The Church Judas Built
A Commentary on the Sabbath School Lesson for March 1-7, 2008, “Discipleship Under Pressure”
Judas returns the silver coins
The Atheist Manifesto, by French philosopher Michel Onfray, is just one of the half-dozen major atheist books of the last few years.1
Part of his project is the “deconstruction of Christianity,” among other monotheisms, which Onfray faults for the arrogance of “men claiming to be repositories and interpreters of God’s word—the priestly castes”; for
the hatred of intelligence, which monotheists reject in favor of submission and obedience; hatred of life coupled with a passionate and unshakable obsession with death; hatred of the here and now, consistently undervalued in favor of a beyond…; hatred of the corruptible body, disparaged in every aspect, while the soul.… eternal, immortal, divine—is invested with all the higher qualities…; and finally hatred of women.…[and their replacement by] the Angel, a bloodless archetype, in preference to real women.” (59)
Seventh-day Adventists are more into reconstruction than deconstruction of Christianity, but we would largely see Onfray’s point. We reject self-serving hierarchies of interpretation and theological hegemonies in favor of the priesthood of all believers (Exod. 19:6; 1 Pet. 2:9). We believe in the application of individual intelligence to diligent biblical study and scientific endeavor (Acts 17:10–11; Deut. 29:29), and in dialogue among equals. We want to give intelligent obedience to a God who always promotes human freedom and dignity, allowing the believer to stand tall in any company.
We reject the neo-Platonic dualism that would value the disembodied soul more highly than the body, seeing in Scripture a wholism of body and spirit (2 Cor. 7:1), and a goodness of the physical creation. We believe we will ultimately inhabit not a Platonic heaven but a new earth, a bodily pleasurable existence (Isa. 65:17–25). We believe Christ came to bring life abundant, beginning in the here and now. We feel called to honor God in our bodies. We believe that we are saved due to what God did in a body—living, shedding blood, resurrecting in a glorious body similar to the one we will be given (Phil. 3:21). Our health institutions care for bodies, male and female, as Jesus did.
We’d probably say that Onfray was not rejecting the Christianity lived and taught by Jesus, but a corruption of it by the Church. In debate, we’d concede many of his criticisms of Christianity, but say, “Now can we talk about Jesus?”
So far, so good—at least in theory. (How well these noble ideals are integrated with our daily lives may be another question.)
We’d even point out that the early church’s acceptance of the administrative paradigm of the Roman empire was a large part of the reason it corrupted into the church of the Dark Ages. A self-serving culture distorts the ideas of the gospel. Jesus saw this coming, and tried to prevent it: “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves” (Luke 22:25–26).
But hierarchical leadership seemed natural—it was part of the culture, easily absorbed by the church. And so love and esteem from God and the gospel service of others were replaced by carnal human desire for power and esteem from others. The result? The destructive hierarchies of the Dark Ages, crushing all in their path. The Spanish Inquisition. The Massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Day. Onfray and other bestselling atheists marshal this history as evidence against God’s very existence.
Yet the Dark Ages church revealed less of God than of the disciples run feral. It was like brash, young John, willing to call down fire (or, if God would not send fire, at least the church controlled armies)–totally of the wrong spirit and not knowing it (Luke 9:54–56). It was like Judas, starting arguments about who was the greatest and manipulating until he held the money bag. It showed the carnal human spirit writ large.
Paul even prophetically applied the Judas label to the corrupted church he foresaw. As Jesus in prayer called Judas “the son of destruction” (“the one headed for destruction,” John 17:12 NLT), so Paul, in the only other biblical use of that expression, predicted that the defected church would eventually produce “the son of destruction,” a self-made hierarch also called “the man of lawlessness” (2 Thess. 2:3) because he would even attempt to change God’s laws (Dan. 7:25). What does this “son of destruction” do? He “opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or is worshipped,” and “takes his seat in the temple of God—the church—even finally “displaying himself that he is God” (2 Thess. 2:4).
That prophecy fits church history, and predicts similar behaviors and beliefs just before Christ’s second coming (2 Thess. 2:8), but aiming it at others can be a little too convenient and smug. A more challenging question might be: are those attitudes in me?
