Every weekend (mostly on Sundays, although some prefer Saturdays), billions of followers of the Christian religion all around the world head over to a building to sing some songs, donate some money, and listen to a speech (and, in some cases, have a bite of bread and a sip of a grape-based beverage). While I used to attend these meetings quite regularly myself, I haven’t gone to one in many years now. I’ve been asked to return on occasion, but when I explain why I no longer do so it becomes apparent pretty quickly why I’m not able to any more.
When I stopped participating in these practices it wasn’t because I had stopped believing the Bible. Rather, when I finally walked away from Churchianity, as I like to call the Institutional Church and religious/conservative/“orthodox” Christianity (as opposed to the religionless/liberal/“heretical” Christianity I believe the Bible teaches), it was because of just how unbiblical pretty much all of the Institutional Churches I’d ever visited actually are. I’ve attended any number of traditional churches back in my religious days and I can’t think of one that had leaders who taught, or even seemed to know, what is actually written in the Bible. If you attend any conservative church services at all you’ll inevitably hear the preacher telling people they need to get back to the Bible, yet if the congregation listened to him and took his statement to heart they’d quickly stop attending that gathering. In fact, I don’t believe a single first-century believer would recognize much of anything that is practiced or preached in a modern church building.
The problem is, rather than digging into what the Bible actually teaches, religious Christians find it easier to simply follow the traditions that have been passed down to them by their religious leaders and denominations, misguided traditions based on five serious mistakes: mistranslation, misappropriation, misunderstanding, misassumption, and misanthropy.
The first thing that people who do believe Scripture was inspired by God need to realize is that they would do well to A) pick up a concordance (and actually use it), and B) learn a bit about the original languages the Scriptures were written in. While some are worse than others, pretty much every translation has some passages in it that are badly rendered thanks to the preconceived doctrines of the translators, doctrines they often (mis)translated into their versions (or which they were told they had to “translate” into their versions by those who commissioned the translations). Because of the presuppositions and preferences held by the translators, and biases held by their benefactors, translations of Scripture ended up with all sorts of things that put them at odds with what they actually said in their original languages.
In addition, most religious Christians aren’t aware of how to “rightly divide the word of truth.” Unfortunately, without knowing how to do this it’s basically impossible to understand what sort of doctrines today’s Christians are supposed to believe and follow. It’s extremely common for those within the Institutional Church to believe that certain things in Scripture which were meant only for specific people in specific times apply to everyone always, causing them to think they have to follow commandments that don’t apply to them, and try to claim certain experiences and benefits that don’t either (sometimes with deadly results).
There’s also the fact that religious Christians tend to fail to understand basic logic and science, preferring to believe what their religious leaders tell them about how reality works rather than looking into and accepting how it actually works. Among other consequences, this causes them to assume that parts of the Bible which should be taken a little more figuratively are meant to be read extremely literally (and vice versa), leading to serious confusion. Remember, ignoring science and common sense is how we end up with beliefs like the idea that the earth is actually flat rather than spherical. If you read the Bible too literally you’ll have to conclude that the world really is flat, so Flat Earthers are a good object lesson to us, serving as a warning to be careful not to leave science out of our exegesis.
Simply believing their religious leaders rather than studying things for themselves also causes religious followers to make major assumptions about what is written in the Bible, leading them to believe any number of theological and ecclesiological ideas that are never even hinted at in there. Because of these presuppositions, you’ll find members of Churchianity have all sorts of unscriptural ideas about what God wants them to believe and how they should behave, as well as how they think the rest of the world should be forced to act, based on doctrines they’ve simply assumed are in the Bible without bothering to take the time to confirm whether they actually are written anyplace in there. Ultimately, a combination of laziness and misplaced trust in false teachers has led Churchianity to an extremely unbiblical church structure and worldview.
Finally, the most important thing we are told we’re supposed to do (aside from having faith) is the one thing that I’ve almost never witnessed from anyone within Churchianity (with a few rare exceptions). Christians are called to love those around them, but despite their lip service to love, it’s extremely rare to actually see any real love towards other people inside or outside the Institutional Church by its members. Rather than love, we see hatred (or, at the very least, apathy) towards their fellow humans manifested among religious Christians. This goes for the rest of the Fruit of the Spirit as well, I should add; it isn’t only love that is lacking. None of the Fruit of the Spirit seems to be a trait of Churchianity in my experience. Instead we see the Fruit of Religion (paranoia, selfishness, peer pressure, intolerance, hostility, anti-intellectualism, arrogance, hypocrisy, and guilt) causing religious Christians to accept the hateful traditions of their denominations over what Scripture actually teaches.
Remember, if you start down the wrong path to begin with, odds are high that you won’t end up in the right location at the end of it all, and those five mistakes made by the Institutional Church has them on the wrong path from the very first step. In order to find the right path, you need to first know how to rightly divide the word of truth.
To get started on this path, it’s important to understand that when you read the term “the word of truth” in the books generally referred to as the New Testament it isn’t just yet another synonym for Scripture, so this isn’t simply referring to dividing the Bible into the two sections that are commonly called the Old Testament and the New Testament. If you look up each time the term is used in the “New Testament” books, it appears that it actually refers to the Gospel. To backtrack a little, it’s imperative to understand that, while every Scripture inspired by God was written for all of us, not every part of the Bible was written to or about all of us. When one comes to this understanding, it becomes clear that the Good News (which is what Gospel means) has to be properly divided, and the Apostle Paul tells us exactly what it means to divide the Good News.
