You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 2 Next »

Introduction

We live in an age where people are made to believe in the absence of their own capacity to think and make decisions on their own. This is not a new phenomenon to any extent of the imagination. The tendency for the powerful to oppress the weak has existed since the dawn of humanity. However, I'd like to express my thoughts of a particular incarnation of this phenomenon which I have encountered recently.

The Problem

In a church meeting a question arose regarding the eligibility of women to take communion while they are in their period.

Many adamantly asserted that it is the will of the church for the woman to abstain from communion during her period.

An argument erupted on the correctness of such a commandment.

Out of this argument two primary opinions arose:

  1. One opinion justified this commandment in many words, such as: the woman is not unclean, however, she is not suitable for communion. They compared the "period" to lack of fasting.
  2. The second opinion was that this rule is simply wrong and should be nullified

I label the group which associated themselves with the first opinion as institutionalists. They care to justify the institution of the church in all its decisions. They see the "church" as being represented in the Holy Synod. They believe the Holy Spirit guides the Holy Synod in all its decisions; and therefore attribute inerrancy to the Holy Synod.

I marvel at how these institutionalists who justify the inerrancy of the Holy Synod, condemn the Catholics for believing in the inerrancy of their Pope. The former group attributes inerrancy to a group of men, and the latter group attribute inerrancy to one single man. In both cases they are elevating men to the state of God.

The Dangers of Attribution Inerrancy to man

This becomes very problematic, when the institution of the church tries to interject itself in the personhood of man; when they try to tell men (and women) when they can and can not take communion; when they can and can not have intimate relationships with their spouses, and the list goes on. They took the relationship between man and God and institutionalized it in such a way that they in effect erased the personhood of God in this relationship and replaced it by the institution of the church.

All this is done through fear of losing the original teachings of the church. You see, the coptic church believes in having the absolute truth as passed on from Christ, to the apostles all the way to today, without change. They believe in their absolute superiority over all other thoughts. And in this arrogance they attempt to justify every single rule they have even if they have to twist the rules of logic to do so; even if they have to bend the faith itself.

Let's take the following rule:

  • A woman shall not take communion during her monthly period.

How do the institutionalists justify this? These are some of their points

  • This is to remind the woman of her sin
  • The church is not really denying communion, but being in her monthly period represents her being not ready for communion
  • The church believes that God has cleansed the woman, but being in her period makes the woman akin to someone who have eaten before coming to communion
  • The church doesn't single out women, but applies the same rules to men as well.
  • These are just traditions but we must obey the church anyway

By using these "reasons", the institutionalists wilfully blind themselves to a simple fact: Jesus Christ has died on behalf of men to give them what is his; to cover their sin; to justify man for man can not be justified on his own.

So although God has died for the sins of man and has cleansed man, the institution of the church by insisting and promoting these rules declares loudly the inefficacy the death and the resurrection of Christ. We must, they say, keep these rules to remind us of our original sin. Does this make sense? I leave it up to the reader to answer that.

To me this example falls in the following category:

Mark 7

10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

14 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:

15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.

By insisting on teaching rules which are clearly against the faith, and by justifying these rules in erroneous ways, the institution of the church has in effect imputed guilt and sin on members of the body of Christ for simply being who they are; for the way God has created them. This falls in the following category

Luke 17

17 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!

2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

And also:

Mark 18

5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.

6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

Was Christ talking about only children? I don't think so. I think the reference here refers to offending any human.

Do these rules, which clearly stand against the core of the faith, not represent an offence to many?

We're not talking about people being offended because the institution of the church has declared the faith. On the contrary it is because the institution of the church has obfuscated the faith, that people are offended.

The Church vs the Institution of the Church

Thus far I have used the term "Institution of the Church". For insititutionalists to exist, there needs to be an institution. And I'm not against the existence of institutions. But institutions are created by men to serve men. When an institution ceases to fulfill its goal, then it needs to be corrected or abolished.

The Christian definition of the Church is the body of Christ. The entirety of 1 Corinthians 12 is pasted below for references

1 Corinthians

12 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.

3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

14 For the body is not one member, but many.

15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?

18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?

20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.

21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:

23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.

24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked.

25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

My point here being is priesthood is only a role (a gift) within the body of Christ and not the totality of the body of Christ.

Priesthood has a role of edifying the body of Christ, of serving the body of Christ. But in many cases they have forgotten that role and have focused solely on their authority to rule over the body of Christ. Which is not even their role.

Institutionalists preserve this erroneous understanding of the institution of the church. I'm not saying they do so with ill will, but in their good intentions to keep the church united, they have in effect achieved the opposite. By vilifying people who simply stand for the truth just because they declare the institution of the church to be in the wrong , have they not created divisions in the church? Have they not divided the people of God? It is not dividing to seek the truth, but because the institutionalists view people seeking the truth and declaring the error of the institution of the church as rebels, they seek to put them to the side and in extreme cases completely excommunicate them from the church.

The existence of Truth

  • No labels