Am I about exalting myself and downing others, Judas-style (John 12:3–8)?
Do I ever try to sit where God should sit, sovereign of my own life, setting my own commandments, bending others to my will?
Is my claim to membership of the remnant tinged with elitism, with subtle superiority over others? Or do I feel a humble gratitude for a remnancy by grace alone (Rom. 11:5)? Do I show genuine love and concern for people of other religions and of no religion?
In an age where multinationals define the culture, how does the management style of my church differ from any other corporation? Have churches absorbed secular corporate values—the hierarchicalism, the widening salary gaps based on position, the inequalities based on country of origin, the power games, the job titles for personal worth (Matt. 23:8), the driven workaholism that starves family life, the numerical measures of success? We must apply marketing and management insights in gospel work, but reject many of their underlying motives and assumptions. Judas would have climbed the corporate ladder better than most.
Jesus washed Judas’ feet. Do I also need a regular attitudinal clean-up?
Paul, after describing the church Judas built, directs his readers to the gospel that shows God’s love, tells them they’re God’s chosen, gives them God’s salvation, God’s sanctifying Spirit, God’s truth, God’s grace, and God-given hope (2 Thess. 2:13–17). It’s all from God. Had Judas humbly accepted that–rather than an achievement-based righteousness that was constantly competitive–what might he have done with all that talent? What legacy might he have left to his family, the church, and the world.
Who’s going to demonstrate–and speak–the gospel to Michel Onfray?
Notes and References
1. Michel Onfray, The Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism and Islam (first published as Traite d’Athéologie, Editions Grasset and Fasquelle, 2005) (Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2007).
Grenville Kent is lecturer in Old Testament and Cultural apologetics at Wesley Theological College, in Sydney, Australia. He is working on a book and documentary series on the existence of God.
Search
Recent Comments
- Alexander Carpenter on Southern's School of Religion Hosts Own Panel on Homosexuality
- Michael on Southern's School of Religion Hosts Own Panel on Homosexuality
- Concerned Southern Student on Southern's School of Religion Hosts Own Panel on Homosexuality
- Beth on Southern's School of Religion Hosts Own Panel on Homosexuality
- Alexander Carpenter on Film Club Discussion on The Power of Forgiveness
- TrudyJ on Testament: A Fictional Look at Jesus
- Stephen Eyer on Film Club Discussion on The Power of Forgiveness
- pat travis on Southern's School of Religion Hosts Own Panel on Homosexuality
- My Brother's Gay on Southern's School of Religion Hosts Own Panel on Homosexuality
- pat travis on Southern's School of Religion Hosts Own Panel on Homosexuality
User login
© Copyright 2008 Adventist Forums 
Comments
The disciples run feral--what a great description, Grenville. We tend to think that a wild and crazy guy is kind of fun. Certainly gets a lot of laughs. So we can forgive him/her, or ourselves because yes, we do have our prejudices but, hey, who doesn't. Organizational prejudices and hierarchies seem to be another thing altogether. We are much more judgmental of them. But judgmental all the same and we feel good about it. Thank you for asking us to first examine our own hierarchies before we jump to the easy critique of the structures around us. We are the church. If it needs to change, the change probably should begin with me addressing my own prejudices which probably are inside the church. Can I love the crazies among us? That love one another assignment that Jesus gave sounds easy, but has challenged people of all time, including me. And then, can I forgive the church? Jesus does ask a lot. . . .
I'm not sure I do see Onfray's point. It strikes me that he is a sort of mirror image of the religious fundamentalism that he rails against. Maybe he has been staring into the abyss so long that it now stares out of him!
I'm one Adventist that would certainly not agree with Onfray's assessment of Church history. Too shrill and absolute! And not nearly deep enough. A theist is in a much better position to offer a truly devastating attack on the history of religion.
I'm not sure the New Testament is even comprehensible apart from a platonic/neo-platonic philosophical background. It's too easy to pit the bible against neo-platonic philosophy when in reality the issue is much more complex than that. I'm currently reading Franz Delitzsch, A System of Biblical Psychology, which includes a very thorough philological study of "body" "soul" and "spirit." I'm finding it harder now to say an unqualified "No" to Plato.
