Christianity’s Triumph (Christianity is growing more rapidly than that of any other major faith)

The Moral Liberal ^ | 12/20/2011 | Alan Caruba

[SeekAndFind]

“By far the most important event in the entire rise of Christianity was the meeting in Jerusalem in around the year 50, when Paul was granted the authority to convert Gentiles without them also becoming observant Jews.”

So wrote Rodney Stark, the Distinguished Professor of the Social Sciences and co-director of the Institute for Studies of Religion at Baylor University. His most recent book is “The Triumph of Christianity: How the Jesus Movement Became the World’s Largest Religion” (HarperCollins).

For Christians in particular, I recommend it if only because so many have a tenuous grasp of Christianity’s real history, as opposed the versions that too often are casually accepted as truth.

The truth is that the rise of Christianity is one of the most extraordinary stories of the past two millennia. Stark not only has the knowledge of his vast subject, but he writes with such felicity that it is hard to put the 500-page book aside for both its revelations and its devotion to the facts.

Despite the fact we live in a society that has at most only 4% who self-describe themselves as atheists, the more active among them have the audacity to demand that Christmas be banished to the privacy of homes or the pews and pulpits of churches. They rebuke religion in general as the source of conflict and wars, but ignore the spiritual support and ethical lessons that Christianity provides along with its promise of salvation.

While Judaism was the bedrock of morality and faith that gave it birth, Christianity made it more accessible and significantly includes the Torah as part of its liturgy.

To ignore the rise of Christianity is to be ignorant of an essential element of Western history. Likewise, to ignore the threat of Islam whose beginning is usually dated around 622 CE and which exploded following Mohammad’s death in 632 CE is to ignore the greatest threat to civilization, past and present. Less a religion than a battle plan for world conquest, Islam preaches death to all “unbelievers.” Take heed!

Stark provides a summation to his book and, even so, I shall select only parts of it in the interest of brevity.

“The first generation of the Jesus Movement consisted of a tiny and fearful minority” of a religion, Judaism, that had already been around for a thousand years or more before the assertion was made that the messiah had come and was a crucified Galilean rabbi who mainly and briefly preached in that area of Israel.

“The mission to the Jews was quite successful: large numbers of Jews in the Diasporan communities outside of Palestine did convert to Christianity.” The Diaspora were the Jewish communities in the Middle East and throughout the Mediterranean nations, including Rome, living in places where pagan faiths were dominant.

“Christianity was not a religion based on the slaves and lowest classes of Romans, but was particularly attractive to the privileged.” Moreover, in its earliest years, women often played important roles. Contrary to popular belief, however, “Paganism was not quickly stamped out, but disappeared very slowly.” Paganism involved the worship of multiple gods as well as a belief in magic.

Despite impressive cathedrals, in medieval times church worship among Christians was largely ignored and, as often as not, the clergy were ill-informed about the faith and sometimes not even baptized.

Despite what is said of the Crusades, they were a campaign to reclaim the holy land from Muslims who had conquered it and they were led by men who knowingly bankrupted themselves and often died in this cause. Though Christianity had been widely observed in the East, the armies of Islam destroyed all but remnants, thus shifting its survival to Europe in the West.

“Science arose only in the West because efforts to formulate and discover laws of nature only made sense if one believed in a rational creator.” Even the misnamed “Dark Ages” were actually times of technological development. Likewise historians have determined that the Spanish Inquisition was “a quite temperate body that was responsible for very few deaths and saved a great many lives by opposing the witch hunts that swept through the rest of Europe.”

Perhaps the greatest surprise was the damage done by Constantine who, having made it the religion of his empire, gave rise to an indolent and hypocritical Church hierarchy initially composed of Roman aristocracy. It fostered a clergy who were ignorant of the faith and indifferent to its mission. Not until the Reformation was competition introduced, forcing the Church to return to piety, as various Protestant sects emerged, and energized Christianity in the process.

