E-Bible (romanian bible app) question:
“Is people’s return to God affected by Christianity being so divided and sectarian?”
The Bible tells us in John 6:44 that: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, […]” and in Romans 9:16, the apostle Paul states that: “It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy”.
So we can say that the Bible is quite explicit about how people return to God. The Bible makes it clear that this is first and foremost up to God and not man, that the initiative is with Him and not with us. The very name of Jesus means nothing other than the statement that the Lord saves, it is He who saves. But what God wants from us is to make us sharers in His plans, to walk in the good works He has prepared for us (Ephesians 2:10). But for this to be manifested through us, namely through the church, what the apostle Paul expresses in 1 Corinthians 1:10 needs to be accomplished, and that is: that you all speak the same thing, that you have no divisions among yourselves, but that you be perfectly united in mind and feeling.
Jesus sums up this attitude in the Gospel of John 13:34-35:
“I give you a new commandment: Love one another; as I have loved you, so you also must love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
Unity in love is what characterizes the true church of Christ, and neither is division or spreading. And the mature attitude toward secondary interpretations is summed up by the apostle Paul when he says in Philippians 3:15,16: […] and if in any matter you are of a different opinion, God will enlighten you in this also. But in things where we are of one mind, let us walk in the same way. All this he can say because he is focused on one thing: I am running toward the goal, for the prize of the heavenly calling of God in Christ Jesus(Philippians 3:14) and so what really matters is: the preaching of Jesus Christ, and Him crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2). For: the love of Christ constricts us, because we believe that if one died for all, then all died. And He died for all, so that those who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again (2 Corinthians 14:15). Only in this way can Jesus Christ be preached and only in this way does the Gospel message receive the power to be the declaration of God’s kingdom above death. Above the problems by which the shadow of death manifests itself in our personal lives.
Denominational multiplicity in Christianity also has to do with the weakness of people, who are full of themselves and ready to divide in order for their views to find affirmation. But it also has to do with the fact that the God of Scripture, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is a personal God, namely a God who knows each of us by name and does not deny our individuality and personality. Personality is a gift from God, a gift of our uniqueness. But brokenness is born, when individualism and the all-sufficiency of one’s own point of view finds supremacy outside a loving relationship. In this way the uniqueness of the other and his or her different views are excluded and dismissed.
People’s return to God is not affected by the fact that Christianity is so divided and sectarian. God is never affected by our powerlessness, because He is all-powerful. We are affected by our unfaithful hearts that separate us from God’s love and the blessing He desires to give us when we follow the chosen ways of His heart.
Sect versus Cult
It is worth paying a little attention to terminology, however. Not because the words have power in themselves, but because when arranged in the necessary context, a very useful distinction in meaning can accompany the words used. So where there is a good heart and a predisposition to understanding, the necessary distinction can be made, and the clarification that accompanies good discernment takes place.
In Combatting Cult Mind Control1, Steven Hassan presents what he calls the BITE model. So in a cult we are talking about control at the level of behavior (B – behavior) of individuals within the cult. Information control (I – information), meaning that there is an internal propaganda, where the truth is distorted, but also a ban on external sources of information. After information, we speak of thought control (T – thinking), that is, the prohibition of any possibility of undermining cult leaders and policies through critical thinking, but also the cultivation of an us vs. them tribal mentality. For the model to end with emotional manipulation, where exploitative feelings (E – emotions) of shame, guilt, fear and the whole emotional spectrum necessary for negative social conditioning are used.
So when we talk about sects or denominations, we are not talking about controlling cults. That is, the ones that are described at length in the book Combatting Cult Mind Control. The definition of cult according to Dexonline is: Religious community split off from a major religion (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc.) in order to practice an independent cult based on its own doctrine. Therefore, within a new religious sect, the development of different doctrinal forms takes place, covering theoretical and practical aspects, with the intention of highlighting certain aspects, which the new sect considers very important. This is done by reinterpreting the authority of the religion to which the new sect belongs in the context of particular historical events, which bring with them particular needs. The word ‘sect’ is used to express the Greek word ‘hairesis’, and in the Cornish translation it is translated primarily as party. It is also worth mentioning that “hairesis” is also the etymological root of the word heresy. So when it is not interpreted from the perspective of political control, it can also mean a new interpretation of the richness of meanings that a religion bears. Christianity being in the first instance a sect of Judaism, a Jewish heresy we might add.
Although some Christian churches are called denominations as a form of institutional organization (e.g. Baptist, Adventist, Pentecostal), they do not seek to cultivate at the internal policy level an approach such as the BITE model. Such extremes and manipulations always occur when the community closes in on itself and excludes dialogue with the outside. Power is concentrated in the hands of the few, and disciplinary control becomes a form of social exclusion, of ostracism. But this kind of social dynamic is not strictly characteristic of religion, but rather of the religious-political sphere. We also have countless examples that lend themselves strictly to the political sphere, where self-proclaimed secular governments such as communism, nazism and fascism become state cults. In their social elaboration, they create cults of the state and the nation, which take on extremist dimensions and lack any consistent factual correspondence. Another cult often found in political practice is the cult of the personality of the leader of the country, a form of worldly incarnation of the messianic figure. And obviously the cult of force, because such states want to instill the illusion of an earthly paradise, and such a paradise needs to push everything that stands in the way of its dream to one side, obviously using force. In this place where everything abounds with greatness, the power manifested in the realization of the state ends up crushing the individuality of the citizen enslaved to the political system. I think history has made it quite obvious that everywhere in these state-like religions (or racial religions, as in the case of Nazism) the BITE model is implemented every time. We all know the horror stories about the Gestapo, NKVD, KGB and security, about the blue-eyed boys who would pick you up in the middle of the night, only to have your family members never hear from you again.
Cult, as a form of social pathology, is a plague that will always need to be dealt with. And in order to stop its development, vigilance and caution are needed. The mentality of tribe, of clan, of us vs. them, always and forever accompanies individuals who prefer safety to freedom. And we humans are weak, we prefer to belong rather than to be ourselves and assume the verticality of our personal values and the freedom of our own decisions. So as long as we are alive, we will always need to guard against the temptation of social homogenization. We will always seek to buy our sense of security at the price of our membership. We lie to ourselves that others will take care of us – the tribe, the group, the state – and we can continue to lay around in the comfort of our own cages. Christ calls us into a family, a space of creative love, where each person’s uniqueness is valued and respected and love and freedom coexist in peaceful harmony.
Too idealistic, right? People need fear and control to continue to exist, social critics would say.
And yes, that’s right: people need control and fear to exist, to maintain a common social role. But they need love, only love, to live authentically, to live life to the full, not just to survive.
History shows us that Love has incarnated and lived among us, but it is up to us to step aside with our dramas, so that it can come and do its work.
As the Americans say: Et pluribus Unum!
Bibliography:
