Modern Christianity - About God or Man?
Ξ March 7th, 2007 | → 1 Comments | ∇ Doctrine, Christian Living |
Recently, William and Mary College came to a “compromise” with students and alumni and put a cross back up in a prominent place (though not on the altar where it had been for many years before the decision came to remove it altogether). You can find the story here : http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257138,00.html. And while I don’t think much about having crosses on altars or anywhere, really, I couldn’t help but be struck by the message that it sent. Certainly, such a scene might be a replay of something done in the days of Cromwell when Roman Catholic idolatry was still an issue and “popish baubles” replaced the true articles of faith. But today, while the church is being stripped of imagery, there is a very different reason for it. The edifice is coming down and it is showing a corrupt, naked, poor body that bears little resemblance to the church that is the true Bride of Christ. Those doing the stripping are not zealous followers of Jesus Christ, but rather men against the very idea of absolute truth.
When a college named William and Mary (very prominent royalty of history - also Protestant) makes a decision to remove a cross because it “sends a message that the chapel belongs more fully to some of us than others”, how is true Christianity not torn down? How is it NOT that the state has controlled Christianity to the point that it all but denies its viability and acceptability as a rule of faith? How has the state not made a law respecting religion?
The statement made by the college president is very revealing. In a “christian college”, in a “christian chapel”, the message that is not tolerated is “the chapel belongs more fully to some of us than others”. Surely there is little proof needed that something drastic has happened to elevate some twisted idea of selective tolerance above the idea that there is right and there is wrong. Where the state had originally limited itself to not making any laws respecting religion, the people have accepted that to mean that there is no mixture of faith and politics. From there, we have seen any evidence of true faith - mainly the predominating faith of the early years of this country - being separated from anything that has any connection whatsoever to the state. From schools to offices to public sidewalks, that has been extended to anyone who pays taxes. This has meant a “trickledown” of atheistic state policies becoming ingrained in the minds of the people. In essence, the values of the state have become paramount because everyone has something to do with the state every day - regardless of their religious beliefs. And since there cannot be a void, either the values of the state or the values of the religion have to win out. There can not be neutral territory. It is either one or the other. If not, then the situation is hopeless - nihilism will have set in and anarchy becomes the only rule (every man for himself).
So what has happened? The state could not limit itself to things of its jurisdiction - criminal and civil proceedings, taxes etc… And in a country where the founding is based upon a recognition of God-given rights and God-mandated government, the only reason for eliminating religion from anything state-related is that a coup has occurred. The state has risen up and defied those things that were set in place - not merely by the founding fathers, but ultimately by God Himself. The State has said “no” to God and men have been forced to choose between one or the other - instead of serving the state which recognizes the operation of God, as was intended. We have, then, a state religion. It is true. There may not be any explicit law stating it straight out (not de jure) but it has been done covertly, so as to undermine the spirit of the existing framework (i.e. de facto). The constitution hasn’t changed, but it sits on someone else’s throne. Man’s. That’s why this president did what he did. He has agreed to the state religion - man as God.
What difference is there between taking a cross from a chapel because it implies ownership or identification with a specific belief (and not all share that belief) than taking a flag from a nation because that flag implies ownership by a specific country with a specific set of rules and specific set of core values? Even though many may walk on its soil, there is a recognition that it only belongs to those who become citizens - agree to adhere to the laws of the land. Instead of land, this was a christian chapel. Instead of a flag, this was a cross. Erosion of national Sovereignty, as seen by that parallel, is an earmark of the replacement of God with man. It was the religion of Rome, the religion of Russia and it is the religion of today. All three in very different forms, but all saying the same thing - no to God. Rome, granted, recognized transcendence - but they placed a man (notice that 666 is the number of A man) in that place. Russia removed the transcendence of a single man and placed the state there. Now, we have a state religion that places all men on the same plane - all men are God/all is God.
The college president reflects the values of many in society at large. But what about the professing church today? I only have one thought for now as this is a massive topic covering a whole host of doctrinal issues. On a more general level, the church at large has taken on several faces - emerging, seeker-friendly, and even mystical.
The merging (emergent) church replaces theology with philosophy - the study of God with the study of man’s ideas about God. Man’s understanding is the measure.
The mystical church seeks “new ways” to approach God and “new ways” to have an encounter or spiritual experience. How has anything changed? There is still only one way to God and those that seek an experience do not seek God. Those that seek God will have an experience, but one which they themselves would never have sought or chosen. The difference is immense. Man’s emotions are the measure.
The seeker-sensitive church looks to attract people into the church. In the end, the program and teaching are driven by people’s wants and their standards instead of scripture’s. Man’s desires are the measure.
These are just broad labels. It can’t be said necessarily that one church is only seeker-sensitive, but it can be said that churches are characterized by their approach. When the eyes aren’t on the Lord, His Word and His standards, what comes in is a replacement - often subtle enough to lead many astray. The world can’t be expected to do much different than it is - unfortunately, when the church looks a lot like the world, everyone’s in trouble.