Stark concludes that “The claim that religion must soon disappear as the world becomes more modern is nothing but wishful thinking on the part of academic atheists. Religion is thriving, perhaps as never before. More than forty percent of the people on Earth today are Christians and their number is growing more rapidly than that of any other major faith.”

And that, as they say, is the good news.

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply.

This is where I feel so fortunate… I… I… I… I… I… 

Reading your reply, the "That's all I need" scene, (where Steve Martin decides to leave his wife), from the movie "The Jerk" kept coming to mind.

Our topic here: Church, (and Christ ministry) is not about I or me or mine.

Thank you for your courteous reply.

[FatherofFive]

The “church” ie the local gathering of those who have accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Read farther on in that passage and He also says that “where two or three are gathered in my name there will I be also”. He was explaining how to pring an offense up to a person who had offended.

Yes, Paul tells us how to bring an offense. But he also tells us WHERE to take it if two or three can’t reach agreement. Scripture says take it to the church.

Christ is with any two or three gathered in His name.

So are you saying that any two or three gathered is the ‘ the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”Mormons and Gnostics would make that claim. Makes no sense. The Church must give a consistent answer, because Christ said the Church will always teach the truth.

>>Makes no sense whatsoever without the visible Church Christ established with teaching authority, and the power to loose and bind.<< Again with that loose and bind nonsense from the CC.

No, I was quoting the ‘nonsense’ of Scripture.

>>He says “This is” really means, “this represents”, even though the Scripture doesn’t really say that.” So, where can you get a definitive answer to this dispute?<< Do I really have to re-list everything He said He was? Like a “door” and a “lamb” and “bread”. He also said “He that believes on me, as the scripture has said, out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water”. Do you have water flowing from within you?

His followers never left him because he was the door, the vine or the lamb. They all knew exactly what he meant. They left him because of the teaching that he was the bread of life, and he would give us his flesh to eat. Satan entered judas when Judas ate the bread, not decerning the presence of Christ.

>>To which Church do you go?<< What a silly question. As if Christ’s body can be divided by some human organization. All believers are part of the “body of Christ” the church.

So again, you are calling the Scriptures silly.

I will repeat this question, and I hope you will think about the meaning of Scripture before trying to answer it. Scripture doesn't say take it to two or three gathered in the name of Christ. Scripture says take it to "the Church" for a final answer.

“My brother calls me a liar because I believe Christ when he said, “This is my Body” That is what Scripture says, in clear language. He says “This is” really means, “this represents”, even though the Scripture doesn’t really say that.”

So, where can you get a definitive answer to this dispute? To which Church – as directed by Scripture - do you go?

[caww]

You stated......"Yes, that is one major aspect of my point. This is not what our Lord intends for us, it is not good for us.".....

The unity of believers is based on Jesus Christ, not on a denomination or church....it's thru his death, resurrection, and return...this is current and does unite us as believers

This does not guarantee we will be in agreement on all issues of worship because we are yet sinners and that plays into the equation.....There can be no perfection with us because we still have our fallen nature to contend with.

Additionally differences occurred with the disciples and they will also occur with us....we see thru the glass dimly but once we are with Him all things will be clearly understood..Even so God has instructed the worship HE desires and when a denomination or church strays from those clear teachings all manner of "other" worship will surely invade...and distract or lead away from the Centrality of Christ.

You stated....."If we are not one with each other, in our worship of all places, how can we be one with God?"......

Because 'first' we are 'one in Christ'...Believers reflect Christ to an unsaved world. People reflect Him.. not the denomination /church/organization, nor manner of how we worship...which is intended for believers.

... It's not necessary to be on the same page in what manner we worship as long as it isn't opposing Gods clear instructions on what we shouldn't do....if it goes contrary to his instructions then we're on dangerous ground...and he's very clear about that..."It is written"...is with purpose.

