CHRISTIANITY: A HISTORY

hivizman

Coming up tonight (Sunday 22 February), Professor Colin Blakemore will be discussing the relationship between Christianity and science. He suggests that science is "one gene away" from finding out why people are religious. Highlights of the programme include an interview with Richard Dawkins.

Fanny Cradock

hivizman wrote: »

Coming up tonight (Sunday 22 February), Professor Colin Blakemore will be discussing the relationship between Christianity and science. He suggests that science is "one gene away" from finding out why people are religious. Highlights of the programme include an interview with Richard Dawkins.

Sounds interesting. Though reading the episode blurb it sounds as if the death of religion is a forgone conclusion and he has the sympathetic interviewees to back him up.

Mickeroo

hivizman wrote: »

Coming up tonight (Sunday 22 February), Professor Colin Blakemore will be discussing the relationship between Christianity and science. He suggests that science is "one gene away" from finding out why people are religious. Highlights of the programme include an interview with Richard Dawkins.

where and when is this on?

hivizman

Channel 4, 7PM tonight (Sunday 22 Feb). The previous episodes are available at:

http://www.channel4.com/video/brandless-catchup.jsp?vodBrand=christianity-a-history

The current episode will be there as well, probably later this evening.

ckristo2

Hi Wolfsbane,
thanks for your reply. I'm a bit puzzled though. Paul was a Jew, he worshipped in the temple in Jerusalem Acts 21:27. And he was indeed trying to preach a religion that did not place much importance on the two "Twin Pillars" of Jewish identity: Circumcision and the dietary laws. He says that there was effectively no difference between Jew and Gentile Romans 10:12 so shouldn't he have been delighted that Peter was eating with Gentiles and so taking on board Paul's teaching. However one of the agreements that Paul and his fellow missionary Barnabas had with James the leader of the so called Jerusalem church was that Paul would preach among the Gentiles and that the Jerusalem church members (One of whom was Peter) should preach among the Jews. So you can imagine Paul's surprise (to put it mildly) when he sees Peter sitting among Antioch's Gentile community eating non-Kosher food. And he seemed to be doing so without the knowledge (let alone permission) of the other members of the Jerusalem Church, James and John. All Hell broke loose so Paul says in Galatians 2:12. At least that is my understanding of the events. All the best.

JimiTime

Very lightweight episode. Alot of rhetoric, not much substance IMO.

hivizman

JimiTime wrote: »

Very lightweight episode. Alot of rhetoric, not much substance IMO.

I agree. I liked the scientist-priest in the Vatican who stressed that the Bible is not the direct word of God ("we're not Muslims!" ) but rather how humans inspired by God have recorded things. But a lot of the programme was fairly predictable. Still, the producers of the series didn't, despite my fears, blow their travel budget on Kwame Kwei-Armah last week - Blakemore managed to get to Poland, Italy, Switzerland and the USA this week, as well as various parts of Oxford.

I caught up with the Rageh Omaar programme on the Crusades, which was number four in the series, earlier today. A much more satisfying programme, although it had some echoes of the recent BBC documentary After Rome by Boris Johnson, which also had a segment on the Crusades. Perhaps this should not be surprising, because both programmes had as an advisor Professor Jonathan Phillips, who is Professor of Crusading History (great title ) at Royal Holloway, University of London.

Let's hope that Cherie Blair next week is at least provocative.

Nodin

hivizman wrote: »

Let's hope that Cherie Blair next week is at least provocative.

I was going to attempt that one, but an hour of her sanctimony (that would appear to include a wee chat with Mrs Bush) would be too much for me to take.

darjeeling

hivizman wrote: »

I agree. I liked the scientist-priest in the Vatican who stressed that the Bible is not the direct word of God ("we're not Muslims!" ) but rather how humans inspired by God have recorded things. But a lot of the programme was fairly predictable.

I thought it wasn't bad in as far as it went, but it was a fairly textbook run through the science vs religion battles, pointing up all the familiar names and dates.

What I thought interesting was the contrast between the American creation scientist from Kentucky and the Church of England priest who pretty much discounted all the supernatural elements of Christianity. Both ostensibly shared the same religion, but they took such different messages from it - one seeing the Bible as a sort of Haynes manual for the world, and the other as a guide to leading a good life; fertile ground for another program, perhaps.

