What the hell happened to Christianity?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

CNN Commentary: Bakker, Brown: What the hell happened to Christianity?

By Jay Bakker and Marc Brown
Special to CNN

Editor's note: Jay Bakker, son of former Praise The Lord leaders Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye Messner, is minister of Revolution Church and subject of a new documentary series, "One Punk Under God," on Sundance Channel. Marc Brown is a Revolution staff member.


NEW YORK (CNN) -- What the hell happened? Where did we go wrong? How was Christianity co-opted by a political party? Why are Christians supporting laws that force others to live by their standards? The answers to these questions are integral to the survival of Christianity.

While the current state of Christianity might seem normal and business-as-usual to some, most see through the judgment and hypocrisy that has permeated the church for so long. People witness this and say to themselves, "Why would I want to be a part of that?" They are turned off by Christians and eventually, to Christianity altogether. We can't even count the number of times someone has given us a weird stare or completely brushed us off when they discover we work for a church. (Watch how self-proclaimed punk preacher Jay Bakker has found his own niche in the Christian community Video)

So when did the focus of Christianity shift from the unconditional love and acceptance preached by Christ to the hate and condemnation spewed forth by certain groups today? Some say it was during the rise of Conservative Christianity in the early 1980s with political action groups like the Moral Majority. Others say it goes way back to the 300s, when Rome's Christian Emperor Constantine initiated a set of laws limiting the rights of Roman non-Christians. Regardless of the origin, one thing is crystal clear: It's not what Jesus stood for.

His parables and lessons were focused on love and forgiveness, a message of "come as you are, not as you should be." The bulk of his time was spent preaching about helping the poor and those who are unable to help themselves. At the very least, Christians should be counted on to lend a helping hand to the poor and others in need.

This brings us to the big issues of American Christianity: Abortion and gay marriage. These two highly debatable topics will not be going away anytime soon. Obviously, the discussion centers around whether they are right or wrong, but is the screaming really necessary? After years of witnessing the dark side of religion, Marc and I think not.

Christians should be able to look past their differences and agree to disagree. This allows people to discuss issues with respect for one another. Christians are called to love others just as they are, without an agenda. Only then will Christianity see a return to its roots: Loving God with all of your heart and loving your neighbor as yourself.

The Apostle Paul describes this idea of love beautifully in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7: "Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. It does not demand its own way. It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of being wronged. It does not rejoice about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance."

But don't take our word for it; look at what Jesus and his followers stood for in his time and what Christianity stands for today. Then come to your own conclusion.

[LadyTevar]

You should have posted this in Knights Astrum Clades as well, Einy.

[salm]

I guess the obvious question is: what the hell happened to Punk?

[Darth Mordius]

So when did the focus of Christianity shift from the unconditional love and acceptance preached by Christ to the hate and condemnation spewed forth by certain groups today?

I'd say about 34 ad.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

So when did the focus of Christianity shift from the unconditional love and acceptance preached by Christ to the hate and condemnation spewed forth by certain groups today?

I'd say about 34 ad.

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk. Thank you for that content-free +1 post. If one wants a serious answer, it's probably when the early Church settled on the Pauline doctrine for formulating the core of Christianity. This process took place over many decades and or centuries past the death of Jesus as the various groups that called themselves "Christians" struggled for dominance.

[SirNitram]

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk. Thank you for that content-free +1 post. If one wants a serious answer, it's probably when the early Church settled on the Pauline doctrine for formulating the core of Christianity. This process took place over many decades and or centuries past the death of Jesus as the various groups that called themselves "Christians" struggled for dominance.

I would have to agree that the Pauline doctorine is a major one. ANother is casting Jesus in the role of Savior, as opposed to a teacher. It's far easier to politicize a savior, because all that matters is that you accept him, and you're golden, no matter what. A teacher.. Well, you will obviously have those distorting the lessons, but it would be a bit trickier.

[Darth Wong]

Can anyone name any documented period in history when Christians had political power and actually used it to do all the things they claim are innately Christian?

