Timothy Kline: Thoughts and Reflections

With the approach of my (un)official retirement as longtime webmaster and part-time editor for Robert, I felt it appropriate that I take some time to reflect on our online friendship of some eight or so years, because the majority of you know very little about me, except my role as Robert’s site administrator and webmaster. I have always made it a point to keep myself in the background and do what I could to support Robert’s efforts in getting his thoughts and writings out to those who might be interested and find his material what they were looking for.

I first met Robert on a Discussion Board called Hourglass 2 (H2O), one of the first and largest online message boards for and about Jehovah’s Witnesses. This was around 1998, when the internet was in its earliest stages of becoming the worldwide phenomenon that it is today. You still accessed the internet primarily via dial-up, and AOL was a household name. Multimedia, when you could find it, consisted of rough, blocky, barely watchable RealVideo and even worse audio.

Hourglass 2 was strictly a text-based message board that allowed both Witnesses and non-Witnesses to openly discuss topics related to the Watchtower, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and everything between. It was, in many ways, the Wild West of Witness-centric sites, and was considered so taboo that an anonymizer service was used to house the site and people who didn’t want to register could post anonymously.

It didn’t take long for the stronger personalities to become known among the regular participants, and entrenchment began between the pro- and the anti-Witnesses. Discussions, for the most part, were civil and cordial–but there were a lot of new wrinkles being worked out as well, because this was an entirely new venture for all parties involved.

Robert was known as YouKnow when he started participating, and he was a staunch advocate for the Watchtower and Jehovah’s Witnesses right from the start, and never seemed to back away from an opportunity to take on opposers and set matters straight.

It was around this time that I was beginning to see cracks in the framework of Watchtower theology, and I was starting to have questions that seemed to be avoided by my local elders, which only exasperated the problems, and when I came across Hourglass 2 and saw the discussions there, I eagerly took it all in, because those same questions were being asked and debated out in the open. It all felt SO taboo yet so liberating, at the same time. Talking about things of a doctrinal nature so openly (albeit often anonymously, for fear of retribution from the Watchtower organization) felt empowering and reassuring.

At least initially. But although I was finding confirmation for my concerns and disagreements with Watchtower theology in the numerous discussions taking place, there was something missing. There didn’t seem to be any “So what then?” and because there was no perspective brought into the discussions–a “Okay, these things are true and they are wrong, but this is what we should do in light of the problems.” I have always felt that the underlying purpose of the majority of Watchtower- or Witness-centric sites is simply to convince the person to leave the organization–with no real concern for what the person does once they leave–just so long as they leave. At the same time, the utter refusal of the Watchtower organization to address the problems inherent in the doctrines, theology, and practices was equally problematic, and the polar opposite to the opposers’ approach–with the same results!

On the one side, you had the opposers who told you to leave–and didn’t care what you did once you were out, so long as you left. On the other side, you had the Watchtower, that told you to stay–and didn’t care if you had a problem with what was being taught as truth, so long as you stayed. The opposers argued that there was no real future if you stayed; the Watchtower argued that there was no real future for you if you left.

All I wanted was perspective! I wanted someone to tell me why I should stay in spite of these issues. The final decision would still be mine, of course, but I at least wanted to hear the arguments for continuance in spite of the problems.

And so it was that early in 2002, I emailed Robert and started talking with him about my dilemma, and then anxiously awaited a reply. It finally came in February of 2002, and he shared many of the same concerns I had, but also put it into perspective in relation to Bible prophecy as he understood it. We exchanged several emails forward from that point, and during the course of our missives to one another, I became aware that he had written several essays and treatises in relation to the situation that was happening with the Watchtower organization, and I suggested at one point that he should have a website and make this information available to others who might be looking for this information as well, because of their own situation.

Shortly after that, he allowed me to start publishing his writings online through the e-watchman website.

That was late in 2002, and we have been working together ever since.

Around that same time, I had become frustrated with there not being a message board that allowed for perspective on Witness-centric issues and problems, and I started an online forum called Pathways Online, which became reasonably popular–and would’ve become enormously popular, had I not acted as strict as I did in moderating discussions so that an appropriate balance was struck in the discussions that took place. That’s not to say that I didn’t exercise too much force at times, but nearly everyone that ever participated on my forum was comfortable with it–or would set me straight if I overstepped my own self-imposed guidelines.

When Robert had me set up a guestbook for his site, however, it quickly became clear that there needed to be a discussion board for those who wanted to discuss and debate the things Robert was putting online, because the guest book was fast becoming a discussion board itself, and getting overwhelmed and stretched rather thin.

Robert, understandably so, was NOT interested in being bothered with a discussion board at this point–he’d had his fill of message boards that swiftly fell under the influence of outright opposers, and he didn’t have the time to moderate and administrate a message board–preferring instead to focus on getting his writings online and putting together new materials as well.

So, the guestbook remained in place.

However, people from the guestbook were also starting to arrive at Pathways Online and wanting to discuss Robert’s materials–and regulars of the forum, too, were starting to do so. And while I have always been a strong advocate for open discussion on all topics related to Jehovah’s Witnesses on Pathways Online, I felt it was a conflict of interest to be Robert’s webmaster AND administrate a message board that predominantly criticized the material I was putting online for Robert.

So, I approached Robert again and raised the subject, and after plenty of hesitation and back-and-forth discussion, he finally relented and allowed me to set up a discussion board for his readers and critics. I would, in turn, administrate the site and moderate accordingly.

And so e-Jehovah’s Witnesses came into existence. This would’ve been around May 24, 2004.

Of course, there were those who complained that I was administrator of both discussion boards, because they were different in many ways that I won’t go into here. And by then, many had become familiar with my own personal views on scripture, and were quick to pick up on where those differences were in relation to Robert’s views–and they sought to capitalize on those differences by stirring up trouble and accusations of duplicity on my part. “How can you,” the argument usually went, “support and administrate a site that you yourself disagree with scripturally? Aren’t you being a hypocrite?”

And even today, there are those who are stymied at my continued involvement with Robert and role as his sites administrator and webmaster–knowing full well that I do not agree with everything that Robert has written or believes.

This has been a huge factor in my decision to remain in the background as much as possible, and not to personally participate in the discussions on e-Jehovah’s Witnesses–so as to not give critics fuel to light their fires of contention. And after I closed Pathways Online, it became easier to do so, of course.

What people seem to have the hardest time understanding is how I can continue to be involved with, friends with, and assist someone whom I do not wholeheartedly agree with when it comes to matters of scripture, interpretation and prophecy. Not that it surprises me that this remains a Mystery to them–because it doesn’t surprise me at all–because I think the majority of people miss the point entirely.

And because I know why I do, it matters not that others don’t “get it.”

See, there is not a single scriptural passage that you can point out to me that we can only love, assist, care for, encourage, and support those who agree with us or believe as we do. God certainly does not set that sort of example for us, and neither did our Exemplar, Jesus.

The areas where Robert and I differ on the Bible are irrelevant when you get down to the core of the matter. I still support his right as a Christian believer to make that information available to others, who can in turn either accept his findings, or reject them. I still support his right as a Christian believer to hold views and conclusions that differ from my own, because I am convinced that the day will arrive when these differences will be resolved by means of the promised Kingdom of the Heavens–or at least rendered moot. I do not believe that Robert and I must agree in order for me to consider him my Christian brother. Christian Love MUST trump doctrine and difference, or we fail as followers of Jesus and as a people of Jehovah. Of course, there are obvious considerations that we make in the process, out of conscience and conviction, but none of those apply in my ongoing relationship with Robert, and never have. Simply put, we are in agreement in the areas that I deem vital, and for that reason, the rest is just details that can be haggled over, fine-printed, and debated until the end of days–or accepted for what they are: differences that will one day be resolved, yet never granted the power to divide us as Christian brothers.

Robert has been a dear, treasured friend to me since I first approached him with my personal conflicts back in the days of Hourglass 2, and I hope that he considers me the same. I have seen him disappointed, hurt, and frustrated. I have seen him overjoyed and unbridled in conviction. I have seen him trampled by those whom he held in high esteem and thought friends, and I have witnessed the despair in solitude that often comes with the walk Robert is on. I have seen and known his battles, conflicts, loss, and triumphs in ways I wish all of you would have the privilege of witnessing–and I have seen how our kind, gracious, loving Father has been there with Robert every step of the way.

It is for these reasons and more that I am saddened that I will be ending (at least for the time being) my role as his business companion after so many years, so that I can focus more on the areas where Jehovah has blessed my own life and livelihood. There are personal matters that require my attention as well. Also, I have recently had the blessing of being reunited with two of my three daughters who had been adopted some 19 years ago. Too, my home-based business has grown beyond my expectations, in spite of a failing economy.

