One could argue that the rise of formal churches—especially institutions like the Catholic Church—came from a very human desire to act as gatekeepers of spiritual awakening. To become intermediaries to accessing to the oneness with the universe within when no intermediary was ever necessary when taught by Jesus. By positioning themselves as the sole authority on divine truth, they effectively claimed control over who can access enlightenment and how. That authority has often been maintained by steering followers into rituals and practices that drift from the essence of what Jesus originally taught, keeping people spiritually stagnant. I’ve always found it especially amusing that Catholicism literally built a bureaucracy to mediate the relationship between humanity and God—complete with a hierarchical power structure and a quasi “prime minister” at the top.

Or, from a less cynical angle, maybe many churches aren’t acting out of malice at all—they’re simply repeating teachings that have been misunderstood and misinterpreted over time.

Either way, the pattern is obvious in modern Christianity. Jesus never instructed anyone to worship him. He never told his followers to accept him as their savior as a prerequisite for awakening. Did he declare that belief in his death on a cross was the path to salvation or enlightenment? No.

Those doctrines may be central to contemporary Christianity, but they don’t align with Jesus’ teachings as recorded in the gospels—and they weren’t what he taught his disciples to trigger their awakening.

What Jesus was teaching his apostles—and why he inspired such devotion—was how to activate the innate trigger for pure happiness that exists within every one of us. His guidance was remarkably clear and direct. And while many of his teachings echoed traditions that predated him, like Buddhism, what set Jesus apart was his delivery: he used metaphor and symbolism with real mastery, speaking in a way that hit people in the heart. That poetic, efficient approach is a big reason his words still carry so much authority and mysticism today.

And there’s no betrayal in recognizing overlap. Buddhist teachings can be powerful tools for uncovering our inner weaknesses and guiding us toward atonement and sincere repentance—fully compatible with Jesus’ core emphasis on seeking God’s forgiveness. Jesus directs worship to God the Father, calls us to rely on the Holy Spirit, and puts forgiveness at the center of the path. Together, these teachings form a complementary road to awakening and renewal.

To be frank, Jesus’ message began to get corrupted the moment Christianity became an organized religion. The institutional tailspin started not long after his death, and to reiterate: this was no accident. People recognized what Jesus was actually teaching—the consequences of surrendering to the greater will of our Father—and they couldn’t tolerate it. They became a bunch of Judases, ensuring his real message never reached wide adoption. Churches took ownership of Jesus’ name and declared themselves the only official channel for his teachings, then reshaped the message to prevent a massive awakening at scale.

A lot of what was taught after his death wasn’t even aligned with what Jesus taught. There are New Testament passages where Paul curses people of other faiths—despite Jesus teaching love of neighbor. And organized Christianity itself violates Jesus’ call to unity, because religions are often just ego-driven tribalism: the urge to form groups, separate ourselves from others, and claim we’re superior. That runs directly against Jesus’ teaching that we’re all one—neighbors, and collectively children of the universe, our Father.

And to prove the point: the Catholic Church still claims that only it has the authority to interpret, manipulate, or change anything in the New Testament. That’s not humility—it’s control. It’s about controlling the message, controlling its distribution, and controlling how many people it actually reaches and helps awaken.

Many Blessings Your Way! Join my mailing list if you want occasional updates.
I do not spam email boxes and will not try to sell you anything!

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

3 responses to “How Churches Gained Power By Becoming “Gatekeepers” To Heaven”

  1. Thanks for your thoughts here, Fav. It’s unfortunate it’s gotten hard to get interaction on blog posts and such… so much “out there”. (My own blog “suffers” the same struggle, though I’ve posted very little for a long time now.)

    I’ve studied Christian origins extensively, along with the NT and some of the most “adjacent” texts. Out of that, I’d say I generally agree with your main points here. The nature of organizing into “institutions”, even small ones (never getting to control “orthodoxy” broadly, as did the RC Church, 4th century and beyond) is indeed to exert certain controls.

    However, if we focus on just the FIRST century, I don’t find any “organization” yet having emerged capable of or motivated to keep people from actual spiritual enlightenment. The main dynamic of the 4 decades from 30 to 70 (and, in modified form, post-70 and destruction of Jerusalem) was the tension and not-always-friendly “competition” between Paul/Paulinism and James/Jerusalem.

    The depth and significance of this is partially revealed by both Paul and “Luke” (especially in Acts). Luke, however, largely distorts and actively HIDES the competition and conflict. No one else covers this key period in any kind of “historical review” manner until the very slanted and Constantine-supported “history” by Eusebius.

    What Paul did, in my view, had very mixed results. Regardless, he definitely had a different “revelation”, resulting in a different “gospel” (announcement) from that of Jesus, who remained a Torah-observing Jew … though of course focusing way more on the spirit than the “letter” of the Torah. Paul is to be given the main credit, supported by Mark and Luke, particularly, for “expanding” the inclusiveness of “Israel’s” God to the rest of humanity (Gentiles). Again, with much ongoing controversy and critique, including by me.

    1. I really appreciate your response—it was enlightening and thought-provoking, especially from a historical perspective, an area where I am only only slightly familiarity (mostly through dabbling with Bart Ehrman, whom I highly recommend).

      What you shared about Luke’s actions is particularly intriguing—something I wouldn’t have considered if you hadn’t revealed it. The search for control started very quickly it seems.

      As for my own writings here, they serve primarily as a creative outlet. Whether they ever gain momentum is ultimately in the hands of a higher power. lol

  2. Thanks for that feedback, Fav. It is much appreciated.

    I wish you the best in digging further. There is enough to last a lifetime, for either the trained academic or a lay person with serious interest. (Personally, it’s a combination of intellectual curiosity and desire to get practical results by increasing people’s understanding of belief systems, Christian and otherwise, and psycho-spiritual dynamics.)

    I’ll give you just a handful of key leads I’ve found especially helpful. They will lead you to many more (more than you can pursue). One I’m re-reading currently is “Paul and Jesus” by James Tabor. Tabor is actively leading online/YouTube courses, with plenty that’s free, available… retired Professor and leading Israel/Palestine archeologist, tour guide, etc. Very thorough scholar, agree with him or not.

    Another very focused book with an unusual but important angle is “Apostle Paul: A Polite Bribe” by Robert Orlando. It focuses on the “Collection for the Saints” (in Jerusalem), which is a more important and instructive aspect of Paul’s ministry than is generally recognized, even by scholars who should be more attuned.

    A third favorite author is L. Michael White: “From Jesus to Christianity” and “Scripting Jesus”.

    There is also a good collection of articles (or portions of books?) by Burton Mack titled “The Christian Myth”. Mack is important, with his interdisciplinary colleague, the late historian of religion, Jonathan Z Smith, for their (mainly Mack’s) “social influence theory” of Christian origins. It does things to explain the early growth of the faith beyond the polemics of the Bible or histories of events and theological ideas largely divorced from their cultural and subcultural/social-group settings.

Leave a Reply to Fav (Favian)Cancel reply

Trending

Translate »

Discover more from Actual Christianity

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading