It’s a personal hobby horse: I’d rather be brutally honest and let things fall where they may than to ever be guilty of deception. I found a decent explanation of how a great many modern church organizations are attempting to sucker people in by hiding their affiliations behind the false front of “non-denominational” —
Notice how the fellow in the video explains that asking about denomination is more about the doctrinal pattern than organizational linkage. People who have studied doctrine are concerned with what they’ll have to face. I’ve heard pastors discuss this in my hearing. While they don’t use honest language; what most of them are trying to do is sucker people in with programming and community before they reveal their doctrinal peculiarities. They want to make it feel like a lost investment if you find out later they teach something contrary to your convictions. They want bodies, budgets and buildings, not souls.
So I’ve been upfront about Radix Fidem community, always trying to answer queries as honestly as I can. I’ve also been open about our particular community of Kiln of the Soul. Radix Fidem functions the same as a denominational affiliation; it’s a much broader identity based on seven items we discuss in [the booklet]. Kiln of the Soul is a single church-in-effect.
So, for example, Radix Fidem doesn’t promote any particular doctrines. You can plaster the logo on your website if you like, but you’ll be adopting our approach to religion. In other words, it’s a way of building a religious identity, but only just barely qualifies for a religious identity in itself. You can embrace Radix Fidem and have female leadership, for example.
You cannot do that in Kiln of the Soul (at least, not while I’m alive). A part of the Radix Fidem mystical approach is that any particular member body is whatever the senior elder decides. It’s tribal/feudal, while Radix Fidem is collegial. Folks joining our virtual church don’t have to agree to what I promote as doctrine, but they are obliged to humor me as long as I’m the elder.
Another example: Kiln of the Soul is annihilationist. I teach that the Lake of Fire is a symbol of annihilation, not an extension of Hell. The Devil, his elohim allies, the Watchers, the Nephilim and folks who aren’t Elect will sit in Hell until Judgment Day, and then together be obliterated.
Nobody in the community has to buy that, but they do have to accept that this is what I teach. And there are plenty of things I choose not to define. For example, do sinners go to Hell because they sin or do they sin because they are damned, non-elect? The Bible says both, so it doesn’t matter. Do animals go to Heaven? That’s a silly question, presuming a western concept of Heaven as a place with specific entrance requirements one must meet. The Bible says no one is good enough to merit Heaven.
An awful lot of common theology and doctrine is rooted in a western orientation, not the Hebrew mystical orientation of the Bible. Church leaders have sought for 2000 years to define things that no Hebrew mind would have bothered to ask. Thus, neither Radix Fidem nor Kiln of the Soul has a Christology, because the whole field of study misses the point.
Go ahead, ask any question you dare.
Please excuse my ignorance as a relative newbie. Christology is a huge field of scholarship, at least that is how it seemed at Bible College. Can you explain what it is about Christology that misses the point?
Brother Jack, Christology is based on the original controversies of the Early Church. Some of these days when you have time, look up the term “Early Church Fathers” in regards to what they wrote. The vast majority of writings we still have from the early scholars addresses questions about the nature of Christ and the Trinity, attempting to nail down authoritative orthodox statements to which everyone must subscribe. In each case, they are asking questions no Hebrew would ever have asked. Rather, all the controversies arose from Hellenized thinking.
Thanks, I think I understand.
There’s a great deal of scaffolding in the established Church, such as Christology, that has been erected around Christian beliefs that aren’t consistent with a spiritual or mystical reading of Scripture. These are clearly in reaction to various heresies in the early Church that the modern Church still clings to, probably out of fear of those heresies creeping back in. This scaffolding is often just the Hellenistic mind trying to make sense of something that was given in more mystical and symbolic terms. Sadly, the scaffolding has become a rigid structure in the established Church that often stands in the way of spiritual growth.
For example, I recently sent a series of articles that challenged orthodox views of the Trinity to a mature, academically-minded, dear Christian friend of mine, who is Western in his thinking about the Bible and faith and pinned down by Church of England orthodoxy. He refused to read the articles not because of the arguments they made but because he said he couldn’t take seriously anything written by someone who didn’t believe in the Trinity. It was obvious that his reticence was borne out of fear of heresy.
What would you advise someone to say/do to reach someone who is trapped, not by the charismatic products of the dubious churches mentioned in the video, but in the constructionist scaffolding of the well-established and doctrinally robust denominations like the Church of England/Anglicanism?
Excellent analysis of the problem, Jack. We rely on the Holy Spirit both to soften the castle walls of the mind and to guide our outreach. He alone can breach the structures men have built. In the case you cited, I believe the key issue is that Jesus was a Hebrew man promoting the true Hebrew religion. He did not build western Christianity and it’s rather apparent He is not much involved in it today. Your friend will need to see not only the distinction between the two, but that Jesus Himself would reject the western scaffolding. All of that scaffolding is man-made, built on the sand of intellectual structuring, not faith. Jesus was a mystic.
Pingback: God Demands Mysticism | Radix Fidem Blog
I never thought about it before, but it makes sense that a church identifying as non-denominational would have to be different (i.e., doctrinally different) from the denominational churches. Or else, why not identify with a denominational church, at least in name and theology, if not in ecclesiastical governance?
Identifying as non-denominational allows them to have a bu$ine$$ model church and a Christian community, without all the complications and hassles of church authority, doctrine, doctrinal debates, doctrinal divisions, etc.
Most of the non-denominational churches that I’ve attended stuck to the surface topics of Christian living and local social politics, and never got too deep into controversial issues, national politics, or theology. They usually have a doctrinal statement posted somewhere, and it’s always very abstract Nicene Creed-like stuff that most any polite Christian would mentally agree with. It doesn’t go into anything controversial at all. I’ve also noticed that the predominant theology and practice within these churches tend to reflect the faith beliefs and spiritual giftings of the pastor, elders, and other charismatic big shots and big name families in the church. They also tend to be very converged with secular Feminism to the point of thinking that it’s normal Christianity.
The crux of church life is a protected in-group of very like-minded people, like, “This is how we do church. (If we like you) you can take it or (if we don’t like you or you don’t like us) you can leave it (and we won’t miss you if you don’t come back).” (Several commenters have described non-denominational churches in this way at Σ Frame.) It’s very similar to high school social life (like what is depicted in the old TV series, Happy Days), and I think that’s part of the charm. That could be good or bad, depending on the personal beliefs of the leadership. From what I’ve seen, they tend to be exclusively upper-middle-class and very cliqueish.
I guess it’s good — for them. Not sure if it is totally biblical, though. Maybe it depends on a case-by-case basis.