rationality and therefore can only communicate through means they can understand.
Protestants too often prefer a little book god and call this “sola scriptura” which is Latin for through Scripture alone. Catholics, the religious parents of Protestants, make a little god of the institutional church or the man who leads it through an idea of papal supremacy.
Yes, certainly the official story is more complicated than the simple explanation I give. Both Catholics and Protestants acknowledge special revelation and the power of the Spirit. And both western traditions are right in their own perspectives to some extent: Acountability to the collective church body, the catholic “universal doctrine” (katholikismos) is a true expression of faith through submission. Likewise the written tradition of Scripture is obviously important for a believer and should not be abandoned.
However, the problem with both Catholic and Protestant traditions is when the overall emphasis is put somewhere other than the truth revealing Spirit of God. Both have too often replaced the core of Christian faith, the living spiritual reality of Jesus Christ, with their own religious efforts of traditions, doctrines and dogmas.
In Galatians there was a reverting back to “the works of the law” and “means of the flesh” rather than “means of the Spirit” which caused a schism to form. We can actually know with certainty when dependency on the Spirit of God is being neglected when there is disunity in the church:
“As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Ephesians 4:1-6)
Clearly today, especially in the Western church, there is not unity in the Spirit. No, instead there is unity only, and quite literally, on our own human terms. There is a widespread refusal to hear anything that goes contrary to our own personal opinion and perspective. Few are willing (or able?) to reconsider their own base assumptions about the nature of their reality or the truth of their religious indoctrination.
The fruit of Western thinking is the rule of men rather than God, it eventually leads to everyone being their own Pope and a tragic kind of individualism that wrecks meaningful community. Now even our marriages do not last because of this growing lack of faith. It is only through means of the Spirit that we are able to transcend our differences and submit to each other in Christian love.
We need fewer little gods with the spirit of Diotrephes (the early church leader in the third epistle of John who put himself first and judged unilaterally based on his own ideas) and seek after a truth greater than ourselves. We need to realize our idolatry and flee from our small god perspective.
Dead religion relies on human judgment rather divine nature and their own fleshly instincts rather than intuition of faith.
Dead religion must rely on the work of man. It must create mood through music and other emotional manipulation. The focal point is often denominational labels or charismatic leaders, religious commentators, and not Jesus. Growth comes primarily through by biological means, children are indoctrinated, brainwashed and pushed to commit before they can “count the cost” rather than encouraged to make an adult decision as an adult. A negative fear-based cold calculus, a cancer, has replaced a true walk of faith, has displaced a positive spiritual vision and agape love.
Those who rely on themselves do not know grace, they cannot trust God to work in the lives of others and must therefore take judgment into their own hands. They cannot reconcile the radical teachings of Jesus to love their enemies (Matthew 5:43-48, Luke 6:27-36) into their reality. They must reason around these clear instructions because they do not have faith in God to judge. They usurp God’s authority because they are not themselves able to live under it:
“Brothers and sisters, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against a brother or sister or judges them speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?” (James 4:11-12)
One must have the Spirit of God in them to show true grace. It is work of the Spirit, not our own righteousness, that we can have “fruit of Spirit” (Galatians 5:22-23) that include “love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.” It is because people do not have the Spirit of God that they revert back to their own human judgment and graceless application of law. Without the Spirit we are left with a mind governed by fleshly desires and are spiritually dead:
“Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.” (Romans 8:5-8)
Elsewhere in Scripture we are told “without faith it is impossible to please God” (Hebrews 11:6) and therefore we must have faith. However, we are also told faith is gift from God rather than our own works and something given to us while we were yet dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1-10) which is the paradox of faith. How do we get faith if we do not have it? Both religious and secular minds do not have an answer for this and for that reason both turn to their own small gods.
Both secular and religious people attempt to kill a big God, but now even science defies them.
Many people in the Western world are trapped in a delusion of a materialistic view of reality, they cannot accept explanation that does not fit their own religious or scientific dogmas and attempt to kill off any possibility of a bigger extra dimensional reality. Understanding, to them, is only gained through physical eyes and literal ears. They want a little god that can be understood by a human mind and reject a God bigger than their own abilities to comprehend.
They are like the religious authorities who demanded a rational explanation of how a man’s physical blindness was healed by Jesus (read the account in John 9) and rejected, based in their own understanding of Biblical law, that this was a miracle from God. These religious hypocrites concluded that the man was a fraud who faked his blindness and they cast him out as a sinner because it went against their own confirmation biases and understanding of reality. But, truthfully, many reasonable people today (religious or otherwise) would conclude as they did and assume it was trickery.
There is no rational explanation of how a man born blind could be healed through having mud rubbed into his eyes. Modern medicine does not tell us of any form of blindness that can be healed externally in this way and going by a reasonable standard this is literally a physical impossibility. There are many scientific laws violated by miracles and this is why many reasonable people reject them as possibility. The natural world is governed by a time based causality. In other words, A leads to B which always without exception leads to C and there is no rational way that this causality chain can be broken without disrupting everything known about this universe.
So how could it happen?