To put it plainly, there is more than one Gospel in Scripture that the word of truth can be divided into, two of which are known as the Gospel of the Circumcision and the Gospel of the Uncircumcision. It’s important to note that Paul didn’t say Peter was called to preach the Gospel to the Circumcised while he himself was called to preach the Gospel to the Uncircumcised in his epistle to the Galatians (despite how some translations might render it). Rather, these were two different Gospels meant for two different groups of people. So while Jesus, Peter, and the rest of Jesus’ disciples taught the first one specifically to Israel, Paul was singled out to teach the second one, and it’s the second one that is meant for the body of Christ today. Other parts of the Bible are important for context, among other things, but it’s only Paul’s epistles that are written specifically to the body of Christ. As useful as the rest of the Bible is, the parts not written by Paul were primarily intended for Israelites, and we can’t forget that fact when studying Scripture if we want to come to the correct conclusions.
These Gospels appear quite similar to each other, so it’s sort of understandable that many people have confused them for each other and assumed there’s only one Gospel recorded in Scripture (and, indeed, there is only one that is particularly applicable to anyone alive right now), but if one doesn’t come to understand the difference between the Gospels you’ll assume that many commandments in the Bible are meant to be followed by believers today that actually aren’t, and you can even come to completely misunderstand what the Gospel we’re saved by actually is.
So what is the Gospel of the Uncircumcision (also known as the Gospel of Grace, or sometimes just called “my Gospel” by Paul), and how are we saved under it? I’m going to begin by stating what it’s not. One can’t be saved by asking God to forgive them for their sins and/or “asking Jesus into their heart,” as are common ways many religious Christians mistakenly share the Gospel. If that’s all you’ve done, you probably haven’t really been saved yet. Rather, this Good News is simply that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and that God raised Him from the dead after three days. If you have faith in His death, burial, and resurrection for your forgiveness and justification, you’ve already been saved. Nothing else is required for salvation under this Gospel other than that faith; no “asking Jesus into your heart” is needed, nor is asking God to forgive you for your sins required (that was taken care of on the cross), and water baptism is definitely not something you have to do to be saved. And on that note I should probably add, while most people today assume that after you believe the Gospel you should be baptized with water, this isn’t actually the case for those saved under the Gospel of Grace. Yes, Paul did baptize a few people in water, but he stopped pretty quickly. I’ll also say, though, that the body of Christ does still get baptized. It’s just that we’re not baptized in water. Water baptism was actually a part of the law of Moses, and those saved under this Gospel are not under the Mosaic law in any way.
To be saved under the Gospel of the Circumcision (the Good News being that the Kingdom of Heaven was ready to begin on Earth), on the other hand, one had to repent (of sin in general, and of murdering Jesus in particular), believe that Jesus the Messiah (Christ) is the Son of God, be baptized in water, follow the commandments Jesus taught his disciples during His earthly ministry, confess one’s sins when one slips up, and endure to the end. While baptism, following Jesus’ commandments, confessing sins, and enduring to the end seem to be necessary to maintain salvation under this Gospel, at its simplest, believers of this Gospel just had to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. While faith is ultimately the basis of both Gospels, nowhere was Israel told by Jesus or His disciples to trust in His death, burial, and resurrection for forgiveness or salvation. You won’t find the Gospel of Grace explained anywhere in the books traditionally called the four Gospels, not even in the famous John 3:16 passage that evangelists quote so frequently. Yes, Jesus did tell His disciples about His impending death and resurrection in the Gospels, but not only did they not understand what He was telling them, He didn’t explain it as something they had to believe in to be saved. And while Peter did mention that Jesus died and was resurrected in his sermons in the book of Acts, it was only brought up as an accusation against those who killed Him, and as proof that He is the Messiah and that He is still able to bring the Kingdom since He’s no longer dead; it wasn’t explained as the method of salvation to those under the Gospel of the Circumcision in these sermons either. As an example, the statement of faith made by the Ethiopian eunuch (who was almost certainly Jewish himself) to Philip before his baptism had nothing to do with faith in Christ’s death or resurrection for his forgiveness, but rather that he believed Jesus the Messiah is the Son of God.
The end result of these Gospels is somewhat different too. Those saved under the Gospel of the Circumcision are promised the earthly blessings of the New Testament (or New Covenant) during the period known as the Millennial Kingdom, while those saved under the Gospel of the Uncircumcision are promised spiritual blessings and are destined for the heavens (and are no more under the New Testament than they are able to be born again).
The lack of understanding regarding the difference between the Gospels (and please keep in mind that there are more than just the two I’ve mentioned so far), as well as what parts of Scripture are intended for us in the current eon or dispensation, is also a major cause of the disagreements one finds between the many denominations within Christendom, whereas rightly dividing the word of truth resolves a lot of the apparent contradictions that seem to be prevalent in the Bible. So not only is this concept extremely important for believers to grasp, it’s so central to understanding what the Bible is saying that one can’t properly interpret much of Scripture at all without beginning from this perspective, which is why I suggest digging deeper into it. Once you’ve got a good grasp on the subject you’ll be ready to dig deeper into the rest of Scripture with a framework that will make it that much more clear what else the Institutional Church has misinterpreted and mistranslated thanks to their pre-existing assumptions about what the Bible says.