I kept missing the voice of ordinary worshippers down the centuries too - how much importance they placed on their Churches' teaching on the natural world, and how scientific developments affected their faith.

The series over all hasn't been bad, though each episode really has been too short to allow much detail, and I think a couple of the presenters have gone a little far in trying to force their own agenda onto the history. Still, it's been a good overview of how institutional Christianity adapted as it gained and wielded power, and how it's reacting in the West to its present declining authority.
.

wolfsbane

ckristo2 said:

Hi Wolfsbane,
thanks for your reply. I'm a bit puzzled though. Paul was a Jew, he worshipped in the temple in Jerusalem Acts 21:27. And he was indeed trying to preach a religion that did not place much importance on the two "Twin Pillars" of Jewish identity: Circumcision and the dietary laws. He says that there was effectively no difference between Jew and Gentile Romans 10:12 so shouldn't he have been delighted that Peter was eating with Gentiles and so taking on board Paul's teaching.

Indeed he should - and he was.

However one of the agreements that Paul and his fellow missionary Barnabas had with James the leader of the so called Jerusalem church was that Paul would preach among the Gentiles and that the Jerusalem church members (One of whom was Peter) should preach among the Jews.

Yes.

So you can imagine Paul's surprise (to put it mildly) when he sees Peter sitting among Antioch's Gentile community eating non-Kosher food. And he seemed to be doing so without the knowledge (let alone permission) of the other members of the Jerusalem Church, James and John. All Hell broke loose so Paul says in Galatians 2:12. At least that is my understanding of the events.

This is where you misunderstood. The mighty row was not about Peter eating with the Gentiles, but stopping eating with them in fear of what the visiting Jerusalem brethren might say. Peter's action implied he believed there was a difference between the Gentile and Jewish Christians. Peter did not believe this, so Paul rightly accused him of playing the hypocrite.

As to the division of labour between Paul and the other apostles, it was a general but not exclusive thing. Peter was mainly to go to the Jews, Paul to the Gentiles - but Peter was the first to evangelize Gentiles, and Paul always preached to the Jews first in every place he went.

All the best.

And you too, my friend.

ckristo2

Hi Wolfsbane,
thanks for your reply to my message. I'm still a bit puzzled why Paul rounded on Peter as related in Galatian 2:11. Paul who wrote the letter says that James, Peter and John- whom Paul calls the "Leaders" (presumably the leaders of the church of Christ in Jerusalem)- recognised that he Paul had been given the task of preaching to the Gentiles and that God had by the same token given Peter the task of preaching the gospel among the Jews.
Later on at the same meeting Paul writes that an agreement was made that Paul and his fellow missionary Barnabas should preach among the gentiles and "they" (presumably the leaders of the "Jerusalem church) would preach among the Jews.
So when Peter comes to Antioch and was eating with the gentiles what was Paul's reaction? "Great you've decided to come over to my side and ignore the differences between Jews and Genties" as Paul himself wrote in 2 Collossians 3:11.
No his first reaction is "What about our agreement"? And worse he was doing a "solo run" without the permission of James and John.
It seems to me that Paul was mad with Peter for breach of an agreement that Paul held to be very important.
I suppose that one can interpret scripture any way one wishes but with the letters of Paul we have less room for interpretation he writes in good Koine Greek in a very direct style and the letters we have from him are almost certainly from his hand. What he says is what he means.
He was not a team player and pretty much said what he thought regardless if it conflicted with the vews of Jesus' own brother and the rest of the discples.
Well that's what I take from it. All the best John.

wolfsbane

ckristo2 wrote: »

Hi Wolfsbane,
thanks for your reply to my message. I'm still a bit puzzled why Paul rounded on Peter as related in Galatian 2:11. Paul who wrote the letter says that James, Peter and John- whom Paul calls the "Leaders" (presumably the leaders of the church of Christ in Jerusalem)- recognised that he Paul had been given the task of preaching to the Gentiles and that God had by the same token given Peter the task of preaching the gospel among the Jews.
Later on at the same meeting Paul writes that an agreement was made that Paul and his fellow missionary Barnabas should preach among the gentiles and "they" (presumably the leaders of the "Jerusalem church) would preach among the Jews.
So when Peter comes to Antioch and was eating with the gentiles what was Paul's reaction? "Great you've decided to come over to my side and ignore the differences between Jews and Genties" as Paul himself wrote in 2 Collossians 3:11.
No his first reaction is "What about our agreement"? And worse he was doing a "solo run" without the permission of James and John.
It seems to me that Paul was mad with Peter for breach of an agreement that Paul held to be very important.
I suppose that one can interpret scripture any way one wishes but with the letters of Paul we have less room for interpretation he writes in good Koine Greek in a very direct style and the letters we have from him are almost certainly from his hand. What he says is what he means.
He was not a team player and pretty much said what he thought regardless if it conflicted with the vews of Jesus' own brother and the rest of the discples.
Well that's what I take from it. All the best John.

