What is the Imperial Church?

A Christopagan Manifesto, Part 1

When I first released the Christopagan Manifesto on February 11, 2024, I was searching for bedrock. I needed one clear place where my braided roots of Christianity, Paganism, Druidry could grip and grow. That early statement rose from raw conviction of poetic inspiration: I named the powers propping up today’s religion the Imperial Church and cried, “Let it fall.”

Since then, the Dream of an Oak Church project has invited me to dig deeper. This revised manifesto keeps the original fire, but tempers it with soil and stone: theological sources, lived stories, and a mystagogy sturdy enough to stand scrutiny. My aim is simple: show that Christopagan Druidry is more than a flight of New Age fancy; it is a grounded, evolving path toward wholeness in a world aching for sacred imagination.

What follows is not a rigid creed. It is a trail marker, one way our community is learning to walk the Way of Christ through the wildwood of Pagan wisdom.

It is the Church that forsook God and the Kingdom

Jesus sat down, and called the twelve; and he said to them, "If any man wants to be first, he will be last of all, and servant of all."

Mark 9:35

The Imperial Church comes in many flavors and colors, but the easiest way to see and recognize it is in how it rejects Jesus’ teachings on power. Arising from the Jewish Wisdom Tradition, the early Jesus movement rejected power in this world and lived as best as they could in the Kingdom of God, which is not of this world.

Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus answered them, "The kingdom of God doesn't come with observation; neither will they say, 'Look, here!' or, 'Look, there!' for behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

Luke 17:20-21

They rejected marriage¹, refused to serve in the military², and did not offer incense to the emperor. These early Christians shared communal meals, were often led by women, and formed communal societies inspired by the Jewish Therapeutae.

While Constantine catches the blame for the imperial takeover of Christianity, he was more of a symptom than a cause.

The pseudepigraphical writer who forged the pastoral letters of First and Second Timothy and Titus transformed the early Christian movement into the mold of the Roman mystery cults so it would resemble the state-sanctioned religions of Rome. These fake epistles created the hierarchy still alive in the church today.

Paul’s authentic letters read like dispatches from the front lines of a Spirit-driven movement. House-churches gather in living rooms, prophets and teachers speak as the Spirit gives utterance, and everyone waits for Christ to return at any moment. Authority is charismatic rather than official: Paul lists gifts, not offices, and when he greets fellow workers he includes women such as Phoebe, Prisca, and Junia right alongside the men. Justification rests on trust in Christ, and ethics flow from the freedom of the Spirit, not from a code meant to impress outsiders.

The so-called Pastoral letters (First and Second Timothy and Titus) paint a very different picture. By the time these documents appear, the churches have settled in for a long stay. Overseers, elders, and deacons are appointed, each with a résumé of domestic respectability. Right teaching is no longer a living conversation but a fixed deposit that must be guarded against upstart ideas. Women are told to learn quietly and stay out of the pulpit. Good works, social order, and public reputation dominate the moral horizon.

Paul gives thanks to many women. Phoebe is a deacon and minister in the church (Rom 16:1–2). Priscilla is a co-laborer and an apostle (Rom 16:3–5; Acts 18:2–3, 18–20, 24–26).

Pseudo-Paul in 1st and 2nd Timothy forbids women from these roles, promoting patriarchal hierarchy common to Roman religion. He also centralizes control in a new structure we don't see elsewhere in the Scripture.

Where Paul leans into imminent expectation, the Pastorals assume Christ may delay; they pivot from urgency to maintenance. As a result, they trade the thrill of missionary improvisation for the caution of institutional self-protection. The energy that once rushed toward the ends of the earth now circles the wagons to defend “sound doctrine” and proper household roles.

I trust the fire in Paul’s genuine letters more than the tidy fireplaces of the Pastorals. One set crackles with risky faith and Spirit-led equality; the other tidies the ashes, files the paperwork, and calls it orthodoxy. Recognizing this contrast helps us decide which Paul we follow: the restless apostle planting freedom wherever he goes, or the later editor who smooths the radical edges to fit the church’s new place in respectable society.