There’s probably no better example of where the Institutional Church makes incorrect assumptions about what the Bible teaches than the conservative “Christian” morality they teach so adamantly. Because many are under the mistaken impression that the Mosaic law is applicable to them (at least in part), and also because they’ve been taught that certain things are sins that Scripture never actually calls sinful, they’ve got all sorts of mixed up ideas of what is right and wrong today. This causes religious Christians to act just like modern day Pharisees, teaching that any number of actions, many of which are never even mentioned in the Bible, are forbidden simply because they either misunderstand Scripture or have never actually studied it for themselves and just assumed their religious leaders know what they’re talking about.
For instance, you’ve probably been taught that premarital sex is a sin. While there definitely are sexual acts that would be frowned upon today, this doesn’t seem to be one of them. The primary reason that most religious Christians are so against premarital sex is one little word: fornication. Depending on your English translation, you’ll find fornication criticized as a very bad thing that one should flee, and if you look fornication up in an English dictionary you will indeed find that it means sexual intercourse between unmarried partners. The problem is, the word translated as “fornication” in the Bible is the Greek word porneia (πορνεία), which does not literally translate to “premarital sex” as most Christians believe it does. In fact, it’s generally agreed that the most accurate translation of porneia is “illicit sexual activity” (or “illegal sexual activity”).
If we take the term “illicit sexual activity” literally, it means sexual activity that breaks the law. Generally, here in the western world, premarital sex doesn’t break the law, and it certainly wasn’t against the law among the Gentiles Paul wrote to when he told believers to avoid porneia either (and whether or not it was forbidden by the law of Moses, the body of Christ isn’t under that particular law).
The truth is, the word porneia actually had multiple meanings, depending on how the word was being used. It spoke of sexual idolatry in some cases, referring to sleeping with temple prostitutes who did so as a part of worshiping other gods. It could also be used in reference to sexual practices that actually were considered illicit by the culture in question, practices such as incest, for example. There was also a spiritual meaning to the word, having nothing to do with physical sex at all.
The one thing it never meant, however, is premarital sex, or at least there’s zero reason to believe it did, despite the fact that your parents and pastor would probably prefer you believed it did. Of course, they likely only think they want you to. If they understood just how many STIs and unwanted pregnancies this teaching is responsible for, they might change their minds. The idea that premarital sex is sinful causes many parents to actively make sure their kids don’t learn about condoms and birth control, but since pretty much an equal number of Christians have premarital sex as non-Christians (the religious can’t fight nature and biology any more than the rest of the world can), only without any knowledge of how to minimize the potential risks, young people in conservative areas or with religious parents tend to end up with more diseases and unwanted pregnancies than those who don’t.
Premarital sex isn’t the only thing Churchianity has insisted that people shouldn’t participate in, however. There are so many other traditional religious ideas that aren’t in the Bible but that you’ve no doubt been told you must abstain from as well. For example:
• Lust is always wrong. When you discover what “lust” actually refers to in the Bible you’ll realize that it is often encouraged, and that it’s also time to reconsider your thoughts on pornography as well. In fact, anyone who cares about women at all should be encouraging the spread and consumption of pornography because when porn increases, sexual assault decreases.
• Abortion is condemned by the Bible as murder. Regardless of your feelings on abortion, it isn’t ever mentioned in the Bible; and since murder is a legal term, it can’t legitimately be defined as murder in places where it’s legal.
• Homosexuality is forbidden. It doesn’t appear that the Bible actually forbids homosexuality when the original languages and context are considered, at least not for those living in the current dispensation. I should also say that digging into what the Bible says “the sin of Sodom” really is would be extremely helpful too. When one does, one discovers that anti-gay conservatives are the people who are actually guilty of this sin.
• Swearing is shameful. The Bible actually has plenty of profanity in it in its original languages. In fact, the only thing that looking down on profanity does is demonstrate what an unspiritual (and likely hypocritical) snob one is.
• Drinking alcohol is not allowed. It’s definitely not pro-drunkenness, but the Bible actually recommends the consumption of alcohol in some places.
• Dancing, movie theatres, certain music, card games, and various other “worldly” activities should be avoided. Some Institutional Churches are worse than others, and most aren’t this extreme, but these examples, along with the various so-called “sins” I’ve already covered, are a great example of how the religious like to add rules to the Bible that were never mentioned in there to begin with, or twist teachings that are in there to try to make them say things they never actually meant. Yes, avoid the appearance of evil, but the things that most religious Christians mistakenly think appear evil aren’t even close to actually appearing (or being) evil at all to anyone who hasn’t been brainwashed by Churchianity, while their attitude and actions towards people not following their rules definitely is quite evil.
All of that aside, though, worrying about morality (at least the way conservative “Christians” understand morality) is a huge red herring. What followers of Churchianity forget is that all of the “thou shalts” and “thou shalt nots” causes them to completely miss the point of Paul’s teachings to begin with (again, it’s Paul’s teachings that we are supposed to concern ourselves with in the current dispensation). Starting with a flawed presupposition about doctrines like sin and grace will cause you to think that you’re supposed to be concerned with religious rules when being a member of the body of Christ is actually about something else altogether.
Bottom line, members of the body of Christ don’t actively try to avoid sinning by their own strength, since they are justified (and living) by faith. Basically, never trust a teacher who tells you, “touch not; taste not; handle not.” And if you hear someone espousing “traditional family values” or telling you to follow the Mosaic law in any way, don’t walk; run! It means that they are very likely a wolf in sheep’s clothing, trying to lure you into their religious trap. At the very least, they are extremely confused and likely have nothing useful to teach you (at least from a spiritual perspective). Remember also that, while not all things are a good idea, all things are permitted.
