I agree wholeheartedly. I would only add that even the good ‘ole days of the early Church weren’t so good. Right after they start sharing their goods, Ananias & Sapphira try to withold and deceive. The Grecians complain the Helenists are getting more. And, later, they have a big fuss about whether Gentiles have to become like them (Jews) to become Christian. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

i really like this thought. that the model was just as theological as the words and actions. that the architecture and organization was all very theological in nature and spoke volumes of how the early church understood their relationship to god and the world. i think that’s something that we all too often forget about. in looking at the conventional megachurch . . . what does their architecture say about god? the medium truly is the message.

i also like the idea that the community of god has always been rooted in a local context. and the form it takes is always contextual to that local community. would the church have formed in the way it did had it not been at the margins of society? had there not been so much tension between the jewish culture? had they been a position of affluence?

good thoughts derek.

Derek,

Thanks for bringing true clarity to the issue at hand. If we go back to what the Bible actually teaches our church’s would be in a much better situation. The world would probably be just as much of a mess as it is but maybe we would have true followers of Christ.

Pistol Pete, yep you think God is serious about His church? Hence the harsh but just judgement of Ananias and Saphira.

The Bible is the true standard anything less than it will keep us in the state that we are going. Everything must change back to what Jesus said in His word.

I am sure I will get beat up as usual.

nobody is beating you up wess. i’m just not sure you’re as comfortable with people who aren’t so easily pushed over or around. and who have just as intelligent and opinionated thoughts as you do.

and i’m really not up for rehashing everything that we’ve already covered, nor for distracting from the train of thought that derek developed, but concretely saying that everything needs to get back to what jesus said in his word is to 1) ignore that jesus made those statements in specific and local contexts. and 2) i think a lot of us are trying to recover what it means to follow the words of jesus, both in historical context and in the big picture (above and beyond the mere “literalness” of the words).

and i’m convinced that if we “had true followers of christ” the world “wouldn’t be in as much of a mess”. i’m not sure what the point of having or being a “true follower of christ” is if the world doesn’t become a better place. at that point, you’re back to some sort of detached piety. or some weird timeline process that god uses to “trim the fat” off of us before he can like us again.

“would the church have formed in the way it did had it not been at the margins of society? had there not been so much tension between the jewish culture? had they been a position of affluence?”

Actually, I think it would have formed similarly. Overconsumption is a result of discontent, which is part of our sinful flesh. If that is true, then really in every society you will see similar threads of consumption and selfishness, that the church must run counter to, or it ends up looking just like the surrounding society.

I think the form/context of the church and how it is related to the local community has more to do with style and customs. But the goals and values of the church should not be relative to local conditions. The core values of sharing and living simply are immutable, in terms of what God calls the church to be, in the same way that love one another is. That’s probably the reason we can agree so easily on it.

I believe the reason Ananias and Saphira were conflicted regarding how much of their proceeds to give to the church, and then lied about it, was actually because they were affluent. They were trying to maintain that affluence while buying a level of influence or power in the church. That goes back to the verses in Timothy regarding discontent. I think their example is why Christ talks about how hard it is for a “rich man” to enter the kingdom of heaven. It is easy to see resources as tools to gain influence and power, rather than simply sharing resources and giving to others in need.

“i’m not sure what the point of having or being a “true follower of christ” is if the world doesn’t become a better place.”

We could go off on that tangent very easily! And it’s easy to argue for that position, because it sounds and feels better, more important, to feel that we’re a part of something that can make the world a better place.

But I can’t listen to you say things like that without considering certain things, like Matthew 13:

Here is another story Jesus told: “The Kingdom of Heaven is like a farmer who planted good seed in his field. But that night as everyone slept, his enemy came and planted weeds among the wheat. When the crop began to grow and produce grain, the weeds also grew. The farmer’s servants came and told him, ‘Sir, the field where you planted that good seed is full of weeds!’ “‘An enemy has done it!’ the farmer exclaimed.”‘Shall we pull out the weeds?’ they asked. “He replied, ‘No, you’ll hurt the wheat if you do. Let both grow together until the harvest. Then I will tell the harvesters to sort out the weeds and burn them and to put the wheat in the barn…’”

Then, leaving the crowds outside, Jesus went into the house. His disciples said, “Please explain the story of the weeds in the field.” “All right,” he said. “I, the Son of Man, am the farmer who plants the good seed. The field is the world, and the good seed represents the people of the Kingdom. The weeds are the people who belong to the evil one. The enemy who planted the weeds among the wheat is the Devil. The harvest is the end of the world, and the harvesters are the angels. “Just as the weeds are separated out and burned, so it will be at the end of the world. I, the Son of Man, will send my angels, and they will remove from my Kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil, and they will throw them into the furnace and burn them. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the godly will shine like the sun in their Father’s Kingdom. Anyone who is willing to hear should listen and understand!”