[Ariphaos]

Can anyone name any documented period in history when Christians had political power and actually used it to do all the things they claim are innately Christian?

This falls into the semantic trap of defining their specific blend of Christianity. Even Pauline Christianity was not an open and shut case - though Augustine could be considered noble for trying to stem the rampant lying of his contemporaries.

Irenaeus wrote 'against heresies' for a reason after all - I generally figure that the tirade of hatred began in his era.

[Rye]

So when did the focus of Christianity shift from the unconditional love and acceptance preached by Christ to the hate and condemnation spewed forth by certain groups today?

When Jesus was still alive he was proclaiming these were the end times and that those that didn't accept his message and didn't have his brand of God ruling over them would be destroyed "worse than Sodom". Universal, unconditional love my fucking arse, how is it unconditional love if it's on condition you submit to the psychopath in the sky?

Some say it was during the rise of Conservative Christianity in the early 1980s with political action groups like the Moral Majority. Others say it goes way back to the 300s, when Rome's Christian Emperor Constantine initiated a set of laws limiting the rights of Roman non-Christians. Regardless of the origin, one thing is crystal clear: It's not what Jesus stood for.

It's not what Jesus stood for if you've bought into the ahistorical hippie smear campaign, perhaps. I don't recall those parts of the Bible where Jesus said you can't own people as slaves, just regulating your behaviour in regard to slaves. He was a remedial philosopher at best and was a rapture ready-style vindictive psycho at worst. One the one pierced hand he'll offer forgiveness to anyone that follows his idea of God, on the other he'll condemn all those who don't believe, something reinforced by Paul and whoever wrote revelation and so on. This was definately there in first century christianity.

His parables and lessons were focused on love and forgiveness, a message of "come as you are, not as you should be." The bulk of his time was spent preaching about helping the poor and those who are unable to help themselves. At the very least, Christians should be counted on to lend a helping hand to the poor and others in need.

Nice enough ideas (if simplistic with poor justifications, i.e. do good things "because God" all the time) but don't forget the bad parts.

[Aasharu]

But when condemning Jesus, you have to remember that what we read about Jesus in the Bible was actually written 40 to 100 years after his death, by several different people, all with their own agenda. Just because one passage condemns non-believers, doesn't mean that's what Jesus said.

[Darth Wong]

But when condemning Jesus, you have to remember that what we read about Jesus in the Bible was actually written 40 to 100 years after his death, by several different people, all with their own agenda. Just because one passage condemns non-believers, doesn't mean that's what Jesus said.

But when praising Jesus, you have to remember that what we read about Jesus in the Bible was actually written 40 to 100 years after his death, by several different people, all with their own agenda. Just because one passage tells you to turn the other cheek, doesn't mean that's what Jesus said.

[Rye]

But when condemning Jesus, you have to remember that what we read about Jesus in the Bible was actually written 40 to 100 years after his death, by several different people, all with their own agenda. Just because one passage condemns non-believers, doesn't mean that's what Jesus said.

In addition to Mike's response, the end time references are likely historical since they appear several times in the gospels, plus independently we have the eschatology of revelation, as well as other nonbiblical eschatological texts that imply it was a popular view at the time like it is now. Plus many of the references are "embarassing" to the post-Jesus church since he pretty clearly states that his generation is the last one and the world was about to end in their lifetimes. Plus we have all sorts of people from every walk of life using end times condemnation and assertions to manipulate people into actions, so it's hardly a thing for a religious teacher to say.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

But when condemning Jesus, you have to remember that what we read about Jesus in the Bible was actually written 40 to 100 years after his death, by several different people, all with their own agenda. Just because one passage condemns non-believers, doesn't mean that's what Jesus said.