Of course, very few religious Christians could even tell you the definition of sin any more that they could tell you the definition of evil (few could even tell you the origin of evil according to the Bible. Hint: evil and sin are two completely different concepts), so it isn’t surprising when they aren’t aware of what qualifies as sinful.
Now please don’t get me wrong. Believers are supposed to live righteous lives (and those who “crucify the flesh,” as Paul puts it, might find that they aren’t interested in some of the activities I listed above anyway), but most members of Churchianity don’t have the slightest inkling of how that is supposed to happen, or even what that actually means. And the biggest irony is that while nearly everything religious Christians think is sinful actually isn’t anyway, almost all of the actions and attitudes that they live by are extremely wrong. As anyone looking in from the outside could tell you, greed, pride, fear, hunger for power, envy, prejudice, hypocrisy, malice, and spite are the hallmarks of most of Churchianity.
Regardless of one’s views here, however, whatever the Bible might actually say about morality within the body of Christ, it’s limited to the body of Christ, contrary to what so many in the Institutional Church seem to believe. Trying to force those who are not a part of the body of Christ to live a supposedly “Christian life,” by legal means or otherwise, is not even slightly justifiable. Nowhere in the Bible is it even hinted at that the body of Christ is called to influence (or force) our cultures to be more conservative or follow religious laws. In fact, the only thing we’re asked to do regarding the government is to obey the secular laws and to pay our taxes. Yes, in a democracy we the people technically help determine the secular laws to a certain extent, but there’s still zero biblical excuse for trying to create laws based on religious morality (especially when we consider the fact that most religious morality isn’t at all biblical, as already discussed). And culturally, there also isn’t any reason to go around putting down non-believers for doing things that go against one’s moralistic and legalistic sensibilities (particularly, again, since most of the things the religious think are sinful aren’t actually even slightly sinful to begin with), for trying to pressure the rest of the world into acting the way conservatives want them to, or for any number of the cruel or unnecessary actions that so many of the religious seem to feel obligated to perform against those in their communities and countries. Actions such as trying to get people fired, kicking people out of their homes, or not being willing to sell things to people, all based simply on who they happen to be attracted to or what gender they identify as, for example; or actions such as trying to enforce prohibitions against consuming certain beverages or plants, or at least enforcing prohibitions against purchasing such things on certain days of the week (to name just two of many examples). Any attempt to legislate religious morality, or to pressure the rest of the world into following one’s conservative leanings, will do nothing but drive people even further away from the faith one no doubt wants them to embrace, and will also continue to cause everyone to misunderstand what Christianity is actually about (hint: it’s not about trying to be as big of an asshole as possible towards those who don’t believe and act the way you do, as so many conservative “Christians” act like they think it is).
This is an important factor for parents to keep in mind too, by the way. Raising your kids to be good citizens who live peaceable lives is important, but trying to force people to live “godly lives” misses the entire point of Paul’s teachings. You can’t force the Holy Spirit into somebody, and trying to force people (children or grown adults) to live according to religious rules will only cause them to sin and rebel all the more, as Paul makes quite clear (that was the whole purpose of the existence of the Mosaic law, after all).
History is very clear about all of this as well, of course. When religious “morality” gains control of government, people suffer. There’s almost nothing scarier, or more antithetical to freedom, than a theocracy or theonomy (remember, it is for freedom that we have been set free; it wasn’t so we would put ourselves back under religious bondage). When religious conservatives run governments without a liberal and secular hand to restrain them, people are censored, fired, expelled from their homes, imprisoned, tortured, and even executed simply for their beliefs (or lack thereof), as well as for the most innocent of actions. If someone challenges the religious status quo or does things considered sinful in a theocratic society, religious conservatives become extremely evil towards such heretics and infidels (and even today in more secular countries you find religious conservatives trying to take or keep civil rights away from people who might live differently from them for no reason other than the fact that these differences might not line up with their religious beliefs). This is another reason I like to stay far away from religious conservatives in general (or at least only meet with them in public places). Torture, theft, and killing are a major part of the heritage of nearly all religions, and I have no doubt that many of them would bring that legacy back into practice if they could. That’s not to say all religious conservatives would do this if they had the opportunity, but I still wouldn’t want to take that chance. And regardless of their propensity towards violence, I have no doubt that most of them would definitely (and happily) fight against freedoms and civil rights for people who are different from them in various ways, particularly when it comes to sexuality, and I see no good reason to have much to do with people who would be so heartless and cruel.
