The Church of Nothing in Particular

Moses: Myth, Fiction or History? | Ancient Origins

Don’t ask me where I saw this or read this, because I didn’t write it down at the time and anyway, it wasn’t in just one place.

There is a suggestion, going back centuries, that Christians don’t need the Old Testament, all that crazy animal sacrifice, long-dead kings, and so much else that just ain’t happenin’ now. All right: the New Testament itself (see several chapters of Hebrews) explains why the animal sacrifices aren’t necessary anymore, given that Our Lord Jesus Christ has sacrificed Himself. In the Book of Acts, the apostles–men who’d known Jesus face to face–ruled that new Christians did not have to adopt Jewish dietary laws and customs (although they found no reason not to, if such was one’s desire to honor God).

But–!

Take out of the New Testament all quotations from the Psalms, all references to the prophets (especially Isaiah), and the word of Our Lord Himself, for whom the Old Testament was Scripture, and who used it in His teaching–remove all that, and you’re left with a pretty thin little book. In fact, there is no New Testament without the Old.

There are plenty of bent clergy types who very much want “Christianity”–they still use the label, and ought to be ashamed of doing so–to be severed from the Old Testament. They want a nice “spiritual” religion of nothing in particular: the Church of Nothing in Particular. All those irksome restrictions on our sex lives! And what harm does an idol do, anyway? It’s just an old-fashioned smart phone!

I think it’s risky to get out of bed without the whole Bible in your life.

3 comments on “The Church of Nothing in Particular

  1. There are commentators who choose to interpret the Bible in symbolic terms, at pretty much every turn. I have learned that the Bible makes much more sense if I take it at its word. The history of Genesis is written as it is, for a good reason. It tells us about creation, the fall of mankind, judgement in the form of a global flood, division into national groups at Babel, and the establishment of a nation under God’s law, in the form of ancient Israel. The history of Israel was checkered, at best, but it served to produce the Messiah. Finally, after Christ died, all of mankind could serve God, wherever they happened to be. Without the history of the Hebrew portion of the Bible, Christianity would be without any roots.

    There are a lot of people that seem to see Jesus as some ultra tolerant hippie who would support any choice a person wanted to make. That is rubbish. Jesus was kind; exceptionally so, and not prone to harshness, but He also cleared the temple of profiteers and stood up to the Scribes and Pharisees; calling them out for their hypocrisy.

    I have no idea of what Jesus looked like, although I would venture that He didn’t stand out among the Jewish population of the first century. Artwork, by people who never saw Him, portray him with long hair, and I suspect that is where the hippie notion comes from, but that doesn’t mean that Jesus looked anything like the way he was portrayed by artists. He lived up to the Law of Moses, and did so perfectly. This includes the moral laws of Israel, which were hardly an “anything goes” scenario. For example, adultery was a capital offense. But Jesus proved that it was possible to live by these laws.

    People whom promote the idea that Jesus would be a champion of popular social causes might be surprised if they were to apply the context of the entire Bible to their conclusions. Jesus was not a person without standards. He spoke out against the abuses of the religious leaders in Israel, not because the Law of Moses was harsh, but because these leader applied that law in a harsh manner.

  2. How about the end of St. Matthew’s Gospel where Jesus commands us to go into all the world and disciple the nations. How can Christians in America disciple our nation when they won’t have anything much to do with civic government?

Leave a Reply