It couldn’t happen, not in terms of rational thought or science, at least not without massive energy from a source outside of the closed loop system of our universe. Any miracle, even the smallest epiphany of revelation inserted from a spiritual dimension into our physical brain to healing the blind or raising the dead, would need to disrupt the entire reality of this universe from the beginning and end of time to happen. Any true miracle would require a force with power literally beyond the comprehending of a finite mind.
Therefore, everything Jesus did, from turning water into wine to walking on water, defied the idea that this universe is a closed loop system. The life and witness of Jesus supported the idea that there is a source of power that is available beyond our universe and energy (for good or evil) that can be brought in through acceptance of these spiritual means.
This is the power of the Spirit.
And, believe it or not, that is also part of the huge implications of quantum mechanics. Physicists, using the double slit experiment, have discovered a phenomenon called wave particle duality. This, and other scientific evidence, points to a reality that defies rational explanation. What it shows is that at the smallest level of the universe there is a break down of time based causality and with it possibility of spontaneous events. What this means is there could be energy leaking into the universe from dimensions beyond it and more that there is only a thin veil between us and this higher dimensional reality.
Quantum computing, still in it’s infancy, promises to reach beyond the bounds of our natural universe and allow calculations impossible otherwise. Some theorize that our brain is a quantum computer and may have backdoor of consciousness access to the spiritual realm. This, to me, is the point of access to the realm of good and evil. Those who have the Spirit can have close communion with God the Father through spiritual rather than physical means.
Living faith that reveals God only comes through spiritual means, not through our own works or understanding.
There is a story of a man described as a “rich young ruler” who asked Jesus what he must do for eternal life. He was a religious man who faithfully followed all of the commandments from his youth. But Jesus, instead of telling him “good job and keep up the good work,” yanks the rug out and tells him to sell everything, give all to the poor and follow him.
The disciples, with their little religious minds, are stunned by this and ask: “Who then can be saved?”
Jesus replies: “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
The point of the story is that faith is not a product of careful religious practice. It is not something we earn by our diligent study of Scripture and our good works. Faith is rather something that is a gift from God and a result of the Spirit working out from within us.
Jesus describes an idea of being “born again” and completely befuddles a religious expert, Nicodemus, who takes him quite literally and asks:
“How can someone be born when they are old? Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!” (John 3:4)
Jesus replies with more metaphor from the physical world to explain this spiritual reality:
“Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” (John 3:5-8)
The Spirit is not literally wind. This is not something that originates in the physical world at all. It is instead the breath of God that enters us through mysterious means and brings us to life spiritually. It is something that transforms our mind and changes us literally from the inside out. It is something divine, not originating in this sin cursed world, and the only true evidence of another kingdom. It is a knowledge born of heavenly rather than physical worldly origins:
“Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.” (John 3:11-13)
Jesus was, as the son of God, conceived by supernatural means of the Spirit, and we must also be. No one has given physical birth to themselves and likewise nobody is spiritually born of their own efforts. Understanding of “heavenly things” does not come through physical means. You cannot find a God bigger than the universe by studying things in universe, that is circular reasoning and will turn a rational person into an agnostic.
Only a blind person who gains their sight can know for certain they were blind and now they see. Only a person born physically knows they exist in a physical reality and only through spiritual birth can someone know God exists. Even if they can’t explain it, even if nobody believes them, they know simply because they know. Our existing in any reality is a self-evident truth.
The West, in trying to kill God, has only killed their own spiritual connection and this is suicidal.
Western thinking has put emphasis on human will, knowledge or reasoning rather than the power of the Spirit and God’s grace to humanity. People want a God governed by their own human reasoning and logic. They try to make God subject to their own time based causality and turn spiritual life into some kind of physical process. They reason things can only be know through natural means, by their physical eyes, ears or touch, and reject direct revelation through supernatural means.
Western thought, using human reasoning and worldly knowledge, attempting to kill the idea of a supernatural God. But the tragedy in this is that we are blaspheming the true source of life (Mark 3:28-30) and effectively only killing the divine nature in ourselves. The end result is hedonistic and meaningless life not worth living. Those who cannot distract themselves in materialistic pursuits are soon left staring into a dark hopeless void of time and empty space. This is leading many to premature death through drug abuse and suicide.
The Western church still holds on to a delusion of knowing God through their own works of faith and the symptoms of their humanistic pathology are still able to be masked through group hypnosis. Many are able to maintain appearances through artificial conformity to tradition and are satisfied in their experiencing the ripples of Christian love passed down through the Spirit-led tradition left to them. But eventually this spiritual momentum will run out and with it the life of the church.
It started with the elevation of one man (the Pope) and now has resulted in an unhealthy every man for himself mentality that first undermined the church, then the local community, then the family unit and is leading to a cultural suicide unless we repent and return to true faith. We have embraced a rationality that leads us to death rather than life.
We need a return to a reality of faith based in a bigger God than the little god of human rationality, understanding that only comes from the physical world and dogmas both secular or religious. It is time to see God through the supernatural means Jesus promised to those who truly have faith and follow him. It is time to remove the veil of falsehood that western thought has put between us and God.
And it is time to take a quantum leap both forward in grace and backward to a faith that truly makes all things possible again. There is a more abundant life that is only possible through spiritual means, we can know the truth and be set free, so seek direct revelation from God and reject western delusion.