Religious conservatives sometimes talk about a culture war, and they are right, there is one happening. The problem is, they’re on the wrong side of this battle. Conservatism basically appears to be about greed, hunger for power, paranoia, racism, sexism, homophobia (among other forms of erotophobia), and just having a lack of empathy towards one’s neighbours in general. All of this ultimately leads to people trying to control the lives and actions of those who might be a little different from “the norm,” and religion only makes conservatism worse since it leads people to believe their harmful mindsets and actions are sanctioned (or even commanded) by God. But it’s not just religion they attempt to use to justify the misery they’re trying to inflict upon the societies they exist in (even if they generally don’t realize that this is what they’re doing). Too many religious conservatives also end up going down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories to prove that the enemy is everywhere, with all sorts of nefarious plots to take over the world, or at least persecute them (even as they themselves are persecuting those who don’t act and believe as they do). And so they start seeing spirits and secret societies (either groups that haven’t existed for centuries, such as the Illuminati, or still existing social clubs like the Freemasons) behind every world event that happens, all supposedly to bring about a “New World Order” to unite the planet under one government run by a man called the Antichrist. Of course, even if any of these theories turn out to be accurate (to be fair, the Antichrist is a biblical concept, so eventually he is supposed to appear), it wouldn’t be something to worry about as Christians; and since they believe it’s all supposed to happen anyway, it’s strange that they’re trying to fight against it. While it might seem harmless, paranoia over shadowy Satanic cabals and fear of demons hiding behind every bush can cause actual harm, to individual people and even to companies. Sometimes the result is just that kids miss out on parts of a normal childhood due to being forced to avoid harmless games that made parents freak out and believe they would cause kids to commit suicide or even murder if they played them (when in reality the games were probably instrumental in keeping many young people out of trouble), as well as because of books which convinced many parents that their children’s toys would cause them to become possessed by demons. Thanks to the Satanic Panic of the 1980s, however, many Christians also fell for lies about Procter & Gamble being in league with the devil (ultimately making everyone who fell for these lies look really ignorant and foolish). And worst of all, many people were imprisoned for murders and other crimes that never even happened, sometimes for decades. And that’s only recent events. In times past, conservative paranoia brought about things like the Salem witch trials, or the various other Inquisitions, causing the torture and death of any number of innocent people. And even today, there are people being executed for blasphemy or for their sexuality (among other things) in various theocratic countries. So if you wonder why some of us remain wary of religious conservatives (“Christian” or otherwise), I hope it should be obvious at this point.
As I’m sure you know, religious leaders don’t only tell us that certain things are forbidden. They also try to convince us that certain things are required. If you do attend traditional church services and become a member of a particular assembly, you’ll likely sit through a number of sermons meant to make you feel guilty if you don’t give them a percentage of your money on a regular basis, sermons that completely ignore the fact that the tithe was meant solely for followers of the Old Testament law. Christians (Jewish or otherwise) are not supposed to follow the law of Moses, and those who do try to follow any of it are then under a curse and are obligated to follow all of it, according to Paul (that means no more bacon or shrimp or clothes with mixed fabrics or washing your car on Saturday).
Of course, a true biblical tithe is actually in the form of food or livestock, and only goes to the Levitical priests. Unless your pastors are Levites who perform animal sacrifices, they have no scriptural basis for demanding it. There’s absolutely nothing in the Bible about the body of Christ having to give a tenth of their money to their religious leaders or organizations.
While tithing isn’t a biblical idea for today’s believers, what is recorded as having apparently happened among the body of Christ is people giving financial gifts to those in financial need. They didn’t, however, just give money to pastors who simply wanted to live off church members’ hard-earned money or keep the power running in a church building.
Those church buildings and pastors themselves, by the way, are also a big problem, since modern church services, and the buildings themselves, don’t have any biblical justification for existing in the first place. The early church didn’t meet in chapels or temples specifically meant for Christian worship. Instead, they met in each other’s homes. And a gathering wasn’t a few songs and then a sermon by a pastor. There might have been songs, and even a speech or two, but the early church gatherings generally included a meal (“The Lord’s Supper” was a part of a real supper meant to demonstrate the unity of the body of Christ; it wasn’t just a little snack) and discussions (actual conversations rather than just a monologue by one preacher). Church buildings didn’t exist until quite some time later, when Christianity became more formal and institutional rather than relational.
To be fair, it’s not the buildings themselves that are the real problem; it’s the “organization” and lack of real, spontaneous, Spirit-led fellowship. Yes, you will almost certainly hear the word “fellowship” in most traditional church meetings, but you also almost as certainly won’t experience any there, despite how much so many pastors seem to love the word. But you can technically meet in a home and still be an Institutional Church, or rent a hall and be a relational, Open Church (as this sort of gathering is often called). As nice as a home gathering is, it’s really the openness and fellowship that are the important factors.
Speaking of those pastors, the idea of a pastor or priest or any professional clergyman who rules over a church (a word which simply refers to the “group” or “assembly” of believers in an area, by the way; it never referred to a building) isn’t in the Bible either. Local churches were overseen by a group of unpaid “elders,” not run by one paid man (that’s not to say that evangelists shouldn’t be paid to evangelize, but elders and evangelists aren’t necessarily always the same people). If you have one person leading a local gathering of believers, I would suggest not having much of anything to do with them or their gatherings if you value your spiritual wellbeing.
Aside from tithing, there’s one more unbiblical tradition that religious leaders will condemn you for if you don’t do it on a regular basis, and that is attending their gatherings on the day they believe to be the Sabbath. Now this is one where various sabbatarian denominations are partially correct, while also being quite wrong about it at the same time. The Sabbath is indeed Saturday as they claim; it was never changed to Sunday. But since those of us saved under the Gospel of the Uncircumcision are not under the Mosaic law in any way whatsoever, it doesn’t really matter what day the Sabbath is. In the very beginning of the church, believers didn’t pick one specific day to gather together; they could meet any day of the week (likely doing so more than one day a week). That said, there’s nothing technically wrong with meeting on a Sunday. In fact it’s often the most convenient day to do so on at this point in history since the Institutional Church has managed to convince most people that it is the new Sabbath thanks to the influence it’s had over our society, but it’s really not any different from any other day of the week so don’t feel any obligation to treat it like a special day.
