blowing up religion

Yesterday I had a rant about stupidity in politics. Today...religion.
"Indian people have always been confused at the public stance of the Christian churches. The churches preached peace for years yet have always endorsed the wars in which the nation has been engaged. While the missionaries have never spoken about this obvious inconsistency..."
(Deloria Jr., Vine, Custer Died for Your Sins, University of Oklahoma Press, 1969, p. 113)
I have found many things in Deloria's various books that I disagree with and others I agree with. This is one I agree with more wholeheartedly than almost anything else I have ever read from anyone. And it is not just the statement itself but also the idea behind it.
People complain that God's churches spend a great deal of time fighting each other. This is both accurate and completely errant. The accurate part is that churches fight with each other a lot. The errant part is that many of them, if they actually are God's churches, that "fact" must come as a tremendous shock to God. The inconsistencies and contradictions with the book they profess to follow have created first, man-made versions of a God-ordained institution, and 2nd, such gulfs between themselves that conflict is inevitable and, in fact, without those conflicts it is quite likely society itself might crumble without them.
Why have churches always taught peace? (Note: in this writing, church refers to a body of people who believe God exists, they have access to His will, and are professing to follow it. Church does not include cults, modern creations labeled churches to take advantage of tax breaks, etc.)
The logic behind the teaching of peace is simple and self-evident. Galatians 5:22 says "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace..." In other words, the people following God will have the Spirit in their lives. Having the Spirit will lead them to being loving, joyful, peaceful...the basics of logic instruct us that if having the Spirit creates peacefulness, those engaged in violence are, by extension, without the Spirit. Other Scriptures let us know that if you are a Christian, you have the Spirit of God. How many sermons have you heard discussing the mysteries and blessings of "the indwelling of the Holy Spirit"?
How then can churches professing to be Spirit filled communions of God's people not only support wars but also support the Christianity of people who are soldiers? You can only do so by ignoring what the Scripture says and actually creating whole new explanations for what is meant.
Perhaps the best argument comes from Romans when it says to be in subjection to the laws of the land. However, to justify being a soldier you must ignore the examples of the Apostles who said, "We must obey God rather than man." If the law of the land is to kill then the law of God supercedes it and says love, peace.
Oh how I wish this was the only example of this discrepancy between Scripture and church practices. Some targets are too easy...Timothy speaking of the evil of men who forbid marriage and the eating of meats...sound like any prominent religious groups? But no, my target is actually those who actually try to follow some semblance of Scripture but instead create their own law.
How about this one; how many churches set aside time each and every Sunday morning (and more often than not also Sunday night and the mid-week service being nothing but classes). Having the "right" classes has become an article of faith. Ask yourself...where did this idea come from? Because this I swear to you...it was NOT from Scripture.
No, in Scripture, there are three methods of determining truth and righteousness. Any basic class in hermaneutics can teach you that.
The first and least subtle is direct command; "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength and with all your mind. The second is like it. You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Okay, that is not hard to figure out what is meant.
The second way is example. People meet on Sunday because Scripture says when they came together on the first day of the week. Other versions abound.
The third way is principle. Smoking is wrong because "Your body is the temple of God. Keep it holy." Of course, that alone is a topic....smoking is wrong but obesity is acceptable? How was that determined? By history, not Scripture, of that I can assure you.
Regardless, find classes any of these three ways. They simply are not found in Scripture. Yet when churches advertise, do they advertise the preaching (It was through the foolishness of the message preached), the singing (singing to one another and making melody) or the classes...well, I have no Scripture to refer to on that one BECAUSE IT ISN'T THERE.
See what I am driving at? Let';s pick on the buildings. Okay, yes, in the Old Testament there were magnificent temples. But not in the New Testament. Why? Well, for one thing...the nature of God's Chosen People. In the Old Testament they were a racially selected group of people with established borders. In the New Testament? No borders, no races...no, now the borderless group of people who follow God's commands are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a people for God's Own possession.
This is a more difficult concept for many people. Christians comprise a nation that crosses borders. Iraqui, Russian, Hawaiian, Native American, Frenchman, Brazilian...those are all subsumed under the Nation of God. National borders are irrelevant. As such, the need for a center for worship is no longer God. Where in the OT the priests resided in the temple...in the NT the temple is where the priesthood resides...which is where? Well, according to Peter, which I quoted in the previous paragraph...the priesthood is the Christians. Hence, no need for a temple...and no NT example of a church building.
Compare and contrast that with the magnificent edifices to man's greatness masqeurading as Churches. Millions of dollars are spent building, enlarging, refurbishing, and maintaining buildings. These churches have theatres, gymnasiums, kitchens, classrooms...
Do you see the contradiction?
And it continues. Churches do things and teach things because it is what they have done or because politics suggest it even though their actions have no authority from Scripture.
Why?
Why?
No, really. Why?
What is church, anyway? Somewhere to feel good about yourself or somewhere to study what God would have you do, change your life to get in line with it, and worship God?
If it is the latter...maybe it is time to start a movement in the Churches. How about *gasp* just reading the Bible and doing what it says...or would that contradict the secular church gospel of today? Remember the end of the quote I started with; "While the missionaries themselves have never spoken about this obviouos inconsistency..."
Be a missionary, but be the right kind. Identify and speak against these inconsistencies.