Jehovah has been very generous for my perseverance in spite of my own loss, turmoil, and distress–especially these past 10 or so years, and while he brought Robert and I together, the present circumstances seem to indicate that Jehovah is saying that Robert and I must part ways for a time so that we can see what Jehovah has in store for us, and so that our dependence does not become upon each other, but upon our God.

For those who wonder what I will be doing in the future, besides continuing to expand my business, rebuilding the relationship with my long-lost daughters, and the usual daily obligations and responsibilities, I would say that I will have very little free time to do much else!

Still, my intentions are to once again return to writing, eventually even completing and publishing a few books that I have back-burnered for far too long. I will continue to post blog entries, of course, and you can access those by visiting my primary website at http://timothy-kline.com and following the links from there. And I occasionally post at Hourglass 2 Outpost (a far cry from the pre-1999 Hourglass 2 message board). My other intentions, of course, are to continue to study theology, especially Christian theology, and advance in my understanding of the Bible, scripture, and God, as well as grow as a Christian.

But one wise expression comes to mind, as well: If you want to make God laugh, tell him of your plans.

So, in spite of my intentions, I’ll be doing whatever it is that Jehovah wills me to do.

In Christian Love,

Timothy Kline

With so many different churches to choose from, what should you do?

In Part One of this series, I started by discussing why there are so many churches today and how one might go about determining which is the right church for them. In Part Two, I will explore the meatier aspects of this sometimes daunting problem, addressing what God thinks of all these different Christian groups, all teaching from the same Bible. I will also be examining the purpose of the church and the role it is supposed to have in our lives.

What does God think of all these different Christian groups?

At the end of Part One, I asked the questions, “Well, what’s God’s view on this? Doesn’t it matter to Him what a church teaches while it’s claiming to be Christian?” In Part One, I spent most of the time approaching the debate from a human point of view, since that is how the vast majority of believers decide which church they will attend. For that majority, this works for them and they are quite satisfied with the results.

For some, however, it isn’t enough to view a church or religion as a social event. And it is to those individuals that this second part of the article is written.

Surely we care what God thinks about all of these different churches all claiming to be Christian, all claiming to be teaching and preaching from the Bible, all claiming to worship God and to accept Jesus as Savior. For us, it is not enough to simply pick and choose the most amenable church to our preferences.

But before we can figure out God’s view, we have to first discuss some things in relation to churches.

The first is this: to some, a church is a building that you go to in order to worship. People differentiate between what you get to do while not at church in comparison to the façade you must put on (your Sunday’s best) when you go to church. For some, it’s a social network wherein you can gain renown and prestige in your community, either through your donations or your activities within the church. For others, it’s just something that the family has always done; you were raised as a child to go to church, and now that you’re grown you are continuing that tradition with your own children. Some groups refer to their building as a church, a temple, a hall, a Kingdom Hall, a synagogue, or any number of similar terms. This group of Christians I shall refer to as the “Go to church” group.

Another point I would like to make is that throughout this series thus far (including Part One), I refer to selecting a “church.” However, some find the word “church” distasteful, with it conjuring up images of “Christendom” buildings filled with idols, crosses, and other religious paraphernalia. If that is your situation, then you can simply substitute “church” with “place of worship” if it makes it more palatable for you. Keep in mind that I will also be shifting gears from “church” being a place you go, to “church” being something you are a part of. At that point, I will be referring to the congregation, rather than “church,” for reasons which will become evident as we move forward in this discussion. It is also important that you have your own Bible handy, as we will be looking at numerous passages throughout the remainder of this discussion, and although I will often cite a passage in the article, it is important that you read it in your own Bible and familiarize yourself with both the setting and context.

Without further ado, then, let’s begin by first determining what the church is.

What is the Church?

We’ve already touched on the understanding that countless Christians have that “church” is a place that you go to, usually on Sundays and Wednesdays and certain “holy” days like Christmas and Easter. We won’t, therefore, need to say more on that limited understanding, and will instead move past it for the remainder of this article.

The Bible speaks about how God took out a people for His Name during the period covered by the Hebrew Scriptures, also known as the “Old Testament.” He entered into a covenantal relationship with the nation of Israel, who were descended from the patriarchs of old: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Provided that the nation of Israel remained faithful to that covenant, they would remain God’s representative nation upon earth. They would also be the privileged people through whom would be born the savior of all humankind, who would in due course restore Humankind to the close, intimate relationship that was originally enjoyed by Adam and Eve before their Fall.

As every student of the Bible knows, the nation of Israel failed miserably on numerous accounts to live up to their side of the covenant, resulting in defeat at the hands of various empires down through history. Their rejection of the prophesied Messiah, Jesus Christ, brought the harshest judgment of reprimand from Jehovah, as the Roman empire utterly destroyed Jerusalem, Israel’s most holy of cities. It would not be until our day that Israel would again find statehood as an individual, recognized nation, and even now that statehood is beset with angst and embittered rivalries with neighboring nations—a far cry from the pinnacle of Israel’s greatness during the days of David and Solomon. It is important to note that today’s statehood of Israel was wrought from the hands of political powers, and not by the hands of God himself.

The Bible relates how, because of the nation of Israel’s rejection of their promised Messiah, God established a period of rebuke for Israel that would continue until the fullness of the people of the nations (Greeks, Gentiles) has come in. [See Romans 11:1-32]

The question to be asked here is “come into where”? If the nation of Israel was God’s unique, covenanted people, and He placed them into a state of rebuke which, by our human reckoning, makes it appear as though He has rejected them, then the Bible writer must be referring to something else. Again we must turn to the letter to the Romans for clarification:

. . .namely, us, whom he called not only from among Jews but also from among nations, [what of it]? It is as he says also in Ho·se′a: “Those not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved ‘beloved’; and in the place where it was said to them, ‘YOU are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’” (Romans 9:24-26)

Here we begin to see the plan that God has to form a covenanted relationship with a new group of people, one from every walk of life rather than strictly Israel itself. This in itself would have proven a difficult fact for the nation of Israel to accept, having been God’s exclusive people for millennia—but God had a greater intent that He was putting into action. It would not be a nation borne of familial ties, as it had been for generations through the nation of natural Israel.

Paul elaborates on how it is that this new people would become sons of the living God when he writes in his letter to the Ephesians:

In other generations this [secret] was not made known to the sons of men as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by spirit, namely, that people of the nations should be joint heirs and fellow members of the body and partakers with us of the promise in union with Christ Jesus through the good news. (Ephesians 3:5-6)

The common factor here would no longer be a matter of simply being born a Jew, but now a matter of one’s responsiveness to the good news—thus opening the way for every person in every nation to potentially become a part of God’s new nation.

This is further certified by 1 Peter:

. . .It is to YOU, therefore, that he is precious, because YOU are believers; but to those not believing, “the identical stone that the builders rejected has become [the] head of [the] corner,” and “a stone of stumbling and a rock-mass of offense.” These are stumbling because they are disobedient to the word. To this very end they were also appointed. But YOU are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession, that YOU should declare abroad the excellencies” of the one that called YOU out of darkness into his wonderful light. For YOU were once not a people, but are now God’s people; YOU were those who had not been shown mercy, but are now those who have been shown mercy. (1 Peter 2:7-10)

The “cornerstone” referred to here is Jesus, who became the founding stone for a new temple, not built by mere mortal hands and will, but a living temple unlike anything before imagined.

Notice how Paul describes this new creation:

. . .Do YOU not know that YOU people are God’s temple, and that the spirit of God dwells in YOU? If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him; for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] YOU people are. (1 Corinthians 3:16-17)

. . .For we are a temple of a living God; just as God said: “I shall reside among them and walk among [them], and I shall be their God, and they will be my people.” …  “‘And I shall be a father to YOU, and YOU will be sons and daughters to me,’ says Jehovah the Almighty.” (2 Corinthians 6:16, 18)

Remember how we referred to the “Go to church” Christians earlier? These really misunderstand just what powerful, awe-inspiring work God is building, and as a result they are missing out on a wonderful truth. You don’t go to church: you become the church.

For the nation of Israel, Jerusalem was their holiest of cities. It was there that the Temple was built and maintained. It was where you could go if you wanted to be nearest to Jehovah. Yet the time was fast approaching in those days that the Temple would be razed to the ground, its function fully realized and fulfilled. No more would people need a Temple in order to worship God—something far better was coming.

