Christianity and Christendom

[Danage]

Please look at the following article about the difference between the two words:

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/news/columns/fraser/070101

If this man speaks truth then to label the Trinitarian Christians, those Christians of the Roman Catholic Church and whose churches came out of her, as followers of Christendom then this church could label itself as the Christian Church full stop. This allows for more distinct differences between the two.

Some probably know that James VI was known as the 'wisest fool in Christendom'. Since he was so called, then we can accurately say that the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches are a part of Christendom.

[Postulare42]

Thanks for the link "Danage". I've subscribed to their service for a while and will see how it goes.

I find it difficult, sometimes, to remember that historical classifications seldom bear much resemblance to how the people under discussion would understand and describe themselves.

The people who formed the "Christendom" as it was discussed in the essay you linked, were much like (I imagine) the Jews who formed the modern state of Israel and now run it. Not counting the centuries prior, the 20th Century was exceedinly harsh to the European and Russian Jews who have constituted the bulk of It's population, and now hold majority there. A provisional Dx of severe PTSD and Survivor's Syndrome would not be unrealistic. Neither would concern for the future of a society structured and influenced by such severe symptoms. If being the child of an alcoholic parent can have deep and prevelent residual effects, and it has been shown that children of military parents with PTSD will show symptoms consistent with their upbringing, then it seems reasonable to conjecture that the early Christians were much the same.

The "deification' of Jesus and the development of so many vengeful Apocalyptic writings may in fact have been understable defensive fantasies in the face of harsh repressions and persecutions, and the not unreasonable resentments and paranoia induced by the times.

I have difficulty ascribing willful evil intent to those people, albeit they may have been deceived by it's influences. While we know that it is not uncommon for people to feel and behave passionately about an issue as a defense against inner issues, conflicts and personal dishonesties, and may result in some pretty heinous occurrences, such people are seldom the true source of any grand conspiritorial design. While their effect may be harmful, they are really too neurotic to be culpably responsible for any real scheme. They are by nature far too reactionary and, inso being, directable from the outside.

Much of history is the result of hanging onto the tiger's ears for dear life. :jlol:

[Matt2817]

Please look at the following article about the difference between the two words:

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/news/columns/fraser/070101

If this man speaks truth then to label the Trinitarian Christians, those Christians of the Roman Catholic Church and whose churches came out of her, as followers of Christendom then this church could label itself as the Christian Church full stop. This allows for more distinct differences between the two.

Some probably know that James VI was known as the 'wisest fool in Christendom'. Since he was so called, then we can accurately say that the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches are a part of Christendom.

Grace and peace Danage,

Thank you for the web reference. One of the quotes I found particularly poignant is:


The question for Christians is whether the Roman Empire effectively subdued Christianity and absorbed it into the imperial cult. As many have argued, the ethics and theology of Christendom might be said to bear precious little resemblance to the simple and radical faith of a carpenter from Galilee.


The overwhelming answer to the above question is, yes. The edict of Milan/Toleration guaranteed Christianity's place within the established secular society. The resulting syncreticism that came of this has been the subject of much study.

Alexander Hislop's, The Two Babylons (http://philologos.org/__eb-ttb/) is perhaps the most scathing indictment against the commonly accepted "universal" church. Reformers, such as Martin Luther asserted that the papacy was the office of anti-christ. and while he did much to expunge many of the practices held by Rome, he was nonetheless caught short of denying the doctrine of the trinity, immortality of the soul, or the existence of a seperate but contending Devil. Each of which had their beginning in the texts and beliefs of pagan religion.

Without writing a book myself, I would have to agree with your article. But perhaps the greater question is: "What do we do with the information?"
How can we better live our lives in accord with Scriptures that plainly state: This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. (John 17:3) No room for a trinity here!

The edict of Milan very well established Christianity as the state religion but it is the Sermon on the Mount (or Plain) that establishes what our proper relationship is to not only "Our Father" but to our fellow human beings. May we strive to live out those edicts and truly become the children of God, not merely from the reciting of a creed, but through the living of our lives. Amen.

><>+<><

Wayne Matthew Mari

[Danage]

Another view on the Christendom vs. Christianity debate (http://www.konig.org/wc55.htm)
and Wikipedia's definition of Christendom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christendom).

[Danage]

Just to make it more clear for those who have not read the webpage at the top (which will not be online forever I assume):

Christendom = Christianity mixed with paganism.
Christianity = the true Christian faith.