The charismatic (spirit led) church is subjugated to this new structured church which is invested with authority previously unseen. They enforced a patriarchal hierarchy onto the previously egalitarian movement. This is one of the many reasons their adoption came from the top down and not from the popular acceptance of the community.

They also changed the nature of salvation from a relationship with Jesus and God to a new orthodoxy rooted in sound teaching, good works, and correct doctrine. 

Pseudo-Paul fixes authority in the Hebrew Scriptures and those who are entitled to interpret them. This betrayal of Paul's creative and allegorical approach further denied the guidance of the Spirit and Christ.

Weak and fearful souls cling to the powerful for protection, and the most frightened long to claim that power for themselves. Constantine saw this in the artificial priestly class born from the fake pastoral letters and exploited it. Priests flattered the empire, and the empire indulged the priests. In time, orthopraxy became orthodoxy, and the priest sought out and suppressed every threat they could find to imperial power.

This isn’t a weakness exclusive to the Roman Catholic Church. After the great schism, many of the Orthodox Patriarchs joined with the new imperial forces rising around them.

Martin Luther bowed the knee and bolstered the theological standing of Prince Frederick III, Elector of Saxony and the other German princes, while most of the other ‘reformers’ did the same for the powerful in their regions. The Anglican Church broke away as a statement of the Imperial Power of the British Crown.

Preachers of death carried the empire into the colonies in the Americas, subjugating the people while calling their cruelty ‘Christian Love.’ They extolled both sides in the American Revolution and the Civil War, always clinging to power to mask their fear and sense of inferiority. They flocked to the radio to proclaim hatred and division, then to television to fleece their new flocks and to entrench their connections with power.

The Imperial Church has projected its image and power so well over the centuries, they are synonymous with Christianity for most people. They even try to co-opt those who are not among their numbers like Martin Luther King, Jr.

They have rejected the faith of Jesus. As Mary said about God:

He has shown strength with his arm. He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their heart.
He has put down princes from their thrones. And has exalted the lowly.
He has filled the hungry with good things. He has sent the rich away empty.

Luke 1:51-53

It is the Church that forgot its mission

It is the church that forgot the mission of Christ.

The book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. He opened the book, and found the place where it was written,

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, Because he anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim release to the captives, Recovering of sight to the blind, To deliver those who are crushed,
And to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord."

He closed the book, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of all in the synagogue were fastened on him.

He began to tell them, "Today, this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."

Luke 4:17-21

The Imperial Church, in its quest for power, fame, and wealth, has forgotten the work of Christ that we are called to continue. It is a ministry of reconciliation (2 Cor 5:11-21) and healing we are called to perform in this world, not one of judgement. The empire judges; Christ forgives.

We, like Christ are called “to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim release to the captives, Recovering of sight to the blind, To deliver those who are crushed,

And to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”

What is the acceptable year of the Lord? It is the Sabbatical or Shmita Year.³ This is the year when the land is left to its own to heal and recover, because the land does not belong to us. All debts are forgiven. Slaves were to be set free.

Our calling is one of liberation, spreading freedom, wellness, and life to all we are able to. This calling is a curse to the Imperial Church, which hoards its wealth, sows division to maintain its power, and ignores the needs of the poor, the ill, and the brokenhearted so they don’t risk their own power, position, and property. Worse, they do all of this in the name of Christ Jesus, who saw their kind coming, and addressed them:

Then will he say also to them on the left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels;
for I was hungry, and you didn't give me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink;
I was a stranger, and you didn't take me in; naked, and you didn't clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn't visit me.'
Then will they also answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not help you?'
Then will he answer them, saying, 'Most assuredly I tell you, inasmuch as you didn't do it to one of these least, you didn't do it to me.'

Matthew 25:41-45

It is the Church that breaks the Two Commandments.

But the Pharisees, when they heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, gathered themselves together. One of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, testing him. "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law?"

Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.'
This is the first and great commandment.
A second likewise is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'
The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."

Matthew 22:34-40

Jesus proclaimed a law of love, not of control, domination, and exclusion. It was the Imperial Church seeking to divide the people and maintain its power that instilled the fear of hell into the populace so they could sell themselves as the only path to salvation.