You further stated......"We cannot have a full relationship with one member of our family and no relationship with another.... We cannot have a full relationship with our sister - as a sister - if we are estranged from our mother.......

Certainly we can and do...my mother died long ago but my relationship with my sister remains and is not dependent on my mother...but on the time and investment we build together to maintain that relationship...as with all family members..... Once we become adults we are responsible for the relationships...never dependent on a mother....Additionally many family members can be estranged from their mother yet maintain wonderful relationships with other family members.

Catholics see Mary as their Mother and an entity they worship and adore....I do not and many others don't. But those who do get tangled up in the "apron strings" of Mary worship and for that have a misplaced loyalty....cannot understand other Christians devotion to Christ alone... Our Christian relationships are dependent on Christ alone...and it is HE who unites us....not Mary not ever.

You stated......"We cannot have a full relationship with one member of our family and no relationship with another.".......

Sure we can...we have the freedom of choice in all our associations...and that includes the family of believers. just as it does within our earthly family's.

You said....."individualism" is not what our Lord intended and not good for us....."

Of course it's good for us...He never intended "group think"... in fact the tower of Babel reflects that clearly as he dispersed those who attempted to unite in a 'universal' way. ....Man always tries to unite in an earthly way...But God made us all unique and individuals, as well as deferring cultures and places which we live ....that includes in the body of believers...it does not depend on mans idea of worship but on 'WHO' they are worshiping

.... The "universal" push we see in the world is not God's idea...it's mans and hasn't changed since the tower of Babel...this unfortunately has also been carried over into the church with the pagan symbols and rituals and idolatry God made clear we should not do...that will always separate or divide us because it opposes Gods clear teachings.

Christianity is a unity of faith centered in Christ...when the centrality of Christ is usurped by other practices, traditions and rituals which distract from the focus on Him onto other entities...or authorities of men...then all sorts of false teachings and worship will ensue...always.

[caww]

Pride or fear?

Both....Pride gets in the way until the Lord starts making cracks in that via His truth.....then their belief shakes and fear ensues of what that would mean if REALLY the truth...instead of reaching out to Christ as their world shakes they reach to man....to steady their boat...and the process begins all over again.

Jesus told Peter to 'get out of the boat' and come to Him.....He listened but then got afraid as His eyes turned away from Christ onto the circumstances He saw surrounding his feet....then He was afraid. As long as his eyes were fixed on Christ..Peter walked on water.

Rome is the catholics boat....Jesus wants them to depend on Him and they simply haven't the faith or courage to "lounge out into the deep". They cannot see their boat is not heading in the direction they think.

[CynicalBear]

>> Our topic here: Church, (and Christ ministry) is not about I or me or mine<<

It most certainly is about the individual. No one gets saved by simply belonging to a group.

[D-fendr]

No one gets saved by simply belonging to a group.

No, the Church doesn't teach this either. But we can, and must, help each other, and what we do, good or bad, affects others, those we love and who love us most of all. Church is about being connect to each other in Christ, not disconnected individuals.

It most certainly is about the individual.

Church is about the individual? Sorry that seems oxymoronic to me. A church all about the individual is like a family all about an individual. It's no longer a family.

I don't see Christ's ministry as being all about the individual either:

Jesus said to him, “‘you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.'This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’"

Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

This is why the scene "That's all I need" came to mind. What the character is saying here is "I don't need anybody else." All the while, he knows it is not true.

It's not Our Savior's Truth; it's not true for us as individuals; it's not true for His Church.

Thanks for your courteous reply.

[CynicalBear]

>>So are you saying that any two or three gathered is the ‘ the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”<<

Yes, I am saying that.

>>No, I was quoting the ‘nonsense’ of Scripture.<<

The CC has usurped the authority of Christ. The ability to Loose and bind was given to all who are part of the true church. Our word "church" comes from the Greek word that means "assembly”. It’s an assembly of believers. No where is there the establishment of an overall hierarchy. Then there is the meaning of binding and loosing. You might want to do a study on what binding and loosing meant in the Jewish community.