And on the topic of esteeming certain days above others, be they days invented by the Institutional Church (such as Lent, Easter, Christmas, etc.) or days that are observed by Jewish followers of the Mosaic law, while I don’t think it’s wrong to celebrate a specific day if it’s something you enjoy doing, just realize that none of these days are required for Christians today any more than the Sabbath is, and that nobody should be looked down upon for not participating in these “holy days.” And, of course, I hope that everyone is aware of the fact that Jesus didn’t actually die on a Friday, as well as that there’s no reason to believe He was born on December 25th (while it doesn’t really matter when He was born since we aren’t told to celebrate His birthday in Scripture, there’s good reason to believe it was actually in September or October on our modern calendar).
While there aren’t specific dates that we’re supposed to observe, there are specific ages that humanity experiences, although not everyone experiences them the same way. Only those few people God has elected (chosen) for eonian life (a transliteration that is a far superior rendering of what most Bible translations call “eternal life” or “everlasting life”) will be given faith and be reconciled (noologically speaking, as I like to call it; everyone has already been reconciled by Christ, ontologically speaking, by His death) and saved in this lifetime; they will get to live through all of the eons or ages to come (be it those under the Gospel of the Uncircumcision today, or those under the Gospel of the Circumcision back in the first century or during the upcoming time known as the Tribulation after the body of Christ is snatched away from the Earth).
This faith is not something you can just decide to have, however. You can’t choose to believe the Gospel without God first giving you the faith to believe (faith is not of yourself; it’s by grace, rather —a gift of God to certain chosen people who are predestined for eonian life for a specific purpose), and to teach otherwise is to teach salvation by works.
I’m sure the idea that “choosing to accept Christ in order to be saved is actually salvation by works” goes against what most of Churchianity has probably taught you, but if you need to stop sinning and decide to choose Jesus as your lord and saviour in order to be be saved, how could it be anything else? The first part of that should be obvious enough, since forcing yourself to stop sinning in order to be saved is obviously a works-based salvation, but even having to choose to believe is a work. If you don’t agree with me, try choosing right now to truly believe in Thor as your lord and saviour. Can’t do it, can you? Forcing oneself to believe something that one hasn’t organically come to believe is one of the biggest mental works a person could do, and I doubt that anybody is actually capable of it. Regardless, even if someone could somehow brainwash themselves into believing something they really didn’t previously believe, it would still be an action (even if just a mental action) they had to accomplish to save themselves (or accomplish to participate in saving themselves). Pretty much every denomination and cult (not that there’s much difference) out there teaches salvation by a combination of Christ’s sacrifice plus our own “free will,” but if salvation is by grace plus something else, it’s ultimately salvation by works. Accepting Jesus as your saviour doesn’t mean choosing to allow him to save you (which would mean you would have a role in your own salvation, even if just the small role of making the right decision), but is rather accepting that he has already saved you after you’ve been given the gift of faith to believe the good news of your already existing (ontological) reconciliation because of His death and resurrection. And if one isn’t among the elect, then damnation is a part of God’s sovereign plan for that person, and they couldn’t possibly believe the Gospel no matter how hard we try to get them to.
The sovereignty of God and His purposes for creation from before it all began is one of the most important factors in the Bible, yet very few people are aware that He has a reason for everything that has happened in creation, and has had very specific plans for the ages (and those in each age) from the beginning. In fact, thanks to bad translations of Scripture, most Christians aren’t aware of the concept of the ages at all. Rather, most religious Christians believe that God really hoped humanity wouldn’t sin, but is now on Plan B because we did. They don’t realize that everything about creation, be it good and evil, sin and righteousness, faith and disbelief, even the Devil and the crucifixion, were all intended by God from before the beginning of creation. Of course, because of their soteriology, many people dislike the idea of predestination since it would mean God decides that certain (indeed most) people will suffer forever in a literal lake of fire. It’s only when one realizes that God has a specific reason for electing only certain people to be saved in this lifetime, and that nobody stays in hell forever (not to mention that both hell and the lake of fire probably aren’t what most people think they are), but rather that God actually had a plan all along that works out for everyone in the end (not just for every human but for every spiritual being as well), that one might come to understand that predestination is ultimately in our best interests. The Bible tells us that God takes credit for both the good and evil that exists in the world (even Satan was created the way he is for a specific purpose), as well as for who ultimately experiences reconciliation sacramentally (as I like to call it) first and who has to wait until later, so I’m happy to let Him have the credit rather than blaming my so-called “free will” for it.
Speaking of which, many who are uncomfortable with the idea of predestination like to say things along the lines of, “God doesn’t want robots,” and teach that God gave us something called free will so we could decide to choose Him for ourselves. These people don’t understand that “free will” is a complete impossibility from a purely logical and scientific perspective and can’t actually exist in reality. That said, I don’t think most people know what the term “free will” even means. What it doesn’t mean is the ability to choose. We can definitely choose things; it’s just that those choices are all predetermined, either by our nurture and nature (life experiences and genetics), or by influences outside the sphere of the physical universe (such as by God). Remember, events always either have a cause or they don’t; there’s no way for an event (even an event such as a decision or choice) to be anything other than caused or uncaused. If it’s caused, it’s predetermined; if it’s uncaused, it’s random (which I doubt any religious Christian would think is better than being predetermined). Nobody has ever been able to give a third option that works within the limits of reality, which means it’s time to throw the idea of free will away and accept that God is fully in control, even when it comes to salvation and judgement.