How do you reconcile your position with something like that?

yeah i agree with you derek. i think you misunderstood me. what i was trying to say that if the early church was say, the civil religion of rome as opposed to one of meager means and persecution . . . it wouldn’t have been so organic, small, local, house-church-ish, centered around meals, etc.

it would have been more organized and affluent in nature. which would inevitably lead to apathy, rigid liturgy, power plays and consolidations at the top, and concrete laws.

How do you reconcile your position with something like that?

well i understand that parable as one of the kingdom of god. and not one of heaven and hell. so my rather loose interpretation without much study or thought would be something along the lines of this . . .

jesus is not talking about a distant future. but rather how the kingdom of god is getting played out in the here and now. how he initiated it while on earth. some bought into it and began to live (good seed) and some opposed it (bad seed). those who opposed it (bad seed) were hostile and threatened the good seed. therefore the temptation wanted to root out the bad seed violently. in the same way that many expected their “savior” to be a new david who would rule on a literal throne in their lifetime (this is all over the historical jewish writings of the time). jesus says instead of rooting out the bad seed (like the zealots wanted to do) to be patient and that in good time the bad seed would work it’s way out of the soil and be known by it’s fruit. making it much easier to expose for what it is and was and making it much easier to deal with.

this interpretation is much more jewish in nature. than modern protestant. and it also is a development and continuation of daniel 7 and 11.

btw . . . there are many people who interpret the last days of jesus in light of daniel. as opposed to interpreting end times and revelation via daniel. in this framework . . . daniel isn’t some end-time prophecy. but a prophetic prelude to the kingdom of god and the life and death of jesus in the historical/political context of the oppressors of israel.

Just as the weeds are separated out and burned, so it will be at the end of the world. I, the Son of Man, will send my angels, and they will remove from my Kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil, and they will throw them into the furnace and burn them.

The world is going to end at some point and time. Who is going to clear sin? God, it will be Him that ends sin and all who do evil. It is not by our human efforts.

We live in the world today, we do not live in the eternal kingdom yet. There are so many passages that tell us to be sanctified, to be separate from this world we live in. What is our hope? Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

My concern is how do we keep from people being burned up? Is that not the greatest concern of the church?

I think pride may be the root of consumption, not necessarily discontentment. Personally, I would be much more content to be the pastor of a church with fewer bills fewer people (much less of a headache), but the prideful side of me wants to be able to brag a little bit. We bring preachers into chapel here at seminary some 40+ times a semester. It never fails that they begin to talk about their $26 million building or their $5 million dollar a year budget (both real examples). Anecdotally, my favorite was the guy who compared himself to Job when he was told that they would have to up their $22 million building project to $22.5 million.

Anyway, I say this just to say I think the real issue is pride for most, though discontentment is probably there. Either way, the massive consumption of so many churches is unnecessary and unbiblical.

Question: What are we to do about it? Obviously, there isn’t a person on this blog thinking that it is a good thing that the church consumes just like the culture around it. But, what do we do about it, and where and how do we draw the line between what is needed and what is unneeded?

-Alan

wes. i don’t think people are going to be literally burned up. and i don’t think it’s my job to keep people from being burned up.

i also don’t see “sin” as internally rooted as you would. i think it has more to do with specific acts. but i probably don’t the the “fall” is as comprehensive as you do either. so in that vein, “sin” is not something that has to be cleared up. and if i were to hold to a conventional view, i was under the impression that jesus already resolved the “sin” problem.

good points alan. i think pride has a whole lot to do with it. discontent with what we have means we’re always on the move towards the next big thing. my post tomorrow deals with this. how consumption isn’t the problem. it’s our discontent. and our discontent leads us to live in a transient culture that creates waste with temporary fads and products.

and eventually, i’m going to propose the solution of how anna and i are attempting to combat our discontent and consumptive patterns.