John this statement is entirely in your imagination: No his first reaction is "What about our agreement"? And worse he was doing a "solo run" without the permission of James and John.
It seems to me that Paul was mad with Peter for breach of an agreement that Paul held to be very important.

Here's what Paul actually says:
Galatians 2:11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Peter refusing to eat with the Gentiles was the cause of Paul's anger, not him eating with them.

hivizman

The last programme in the series Christianity: A History earlier tonight, with Cherie Blair looking at Christianity at the start of the 21st century. A strange programme, I thought. She seemed to have two main themes. The first was that the Roman Catholic Church needed to give women a more central role (though what that might be wasn't explored very far). The other theme was that the Christian Church in more general terms needed to become more like the "megachurches" that seem to be springing up across the USA. She featured one such megachurch near Chicago that looked like a cross between a shopping mall and an airport terminal, with an auditorium seating 7,000 people (apparently it's the largest theatre in the USA).

I don't know whether I'm being fair to her, but I came away with a message that Christianity in the West has been declining since the 1960s because of the attractions of a consumer society, so the way to bring Christianity back is to make it more like that consumer society. So if people aren't going to church on Sundays because the shopping mall is more attractive, make the church more like a shopping mall. Cherie Blair stressed that the megachurches have become successful (measured in terms of "footfall" - how many people visit each week) by applying modern management techniques. As use of these techniques by banks may well be a major contributor to the current economic situation, does it really make sense to transfer them over to religion?

philologos

I found it interesting that as a congregant of probably the most traditional and institutionalised church in the world that she thought that the church had to modernise as it had done in the USA.

I don't agree with her that this has to happen in Europe. It is happening though and I've seen one of the newer type of Evangelical churches here although on a smaller scale was still quite impressive.

What I do agree with however is that to keep the faith alive, we will have to make it relevant again. Teaching from the Gospel and how one can practically apply it to their lives is imperative. What else was interesting was the discussion she had with Laura Bush about the misrepresentation the media had of George Bush and Tony Blair "praying together" amongst other things.

Fanny Cradock

That sounds quite bizarre. If anything I would have thought such a direction would be one to avoid. Mirroring that which you feel in undercutting your principals seems rather self defeating.

These mega churches have always appeared to me to be chiefly concerned with profit, and not with ushering in the Kingdom.

Nodin

hivizman wrote: »

The other theme was that the Christian Church in more general terms needed to become more like the "megachurches" that seem to be springing up across the USA.

Good to see shes keeping 'spiritual values' to the fore.

Rather ironic that shes seeking examples from an area where they often preach both creationism and the most crude forms of social darwinism from the same pulpit. Neither of the Blairs seem to have a well tuned hypocrisy meter though, so I suppose it was to be expected.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

These mega churches have always appeared to me to be chiefly concerned with profit,

...and of course theres demagogery and a large 'cult of personality' attached to the whole thing too.

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

Rather ironic that shes seeking examples from an area where they often preach both creationism and the most crude forms of social darwinism from the same pulpit. Neither of the Blairs seem to have a well tuned hypocrisy meter though, so I suppose it was to be expected.

Well, I think this is a bit harsh and is generalising a lot, not all American Christians are as you have described.

ckristo2

Hi Wolfsbane,
I can see we're never going to see eye to eye on this one. I still find a little confusion surrounding the event which probably really happened in Galatians. It is clear that Paul was indeed angry with Peter but it is not clear why. If Paul was happy to see Peter eating with the Gentiles he probably would have said so. Next when Peter stopped eating with the Gentiles on the arrival of James or some of his companions wouldn't Paul's reaction have been to say to Peter "Have courage do not be afraid of James, live the courage of your convictions and go back to the Gentiles I'll support you." Instead he nearly takes the head off him. My interpretation was because it was because Peter broke a promise he made (With James and the other Jerusalem Church leaders) to more or less stay away from the Gentiles but I may be wrong, it's just what I draw from it. We will probably never know the real relationship between Paul and Peter but these guys were hard men, they had to be and that's was why I originally compared them to the Sopranos. They certainly knew how to stand up for themselves. Anyway It's probably time to close this debate and say adieu. All the best. John

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

These mega churches have always appeared to me to be chiefly concerned with profit, and not with ushering in the Kingdom.