And yet, those sources paint a pretty consistent picture of the doomsday messianic cult leader we know today as Jesus. There are heaps of passages throughout the Gospels where Jesus condemns the non-believers to damnation, to a hell with "unquenchable fire." They turn up in Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Peter, and Jude. He named blasphemy against God to be the one unforgivable sin. This too turns up repeatedly in the New Testament, both in the Gospels, as well as the Epistles. He also had quite the hatred of the established religious authority, having unpleasant things to say about the established temple authority and the wealthy throughout the gospels. He also said his second coming and the associated end of the world would occur within the lives of his apostles. This too turns up in all the Gospels. The apostles and the earliest church fathers apparently bought into this, since they seemed convinced he'd be coming back in their lifetimes.

So, in short, we get a pretty clear picture of the real man behind Jesus, and that picture isn't nearly as pretty as Christian apologists would like you to think it is.

[Big Orange]

So Jesus was just some random but charismatic nutter who had his life story recorded and it was somehow used as the foundation for the biggest religion ever?

Is that what it boils down to?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

So Jesus was just some random but charismatic nutter who had his life story recorded and it was somehow used as the foundation for the biggest religion ever? :?

Is that what it boils down to?

Essentially, yes. Though it wasn't so much his personal charisma as the new Judaism Lite message he brought. And that wouldn't have gotten very far were it not for that dedicated early cadre of followers who sought to spread Judaism Lite and the news of the second coming to anyone who would listen. These guys, such as Peter, Paul and early church fathers such as Ignatius of Antioch did much to pull in new converts and establish among them a sense of community.

The increasing lack of patience the Romans showed to their restive Jewish subjects and the resulting persecutions and dispatching of the legions and general burnings and pillagings inadvertently gave the early Christians and their message of doom serious "street cred." It's much the same phenomena that gives anti-Western Islamic fundamentalism much of it's energy.

[Big Orange]

The increasing lack of patience the Romans showed to their restive Jewish subjects and the resulting persecutions and dispatching of the legions and general burnings and pillagings inadvertently gave the early Christians and their message of doom serious "street cred." It's much the same phenomena that gives anti-Western Islamic fundamentalism much of it's energy.

That makes sense, especially when Christianity with it's doom-saying would've had fertile ground to grow in Western Europe during the rapid decline and eventual collapse of the Roman Empire, entailing plague, famine and Asiatic/Slavic/Germanic invaders.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

The increasing lack of patience the Romans showed to their restive Jewish subjects and the resulting persecutions and dispatching of the legions and general burnings and pillagings inadvertently gave the early Christians and their message of doom serious "street cred." It's much the same phenomena that gives anti-Western Islamic fundamentalism much of it's energy.

That makes sense, especially when Christianity with it's doom-saying would've had fertile ground to grow in Western Europe during the rapid decline and eventual collapse of the Roman Empire, entailing plague, famine and Asiatic/Slavic/Germanic invaders.

I'm talking about fairly early on, during the first century after the death of Jesus. By the time the Dark Ages were descending on Europe, the Church was already a fairly mature, recognized entity with the blessing of The Powers that Be. By then, they'd gotten away from the whole "Jesus is coming soon!" message. They replaced it with "Jesus is coming someday, and if you're a good, faithful part of the community, you'll get to take part in an afterlife that beats this shithole you're living in now. And even you, poor peasant, can take part in a smug sense of superiority over the barbarians, because those non-believers among the barbarians are going straight to hell!"

[Big Orange]

I'm talking about fairly early on, during the first century after the death of Jesus. By the time the Dark Ages were descending on Europe, the Church was already a fairly mature, recognized entity with the blessing of The Powers that Be. By then, they'd gotten away from the whole "Jesus is coming soon!" message. They replaced it with "Jesus is coming someday, and if you're a good, faithful part of the community, you'll get to take part in an afterlife that beats this shithole you're living in now. And even you, poor peasant, can take part in a smug sense of superiority over the barbarians, because those non-believers among the barbarians are going straight to hell!"

Well Europe from the late Roman period, through the Dark Age to the Medieval Age was as misrable as could be, so some doom-saying religion such as Christianity which offers some form of hope through extreme devotion would be used as a good social control mechanism.