Jesus touched on this in a conversation he had with a Samaritan woman:

“Believe me, woman, The hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will YOU people worship the Father.” (John 4:21)

In simple terms, one would no longer need to go to a place of worship—instead, as Paul wrote, you would become a living temple of worship. You. And rather than dwelling in a temple made of human hands, God’s holy spirit would dwell within you as that temple.

Even so, although we become living temples of the Most High God, we are not isolated from other believers. Together, we compose a new nation, a body composed of members with particular gifts and purposes—just like our own natural body’s members has their own particular purposes and funtions.

. . .we are members of his body. (Ephesians 5:30)

. . .One body there is, and one spirit, even as YOU were called in the one hope to which YOU were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all [persons], who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:4-6)

For just as the body is one but has many members, and all the members of that body, although being many, are one body, so also is the Christ. For truly by one spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink one spirit. For the body, indeed, is not one member, but many. If the foot should say: “Because I am not a hand, I am no part of the body,” it is not for this reason no part of the body. And if the ear should say: “Because I am not an eye, I am no part of the body,” it is not for this reason no part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the [sense of] hearing be? If it were all hearing, where would the smelling be? But now God has set the members in the body, each one of them, just as he pleased. If they were all one member, where would the body be? But now they are many members, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand: “I have no need of you”; or, again, the head [cannot say] to the feet: “I have no need of YOU.” But much rather is it the case that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary, and the parts of the body which we think to be less honorable, these we surround with more abundant honor, and so our unseemly parts have the more abundant comeliness, whereas our comely parts do not need anything. Nevertheless, God compounded the body, giving honor more abundant to the part which had a lack, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its members should have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the other members suffer with it; or if a member is glorified, all the other members rejoice with it. Now YOU are Christ’s body, and members individually. And God has set the respective ones in the congregation, first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then powerful works; then gifts of healings; helpful services, abilities to direct, different tongues. Not all are apostles, are they? Not all are prophets, are they? Not all are teachers, are they? Not all perform powerful works, do they? Not all have gifts of healings, do they? Not all speak in tongues, do they? Not all are translators, are they? (1 Corinthians 12:12-30)

. . .And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers, with a view to the readjustment of the holy ones, for ministerial work, for the building up of the body of the Christ, until we all attain to the oneness in the faith and in the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to a full-grown man, to the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ; in order that we should no longer be babes, tossed about as by waves and carried hither and thither by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in contriving error. But speaking the truth, let us by love grow up in all things into him who is the head, Christ. From him all the body, by being harmoniously joined together and being made to cooperate through every joint that gives what is needed, according to the functioning of each respective member in due measure, makes for the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love. (Ephesians 4:11-16)

It starts to become clear that what we’re talking about is not a building in the typical sense, as in a structure built by human hands. Rather, we are talking about the Christian congregation as being the body of believers. It is and has always been all-inclusive of all Christians.

Let’s focus on that for a moment before we go on with the discussion.

Every one of us is or was a part of a natural family composed of parents and siblings. An extended family as well: aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins, in-laws, and further extending beyond that in some cases to great-aunts, great-uncles, great-grandparents, and on the list goes.

But returning to the immediate family, let’s look at things in this way. If you are an only child, you still have your father and mother, of course. Professionals refer to this as the nuclear family. It’s a core familial relationship.

However, if, later on, your parents have another child, you are still their child. The only thing that has changed is that you now have a brother or sister. That brother or sister is going to have a different personality from you, different preferences, different viewpoints. Even so, these differences do not change the fact that you are siblings. One of you might “take after” your father, the other might “take after” your mother. Or, there may be some combination of the two.

Regardless, you are still part of the same family. And, in time, you, too, will go on to have your own family, with your own children. For the sake of this part of our discussion, though, suffice it to say that the family constitutes a body.

Applying that principle, then, to Christianity, here is what we find: Christianity was born of Judaism. That is to say that the first Christians were Jewish Christians. In time, Christianity reached out to Gentiles, who became Gentile or Greek Christians.

Like our nuclear natural family, the child that was at first the only child was the body of believers known as Jewish Christians. Then, a second child came along—a second body of believers known as Gentile or Greek Christians. While on the one hand they together constituted the family of Christianity, and thus were of that single body of faith, each had their own individual personality, so to speak, and their own preferences and tastes, just as human children tend to have. And, just like natural human children, the siblings had their spats and disagreements, much of which can be found in Paul’s writings.

Be that as it may, there was one consistent reality still in place at this stage in Christianity: Jesus was the head of the body of believers, that is, the Christian congregation.

. . .he [Jesus] is the head of the body, the congregation. . . . (Colossians 1:18)

Sidepoint: The Usurpation of Jesus as Head of the Congregation

As Christianity expanded, it became a perplexing problem for the apostles as they saw certain men enter into the body of believers, seeking authority for themselves and taking power where they could.

. . .However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among YOU. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. Furthermore, many will follow their acts of loose conduct, and on account of these the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively. Also, with covetousness they will exploit YOU with counterfeit words. . . . (2 Peter 2:1-3)

For a time, the apostles acted as a restraint, but this would only last until the last of the apostles went to rest in death. It is important for us to note that even in the first century, this was taking place; it would only get worse. As noted in the first part of this series, this became especially evident in the development of neo-orthodoxy in the later part of Common Era 1, but more so moving into the second century.

These men claimed to be staunch defenders of truth, claimed to treasure and attempt to preserve the good news. They spared no effort to stamp out anything that did not meet their “orthodox” view. All the while, they solidified their stranglehold on the Christian body.

Authority was shifted as a result. No longer was Jesus the head of the body: men had insidiously worked their way into that position. Jesus took on a figurehead-like role that lended these men their authority over the body of Christians—supposedly appointing them to ensure the preservation of Truth as determined by these men.

One need only grab any encyclopedia or Bible history reference to see what extent these men were willing to go to in order to secure and preserve their position of authority. In the course of this period of Christianity, these men also seen to it that the Bible was taken out of the reach of the congregation—claiming that only the Christian leadership could properly be entrusted with the preservation of Bible truth and dissemination of Christian teachings. Anyone who tried to obtain the Bible or disagreed with these Christian leaders would be punished to the utmost severity, even so far as to be put to death.

The above is mentioned only because today, there continues to be Christian groups that practice the same authoritarianism under the claim of having been appointed by God or Jesus over the congregation. They stand in Jesus’ stead as head of the Christian congregation, claiming that really Jesus is still the head—but proving false to that claim by their exercise of secured power and authority over the Christian congregation.

If you encounter such a group, you can be assured that your personal relationship with God will be impacted accordingly as you come to realize that the men in authority act as mediator between you and your Heavenly Father. You will be convinced that your righteousness will be directly proportionate to the extent you submit to their authority and their Biblical interpretations.

Can all these groups really all be Christian?

One question that might be asked is how it is possible that all of these countless groups claiming to be Christian while teaching different things about the Bible can really all be Christian.

Thus far, we’ve established just what the Christian congregation is: It is the body of believers that compose the family of Christianity, whom, individually, constitute temples of God in which Jehovah’s holy spirit dwells and bears witness that they are indeed children of God. At the head of that body is Jesus, ideally—although we’ve also touched on the propensity for men to intrude into that relationship, basically usurping Jesus’ position as head of the Christian congregation and assigning that role to themselves. Not that this changes the reality that Jesus is the head of the Christian congregation from God’s own point-of-view—but it certainly drives a wedge between God and His people as these would-be leaders act as intercessors and mediators between the congregation and God.

Humans are, for all intents and purposes, members of the same family: Human. This is irregardless of their nationality, skin color, sex, or ethnicity. However, as simple as that fact is, nearly every war ever waged is over the differences between humans that cause one group of humans to consider another group of humans lesser than the former. We still cannot get to the point where we accept the blunt, simple reality that we are all brothers and sisters—every one of us.

That being the case, should we expect that this happens within the Christian body of believers? Ideally, yes, we should. And for some measure, it is achieved. But sectarianism is a strong force that continues to wield a powerful influence within Christianity. Lines of doctrinal demarcation run deep between bodies of believers. And these differences are just as real among Christian groups as skin color, the shape of one’s nose, the angle of their eyes.

Yes, in spite of great strides in acceptance within Christianity, there is still much work left to do if we are to achieve the ideal.

For some groups, it is impossible to view any other group of believers as Christians—because they themselves believe that they alone “have the truth,” which implies that everyone else doesn’t. If, they reason, that proves that they alone are true Christians, then by extension that means that any other group that calls itself Christian is false.