Grenville,
Very helpful and provocative stuff. Let the word go forth: just by reading these commentaries, a teacher can jack up the quality of the Sabbath School discussion by...a lot.
The quarterly takes us to the episode (recorded in John) where the people TRY to make Jesus king and he refuses. In an age when right-leaning Christians (in the USA) want more direct political influence for the church, this episode is instructive--and could be the basis for questions like:
1) Why did Jesus refuse the offer?
2) Over the centuries, how did the Christian church show itself to be in tune, or not, with the spirit of this episode?
3) How ought Adventists to understand their relationship to political power, in the US or anywhere else?
4) How does the correction relationship contribute to the betterment of humanity?
Chuck,
You state, " In an age when right-leaning Christians (in the USA) want more direct political influence for the church, this episode is instructive."
Chuck, look "Left" my friend. You've been looking to the religious "right" for your strawman so long you may be run over by that big truck coming down the road from the "progressive" side of religion. Heard of Wallis, Sider, Campolo?
I asked you once before, when it's the "right" seeking influence it is wrong...how is it that if it is the religious left it is miraculously sanctified because they are "caring?"
It was the "historical criticism left" that eagerly joined Hitler's program says Susan Heschel.
Beware excess from "left or right"
pat
Grenville--
What happened to the guitar-sling guy in jeans who used to rock out with the Aussie teens?
Cliff
Pat,
Criticism accepted. Partly.
The "left" I identify with is the Anabaptist left. Modern interpreters of the Radical Reformation position would say, I think, that seeking influence is fine; even election to office is fine....IF you remain fully loyal to Christ of the New Testament.
But the church right (in the USA) routinely takes it for granted that following Jesus and identifying with American patriotism go together.
Consider (the very likeable) Mike Huckabee. He's a former pastor and a still-committed Christian--who would have happily accepted a job as the commander in chief of the United States military.
None of what I say is meant to be anti-US talk. It would be equally wrong for a Christian to be commander-in-chief of the Swedish military, or the Chinese military, just as it was wrong, decades ago, for Evangelical German Christians to line up behind the Nazi drive toward empire.
Nor do I mean to suggest that the US, or Sweden, or China, is exactly comparable to Nazi Germany. I mean to make one point: Christians (of the New Testament type) do not wage war as the world does, but take every thought "captive to Christ" (2 Cor 10:3-5). And it is precisely (Christ-like) weakness that, in the end, nullifies the regime of this world (1 Cor 1:26-28; cf. 2;6).
Chuck
Chuck,
I have appreciated reading your two thoughtful posts.
As an observer living north of the 49th parallel, I totally agree with your observation that the church right routinely takes it for granted that following Jesus and identifying with American patriotism go together. I might add that included in that, seems to be the given that those people are also Republican.
It is curious to watch that a multitude of uncouthed behaviours, policies, and agendas can somehow be legitimized in the name of patriotism and Christianity.
Are there Christians other than the New Testament type?
Randy
Chuck,
Thanks for your reply.
I am curious if you think a pastor could be the head of a local police force or Sheriff's dept?
pat
PS. Also, Is it wrong for a Christian to be patriotic?
One evening, a few years ago during Christmas season, my wife and I took a walk into Pelham, N.Y., a suburb of the city. We were enjoying the lights, the decorations, and the shop windows that had been prepared for the holidays. We happened to stop in front of one window to admire the manger scene. Immediately, our eyes were drawn to the center, where amidst the magi, the shepherds, the animals, and Mary and Joseph, we saw the figure of the baby Jesus wrapped up in an American flag. It gave both of us the chills.
Unfortunately, it seems that it is the political/evangelical right that identifies Jesus with baseball, hot-dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet more than any other political constituency out there today. Oh yes, and Jesus identifies with the Republicans and "family values." This is where I hear the rhetoric coming from, almost exclusively.
Potentially toxic stuff...