Just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive, but each in their own order. It’s important to note that this passage doesn’t say “shall all be made alive, but only Christians.” Rather, it tells us that there’s an order to when all shall be made alive. Paul is taking about three different orders or groups of humans to be made alive, and these three orders combined consist of all humanity. The first order mentioned is “Christ the firstfruits,” which refers to the body of Christ made fully alive at the “snatching away” (who then go on to fulfill their purpose in Christ among the celestials). The second is “they that are Christ’s at his coming,” referring to those resurrected at the beginning of the Millennium after the Tribulation period. And finally, “then cometh the end” (eîta tò télos [εἶτα τὸ τέλος] in Greek), referring to the “telos” of humanity (since he’s still speaking of this order of resurrection here), meaning the end or the rest of humanity, resurrected at the consummation of the ages (after the final age is completed). So, while every human who is affected by the curse will also be equally (if not more so) affected by the cross, it doesn’t happen to everyone at the same time. Only those predestined for eonian life will live through the eons or ages to come and experience salvation during those ages; everyone else will go through eonian judgement.
What this judgement actually is, however, is a point that few people today ever come to understand. Most think it refers to “everlasting punishment” in a fiery place called hell, but this is a doctrine that didn’t exist among the first believers in Christ (and you won’t find it in the Scriptures Israel accepted – which Christians normally call the Old Testament – either, which is strange since you’d think God’s chosen people would have been warned about something so terrible). This is another great example of one of those pre-existing beliefs that caused many translators to mistranslate Scripture from its original languages, in this case causing them to translate Greek words like aiónios (αἰώνιος), which generally refers to a set period of time with a definite end, even if that end date is unknown (literally, “pertaining to an eon/age”), into words that mean “never ending.” That’s not to say the word can’t ever be translated as “everlasting” or “forever,” but even in those cases we still have to interpret the word based on the context of the rest of Scripture (remember, there are plenty of things in the Bible that seem to be said to be everlasting that it also says will eventually end, so good exegesis is imperative here if you’re going to translate it that way).
Because of these presuppositions and bad translations or interpretations, most religious Christians are under the impression that, while God tried to save everyone through Christ’s sacrifice and the preaching of the Gospel, He will ultimately fail when it comes to 99% of humanity since He just isn’t powerful enough to convince them to choose the right religion, probably because He didn’t make most people smart enough or wise enough to come to the right decision in the first place. Those who believe this aren’t aware that God’s purpose for the ages was never about hoping people will choose the right religion so they can be among the lucky few who escape never ending torture.
Aside from being completely unscriptural, the horrible doctrine of everlasting torment in hell is also probably the biggest cause of religious evil. How so? First, it’s caused millennia of psychological torture for children (and adults). Somehow, religious parents have rationalized the idea that instilling the fear of this mythological torture chamber into their children is a good thing, but all it does is cause sleepless nights for millions of kids who are terrified they or their loved ones will suffer horrific agony for eternity with no chance of escape if the wrong decision or action is made (evangelical “end times” beliefs should also never be taught to young people for similar reasons; based on the testimony of so many, my own included, I would recommend that parents not let their offspring be exposed to the topic of eschatology until their very late teens if they value the mental wellbeing of their children).
Perhaps worse, though, is the fact that once this doctrine has been completely absorbed into the psyche it makes emotional empathy an extremely difficult thing to possess, causing religious people to think it’s okay to reject and even eject family members (sometimes from their own homes) who believe differently from them, and discriminate against or even be violent towards people who don’t follow their religion or who might not think certain actions are actually wrong (“if God is going to torture people forever in the afterlife for even the smallest infraction, what’s a little temporary violence in this life?” is what it seems many religious people believe).
Aside from the fact that anybody who sat down to actually think about it would realize no sin or crime could ever warrant torture that lasted forever, however, the Bible tells us that the wages of sin is death, not never ending torment. If the punishment for sin was nonstop pain, then Jesus would have to still be suffering for our sins (and would need to continue doing so forever).
Fortunately, there isn’t anything in the original Hebrew or Greek that implies that hell (which itself is a bad translation of multiple words that actually refer to different places from each other) lasts forever anyway (in fact, it says the exact opposite), nor that the lake of fire (which is different from hell) does either when properly interpreted. These facts, combined with the fact that Scripture is quite clear that everyone eventually will experience reconciliation, makes it pretty obvious that the only reason to continue believing in a doctrine like everlasting torment in hell is because one wants to believe it (and continuing to believe and teach it tells the rest of us just how hardened one’s heart and cauterized one’s conscience is).
That said, while everyone will eventually enjoy everlasting life, those who aren’t predestined for eonian life will first suffer the second death. However, at the consummation of the ages the grave (which is all that hell really refers to) will have no victory and death (all death) will have no sting because it will have been destroyed, and God will be “all in all.” This truth is lost on those who are lost thanks to their slavery to the demonic teachings of the Christian religion, but if this weren’t the case (if most of humanity were to suffer consciously in the lake of fire forever), all this judgement would do is torture the majority of people who ever existed nonstop, which would serve no purpose at all other than to stand as an everlasting reminder that God was a failure in ridding creation of evil (ultimately making Him the biggest sinner of all). Thankfully, that’s not the case. In the end, God will successfully destroy evil, sin, hell, and death (again, all death; even the second death, which is all that the lake of fire is). To be true to Himself, He has to, since His purpose and character have never been to cast people away forever.