Josh–I guess I was asking Derek, since I figured you were getting to that point eventually. Interestingly, I do see a very personal element in your understanding of the gospel: “how anna and I are attempting to combat our discontent and consumptive patterns.”

Wes–Why do we have to neglect the “social gospel,” as it were. Are the two antithetical to each other? Jesus didn’t seem to think so. Jesus came to seek and save that which is lost, right? Paul said all of creation groans because of the fall, right? The church is the body of Christ, right? We, as Christians, as the church, should be incredibly involved in making all of God’s good creation good again. And, according to the Bible, humans do have a part to play in that, even if it is secondary to God’s part.

“What are we to do about it? Obviously, there isn’t a person on this blog thinking that it is a good thing that the church consumes just like the culture around it. But, what do we do about it, and where and how do we draw the line between what is needed and what is unneeded?”

I think the Bible doesn’t get clear on this because if obedience was as simple as following a clear set of steps, it wouldn’t require faith.

But it starts with each one of us doing it differently. Not forsaking the church entirely, just forming a different kind of community that’s focused on the goals and values that the New Testament describes the church as having. My point has been that if we are doing that, we address the consumption orientation of the church, of Christians, and when we see the church being the church, we will effectively reveal how perverse and distorted the surrounding culture is.

BTW, Alan, you raised good points about pride, and I think that pride and discontentment are very closely related.

“it would have been more organized and affluent in nature. which would inevitably lead to apathy, rigid liturgy, power plays and consolidations at the top, and concrete laws.”

Are you trying to speak hypothetically? :p

On another note, Josh… pay particular attention to:

“Let both grow together until the harvest… the harvest is the end of the world, and the harvesters are the angels.”

I’m not pulling this verse up to try to convince you that it’s a literal “burning up,” though Christ is clear that there is a literal punishment going on. My point is that this verse clearly refers to the “end of the world.” This isn’t referring metaphorically to what Christ did when He was here, or what He is doing now. He refers specifically to the end. And that the situation doesn’t drastically improve to the end. If anything, God allows the evil to be fully developed before the end, along with the good.

“jesus says instead of rooting out the bad seed (like the zealots wanted to do) to be patient and that in good time the bad seed would work it’s way out of the soil and be known by it’s fruit. making it much easier to expose for what it is and was and making it much easier to deal with.”

That’s a drastic oversimplification. The metaphor is not that it’ll be easier to “deal with.” The metaphor is that we don’t want to destroy the good along with the bad — let’s wait until both are fully grown until we separate them, and then destroy the bad. This is not only described in the story itself but when Jesus is trying to make the parable clear to His disciples.

Alan,

Because mostly what I read from the emergent perspective is the “social gospel”.

Just as Josh elequently articulated. He doesn’t believe in hell. That should concern you more than social gospel. Do you not worry and pray for him?

Like I said before Alan, the “primary” role is to lead people to Christ for eternal salvation, to be born into a new creation. Once a person truly comes to Christ and is a new creation then the “social” issues will get addressed. This is the point that is missing.

I am curious Alan and Derek do you believe in a literal hell? If not why do I even need a Savior?

wes.
i never said i didn’t believe in hell. i just don’t believe in your version of hell. nor do i think it’s purpose is what you ascribe it to be. john stott is a contemporary, respected guy that i’d probably most closely align to.

and i think it’s over simplistic to think that the point of a savior is to escape a literal hell. that’s not what salvation is for me. if i’m just using jesus to be my savior from hell, then i’m drastically missing the point of salvation as understood from a jewish and christian perspective. especially as it would have been understood by the early church.

derek.
i don’t think the harvest has to be an end-time harvest. why couldn’t it have happened at the cross? where the bad seed was revealed and pulled away form the good seed (the kingdom and it’s followers) so that it could germinate and flourish like christ said it would? that’s the way i read “the harvest”.

and i’m not sure why the literal and metaphorical would be mashed up together like that. jesus uses metaphors with words like seeds, wheat, harvest. but angels is a literal term? if all the other ideas and themes are metaphorical and analogies in this passage, why isn’t “angels” a metaphor as well. that’s bad hermeneutics. and i’m still sticking with my first point on the “angels” anyway. why does that have to be an end-time event? could there not have been angels involved at the cross in this tearing away of the evil elements and the kingdom of god being unleashed to flourish?

