Home | FAQ | Message Boards | Site Map | Subject Index | Other Resources | We Believe...
Perilous Times | Unitarian Christology | Logically Speaking | Sacred Names | Faith-Doctrine

Anti-Church Defined

by Phil Maxwell, 11/22/02

I agree with many that adopting an anti-church position is dangerous ground, but argue that non-belief in the deity of Christ doctrine no more constitutes an anti-church position than trinitarianism precludes it. 

To begin with, one must have a correct definition of the true church in order to establish what is anti-church.  The true church is the complement of those who hear and follow Yahshua’s voice alone, the sons of God, those who not only have, but are led by the Spirit, those who hear and do according to Yahshua’s will, etc.  This definition transcends all denominational and most doctrinal lines set forth by men since the days of the apostles.

Thus, a true anti-church position is one that obstructs or interferes with those who hear and follow Yahshua’s voice alone in the course of them doing so, or, as the Scriptures say, those who offend or cast stumbling blocks before others.  An anti-church position can be a single person or minority opposing the majority, but it can also be the vast majority opposing a single person or minority.  It can just as well be ninety-nine against one as one against ninety-nine.

Now, since neither Yahshua nor the apostles ever taught the trinity doctrine, whether true or not, I don’t find any valid authority to define anti-church on the basis of the identity and nature of Christ beyond what the Scriptures plainly say about Him – that He is the Son of God, Messiah, Savior, only Mediator between God and man, etc.  No further understanding of Him is necessary to be received by Him, and to offend those who love Him and are received by Him is to be definitively anti-church, regardless of the numbers involved.

When someone haphazardly apply terms like terms like “cultic” and “anti-church” to others on the basis that they don’t conform with their contrived view of what is the “true church,” they make themselves definitively anti-church.

Some say that 'teachings that distort the biblical picture of Christ's nature also of necessity distort Christ's work of salvation for us,' but this overlooks something very important. The teachings of Yahshua and the apostles make it abundantly clear that loving one another (meaning all true believers) is by far and away the single most important obligation of all true believers. No interpretation or application of Scripture that doesn’t place this above all else can be valid, whether one believes in the deity of Christ, the trinity, modalism, or whatever. Yahshua’s view of the unity of the faith includes all who truly love Him, while most of the sects of Christianity seek a unity of the faith that is much less. The true unity of the faith and knowledge of the Son of God won’t come by way of superior doctrines or having the largest numbers, it will come by way of the one body of Christ building itself up in love, as He commanded.

Others believe that Yahshua (Jesus) the Son of God is also God Himself, and I don’t.  However, most would agree on everything man must do and believe to be saved, and wouldn't argue against the fact that the first commandment for them that believe is not to have a perfect and complete understanding of the nature of God, His Son, and the relationship between them, but that believers love each other as fellow members of the family of God. I’m convinced that a more perfect knowledge of the Son of God is assured for those who seek first to build up His body in love.

Trinitarians, Son of God, and Modalism folks alike can and do make themselves enemies of the true church. They do so by thinking their agenda to espouse a more perfect doctrine or whatever is more important than keeping Yahshua’s commandments.

Home | FAQ | Message Boards | Site Map | Subject Index | Other Resources | We Believe...
Perilous Times | Unitarian Christology | Logically Speaking | Sacred Names | Faith-Doctrine