Frank
Frank,
I don't necessarily disagree with that observation. How much is it really "conservative christianity" and how much is "folklore."
On the opposite side if there is a time when one can "not buy or sell", I suggest that is likely associated with a form of "totalitarian" government. That seems anathema to the "religious conservative" while not necessarily bad to the religious "progressive" perhaps to facilitate social needs.
History shows dangers on both sides!
When comparing the political "influence" of "left" and "right", I think Greg Boyd's (The Myth of a Christian Nation) distinction between "power over" and "power under" is helpful—and definitely more helpful that a left/right distinction. As Christians, we should be socially and politically active to to lift up and speak up for the oppressed, marginalised and voiceless. But when it comes to exercising "power over"—imposing our beliefs on others and in the process restricting their beliefs—we have gone too far. As a prophetic voice, Christians should speak up. But we should not be speaking down.
Hi Nathan,
I live in the US. I have lived and visited in poor countries around the world. My wife was from a poor family in the Philippines.
As far as the US is concerned my wife is amused by those who say they are poor and oppresed and margininalized here. Yes there are always those who are disabled or have fallen on hard times but your classification of "lift up" is difficult here to appreciate.
As far as "power over" what law or program is not imposing a belief system of some kind over another? That are laws also that require personal responsibility and accountability in society that may be viewed by some as "power over" yet they help create an orderly society.
I guess one must look at the country they are in and evaluate these concepts as they best relate to their society and act upon them both in the private sphere and as one sees appropriate in the civil sphere.
Hi Pat,
Maybe the distinction can be made by looking at the 'two tablets' of the Law. If government is enacting laws that speak to and place boundaries and restrictions upon social relations (the 'second tablet'), that is necessary. Without this, no society can function. 'Power over' is necessary, even though the extent mat be debated.
But, if government enacts laws that impinge upon one's freedom of worship, or that mandate a certain type of religious expression, that is dangerous. This is a horizontal power attempting to legislate the vertical. This is an organ trying to exert power over the power it is under.
The results have been seen over and over again...
Frank
Frank,
I agree 100%. That was Roger Williams position in R.I.
I suggest that the socio-political economic views of the religious "left and right" in todays society are primarily in regards to the last six.
Traditionally the R. "right" has focused on behavior as far as government/politics whereas the R. "left" has focused on a "social gospel" position for lack of a better term.
My question is,"Why is either of these less a violation of separation of church and state." They seem to be both in regards to our nuanced understanding of the last 6 to me.
Often the views are simply a different economic philosophy rather than actually being a defined economic system for today from scripture...which in actuality, I suggest does not exist.
We may try to interpolate modern applications from the OT economic principles but they will break down due to the fact that was a land based economy with the 7 and 50 yr. release applied to that system to preserve the land for future generations.
There was not "redistribution of earned wealth" but the return of the land so as to have the ability to create wealth.
Some biblical principles for today...yes. A "system"... no.
Today we live in a highly defined "division of labor" economy which is despite it's good concepts and production outcomes a breeding ground for continual tension. It is what it is. It does allow for many personal free choices of "relative value."
There is no system like the OT today. So quite often, I suggest economically "power up" is a relative term evaluated on an individual case by case basis.
Mercy...yes. Demanding "Justice" except by laws applying equally to all...hard to get a handle on. Equal laws...yes, but hard to expect equal outcomes.
The way I see it.
pat
Pat,
I agree with much of what you say.
The one difference that I would see between the R. right and left that you have not pointed out, is the right's predeliction for focusing on the establishment of worship forms, and the re-Christianizing of the nation. This is done through pushing for the re-establishment of prayer and Bible reading in schools, the fight for the right of a federal judge to display the ten commandments in the entrance to his courthouse under the guise of religious liberty, the ruckus over the religious qualifications of political candidates (ie Mitt Romney)...etc. Militant voices from the right like the late Dr. D. James Kennedy (one scary dude!), are at the forefront of this agenda, and to a great degree shape their politics around this.
Also, their foreign policy stance towards Israel and their corresponding lobby on this issue is somewhat driven by their 'biblically apocalyptic' view of Israel. And it has had to have had it's political effect; they have been the Republican base for more than a generation.