This mode of thinking requires that the particular group redefines the Christian congregation or body of believers to mean their group exclusively. This, in contrast to the apostles’ writings which say that all believers constitute the body of Christ, with Jesus as its head. These xenophobic groups reason that this only applies to those who hold to the exact same views as their own (after all, they have the truth).

Can Christian groups believe differently from other Christian groups and retain their Christianity, though?

As was discussed in Part One, every single Christian group holds to an identical core set of beliefs. It is only when we get into the secondary and tertiary beliefs of any given group that we start seeing diversity. This is where sectarianism enters into the picture.

Sectarianism was not new to Christianity, as much as this might surprise the reader. Judaism had its own sects, the foremost being the Pharisees. Earlier, I explained that a sect constituted a group of individuals who held to a different opinion and used that difference of opinion to determine who was truly a Christian and who wasn’t, who really believed and had the truth, and who didn’t.

Even in Paul’s day, he could identify sectarianism, and he had something noteworthy to say about it:

. . .when YOU come together in a congregation, I hear divisions exist among YOU; and in some measure I believe it. For there must also be sects among YOU, that the persons approved may also become manifest among YOU. (1 Corinthians 11:18-19)

This is noteworthy because Paul says that there must be sects among Christians, and that they serve a purpose: “…that the persons approved may also become manifest among you.”

What purpose could sectarianism serve? Well, first, it is not the ideal—but it is the inevitable outgrowth of human involvement in anything.

With that in mind, sectarianism provided others with proof of two things in particular. The first was proof that malicious men were entering into the Christian congregation, seeking control and authority and power. They enticed others with their message, gained a following, and when they had gained as many followers as they could, they divided the body of Christ to suit their purposes, establishing their own sect(ion) of Christianity.

. . .their word will spread like gangrene. Hy·me·nae′us and Phi·le′tus are of that number. These very [men] have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred; and they are subverting the faith of some. . . . (2 Timothy 2:17-19)

In so doing, they manifest their own wickedness and betrayal of the body of Christ by stealing away that which rightfully belongs to Jesus alone.

. . ., there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among YOU. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them, . . . (2 Peter 2:1)

But it also serves as proof the mindset of certain believers, as well. Paul, in his letter to Timothy, noted that the time would come when:

. . .they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories. (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

Even today, there can be little question that there are Christians who seek out a congregation that will allow them to live as they so choose, with minimal intrusion. Various Christian groups are upholding, as one example, homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. Others make no issue over congregants smoking or partying in worldly manner—hoping to appear tolerant and therefore gain popularity.

But are such groups really Christian? One need only to go to the pastoral letters found in the Christian Greek Scriptures to see similar things going on—and never was it declared that they were unChristian. In fact, it was precisely because they were Christian that they were put on notice and called to account by the various apostles. If they continued in their shameful way, they would be brought to judgment by God Himself. [See the letters to the seven congregations, in Revelation for more on this.]

The nation of Israel, in spite of its numerous acts of unfaithfulness and apostasy, never stopped being Israel, God’s exclusive people—right up until the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE. The same applies to Christianity. Still, they are put on notice that God’s patience is not endless, and the day will come when each and every Christian group will be called to account for what happened in its midst, what it taught, and what it did with what it knew.

This last statement deserves some elaboration.

Sidepoint: Then are you saying it doesn’t matter what a Christian group teaches, that anyone can teach anything they want and still be considered Christian?

As already mentioned, it does matter what a particular group of believers teach and allow. This does not, however, take away their standing as Christians. What it does do is bring them into potential judgment by God. As I pointed out earlier, in order to be Christian, one adopts and holds to a core set of beliefs held in common by all Christian groups today. I am talking specifically about these core beliefs only. If a particular group does not share one of those core beliefs, they cannot be defined as Christian, simple as that—and very likely, they won’t even claim to be anyhow.

Having said that, one’s knowledge of the Bible will never be a reliable indicator as to one’s Christianity. The world has a saying: Even Satan could quote scripture. We would never claim that just because Satan could quote scripture, and evidently was very well acquainted with the Bible, that he was a true Christian. And yet there are groups who point to the amount that a person knows the Bible, the better the Christian they are. Groups that similar insist that they alone “have the truth” do not necessarily have anything to back it up.

Notice these words from Jesus:

. . .that slave that understood the will of his master but did not get ready or do in line with his will will be beaten with many strokes. But the one that did not understand and so did things deserving of strokes will be beaten with few. Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him; and the one whom people put in charge of much, they will demand more than usual of him. (Luke 12:47-48) [Compare James 3:1]

Emphasis seems to be more on what you do with what you know than on what you know itself. This can be confirmed from other passages:

. . .Therefore, if one knows how to do what is right and yet does not do it, it is a sin for him. (James 4:17)

“For it is just as when a man, about to travel abroad, summoned slaves of his and committed to them his belongings. And to one he gave five talents, to another two, to still another one, to each one according to his own ability, and he went abroad. Immediately the one that received the five talents went his way and did business with them and gained five more. In the same way the one that received the two gained two more. But the one that received just one went off, and dug in the ground and hid the silver money of his master. “After a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. So the one that had received five talents came forward and brought five additional talents, saying, ‘Master, you committed five talents to me; see, I gained five talents more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You were faithful over a few things. I will appoint you over many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’ Next the one that had received the two talents came forward and said, ‘Master, you committed to me two talents; see, I gained two talents more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You were faithful over a few things. I will appoint you over many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’ “Finally the one that had received the one talent came forward and said, ‘Master, I knew you to be an exacting man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you did not winnow. So I grew afraid and went off and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.’ In reply his master said to him, ‘Wicked and sluggish slave, you knew, did you, that I reaped where I did not sow and gathered where I did not winnow? Well, then, you ought to have deposited my silver monies with the bankers, and on my arrival I would be receiving what is mine with interest. “‘Therefore TAKE away the talent from him and give it to him that has the ten talents. For to everyone that has, more will be given and he will have abundance; but as for him that does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. And throw the good-for-nothing slave out into the darkness outside. There is where [his] weeping and the gnashing of [his] teeth will be.’ (Matthew 25:14-30)

“Woe to YOU, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because YOU give the tenth of the mint and the dill and the cumin, but YOU have disregarded the weightier matters of the Law, namely, justice and mercy and faithfulness. These things it was binding to do, yet not to disregard the other things. Blind guides, who strain out the gnat but gulp down the camel! (Matthew 23:23-24)

. . .The form of worship that is clean and undefiled from the standpoint of our God and Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their tribulation, and to keep oneself without spot from the world. (James 1:27)

What we find in these passages (and there are others similar) is that God expects us to do on the basis of what we know. How closely are we following the example Jesus set for us? Are we feeding the hungry, caring for the sick and plundered, looking after widows and fatherless children?

The apostle Paul put it this way:

. . .If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels but do not have love, I have become a sounding [piece of] brass or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophesying and am acquainted with all the sacred secrets and all knowledge, and if I have all the faith so as to transplant mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give all my belongings to feed others, and if I hand over my body, that I may boast, but do not have love, I am not profited at all. (1 Corinthians 13:1-3)

This is a powerful witness to any Christian group that insists that it alone “has the truth,” because unless that is evidenced by activity that bears witness to that fact, it is mere words. Some group priding itself on “having the truth” may point to their “preaching work” as evidence of their Christianity and proof of their love. Yet even here, we familiarize ourselves with the pattern set by Jesus—the very pattern which all Christians should follow after him—know that Jesus always saw first that the people’s physical needs were met first. If they were hungry, they were fed. If they were naked, they were clothed. If they were sick, they were prayed over and anointed with oil. If they were suffering or grieving, Jesus suffered along with them, and grieved alongside them. It creates an interesting situation when we find another Christian group rejected as “false” by such an egocentric group performing works such as Christ did, in spite of holding to secondary and tertiary teachings that are in error according to the judging Christian group that insists that it alone “has the truth.”

Ironically, when this is pointed out to such xenophobic groups that operate under the conviction that they alone are the real and true Christians, the group members are quick to point out the faults, rather than praising the Christlike actions of the group—as if these undermine the “weightier matters” such as “justice, mercy, and faithfulness,” as if the form of worship that God has decreed as “clean and undefiled” is not that at all. In effect, they set themselves up as judges of those belonging to Jesus as head of the Christian body of believers from whatever walk of life they come.

