The church in the Greek sense of "ecclesia" is not a building but a regrouping of individuals brought together in a common spiritual willpower. We thus find "churches", offering some worships to any shape of "divinities" considered higher by the protagonists themselves. They meet then to adore or simply address requests, prayers in various forms to these beings considered higher, in order to receive spiritually or physically their benefits.
At this level of reflections, we could be tempted to consider that any shape of church is condemnable in its Utopia and its unrealism, because this remains true for much That would however disregard our nature that builds from the brain to the body, and not from the body toward the mental, as we can see it in the development of the theme of "Science and Faith"or "Any life arises from the knowledge and not from the matter".
Each one in its error and its part of truth is thus respectable, and nobody to date holds the absolute truth, but many are those which employ the name of God in vain. There are some, more convinced than others, to even see, more convincing. These overflows exist, that it is in the negation of God, as it was the case of"the church" of Karl Marxwho tried to bring back the man to the dimension of God, or in the extremism of any form of fundamentalism religious which we see whether prolific within the current world. We however have intuitively at our disposal an incalculable range of experiments to guiding us towards the true nature of God, made of balance and from Love, in which logic where the fear disappears from itself. It is at this we must look at, and at that we can measure the church, to see the Church of God.
The Church of God, this one that we can write with an E capital letter,does not exist as an entity known on earth, but each one in its personal integrity can belong to it more or less. It is quite obvious that it is constituted of people attached to make die in them their own initial carnal dimensions of sin, but how? Is this by simply making disappear them to the eyes of the others? Is this by the compliance with rules to which can also subject certain groups of animals in a “dressage" increasingly more constraining? Is this by a self-flogging of the animal body, by physical, mental or spiritual constraints? Is this, to the contrary, by an unrestrained liberalism giving again to the man the right to come back to his lowest instincts?
If our real motivation is to act according to God, our research does not need to be simply appear as good to the men, by thoughtless permissions, or simply that many follow us. It is necessary on the contrary, that we know love us each other beyond our differences, and beyond the errors that we can be a spectator at another, while remaining his lawyer before our God and not his accuser. We must therefore call a trap “trap”, and not to give reason to it as being a human fatality that we must accept, without however despise the person fallen into this trap. This is here the trap of humanism that wants to be balanced without the help of God, because, if to human sight it may seem good, since tolerant, it leads inexorably to acceptances of the error more or less large scale, in order to accept the individual in error, whereas God wants to eliminate the error in the human spirit, to bring her integrity and the abundance of heart in a freely agreed equilibrium. This is of course the opposite.
We have at our disposal, if we want to admit it, an example and only one:This one of Jesus!