Yesterday the pastor started off his sermon on Acts 15 along the same lines as the blog I wrote the other day. He spoke of the Jerusalem Council and how councils decided matters of doctrine (at least for the first 3 or 4 centuries). But then he stopped and switched gears. Go on, go on, I wanted to say. Tell us how we got from the fourth century ecumenical councils to this small storefront church. But he did not. He spoke of false doctrine and false teachers without ever making the connection from how they did things then to how they do things now and why it is we have this problem.
I have noticed that when Protestants discuss church history, they like to dwell on the first four centuries then zoom right to the Reformation, as if nothing happened in the thousand or so years in between. Did the church stop holding teaching councils? No. Was the Holy Spirit still guiding it? You be the judge. I find it ironic and more than a little sad that while I, a former Catholic, can name most of the major and minor players of the Reformation, I daresay that very few Protestants can name any of the figures of the Counter-Reformation, or even know that there was a Counter-Reformation. How many have heard of the Council of Trent, which was the defining council of the Counter-Reformation? Or what Vatican I was about and when? You see, Catholicism has always been guided by church councils. One of the reasons that it does not put as much emphasis on the Bible as do Protestants is that for the first three or four centuries there was no Bible as we know it. The church was guided by councils much like in Acts 15.
To put this in modern-day perspective, it would be as if the United States government just now got around to writing a Constitution in 2011 after having won its independence back in 1776. But you aren't going to hear much about that in most Bible-based churches.
If people from these churches are going to evangelize successfully, they need to know these things. They can't make assumptions about their audience, what that audience knows or doesn't know. I don't know how many times I have heard distorted sermons about what Catholics believe, what Jews believe, what atheists believe, what evolutionists believe and so forth. If you can't be bothered to find out what exactly these people do and don't believe, you are wasting everyone's time. Because you won't come across as credible. Meanwhile I just sit and bite my tongue and inwardly wince when I hear something that I know isn't true. There was a time perhaps (pre-Internet) when you more or less had to take what you heard from the pulpit without checking it out; those days are over.
Well, after he dispensed with that little bit of history then his sermon took a very shocking turn. The reason why the council met in Jerusalem was to decide whether the newly-converted Gentiles had to follow Jewish law or not, because there were unauthorized people going around saying they did. The council decided that all the Gentiles need do is follow the few simple laws given to Noah after the flood, which, according to Judaism, apply to the whole world. (It has always been an understanding in Judaism that the Mosaic Law applies only to Jews.) If you are a Gentile and you follow these laws, you will be saved according to the Jewish understanding of the term.
But, according to him, if you are a Christian, you don't have to follow any laws! That's right, not even the Ten Commandments! The church is not about laws and rules and regulations, it's about a relationship with Christ and God. Well, if that is the sort of thing Paul was preaching back then, it is no wonder he ran into the opposition he did; and most of his letters deal with cleaning up messes created by that very doctrine, especially in Corinth where there was "sexual immorality of a kind not even the pagans commit." (Actually, to tell the truth, the situation in Corinth was rather tame by today's standards; a man was living with his father's wife. Yawn!) Plus, it simply isn't true. I daresay that if I started flaunting my Darwinism and a few other heresies I would be taken aside rather quickly and shown the error of my ways.
Maybe it's the Aspie in me, but I rather prefer a "legalistic" church where it is all spelled out. Then I can decide whether or not to break the rules. But when there are supposedly "no" rules . . . There are always rules. You just don't know what they are until after you break them. But we on the spectrum know all about that, don't we.
I have noticed that when Protestants discuss church history, they like to dwell on the first four centuries then zoom right to the Reformation, as if nothing happened in the thousand or so years in between. Did the church stop holding teaching councils? No. Was the Holy Spirit still guiding it? You be the judge. I find it ironic and more than a little sad that while I, a former Catholic, can name most of the major and minor players of the Reformation, I daresay that very few Protestants can name any of the figures of the Counter-Reformation, or even know that there was a Counter-Reformation. How many have heard of the Council of Trent, which was the defining council of the Counter-Reformation? Or what Vatican I was about and when? You see, Catholicism has always been guided by church councils. One of the reasons that it does not put as much emphasis on the Bible as do Protestants is that for the first three or four centuries there was no Bible as we know it. The church was guided by councils much like in Acts 15.
To put this in modern-day perspective, it would be as if the United States government just now got around to writing a Constitution in 2011 after having won its independence back in 1776. But you aren't going to hear much about that in most Bible-based churches.
If people from these churches are going to evangelize successfully, they need to know these things. They can't make assumptions about their audience, what that audience knows or doesn't know. I don't know how many times I have heard distorted sermons about what Catholics believe, what Jews believe, what atheists believe, what evolutionists believe and so forth. If you can't be bothered to find out what exactly these people do and don't believe, you are wasting everyone's time. Because you won't come across as credible. Meanwhile I just sit and bite my tongue and inwardly wince when I hear something that I know isn't true. There was a time perhaps (pre-Internet) when you more or less had to take what you heard from the pulpit without checking it out; those days are over.
Well, after he dispensed with that little bit of history then his sermon took a very shocking turn. The reason why the council met in Jerusalem was to decide whether the newly-converted Gentiles had to follow Jewish law or not, because there were unauthorized people going around saying they did. The council decided that all the Gentiles need do is follow the few simple laws given to Noah after the flood, which, according to Judaism, apply to the whole world. (It has always been an understanding in Judaism that the Mosaic Law applies only to Jews.) If you are a Gentile and you follow these laws, you will be saved according to the Jewish understanding of the term.
But, according to him, if you are a Christian, you don't have to follow any laws! That's right, not even the Ten Commandments! The church is not about laws and rules and regulations, it's about a relationship with Christ and God. Well, if that is the sort of thing Paul was preaching back then, it is no wonder he ran into the opposition he did; and most of his letters deal with cleaning up messes created by that very doctrine, especially in Corinth where there was "sexual immorality of a kind not even the pagans commit." (Actually, to tell the truth, the situation in Corinth was rather tame by today's standards; a man was living with his father's wife. Yawn!) Plus, it simply isn't true. I daresay that if I started flaunting my Darwinism and a few other heresies I would be taken aside rather quickly and shown the error of my ways.
Maybe it's the Aspie in me, but I rather prefer a "legalistic" church where it is all spelled out. Then I can decide whether or not to break the rules. But when there are supposedly "no" rules . . . There are always rules. You just don't know what they are until after you break them. But we on the spectrum know all about that, don't we.