But it is clear that God is no respecter of persons. For Him, it comes down to this: “Okay, you say you’re a Christian. That’s a very serious confession. If you’re saying that you’re following Jesus’ example, then are you doing the works of my son?” And, with it, Jesus said the following:

. . .“Stop judging that YOU may not be judged; for with what judgment YOU are judging, YOU will be judged; and with the measure that YOU are measuring out, they will measure out to YOU. Why, then, do you look at the straw in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the rafter in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Allow me to extract the straw from your eye’; when, look! a rafter is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First extract the rafter from your own eye, and then you will see clearly how to extract the straw from your brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:1-5)

There should be no question that we don’t understand everything that we should, and the things that we think we understand we may very well be wrong in. Some Bible passages can be understood a multitude of ways, and yet all be true. Unfortunately, we let such matters divide us, cut us off one from another—even though the day will come when we will understand and we will be clear on such things, for as Paul says:

. . .For we have partial knowledge and we prophesy partially; but when that which is complete arrives, that which is partial will be done away with. When I was a babe, I used to speak as a babe, to think as a babe, to reason as a babe; but now that I have become a man, I have done away with the [traits] of a babe. For at present we see in hazy outline by means of a metal mirror, but then it will be face to face. At present I know partially, but then I shall know accurately even as I am accurately known. (1 Corinthians 13:9-12)

For that reason, emphasis must be on what one does with what they know, to as closely as possible emulate the example left by Jesus, and yet to try to grow on into maturity as well, becoming better acquainted with God so as to become better servants of the Most High. [For additional reading related to this, be sure to visit my Articles page and download "Who Are Christ's Brothers -- Examining Matthew 25:31-46"]

Not forsaking the gathering of ourselves together

The congregation is a provision provided by a loving Father. As such, we would never want to underestimate its capacity to be exactly what we need. If we are individual members of the body of Christ, each with a gift and a purpose that contributes to the whole, then why would we ever want to forsake that? We may not be aware of what our purpose is within that body—but you can be certain that Jehovah knows. But unless you make yourself available to Him, He can’t use you as a vessel.

By meeting together with those of like faith, we not only have an opportunity to worship God, but to also become an encouragement to others, to become aware of the needs of our brothers and sisters and see to it that those needs are provided for. We are refreshed beyond words when we meet with loving friends in the congregation—something that may be essential when we face daily struggles and challenges that wear us down. Likewise, we contribute ourselves to refreshing others. To listening, to sharing prayers, to assisting, to exchanging experiences that bolster faith, and to weep and share in the sorrow for those who are struggling or grieving or gravely ill.

Whether in a congregation setting or two or three meeting together, these things should take place as frequently as possible. There should never be an atmosphere that contributes to a loss of “freeness of speech,” as Paul described it.

This is not to say that in any given congregation, there won’t be issues. Some individuals will “rub” us the wrong way. We will be particularly “drawn” to others. The congregation is a family, and like any family, it has its own unique challenges and issues. More often than not, they present an opportunity for us to reach beyond our comfort zone, to reach out to those we might not otherwise do so—and as a result not only learn something about a person that we sought to avoid, but about ourselves as well. We are, after all, children of God—and brothers and sisters in a faith greater than ourselves.

At the same time, some find themselves unable to find a congregation with which they can associate with fellow believers. This presents a challenging situation, as we are a member without an immediate body—even though technically we are still a member of the body of Christ. For those who are in such a situation, make your petition known to God, and pray fervently about it. At the same time, follow-up your appeal by making yourself available to opportunity when it presents itself—and there is no question that it will present itself. You will likely be surprised at what happens—but be receptive. It may not be where God intends you to stay permanently, either. It might prove to be a temporary oasis that He is providing. Make the most of it, even in that case, and continue in your determined prayers. In time, you will find a body of believers with whom you will feel welcomed, cared for, and loved.

While this article does not address the setting where you currently attend a place of worship that you have always attended because of familial ties or upbringing, if you are in that group, you may still find the information below to be of interest.

Introduction

Deciding which church, synagogue, or other place of worship to attend and become a part of is certainly one of the more important decisions that you will make in your life. And yet, the number of available options can be utterly bewildering. There are so many churches to choose from, all teaching what seems to be just as many different things. You may find yourself asking, then, how it is that if they all claim to believe the Bible, to teach from it, then why so many different religions? Why isn’t there only one to choose from? They can’t all be right, can they?

When I first encountered Jehovah’s Witnesses, this was one of the arguments they made to me, actually: “They can’t all be right, so it is a matter of urgency that we determine which one is right, and then become a part of it.” To further illustrate their point, they refer back to there only being one ark, built by Noah—therefore, there is only one group or organization of believers that will be preserved through the coming flood of judgment.

To the uninitiated, this seems a powerfully logical argument. It makes sense. Just examine the teachings of all of the Christian groups, and whichever one has the right teachings is, by deduction, the “Noah’s ark” of our day. Problem solved. The Witness then engages in a Bible study using one of the publications of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society to help the prospective householder to see what is wrong with other Christian groups, and how Jehovah’s Witnesses have it right.

The problem with this approach is that the ending is already determined for the student. All they need to do is follow the argumentation as presented in the publication to its conclusion: Jehovah’s Witnesses “have the Truth,” to the exclusion of all other Christian groups. Unfortunately, the majority of people today want to exert themselves as minimally as possible, to save themselves the trouble of finding the answer, and therefore reach the “conclusion” that Jehovah’s Witnesses are right.

But, really, would Jehovah’s Witnesses use a publication that led a potential convert to the conclusion that Catholics “have the Truth”? Or that the Pentecostals do? Or the Mormons do? Obviously, they wouldn’t. So, this has to be taken into consideration as part of one’s determination as to which group really does “have the Truth.” It can be easy to “stack the deck” in order to get a person of little discernment to agree with you. After all, you are the one that predetermines the checklist by which other Christian groups fail, and your Christian group excels. As such, you would make sure that you didn’t note those areas where you failed in comparison to other Christian groups, now would you?

Most people recognize this as a form of propaganda, but again—most people are just looking for the easiest answer. They feel an emptiness in their life, a separation from God, and know that it will remain there until they can figure out first which church to go to, and then go on from there.

In writing this article, then, I will not be focusing on Jehovah’s Witnesses’ approach to proselytism, but rather on addressing why there are so many churches surrounding us today, and how we can figure out which one is the right one. I’ll also be addressing the purpose of the church, and what role it is supposed to have in our life. My hope is that approaching the subject from this angle, I can help shed light on an otherwise perplexing problem for so many today.

Why are there so many churches today?

One can’t help but notice the number of churches around today. Some cities have upwards of two dozen or even more different churches, all offering various religious services, all with their own congregants who attend and participate faithfully. Even in much smaller towns and villages, it is rare to find just one church or place of worship. Look in your local phone book’s yellow pages and marvel at the listings!

The first question one usually asks is, Why are there so many different churches?!

While I won’t bore you with all of the details, you need to know that it wasn’t always this way. By turning back the pages of history, we find that for some time after the death of the last of the apostles, there were numerous groups of Christians spread across the civilized world, all with a diversity as much like today that we have. However, during this time, there developed a growing authoritarian movement to centralize power over Christians, and to eliminate all competitors. Biblical scholars refer to this movement as neo-orthodoxy. The word “orthodox” actually comes to us from the Greek words ortho and doxa, which translates to “right opinion” or “right thinking.” The “right” opinion, of course, came from the men heading up the neo-orthodox movement, which also brought into existence heterodoxy. The term “heterodox” simply means “any opinions or doctrines at variance with the official or orthodox position.” Used in contrast to orthodoxy, it is synonymous with the term “unorthodox” and is even closely tied to the word, “heresy”.

As neo-orthodoxy gained a foothold in the Christian movement through often brutal means, the roots for Catholicism began to take shape. “Catholicism” means “universal,” so when someone says “the Catholic Church,” they are referring to the universal (one, all-inclusive) church.

And, as most readers know, this neo-orthodoxy, after finally becoming Catholicism, eventually became the state-sanctioned Roman Catholic Church. Too, most are very familiar with the brutality of that period in Christianity’s history as power over Christians continued to be further centralized and exerted over the masses under penalty of death. Even the “Holy” Crusades owes its horrific origins with Christianity during the heyday of Catholicism’s control over Christianity.

During those centuries, you only had one church to choose from. So, it was the complete opposite of what we see today. To be more clear: there was no choice during that period of Christian history. And, once the Roman Empire made Catholicism the state-sponsored religion, the empowerment of orthodoxy was complete. If you disagreed with the Roman Catholic Church, too bad. If you were found out, you very likely would face the loss of property ownership, employment, social status, and even death. You had no recourse. You were powerless.

That all changed when a man named Martin Luther took a stand against the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. The result of that confrontation led to the fracturing once more of Christianity, and Lutheranism was born.

Since then, Christianity has continued to fracture as people realize that they have it within themselves to disagree with the authorities of their given Christian affiliation, and to go off and form their own church. These splits or fractures came to be known as Protestantism, due to its “protest” nature.

