Acts 15 paints a crystal-clear picture. The Gentiles (Greeks in this context) were not required to live by the (cultural) standards that the Jewish believers had. They were free to stay in their own culture and live out their faith in Jesus in a culturally appropriate way.

a few things:

1. It appears that you feel the need to distance yourself from community. Like it or not, you MUST own the fact that people purported to follow Christ are part of your history. The attempt to distance yourself from the Christianity (which is clearly the root of your desire in this article) shows you have rejected the premise that Jesus, Paul and the writer of Hebrews (depending on whether you think Paul that that same person) who all articulate that we cannot live outside the community of time/history in which we find ourselves. To accept Christ must be to accept His church, this is clearly the one thing which has eternal value as Christ plans to return for her as His bride. He plans to present her as a spotless, washed bride. But he makes her holy, not our attempts at revising our “language” to distance ourselves from her sins. You make a grave mistake in divorcing yourself from history because you prefer not to be associated with the church. Notice I don’t use the word “Christianity”. But you have chosen to apply the nomenclature of “Christianity” to attempt to absolve yourself from the sins of the Church. Is Christ honored by her sin- no. But He has not given up on her and has said clearly he will wash her clean and return for her. If we have learned anything from the history of the Jews in the Pentateuch, the Law, the story of the Jews through the rest of the Old Testament and Jesus repeated claims that his new testament embraces and fulfills the old, it does not eviscerate it. The church exists across physical space (which is why we all believe in the greater Body of Christ across the earth) and across time (from the first century until now). If you wish to sidestep into a DMZ where you can declare yourself free of the sins of the church, you must also give up your fellowship with the Body of Christ (and I am not suggesting you should do so, only stating this is what your claims are doing).

2. Despite the fact that the church (or Christianity) has sinned, this does NOT mean you have to defend it. The mistake made by many in this situation is to do as you have- declare a divorce from the offense (and those in the community), to try to make yourself absolved of guilt. The Church HAS sinned. But so have you. The historical church has wronged many, but so have you and all of us. Did Christ leave us and rejected us? Did he add another book to the Bible and refute the book of John’s Revelation of Jesus, in which he would have had to state that he is no longer coming back for His Bride, His Church, washed and white? Christ has not rejected you, and He hasn’t rejected his Church. You can argue nomenclature, but the fact that you named sin OF THE CHURCH, is clear that you find the church offensive, not just the name of Christianity.

Am I proud of the sin done by the Church over the years? No. But I am honored to be a part of the life of Jesus that flows across the earth through the Holy Spirit– through the instrument of His Body- the CHURCH.

Simply, the sins are not defensible – just as yours and mine are not. Yet Christ forgives, and He has said that “on this Rock, I will build my church”. Jesus has died, rose again and will return for His church. You can scorn the name, but your hope to escape reality and absolve your connection with Christianity breathes of self-deception.

In short, stop defending (or feeling the need to defend) the church. Simply be part of it, and do the will of Jesus. Make a better history for Christianity now. One in which future generations will not feel the need to “follow Jesus, but reject the church”.

3. It is interesting that you feel the need to convert people to Christianity. Again, be careful of what you believe and what semantics you use. All the things you described as shameful (and from which you would like to be divorced) are attributed to the Church specifically, and Christianity in name. Frankly, you can’t convert people to Christ either. The scriptures make it clear that no man comes to the Father unless the Spirit draws him and enables him. You are part of the picture, the family, the servants of God. You are certainly to participate in helping (where the Spirit enables) a person to begin a relationship with Christ, true. If this is a conversion, then fine. But you didn’t do it. Jesus did. Further, no one is asking you to convert anyone to Christianity– but be careful that you don’t believe that Christ calls us to follow him on our own. For this was the failure of the ascetics, who though they did many great things for the faith (and taught us many truths), broke away from living in community with the Church (at least initially- though many later developed into monasteries, which where themselves communities).

Jesus and Paul both make it clear that we are part of one body, one church. In articulating a kind of life where you “convert people to Jesus”, you cannot, must not, leave out the message that those people are not only signing up to follow Jesus, they are signing up to be part of His Body. This is the clear teaching of the New Testament.

A good modern day articulation of this, that you probably know well, comes from John Wimber’s books where he says that in conversion we are called to “Christ, His cause and his Church”.

What I am saying in my response is that is you are trying to divorce yourself from the church. Your language articulates sins of the church, shames you feel about it- not just a bad label (Christianity), that you’d rather not take. If you tell me that you accept being part of the church, and understand that you are part of the church, across time and history, then all the offenses you speak of are included in that.

But for the good of us all, don’t use the single word “Christianity” to attempt to absolve yourself of connection with something that you like the leader of, but don’t like where it has been for some of its history. It’s duplicitous at best, and dangerous to true discipleship.

As for Christ not being his last time, no I get that. It was, however, His title. What He was called. The Messiah. It is also who He WAS. (And I hope you’ll agree that, no matter what you’re called, it’s who you are that matters.)

So while I would not mind being called Yahshuaian (which, I suppose, would mean “one who follows Yahweh is salvation”) I also have ABSOLUTELY NO shame in being called by Christ’s title.

And actually, what’s the difference between a name and a title?

I appreciate the things that you say in both your books and your blog more than I can express!

I have nothing profound to say, only thank you! Thank you for keeping things simple. Everything makes so much more sense when we just follow Jesus, and avoid the superfluousness of Christianity. Thank you for saying things the way you do. It is so refreshing!

From Carl: First of all, Jesus’ last name is not “Christ.” He was Jesus of Nazareth, or Jesus, the son of Joseph and Mary. His title may have been “the Christ” or the “anointed one”, but that was not his name. His name was/is Jesus. (Joshua or Yeshua).