>>Scripture says take it to "the Church" for a final answer.<<

Yes it does. That would be the collective wisdom of all true believers over time with special attention paid to the adherence to scripture.

>>To which Church – as directed by Scripture - do you go?<<

A local gathering of believers as scripture indicates.

[CynicalBear]

If you don’t first take care of yourself you can take care of no on. It says “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” That looks to me like you first must love yourself or how would you know how to love your neighbor?

“you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. 'This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it;

I wonder why He started that with the word “you”? Could that be a personal “you” talking about the individual?

>>What the character is saying here is "I don't need anybody else."<<

Would you please find in any of my posts where I stated that? Surely you aren’t projecting that into what I am saying are you?

[Campion]

The ability to Loose and bind was given to all who are part of the true church.

In both places where that phrase was used, Jesus was speaking to the Apostles. Nobody else was noted as being present.

"Binding and loosing" is a rabbinical term; it refers to the ability to make formal, binding judgments in cases concerning faith and morals. Giving that authority to every believer is no different than announcing that every U.S. citizen is now a Supreme Court justice; it's a prescription for anarchy.

[Campion]

That would be the collective wisdom of all true believers over time

Who gets to decide which believers are "true believers," and which are not? And who arbitrates when "the collective wisdom" appears to be self-contradictory?

But it's interesting that you're essentially appealing to tradition ("the collective wisdom of all true believers over time") here.

The whole basis of the Protestant revolt was the contention that Scripture (and of course in practice that means my own interpretation of Scripture; I get to decide what Scripture means for me right now) is superior to "the collective wisdom of all true believers over time".

[CynicalBear]

I guess you didn’t read my entire post. Oh well.

[CynicalBear]

>> The whole basis of the Protestant revolt was the contention that Scripture (and of course in practice that means my own interpretation of Scripture; I get to decide what Scripture means for me right now) is superior to "the collective wisdom of all true believers over time".<<

Given that statement is entirely untrue and anyone who understands the facts knows that I’ll just leave it there.

[D-fendr]

That looks to me like you first must love yourself or how would you know how to love your neighbor?

I think you have it wrong way around. It is in the giving that we know it all. Love is of God from God through us; if it stops with us, it dies, killed by the Self.

[CynicalBear]

>> Love is of God from God through us; if it stops with us, it dies, killed by the Self.<<

Once again, please point to the statement I made that would disagree with that.

[D-fendr]

In general you are arguing that "church is about the individual" and I am arguing that it is most definitely *not* about the individual.

I said earlier your position was oxymoronic to me. Church is about the connection between people, that connection is by and through is God, love, God's love.

You then argued for love of self (first), my position is that this, while it is a tenet of an entire pop-psych genre is antithetical to both Church and Christ's teaching.

It could be compared to a circuit: love from God through us, to each other, back to God. Constant flow, with the counter-intuitive result that the more we give, the more we have to give, from God whose love is infinite. The more we try to grab for our self, the less we have. It's all right there in Christ's teaching.

I said, " Love is of God from God through us; if it stops with us, it dies, killed by the Self." to which you replied:

point to the statement I made that would disagree with that.

I believe it is in your general argument and specifically here:

you first must love yourself

Love of self is not first or middle. It is last and then disappears along with the boundary between us and others. We are to be *one*, not two and most certainly not me first. Becoming one is the path of ever-increasing love in Christ and through His body, the Church.

If we are to first love ourselves, if we are of no use (as I believe you put it) unless we take care of ourself first, then the greatest love that man can have is inconceivable, impossible or nonsensical. It is a difference in focus or direction toward the ideal that Christ exhibits.

Neither of us is on the extreme end of this argument whether selfish or selfless, and everything requires judgement, wisdom, discernment; but, it seems to me that we are upside-down in our relative positions of what Church is.

Thanks for your courteous reply.