A mega-church is simply a large church (it used to be defined as a church with a weekly attendance of more than 1000, but they are two-a-penny nowadays so now a mega-church is technically a church that averages more than 2000 weekly - an example of inflation in action!).

I've preached in many such churches, and I know a large number of pastors of such churches, and I find they are no more concerned with making a profit than small churches - often less so.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

Well, I think this is a bit harsh and is generalising a lot, not all American Christians are as you have described.

Note the caveat -

where they often

hivizman

PDN wrote: »

A mega-church is simply a large church (it used to be defined as a church with a weekly attendance of more than 1000, but they are two-a-penny nowadays so now a mega-church is technically a church that averages more than 2000 weekly - an example of inflation in action!).

I've preached in many such churches, and I know a large number of pastors of such churches, and I find they are no more concerned with making a profit than small churches - often less so.

Yes, indeed - dangers of over-generalisation!

On the issue of the use of modern management techniques, two points. The impression I got from Cherie Blair's programme was that she was suggesting that "modern management techniques" such as marketing and efficient adminstration were enough in themselves to help reverse the decline in church attendance in recent years. In this, I may be unfair to Mrs Blair. The other point is that there has recently been quite a bit of research into the use of accounting (as an example of a "management technique") in religious organisations. This research shows two things: in some organisations, the accounting is subservient to the spiritual objectives of the organisation - it remains a tool that assists the organisation in fulfilling its primary objectives. However, in a few organisations, the accounting seems to take over, until the researchers get the impression that the organisation's objectives are being measured in accounting rather than religious terms.

Having been to jam-packed services with over 2,000 people crammed into a medieval cathedral, I've no problems with large congregations (and how many people were there when Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount?), and at least the megachurch that Cherie Blair showed looked comfortable.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

A mega-church is simply a large church (it used to be defined as a church with a weekly attendance of more than 1000, but they are two-a-penny nowadays so now a mega-church is technically a church that averages more than 2000 weekly - an example of inflation in action!).

I've preached in many such churches, and I know a large number of pastors of such churches, and I find they are no more concerned with making a profit than small churches - often less so.

It's a fair point. I guess I have this prejudice that when things become bigger that they automatically become more corrupt.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's a fair point. I guess I have this prejudice that when things become bigger that they automatically become more corrupt.

I feel the same but take it to beyond the symptom. Its peoples desire to be lead, and other peoples desire to lead that makes for the corruption scenario IMO. Nodin mentioned 'the cult of personality'. That to me is the issue. Some people like to leave their thinking etc, in the hands of another, and there are some people who like to have this power. Its why I hate this whole Creed stuff.
'I believe in the risen Christ, and I promise to be honest'. There's your creed right there.

Nodin

It has to be said that the whole "megachurch" thing is loosely defined. Theres a difference between a large well attended church, and a church thats packing in 5,000-10,000 with its own branded goods, channel, gym etc as part of the membership.

darjeeling

hivizman wrote: »

The last programme in the series Christianity: A History earlier tonight, with Cherie Blair looking at Christianity at the start of the 21st century. A strange programme, I thought. She seemed to have two main themes. The first was that the Roman Catholic Church needed to give women a more central role (though what that might be wasn't explored very far). The other theme was that the Christian Church in more general terms needed to become more like the "megachurches" that seem to be springing up across the USA. She featured one such megachurch near Chicago that looked like a cross between a shopping mall and an airport terminal, with an auditorium seating 7,000 people (apparently it's the largest theatre in the USA).

I don't know whether I'm being fair to her, but I came away with a message that Christianity in the West has been declining since the 1960s because of the attractions of a consumer society, so the way to bring Christianity back is to make it more like that consumer society. So if people aren't going to church on Sundays because the shopping mall is more attractive, make the church more like a shopping mall. Cherie Blair stressed that the megachurches have become successful (measured in terms of "footfall" - how many people visit each week) by applying modern management techniques. As use of these techniques by banks may well be a major contributor to the current economic situation, does it really make sense to transfer them over to religion?

