A friend of mine sent me a link to a rather disturbing web site. They call themselves non-Christian followers of Jesus. While I understand what they are trying to get at, I think it is confusing and the wrong antidote.
John Clark sees the problem to be religion (which is a dirty word for him). Indeed, he cites the Roman Catholic church as the purest form of religion. He teaches: “Jesus showed me that He didn’t come to start “Christianity” at all. He came to set men free from sin, sickness, and death. The vibrant faith depicted in the book of Acts is not a record of the beginning of Christianity. Christianity is that religion which came later and perverted the spiritual life which is depicted in the book of Acts.”
I would be interested to hear what he thinks the book of Acts teaches!
I see a growing trend for CHRISTIANS (call yourself what you will) to shake the skin that they were born in. Jesus came to set men free. He did so by demonstrating his power as a testimony to who he is. More than this, he taught doctrine. He wasn’t some relational Dr Phil for the Middle East. He is God in the flesh and he taught what one must believe to be saved. It is not enough to say, “Jesus is Lord.” You must define who “Jesus” is and what “Lord” and what “is” is (for my Catholic and Lutheran friends out there).
This is merely a preliminary rant on the ridiculousness of many CHRISTIANS to try and say, “I just follow the Jesus of the Bible.” This is short-sighted and egotistical. Let’s face it, hardly anyone has an original thought in his head. We stand on the shoulders of great ancestors who laid down doctrines. I wonder if John Clark would affirm the Apostle’s Creed. If not, then what does he believe. The moment he tries to answer that question, he should see that he can’t open his mouth without uttering doctrine!