This is more than simply a social agenda fueled from the moral vision of the 'second tablet.' This is a religious majority that given the time and room, has been making a serious run at imposing it's 'Christian vision' on the minority and on all dissenters. Issues of worship have been part of their program.
I just do not see the same type of rhetoric nor power play coming from the religious left. Thankfully, the up and coming generation of evangelicals have been moving away from this hard line. We'll see what the future holds...
Did anyone say Rev. 13-14?
Frank
Two point, quickly. (Great conversation, by the way!)
1) Yes okay to be patriotic--but in a way compatible with the New Testament. Jesus Christ trumps the flag, period.
2) Is the prophetic vision (it was a land-based economy, etc.)applicable today? Yes, with the necessary changes. What remains is this: WE are to be voices for the vulnerable. WE are to do something to improve their lots, their chances, their education.
Another excellent reason to be a Humanist (without the secular adjective). Jesus was certainly a Humanist in the best sense: people were more important than religious rules, especially the civil enforcement of them.
Elaine,
Yes, humanism as practiced by Jesus is the highest expression of what humanism could be. But Jesus practiced a humanism always in reference to God, and towards people he viewed as created in the image of God.
But humanism in the more contemporary sense of the term often has little to do with the view that Jesus held. It has in its most extreme and godless expressions, led to societal systems such as totalitarian forms of Communism...a system under which my wife grew up in Romania.
The cruelty and tolerance expressed under these purely humanistic systems in one century(ie USSR, China, Cuba,etc.) and the number of lives that were lost in purges and pogroms, exceeds, at least in numbers, the lives lost under all previously recorded religiously motivated persecutions combined.The problem isn't with God or Jesus or belief in such, it's with us. Recent history over the last century has shown that we are just as or even more capable of inhumane cruelty apart from the name of God than in it.
Lennon's 'Imagine' is a beautiful song, a humanist anthem, but it's message is a misguided fairy tale.
Frank
Check that... I meant cruelty and intolerance...
Frank
Interesting discussion folks.
In contrasting the Christian right and left, I highly recommend Pastor Dan's just-posted interview and review of E. J. Dionne's book Souled Out.
Dan quotes from the book:
http://www.streetprophets.com/storyonly/2008/3/10/12394/9286
Loved the Dionne quotations.
However, to blame humanism for the faults of Communism and China today, is no less than blaming the deaths from all Christian wars in the past. Neither represents the highest ideals of either beliefs.
The best forms of both Christianity and Humanism embraces human freedoms and rights and equalities, except the first is rooted in one's belief in Deity, the latter in the belief that all humans have inalienable rights. What are the differences in actual practice?
Alex,
Loved the quote.
Thanks,
Frank
Frank,
I did not agree with James Kennedy's approach...now deceased. Nor all of Falwell's (now deceased) comments nor prayer in public "tax funded " schools. Not sure they got the Alabama case right myself regarding the 10 commandments.
Israel was placed back in Israel not by the religious right but the UN ratification. Does Israel not deserve a homeland as about the only "democracy" in the middle east? I suggest most Americans nor many conservative Christians are mental allies to Israel because of prospects of "the rebuilding of the Temple."
Was the Sunday law of EGW's day a product of the Christian Rt?
No...they did not exist. It was the "mainline churches."
But...I appreciate your views and still say...also watch the "left." I appreciate your view on secular humanism and the havoc that has also caused. Is that the "religious right?"
I suggest it is much more in line with todays religious left.
-------
Chuck,
I agree on #1. The German "liberal church" also had "Christ in the Nazi Flag" in priciple.
I agree on # 2... But can you source a text for me that infers the church is to be involved with the state in doing it any more than the church being involved in other types of "general behavior castigated as the religious rt?"
Alex,
Good quote both the "left and right" would do well to take it's advice...It's a bit like the Peter Berger quote I have mentioned before. Is the faith "politics" or "the faith?"
Elaine,
Thanks for your acknowlegement of the warts of humanism...Exactly the reason we need to be aware of the dangers of left and right political excess.