Of course, I am vastly oversimplifying history, for brevity’s sake, and you, the reader, are more than welcome to research Christian history post-CE 1 (Common Era 1) in order to get a fuller idea of how things have developed. But the process happened like this:

Judaism → Jewish Christians → Gentile Christians (diverse) → neo-Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy → Catholicism → Roman Catholicism → Protestantism (starting with Lutheranism)

What I omitted was the division of Roman Catholicism into Eastern and Western Orthodoxy, but the point is that at first there was a great diversity within early Christianity as Gentiles were brought into the Christian movement, and then Catholicism centralized power and authority for itself until Protestantism. Today, we again see diversity in Christianity. This is meant to demonstrate why there are so many different churches today.

Having the freedom to arrive at a conclusion different from one’s church’s leader or leaders has been a hard-fought struggle. It used to mean death for the layperson. Now, it means that you can go looking for another church, or, perhaps, form your own. But, just as with any other freedom, it can be abused. Some go off to form groups or churches that become a cult of personality, where they attain their own following. Others successfully congregate and continue in their walk as Christians. And, still others, form their own Christian group, only to once again centralize power and authority over others—and censure or excommunicate anyone who in turn questions them.

But they can’t all be right!

If it’s perplexing to someone that there are so many Christian churches, then it is all the more so when you add into the mix the simplicity of this question: They can’t all be right, though, can they?

It’s a fair question. A reasonable one. However, it is also a question that has the potential to be misguiding.

First of all, how does one go about determine what is right and wrong? The answer, of course, is by turning to the Bible. But isn’t that what every church does? Don’t they use the Bible as their guide? In turn, they can probably show you where other churches are in error, thus justifying their own existence. Some even go so far as to insist that they alone are “the Truth” or that they alone “have the Truth” and that all of the other churches aren’t truly Christian (and therefore, are false).

Even so, such groups, when pressed, admit that they have been wrong in the past about certain teachings, but, they quickly add, they have since corrected them—adding that the ones that they were wrong in are of little consequence anyhow. Still, they show a remarkable reluctance to admit that there may still be teachings and views that they hold and preach that could, in time, be found to be in error. If asked whether a person is free to disagree with a particular teaching or view if they can provide scriptural grounds for said rejection of the “orthodoxical” view, they have to admit that the person is not free to do so, that one should not “lean upon” their own understanding, that the group’s teachings are determined by those in authority.

This last aspect seems to escape their notice: the eerie similarity to the centralization of power and authority that was held during Catholicism.

In examining such groups, one finds that anyone that arrives at a different conclusion from that of the group’s leaders is usually censured swiftly, and potentially excommunicated from the Christian group to the extent of being cut off from friends, relatives, and one’s own family except for the barest minimum of interaction. What is all the more remarkable is such ones, if the group later changes its “orthodox” view to that shared by the excommunicated individual, are not then welcomed back into the congregation unless they first repent of the sin of “running ahead” of the group’s leaders. The similarity bears an uncanny, unsettling resemblance to the stonings and burnings conducted by the Catholic church during its holding of power over Christians.

Within such a Christian group, it is costly to disagree with the “orthodox” views held by the group (as determined by the group’s leaders)—even if the individual’s own view is later discovered to be correct.

But for the majority of Christian groups, if you disagree with something being taught by that church, you usually seek out a different group that more closely resembles views you personally agree with.

This can create more problems than it solves. For one thing, we have a tendency to want to be able to do as much as we can without religion infringing on our lives. For that reason, there is a tendency on the part of some to seek out a church that allows for whatever indulgence we are partial to. This is as much the fault of the church as it is the individual.

Even so, let’s go back to the argument that all of these hundreds and thousands of different churches can’t all be right. Indulge this thought for a moment: Isn’t what you’re really saying this: there has to be one church out there that’s positively correct? After all, you have to admit that every Christian church out there is right to a certain extent.

By “right,” you are looking for what used to be called orthodox. And clearly, one cannot say that every single church is orthodox, especially when you take into consideration the fact that “orthodoxy” is determined by the individual group. Martin Luther found certain of the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings to be unorthodox, and broke off from Roman Catholicism. But then some found not only some of the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings to be unorthodox, but Martin Luther’s as well, and broke off from Lutheranism. And so has gone ever since.

And yet even today, after centuries of this process of splintering off, there remains not a single church that can declare itself the definitive, truest, accurate embodiment of Christianity. At best all they can hope for is to have a more accurate understanding than most. That is still a far distance from the implication behind saying that all these churches can’t all be “right.” Each and every one of them is going to be wrong about something at some point. The issue becomes, at that point, how they, as a Christian group respond to someone within the congregation pointing out a doctrinal or theological problem—and it is in this area that nearly every Christian group fails so miserably. If it was not so, then people would not leave off to go find another church or start their own.

Another facet of the question is what standards will be used to determine the “rightness” of a particular Christian group? I mentioned at the start of this subsection that every one of the Christian churches in your neighborhood looks to the Bible as their guide, and yet it is clear to the outsider that every one of the Christian churches believe differently.

But do they?

There are specific beliefs that are held in common among all Christian groups. These are core, fundamental views that you can find in every church. Some of these include, but most certainly are not limited to:

• The Bible is the Word of God;
• God alone is Supreme, and created Man;
• Jesus is the son of God, died as a perfect man, was resurrected and returned to heaven;
• Jesus, before returning to heaven, gave his followers the commission to go forth with the Good News, and baptize those that accepted that Good News;
• That the only means of salvation available is that of accepting Jesus as our Savior, repenting of our sins, and dedicating our life to the way of Christianity.

Very likely, you can put together a much better list of commonalities shared among all Christian churches—and you might even be surprised at just how much they have in common when it comes to Christianity. At the same time, if you make the effort to continue with your list-making, you’ll start to come up with things that are less and less common amongst the vast diversity of Christian groups, such as below:

• Trinitarian view
• Binitarian view
• Unitarian view
• Pre-Millenialists
• Post-Millenialists
• Preterists
• Futurists

Really, the list can go on and on. The point being that if you start with the common system of beliefs first listed above, you arrive at the core teachings of Christianity. Those are areas in which every Christian group, whether they are Catholic, Protestant, or whatever other denomination, are in full agreement and hold in common. It is these particular values or beliefs that form the orthodox view. Go past this point and you start getting into the variations, some of which include the second list above. And go past that and you start getting into the variations of those variations, and so on.

So when we say something like “Well, they can’t all be right,” the fact of the matter is: Yes, they can and are. At least in the core teachings. And aren’t those the most important?

What, then, about the areas where they aren’t all in agreement? Well, then we have moved past the core teachings of Christianity and have moved into sectarianism, which, simply put, is a division within Christianity caused by a difference of opinion or conclusion in regards to a given Bible passage. When there is no agreement, and division takes place, it is because both sides insist that they are right. But, as already shown, these are in matters that fall outside of the core body of teachings (that is, those held in common by all Christian groups). These secondary and tertiary views are given sufficient weight so as to cause division. In many cases, they become so important that they are assigned as “salvation” beliefs—where you must adopt a particular view in order to be found as a “true” Christian, or to have any sort of chance at salvation. They are not optional: they are mandated.

Yes, it is arguable that both sides can’t be right—that one of them is wrong. Even so, there are times when it is impossible to determine which side is right. And it is just as possible that they are both wrong. Or, both may be right from their own particular point of view. The point here being that unless the individuals discussing and debating the topic recognize that what is at stake falls outside of the core teachings, both sides of the argument will become entrenched and willfully divide the congregation over it—even going so far as to make the disputed argument suddenly a salvational issue, forcing others to choose sides. At the point of division, a given argument becomes part of the subsequently resulting group’s body of teachings, and is no longer a candidate for debate. It is how they differentiate themselves from the group of Christians that they parted ways with—some even going so far as to claim that they are the real or true Christians.

Does it matter what a church teaches, then?

Given the fact that all of the different churches in existence today hold as many different views, even though they share a common core set of beliefs, the next logical question we need to address is whether it matters, then, what a church teaches? Does it mean that we can pick any church whatsoever and it’ll be fine?

The fact is: this is exactly what most people do. They pick churches for convenience, for example. It’s just down the street. It’s within their own neighborhood. Within their own town.

Similarly, they select a church because they can go dressed as they want. Or because it focuses on singing, or plays, or focus groups.

There are as many reasons why people select certain churches as there are churches to choose from. There is a church for every flavor, one might say. So, no, for the majority of people it really doesn’t matter (much) what a church teaches, so long as it has fantastic social activities.