As individualism grew in Europe, the Imperial Church became a general and the congregation the frontline troops. They demanded their ‘Christians’ to convert, condemn, and shun the impure. To the contrary, Christ taught us not to judge (Matt 7:1-3), to not cast stones (John 8:7), and to forgive, letting go of anger (Matt 5:21-24).

For this reason, they ignore the teachings of Jesus and only quote him when they can twist his words out of their context. They only reference the greatest commandment when they argue for obedience and conformity, which is not what the commandment means.

The heart, soul, and mind are a reference to the three parts of the soul:

• the nefesh (heart), which is connected to the body, the lifeforce

• the ruach (soul), which is connected to the emotions

• the neshamah (mind), which is connected to the intellect

So we are told to love God with our body/lifeforce, emotions, and intellect. This leaves us no room for a human intermediary to control us. Kings are against the will of God (1 Sam 8:16-20), so the Imperial Church has worked hard to dam this stream of devotion to redirect it towards themselves.

This is why Jesus said the second is like the first, because when we love our neighbor like ourselves, we remember the Kingdom of God is within all of us. Loving our neighbor is loving God with all of our heart, mind, and soul.

In order to entrench their power, the Imperial Church created the idea of the godless heathen who are excluded from the Kingdom of God so they could lie to their followers and enforce division among them.

Since their false idol hates who they hate, he also demands sacrifice to assuage his anger. They demand offerings of time, money, and effort to achieve their own selfish aims.

According to the prophet Hosea, God said:

For I desire mercy, and not sacrifice; And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Hosea 6:6

The sacrifices the Imperial Church demands do not go to God, but to their own pockets and pet causes.

Throughout history, the Imperial Church has always fought against those who rejected their false authority and selfish doctrines. They have taken many forms over the centuries. The path I have chosen, and that I encourage others who hear the call of Christ but not the Imperial Church is called Christopaganism.

1. From the start of the Christian era, leading writers consistently treated voluntary celibacy as a higher calling than marriage. Paul’s counsel in 1 Corinthians 7 presents singleness as the preferable state for believers. In the second century, Tatian and the Encratite movement went further, portraying wedlock as a distortion of God’s design. Early in the third century, Tertullian read Christ’s advent as a sign that ordinary matrimony had outlived its purpose, while Origen commended those who renounced sexual activity entirely for the kingdom’s sake. Cyprian urged consecrated women to avoid nuptial celebrations lest such gatherings undermine their vocation. Fourth-century bishops reinforced the hierarchy: Basil of Caesarea praised virginity as the surest aid to undivided devotion; Gregory of Nyssa depicted marriage as a transient accommodation suited only to the present age; Ambrose of Milan maintained that arranging a wedding was praiseworthy, but withholding a daughter for virginity was still better; and John Chrysostom judged marriage valuable mainly as a safeguard against immorality. Jerome sharpened the contrast by reserving heavenly reward for perpetual chastity, and Augustine—while affirming the goodness of matrimony—held lifelong continence to be the superior gift in a world he deemed already filled. Collectively, these voices reveal that ranking celibacy above marriage was a mainstream current in early Christian theology.

2. From the mid-second to early-fourth centuries a succession of Christian thinkers judged military service irreconcilable with discipleship. Justin Martyr described conversion as a renunciation of hostile violence. Athenagoras emphasized that believers would not even watch an execution, much less carry one out. Tertullian contended that a baptized person could neither wield the sword nor swear the soldier’s oath without betraying the gospel’s demands. The Apostolic Tradition associated with Hippolytus refused baptism to recruits who continued to kill or to take military oaths. Origen redefined loyalty to the emperor as prayerful intercession rather than armed defense. Cyprian applauded Christians who declined retaliation, insisting that even the guilty may not be slain by the innocent. Lactantius later concluded that the righteousness expected of believers categorically excludes both killing and soldiering.

3. Exodus 23:10–11, Leviticus 25:2–7 Leviticus 25:20–22 and Deuteronomy 15:1–3. Jeremiah 34:13–14