PS. Was it Judas that said "This money could have been used to help the poor?"...just wanted to stay on topic.
Thanks to all
pat
This may or may not be pertinent to this discussion, but it sure impressed me today while listening to NPR:
Yo-Yo-Ma's Essay on Music, "This I Believe." (substitute religion for culture, to experience what I believe).
"I believe in the infinite variety of human expression.
I grew up in three cultures: I was born in Paris, my parents were from China and I was brought up mostly in America. When I was young, this was very confusing: everyone said that their culture was best, but I knew they couldn't all be right.
I felt that there was an expectation that I would choose to be Chinese or French or American. For many years I bounced among the three, trying on each but never being wholly comfortable. I hoped I wouldn't have to choose, but I didn't know what that meant and how exactly to "not choose."
However, the process of trying on each culture taught me something. As I struggled to belong, I came to understand what made each one unique. At that point, I realized that I didn't need to choose one culture to the exclusion of another, but instead I could choose from all three.
The values I selected would become part of who I was, but no one culture needed to win. I could honor the cultural depth and longevity of my Chinese heritage, while feeling just as passionate about the deep artistic traditions of the French and the American commitment to opportunity and the future.
So, rather than settling on any one of the cultures in which I grew up, I now choose to explore many more cultures and find elements to love in each. Every day I make an effort to go toward what I don't understand. This wandering leads to the accidental learning that continually shapes my life.
As I work in music today, I try to implement this idea — that the music I play, like me, doesn't belong to only one culture. In recent years, I have explored many musical traditions.
Along the way, I have met musicians who share a belief in the creative power that exists at the intersection of cultures. These musicians have generously become my guides to their traditions. Thanks to them and their music I have found new meaning in my own music making.
It is extraordinary the way people, music and cultures develop. The paths and experiences that guide them are unpredictable. Shaped by our families, neighborhoods, cultures and countries, each of us ultimately goes through this process of incorporating what we learn with who we are and who we seek to become. As we struggle to find our individual voices, I believe we must look beyond the voice we've been assigned, and find our place among the tones and timbre of human expression."
Music, as religion, represents the cultures of the people and countries where they developed. Too little knowledge of any but our own (naturally "superior") doesn't allow us to experience the wealth of religious experiences of many cultures. Christianity, as the largest religion, borrowed concepts from previous ones, and in turn, later ones borrowed from Christianitiy.
Democracies are interesting because the government is us. This makes our distinguishing between what belongs to God and Caesar less clear than it was for the New Testament church. Rendering unto Caesar includes not only our taxes but also our vote.
Paying our taxes is surely a moral event but voting goes beyond that responsibility and tests our Christian decision making. I like to think of voting as an event that lets you choose on which side of the Beatitudes you stand- with woe or blessing. When we vote we choose to express our solidarity with or indifference to the poor and oppressed, widows, orphans and illegal aliens within our gates.
I know that some theology has the Kingdom of God as a reality we can fulfill here and now. This is seen not only in the base communities of Latin America but the shining city upon a hill of Ronald Reagan.
The good news gospel is Jesus Christ- an eschatological hope, but this hope cannot but affect how we live in the here and now. Confusing our Christian responsibility as citizens with the notion that we can or should build a Christian state are two different but seemingly difficult to differentiate goals.
I would agree with Chuck that the key is not which reality we are involved in (as we live in both and are called by Christ to give the state our responsible participation) but rather which is the flag we pin on our lapel.
Johnny,
How quick it seems objections to "separation of church and state" disappears when the church feels it can accomplish some of it's work through the purse strings of government.
That's my point.
pat
And how subjective, and how much of a crapshoot is voting for the most Christian compatible candidate.
Christians of various stripes will stand with candidates on different sides of the aisle based on sincerely held moral beliefs.
Adventists, who were throwing their support behind the temperance movement, a political issue in the late 19th c., found segments of that movement with which they had allied themselves turning around to support blue laws.
Is our political invoplvement sometimes over-rated as a means to live out our vision of the kingdom? Just a thought...
Frank
Post new comment