Cherie Blair was really giving a campaign presentation here. Her case was that Christianity must be in tune with how people live and must agitate for social justice in the here and now.

The programme maintained that the historic churches of Western Europe had failed to respond to social change and had institutionalised inequality, particularly in the way they treated women. As a vision of where the religion should be going, Cherie Blair chose a couple of large churches in Chicago, one of America's biggest and most cosmopolitan cities. These churches, we were told, rejected ceremonial formality and fully welcomed everyone regardless of gender, race or sexuality. They set aside denominational argument and attempts to pin down the supernatural and unknowable, and instead preached a message of urgent social activism to heal the world's ills, beginning in the local community. As a non-Christian, these are the aspects of religion that I like, and that I think will be missed if religion continues to decline and secular institutions fail to take up the baton.

Fanny Cradock

darjeeling wrote: »

and talk of the supernatural and unknowable

Doesn't sound very much like a church.

darjeeling

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Doesn't sound very much like a church.

I'm overstating it, and trying to be concise. Still, this was an element of the programme, even if I suspect Cherie Blair and the programme makers went to some pains to put this slant on their message. We were told that there were no images of crosses in the mega-church they visited. Cherie Blair also said that there was very little mention of ultimate heaven or hell, and that the preaching was centred on the present moment. Of course there was an emphasis on God, but we saw no attention to the finer points of the supernatural cosmos and creation that are dwelt on in more literalist churches.

ScumLord

I liked the idea of the mega-churches as described by Blair, I've always thought the Catholic church has become everything Jesus wanted to change in the Jewish faith.

But I don't like the idea of people just deciding that they'll worship this way or that and make up their own rules. The established churches are either right or wrong. How can people be expected to make the right decision about second hand knowledge, 2000 years after the fact?

I have no problems with Christianity as long as it's based on Jesus the man. You can't be expected to understand the man when your looking into space waiting for your imagination to come up with something that sounds good in your head.

philologos

ScumLord wrote: »

I have no problems with Christianity as long as it's based on Jesus the man. You can't be expected to understand the man when your looking into space waiting for your imagination to come up with something that sounds good in your head.

What's so wrong with Christianity being centred around Jesus the Son of God as in the Biblical text? Just interested taking into account your emphasis on Jesus the man rather than Jesus the Son of God. Although I may have taken it out of context.

wolfsbane

hivizman wrote: »

The last programme in the series Christianity: A History earlier tonight, with Cherie Blair looking at Christianity at the start of the 21st century. A strange programme, I thought. She seemed to have two main themes. The first was that the Roman Catholic Church needed to give women a more central role (though what that might be wasn't explored very far). The other theme was that the Christian Church in more general terms needed to become more like the "megachurches" that seem to be springing up across the USA. She featured one such megachurch near Chicago that looked like a cross between a shopping mall and an airport terminal, with an auditorium seating 7,000 people (apparently it's the largest theatre in the USA).

I don't know whether I'm being fair to her, but I came away with a message that Christianity in the West has been declining since the 1960s because of the attractions of a consumer society, so the way to bring Christianity back is to make it more like that consumer society. So if people aren't going to church on Sundays because the shopping mall is more attractive, make the church more like a shopping mall. Cherie Blair stressed that the megachurches have become successful (measured in terms of "footfall" - how many people visit each week) by applying modern management techniques. As use of these techniques by banks may well be a major contributor to the current economic situation, does it really make sense to transfer them over to religion?

Yes, you have indentified well the mentality of the mega-church movement.

Numbers is the game, so 'seeker-friendly' means a down playing of anything that would put off a sinner. Everyone likes the idea of living a more honourable life and so going to a better place when one dies. But the idea that we are sinners heading for hell if we do not repent and trust ourselves entirely to God - that is not so comfortable. Add to that the idea that sex must be confined to heterosexual marriage. The Christianity of the Bible definitely needs updating if we are to please man.

The difficulty for the movement is that it does not really satisfy the spiritual need of man. Just as casual sex leaves one empty of true love, so humanistic religion cannot deal with our separation from God. After a while the discontent becomes too much and the seeker goes off elsewhere in search of a fix. Only Christ can give them true peace in their heart. And He does it on His terms, not the sinner's:
Luke 14:25 Now great multitudes went with Him. And He turned and said to them, 26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. 27 And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.