However, perhaps it does matter to you personally. If that is the case, then you need to take the time to figure out what beliefs you personally hold, and then look for a church that is most in agreement with your own beliefs. Or, if you aren’t sure what you believe, and you know very little about the Bible, then you can either take the time to get familiar with your Bible so as to become acquainted with Christianity, and then go looking for a church—or visit various churches in your area until you find one that is willing to help you to learn the Bible and that welcomes questions and examination. Regardless of the church you decide to go with, find out how they handle scriptural disagreements. Ask them about their core beliefs—those beliefs that they have in common with other churches, and how they handle the secondary beliefs that differentiate themselves from other Christian groups. If they are more insistent in talking about how different from all the other churches they are, rather than what they have in common, then consider that a red flag because they will hold the same view of you if you ever find yourself disagreeing with that group’s leaders or body of teachings.

If you are an individual who is fairly well-versed in what the Bible teaches, then it will be more difficult to select a church that suitably matches your own views because you have already established your own views and conclusions and would compare those of a potential Christian group to your own. As an example, I would find it next to impossible to affiliate myself with a Christian group that extols Trinitarianism, because my own examination of the Bible finds that particular doctrine lacking and therefore unacceptable to me personally.

It becomes even more difficult when you have left a Christian group that always insisted on rightness and “accurate knowledge” and “having the Truth.” Such groups have an overwhelming tendency to create judgmentalism in its members, such that you turn your nose up at all other groups, smugly convinced that your group alone “has the Truth” and is, therefore, the true Christians. Even after leaving, this mentality is not easily dispensed with. You will be critical of everything everyone else teaches—which is ironic, since such groups that instill this critical attitude also bar its members from exercising that same critical examination towards its own teachings and practices once an individual officially becomes a member of the group.

For some, yes, it is very important what a prospective church teaches. But we have to know our Bible well enough to have formed our own thoughts and conclusions if we’re going to be in a position to examine a Christian group’s teachings. It is not enough to allow a church to teach us they teach, and stop there. Human nature, such as it is, will put its best face forward, and you won’t find out until much later what lies behind that façade that is presented. That is why it is of utmost importance that you know beforehand how that particular group of Christians handles disagreements about secondary and tertiary doctrines. And expect them to minimize such things, implying that they are of little consequence, or rarely happen in their group.

Having said all of the above, it now behooves us to ask ourselves, “Well, what’s God’s view on this? Doesn’t it matter to Him what a church teaches while it’s claiming to be Christian?”

I will address that facet of the discussion, along with the remaining issues, in the next part of this article.

As the 2008 race for the presidency of the United States of America enters its final days before the actual election on November 4, the media covering the events have picked up on various catchwords such as “socialism” and “class warfare” from one campaign, and an appeal to appreciate the need to shoulder some of the financial burden when one has the means to do so. If anything, we are seeing a revisiting of the dilemma brought on by the Great Depression. During that stretch in American history, Franklin Delano Roosevelt instituted several governmental programs to try to salvage the economy and the social system of the country, and was accused by many as trying to introduce socialism into the American democracy.

Whatever it will be classified under by the historians, the result was that the people of the United States were pulled through a difficult time. Capitalism once again flourished, the economy rebounded nicely, as did patriotism and the drive for “the American dream.”

Now, some 70 years later, everyone is talking again. About a failing economy, about the signs of the reemergence of a worldwide Great Depression, of falling stocks and diminishing monetary systems. And, once again, one of the two aspiring presidential nominees is drawing attention to their solution to the contemporary issues facing the American people. Once again, opponents are crying “Socialism” and “class warfare” in response.

I’ve always marvelled at the theory of democracy, I admit. It’s probably because of the theory upon which it’s founded: a government by the people for the people. In theory, it sounds good. On paper, it sounds good. But there is an underlying problem which keeps getting overlooked by everyone, it seems. And so, the gospel of Democracy continues to be spread around the globe, oblivious to the reality.

Democracy has been promoted as the ideal form of government, because it is a consensual rule rather than an imposed one. Decisions are made by the majority, and they decide for their own selves which laws and regulations which they will be governed by. Leaders are elected to office to represent their constituents in the higher echelons of government and speak in behalf of those who elected them into office, and to work hard to defend the rights of the people.

But the reality is that Democracy is far less than we hoped it would be, far less than the theory would lead us to believe. It is the highest form of government, for a certainty, the ideal to which we as humans aspire precisely because it promotes freedom from government by allowing ourselves to be ruled only to the extent that we choose to be ruled.

But that’s the underlying issue, isn’t it? No matter how hard we try, we cannot escape the core problem that we were never meant to rule ourselves, just as we were never meant to rule and dominate one another. In that sense, Democracy, while the clearcut winner in the pool of human governments, is paradoxically also the epitome of failure in humankind’s ability to govern himself apart from his Creator. In that sense, I have every reason to believe that it is truly the final form of human government that we will see.

That’s not to say that we won’t see reversions back to earlier forms of governments and associated tyrannies. In fact, one school of thought is that there will be a new emergence of a fascist or dictatorial form of government that will bring with it a newfound Great Tribulation unlike the world has ever seen. Some have indicated that it is already emerging on the world scene, and that the latest financial catastrophe may in some way be connected with it. I, of course, have my own speculation on the matter and may address it in a future entry.

But come what may, one thing needs to be reiterated here: Democracy is not the answer. It never was, no matter how much we want to believe it is. No matter who wins the election here in the United States. It is doomed to failure because humankind simply does not have within itself the capacity to truly know the difference between good and evil with no regard to the Creator.

It is, after all, our answer to the suggestion which God put forth to Adam and Eve, who took it upon themselves to decide between what would be good and what would be bad. It was in the Garden of Eden that Democracy was born. It hasn’t really held up under actual practice, however.

When a people, such as the United States of America, agrees to pay $700 billion dollars in order to shore up corporations, banks, and big businesses rather than suffer through the inevitable consequences of fast living based on credit and consumerism, it reveals an ugly truth about ourselves. It reveals that in spite of what we claim and hide behind under the guise of Democracy, we are self-absorbed in our own self-interests, with little to no regard for others unless and until it infringes upon our comfort.

We could have tightened up our belts and strapped on our boots and pulled together with determination as we went through the fallout from our excessiveness and indulgences if we really believed in the dream of Democracy. But we didn’t. We bought into the fear instilled by politicians and financial experts and the media. We bought into the fear instilled by plummeting numbers on the Stock Market. We bought into the lies in order to continue to lie to ourselves that Democracy will work, and it won’t cost us anything–if we throw enough money at it. Once we do that, we’ll be able to go on feeding our indulgences, living on credit, consuming the goods, enjoying entertainment…

But it doesn’t appear to be working. Stocks continue to stagger in uncertainties, politicians continue to plead their case with us that they have the solutions which will save the lifestyles that we have become accustomed to, and all the while unemployment numbers are up, home foreclosures are up, and national morale is nearing an all-time low.

Yet we continue to hope that somehow, Democracy will pull through… if not for us, then for our children. If not for our children, then surely for their children.

Yes, we will continue to lie to ourselves and deny the truth. We will continue to refuse to become “our brother’s keeper.”

I mentioned earlier how we were oh so willing to pay out $700 billion in order to stave off the threats of another Great Depression, rather than admitting that we’ve lived far too long “high on the hog” and that for that there are consequences. We failed to accept our accountability as a people who like to go around promoting Democracy as the best form of government ever to exist, because we as a people would much rather take the good than the bad.

If ever someone was going to make a case for the validity of Democracy as a form of human government, it would have been when Wall Street was crying out for a bailout. We could have said, “No. This is the result of conscious decisions. There are consequences for those decisions, like it or not.” But we didn’t, because we were afraid of what it might cost us. It might have caused us to lose our creature comforts, our lifestyles.

We could have, experts have said, for the same amount of money that we gave to the profiteering conglomerates on Wall Street, stamped out hunger, poverty, and malnutrition worldwide. One such expert, Devinder Sharma, wrote:

The additional US $900 billion that the US has spent in the past one year could have pulled out the world’s estimated 2 billion poor from perpetual poverty and that too on a long-term sustainable basis. The US $700 billion bailout package that George Bush is promising could have wiped out the last traces of poverty, hunger, malnutrition and squalor from the face of the Earth. [Global Priority: Feeding Markets, Starving Hungry]

Clearly, we’re more interested in self-preservation than in living up to such a humble premise as demonstrating to the entire world that “I am my brother’s keeper. I will share what I have, that nobody might have to go without.” And to justify our indifference, we will continue to hail Democracy as the ideal, all the while proudly proclaiming the gospel of Democracy to the rest of the world, inviting them to be just like us.