[CynicalBear]

>>In general you are arguing that "church is about the individual"<<

Show me from my posts where I said the “church” was about the individual. It is not and I have never said that. I have said that salvation is about the individual.

The rest of your post is rehashing. Jesus said “love your neighbors as you love yourself”. Would you please tell me how that’s possible if you don’t first love yourself? If you have no love of self how can you love your neighbor as yourself?

[D-fendr]

The rest of your post is rehashing

Yeah it was. I really thought I deleted that whole part before posted. Sorry.

Show me from my posts where I said the “church” was about the individual. It is not and I have never said that. I have said that salvation is about the individual.

You equated/conflated, ignored or removed any difference between the two, here:

>> Our topic here: Church, (and Christ ministry) is not about I or me or mine<<

It most certainly is about the individual. No one gets saved by simply belonging to a group.

If, according to your reply, there is a difference, it is one without any significance and church/salvation is "most certainly about the individual" in your view. If you'd like to change this impression, then you'd need to rephrase your answer above to indicate there is a difference and church is not "about the individual." Is this what you are saying?

If you have no love of self how can you love your neighbor as yourself?

"As your self." Think about it, what can this mean? If we are one, what happens to the very concept of you/me, self/other?

Jesus taught love of self? No, it's a matter of interpretation, or really just listening and getting the important point that makes everything else understandable.

Note the two teachings I combined to illustrate taken in light of Jesus's prayer in the garden. If you look at Jesus's teaching in toto and can honestly say: "He teaches you must love yourself." IMHO, you've missed the point. He taught God's love and commanded us to love God and others.

Thanks for your courteous reply.

[CynicalBear]

>>If, according to your reply, there is a difference, it is one without any significance and church/salvation is "most certainly about the individual" in your view. If you'd like to change this impression, then you'd need to rephrase your answer above to indicate there is a difference and church is not "about the individual." Is this what you are saying? <<

What is so hard to understand? The individual is saved by belief on the Lord Jesus which then makes him part of the universal “church”, the body of Christ. Not the other way around.

>>Note the two teachings I combined to illustrate taken in light of Jesus's prayer in the garden. If you look at Jesus's teaching in toto and can honestly say: "He teaches you must love yourself." IMHO, you've missed the point. He taught God's love and commanded us to love God and others.<<

I don’t think I’ve missed the point at all. He commanded us to love “others” as we do ourselves. If there is no love of self their can be no reference point of loving “others”. He was stating a truth.

[D-fendr]

What is so hard to understand?

A clear answer would help. :) Either the Church is "most certainly about the individual" or it is not. I'd appreciate your answer on this.

The individual is saved by belief on the Lord Jesus which then makes him part of the universal “church”, the body of Christ. Not the other way around.

Again and again, your view stresses the individual when discussing Church. And, the OSAS doctrine we don't share comes between us here.

If there is no love of self their can be no reference point of loving “others”.

The reference point is God and His love for us, not our love of our self. That's so contrary to self-sacrifice that Christ taught. I believe this individual emphasis you exhibit leads to a very wrong following of Christ toward "what's in it for me as an individual."

[CynicalBear]

>>Either the Church is "most certainly about the individual" or it is not. I'd appreciate your answer on this.<<

Unless you believe in collective salvation the “church” is simply a collection of individuals who have been saved.

>>And, the OSAS doctrine we don't share comes between us here.<<

There you go again projecting a belief onto me that I don’t subscribe to. Good grief. How many times do I have to mention that tendency of Catholics? Never once have you seen in any of my posts a belief in OSOS. Now unless you believe in that your comment of “we don’t share” is projectionism and indicates a lack of understanding what I am writing.

>>The reference point is God and His love for us, not our love of our self<<

That’s nonsense. Jesus said “love your neighbor as yourself”. Please tell me what that “as yourself” means if it doesn’t mean that there is a reference point of love for others. Jesus did not say “love others as God has loved you”.