From: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Date: 6 Nov 92 10:09:57 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:

>the religion from the religion itself.  If the founder of the
>religion has led an exemplary life above criticism, then their
>fruit (the religion) can be judged on its own merit.  If the
>founder's ideas and philosophy are above reproach, then again the
>fruit can be judged on it's own merit.  However, if followers of
>the religion (even in high places) in that religion do not follow
>the founder but veer away for their own agenda, then their fruit
>can be seen.  However, I suggest that their fruit is not the
>religion itself, but merely their own behaviour. 

While I agree with this in principle, Christianity has enough of a
history of problems that I think we have to consider it more than just
abberations of a few individuals.  I agree that Christ himself is not
implicated.  But I also think something has gone systematically wrong.

It's a commonplace among Protestants to say that the Church went
radically wrong when Constantine came to power.  At that point, the
church became corrupted by political power.  It started a quest for
power that got worse as time went on, and explains many of the later
problems.  Of course standard Protestant polemic says that these
problems were fixed by the Reformation.  I think there's something to
that.  Despite some later unfortunate incidents, the Protestant form
of Christianity has generally been much less willing to identify
church and state, and much less willing to use the power of the state
to enforce religion.

Yet I think there are more basic problems that even the Protestant
reformation did not fix, and which go beyond Constantine.  You can see
in Paul's letters, and more clearly in the Pastorals, the beginning of
the issues that eventually became embroiled in the battle with the
Gnostics: legalism, control, and authority.  For one reason or
another, the Church very quickly concluded that it was essential to
have clear central control.  Some of this was probably due to the
growth of Gnostic mythology.  Another major influence was Roman and
Jewish persecution, which people felt required strong leadership to
fight.  But it's very clear that by the end of the 1st Cent. the
church had adopted an ideal of a well-defined set of doctrines, and a
clear line of authority, passed down from the apostles by the laying
on of hands.  Rigorous ethics were encouraged by the concept that
forgiveness was impossible after baptism.  This was relaxed by
allowing forgiveness of one sin, after a lifetime of repentance, and
later it was extended to two sins, but forgiveness involved a process
of repentance that was tightly controlled by the church.  These things
established characteristics that have survived through the centuries:
an emphasis on the importance of doctrinal conformity, the concept
that outsiders will burn in hell, a legalistic definition of sin, and
a concern about unambiguous authority.  Some of the details have
changed, as the authority of bishops was replaced by the pope, and
later an inerrant Bible.  But many of the basic characteristics have
tended to stay constant.

I believe that these basic characteristics are in many ways a
perversion of Jesus' message.  But they have an historical and
institutional weight behind them that makes them hard to disclaim.  I
believe there are branches of Christianity that are trying to get back
to Jesus' spirit, but it's a hard fight.