It was within a year or two of that momentous event of my baptism that I described in the earlier entry that my young life was filled with an unimaginable turmoil. I say “unimaginable,” because to the mind of a seven and then eight-year-old child, some things are beyond comprehension. Some of the events I related in a separate work titled Welcome To MY World, but to bring context to this account I will repeat some of the details. The events that follow are etched in my memory and I only relate them here because they remain so clear to me as when they happened.

There was a neighbor boy who would constantly taunt and harangue me. Every chance he had, he would try to pick a fight with me, until one day he finally provoked me to the point that a fight ensued. I remember being held by his larger brothers so that he could beat on me mercilessly out in the front yard of the duplexes. I was pummeled pretty good that day, and when it was over I felt nothing but rage and hate. It was blinding, seething, pent-up yet boiling over. I picked up my bike that I had been pushed off from, turned to the boy and raged, “I hope you die!” and ran home before he could catch me.

That night, as I lay there feeling sorry for myself and hating the bully, I fell asleep and nearly immediately fell into a dream where I saw the boy riding along in a car with a man during the night. Suddenly, the car door opened and the boy fell from the vehicle and was killed as the man drove over him with the rear tire of the car. I remember waking up in a cold sweat, everything had been so intense during the dream. So real. And eventually, finally, I went off to sleep again.

The next morning, as I was about to go outdoors, my mother told me to leave the neighbors alone, to stay away from them. I asked why and she told me that there had been an accident and something bad happened. She said that the boy had gone to visit with his father for the weekend, and had fallen from the car and was killed. I remember my initial response, coming from the mind of a frustrated, angry eight-year-old boy, “Good!” But that glee was soon replaced by dread after the initial shock of the announcement set in. I remembered going to sleep that night wishing that he’d die. I wanted him to die so much. Had I caused his death by the sheer extent of hate and rage that I had?

I wish I could say that an eight-year-old child could answer those questions, but I couldn’t. To this day, I sometimes wonder whether I didn’t play some part in the tragedy that befell him. I am left wondering what really happens when we allow our darker emotions overpower us to the point where our will becomes steeped in primal barbarism and instinct. Nearly everyone I’ve ever told this to has told me that it wasn’t my fault, that it was a coincidence. And I want to believe them, I really do. But there remains that part of me that can’t help but think that in some way, I did play a role, even if it was peripherally. The family of the boy certainly held me responsible. They had nothing but spite and disdain for me after that day, remembering what had happened to me, what I had said to him, and what had happened. But they never bothered me again after that day, either.

It wouldn’t be the only time that I was given to dreams that eventually “came true,” either. They seemed to come at regular intervals in those days following my baptism, plateau during my teenage years, resume from age 17 onward, and then diminish to irregular occurrences since my early 30’s. Today, they are fairly irregular, but no less intense and fear-inspiring.

On another occasion around that period in my life, my mother tried to commit suicide.

It was on a night that she sent me and my brothers off to bed earlier than usual. Maybe it was something in her tone or her voice, but whatever it was, I remember lying there in bed afraid. I kept wanting to go check on her. One time, I actually did. She was lying on the couch, no blankets or anything. I asked her if she was okay, and she told me to get back to bed, which I reluctantly did.

I don’t remember how much time passed, but I went back out to check on her and George, the man that she had been dating, was there. He was shaking her, trying to wake her up. I asked him if she was okay and he told me that she was “playing possum.” Somehow, I knew it was more serious than that. The next thing that I remember is riding in the station wagon in the thick of night, my brothers and I still in our pajamas, George driving really fast, and mom asleep at his side. It wasn’t until many years later that I would learn that she had tried to overdose on sleeping pills.

See, my mother had recently divorced my father. Our place in Lake Odessa was what she had managed to get as a single mother with three boys after the initial separation from my father. Most of it was kept from us boys, of course, but there clearly was angst and distress going on with my mother. Apparently, enough to drive her to the cliff of despair and willing her over the ledge. But we were young, and we didn’t understand all of that stuff. We just knew that on various weekends, dad would come visit us, and the rest of the time he didn’t.

In any event, that suicide attempt was only the beginning of the turmoil which would consume my home.

Actually, maybe I had been more aware of it than I was consciously aware of. My brothers and I took to loving to be outside. For me, bike riding was an escape. It was a sense of adventure and independence and soaring around the world at breakneck speeds. At least in the mind of an 8-year-old it seemed like that. Back then, the world was so big, and the possibilities endless.

As I would ride my bike up and down the sidewalk of Second Avenue there in Lake Odessa, I would see an older gentleman every weekend carry from his house armfuls of boxes. He would then bring out several tables and pull the contents of the boxes and place them on the tables. There was oodles of stuff, all of it priced. Every weekend he would do this, and every weekend people would stop and buy from his array of items. At one point, I finally allowed my curiosity to get the better of me, and I stopped to see what he had. And I kept doing that for a couple weekends, and each weekend he’d talk to me and ask me if there was anything that I saw that I liked. And of course there was! There was a treasure trove of memorabilia–at least in the mind of a young boy. But I always had to tell him the same thing, I had no money.

One weekend, he asked if I’d help him. I could carry out the boxes for him while he set things up on the tables. In exchange, he’d pay me and then I’d have some money to get whatever it was that seemed to catch my eye every time I stopped by. Of course, I readily agreed. He told me to make sure it was okay with my mom, to get her permission.

So, I raced home to ask. My mom seemed awfully reluctant when I told her about the man, but she finally relented after much Please mom! and other boyish pleadings, but only after she made it clear that I was to come right home afterwards. That was enough of an answer for me, and I profusely told her Thank You Thank You and raced back to let the man know.

And so it began, my weekend adventures in yard saling. The first few times I was absolutely awestruck by the number of boxes that he had stacked there in his bedroom all along the wall. I had never seen so many boxes. I would find out during one of our conversations that he went to auctions all of his free time, and would then try to sell the items in his yard sale to the locals, for the extra money. He seemed to do really well, too.

He was my first real adult friend. I admired him. He was the most kindest-hearted person I had ever met. In many ways, he became a father figure to me in the absence of my own father. Like my dad, I could only see him on the weekends because he worked the rest of the week. But in many ways, he seemed so lonely, too. He seemed to enjoy my company, and he tolerated my endless chatter in ways that my mother didn’t seem to have the patience for.

My mother still expressed her disapproval of my ongoing associating with “that man” but never stopped me from going over there. Nor did she ever tell me why it was such a worry for her. For me, there didn’t seem to be anything wrong, apart from the man’s loneliness, as he lived alone. And even then, there were sometimes weekends when he had a much older kid stay over on a Friday or Saturday. The term I’d use nowadays would be that the older kid (early 20’s?) crashed there. In spite of that, I always got the impression that the older kid was not liked by the man, who’s name was Bill. But for whatever reason, he tolerated letting Randy (the older kid) stay there from time to time.

The most exciting times for me then were when I rode along with Bill to the auction sales. I had never been to bazaars and auction sales before, and they were a whirlwind of activity and bustling people and a cacophony of voices above the stir. People would gather around a man standing on a platform and raise their hand in beat to his cries, it seemed. Afterwards, I’d help Bill load his purchases into the car and we’d take it all back home to store for the following weekend’s yard sale.

It was only after doing that for the entire summer that I finally managed to get my mom to let me stay at Bill’s for a night. The deal was, I’d help him with his yard sale the entire day, and at nightfall, I’d help him carry it all back in and help him count his money. Afterwards, he’d feed me dinner, we’d watch tv, and then it was time for sleep. In my mind it was an exciting new adventure. As always, my mom expressed her reservations and I wore her down with my typical boyhood reassurances.

The one thing I remember most about Bill’s house is the absolute quietness of it. There was none of the chaos that I was used to at my home. It was smaller than my house, about half the size. A small kitchen, a sitting room with a television, a bathroom, and the bedroom with no closet. The only closet was the one out in the pseudo-hallway that led to the bedroom and bathroom, off from the sitting room.

I wasn’t always allowed to stay the nights at Bill’s, though. I’d sleep on the sofa when I did. Occasionally, Randy would show up and ask if he could stay a night or two, and Bill would reluctantly but graciously allow him to. I found myself liking Randy less and less over time. He’d tease Bill and berate him in ways that reminded me of when that neighborhood bully would taunt me unceasingly. But I enjoyed my time with Bill, as well. So I put up with Randy so that I could see Bill every chance I got.

But something would happen shortly afterward that would change all of that, and forever change me, as well.