In addition to understanding the purpose of God for the ages, one also has to understand the character of God, and those who teach everlasting torment in hell seriously slander the character of God. In fact, misunderstanding the character (and nature) of God might be one of the biggest causes of the presuppositions that led to religious Christians making the five big mistakes I listed at the beginning of this article, which in turn are the source of all the confusion within Churchianity I’ve been writing about.
God has many attributes, but perhaps the most important way to understand God is to remember that while the Bible tells us that God has wrath, it also tells us that God is love (and not the other way around). Religious Christians will claim to agree with this statement, of course, but they completely fail to understand what love is. Among all the other things that Paul tells us love is, he tells us that love always perseveres and never fails. Yes, those God loves He chastens, but the purpose of this is to help, not hurt; it isn’t simply an end in itself. And since He loves the whole world, He’ll chasten the whole world, even if in different ways at different times for different people.
There’s so much more I could say, but perhaps I’ll just end by reminding you that Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God, so if you want to truly understand the character of God, all you have to do is look at what we’re told about Him. For instance, Jesus often kept His teachings a secret from those who weren’t meant to understand them at that time, speaking in parables so that “seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand,” which might indicate that not all of God’s truths are intended for everyone to understand just yet (not even religious Christians who are reading this, most of whom have already rejected everything I’ve written here since they haven’t been called to grasp the truth yet). But even with His truth hidden from most, we also see that Jesus insisted on extreme forgiveness (seventy times seven, and even forgave those who killed Him), and ultimately sacrificed Himself to save the world. When you want to interpret Scripture, you have to ultimately do so using a hermeneutic that begins with Christology. If you don’t do that, it’s easy to misunderstand the passages about judgement, and just as easy to forget that everything in Scripture needs to be read with His character and His purpose for creation in mind.
It’s no wonder that so many misunderstand the character of God, though, when they also misunderstand the nature of God, thinking God is a closed trinity rather than an open family.
Within Churchianity it’s incredibly common to assume that one can’t be a true Christian without believing in the tradition known as the trinity, which is ironic since those who believe in this strange idea can’t be saved themselves until after they reject it, so I would posit that the reason it’s become one of the most important doctrines in the Christian religion is because Satan wanted to make sure as few people as possible could become a part of the body of Christ (the other teachings he made sure were taught in the Christian religion that keep one from eonian life, of course, being everlasting torment in hell, free will, and the immortality of the soul, since belief in these doctrines means one hasn’t fully believed Paul’s Gospel. Basically, if something is an important teaching or practice in the Christian religion, it’s probably safe to assume that it’s a doctrine of demons and the opposite is likely true instead).
I could go on and on about the multitude of ideas that religious Christians are ridiculously confused about thanks to the flawed assumptions they begin with, and a lack of desire to actually take the time to pick up a concordance and dig into what the Bible really says, taking their pastor’s word for it instead, but that should be more than enough to explain why I couldn’t ever return to a modern evangelical congregation. Not that I’d be welcome back at one anyway, if I ever wanted to return. At least not if I refused to keep my mouth shut about the various things actually taught in the Bible. So perhaps the real question shouldn’t be why I couldn’t return to church, but why you yourself might still consider having anything to do with such an unbiblical, not to mention harmful, institution.
Now, I suspect that most of what I’ve written here is brand new for many of you, and that you’re not sure what to believe (or think it’s so foreign to what you were taught growing up that you’ll just reject it out of hand). However, for those chosen few of you who do dig deeper and then realize that you need to reject Churchianity and organized religion, you’ll be left wondering what you should do instead. Well, first of all, it means that you get to sleep in on Sunday mornings if you want to. Beyond that, however, if you can find an Open Church that actually teaches what the Bible says, it might be a good group to check out. Otherwise, just keep studying the Bible (you’re better off not participating in any church gathering than you are attending an Institutional Church. Yes, it’s beneficial to fellowship with likeminded believers, but you won’t find many likeminded believers in the traditional denominations, at least not if you happen to agree with what I’ve mentioned in this article). Bottom line, to those of you who are inspired to do so, pull out your Bibles, concordances, and Hebrew and Koine Greek dictionaries, fire up your search engines, and start studying to “shew thyself approved.” I’ll also link to some recommended reading by others on the various topics I’ve covered here. Be warned, however, that if you do come to the conclusions I have about the Bible you’ll likely be called a heretic by the “orthodox” members of Churchianity, and even shunned by many of them. But to that threat I simply repeat the words of A. E. Knoch: “Heretic” is the highest earthly title which can be bestowed at this time.
I’d like to think it would go without saying, but in case it doesn’t, I should point out that just because I link to a video or other article doesn’t mean I agree with everything else the creators of said videos and articles believes, either in the article above or the recommended reading below, so you’ll have to be careful to “eat the meat and spit out the bones,” so to speak, when reading them.
Here are some links to others who go into more detail than I do on some of the topics I’ve discussed throughout this article that I’d recommend checking out:
Martin Zender – Martin Zender is a little conservative politically, but very good theologically, and he and I probably agree on about 99% of what Scripture teaches.
Grace & Truth Online – A magazine that covers many the topics related to what I’ve written here.
Concordant Publishing Concern – Publishers of the Concordant Literal Version of the Bible, which is one of the best English translations of Scripture out there (along with Young’s Literal Translation).