Josh’s point is fair, I think. The NIV translates Jesus as saying “end of the age,” not “end of the world,” and Josh’s interpretation would be consistent with some of Jesus’ other thoughts on the “end of the age.”

It’s worth mentioning, though, that Jesus does speak often of a “day of judgment” that sometimes has a present tense (or near-present tense) e.g. John 12:31 “NOW is the time for judgment” and sometimes far-off future tense as well. In Matthew 11:20-24, and in 12:38-45, Jesus seems to be talking about the far-off sense. And in Romans 14, Paul comments that “we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.”

Those are just a couple of observations…I’m a bit pressed for time with end of semester stuff, so I didn’t look too deeply.

If you want my opinion, I would count myself among the “annihilationist” camp of those doing serious thinking about hell. Eternal punishment for each person who doesn’t measure up, to be honest with you, doesn’t seem to jive with the picture of the character of the God revealed in Scripture. I can certainly see God causing the person to cease to exist though (or providing an opportunity over a long period of time for them to do “penance” in keeping with their actions in this life).

But then again, I’m not God, so I’m not really in the place to tell him what to do and not do. I have thoughts about it, though.

Wes - as far as hell is concerned, it’s discussed a good bit in the New Testament. I don’t think it is figurative. As far as exactly what it is, I think we know as much about it as we know exactly what heaven is. All we have are metaphors to describe it.

In simple terms, hell is whatever comes after judgement for those who do not fall under God’s mercy and forgiveness. All I know is I’m not going to find out about it first hand.

Josh is right that salvation is not just about a get out of jail free card, as well. Paul describes purpose, ultimately, to be built into the bride/body/temple of Christ. In Matthew 13 Jesus says that “the godly will shine like the sun in their Father’s Kingdom.” I think this is the ultimate purpose of salvation.

“i don’t think the harvest has to be an end-time harvest. why couldn’t it have happened at the cross? where the bad seed was revealed and pulled away form the good seed (the kingdom and it’s followers) so that it could germinate and flourish like christ said it would? that’s the way i read “the harvest”. “

Again, the metaphor is one of destruction, not just separation. The implication is that ALL evil will be destroyed at the end of the world/age. At the point of separation, it’s no longer about germination and flourishing. It’s about reaping. It’s about fulfilling the church’s final purpose. Etc. There’s no more growth after the harvest. The harvest is the end of the cycle.

I’m honestly having a hard time seeing the harvest as anything but the end.

“and i’m not sure why the literal and metaphorical would be mashed up together like that.”

The first part is the parable (which doesn’t mention angels) and the second part is the explanation of the parable. Usually when Jesus explained stuff privately, He tried to make it pretty straightforward (because they, like us, were pretty slow). In any case, even in the explanations, sometimes metaphors had to be used because of the limitations of human understanding (such as the “furnace”). But that doesn’t change the nature of what is being explained, and the actions that He’s trying to clearly describe.

“could there not have been angels involved at the cross in this tearing away of the evil elements and the kingdom of god being unleashed to flourish?”

Yet there are plenty of references in the New Testament *after* the cross to spiritual warfare, evil in the world, and a looking forward to a future culmination of the kingdom of God after a final judgement. If the cross was the fulfullment of this parable/prophecy, I think the rest of the New Testament would have looked quite different.

Good points on your end, too, Derek, though I think you’re a bit absolute in your ideas that there’s only one harvest. I think an event in Jesus’ ministry underscores there are multiple reapings. At one point, he uttered the famous phrase, “The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out his workers into his harvest field.” He followed that teaching up immediately by sending his disciples out two by two. I don’t think there any way to see that other than their sending out as an example of the harvest. And they came back overjoyed!

I don’t think it’s a slam-dunk case on either your end or Josh’s; maybe the conversation should be context-specific to certain Scriptures. In this case, with this Scripture, I could lean either way. But I do think you’re right, Derek, with there being clear references in the NT to future culmination or “day of the Lord” that had not taken place yet.

No Wes, I don’t believe in heaven or hell. I’m an emergent, social gospel type, and I really think we all cease to exist when we die–good and bad (take that Josh, I win….). Furthermore, why all this about judging, since we all know that God (if he even exists) is loving and gracious and wouldn’t judge anyone. Why do we need a savior? We’re all good people, and we don’t–Jesus message (if he even existed) was all about self-actualization and helping people. While we’re at it, truth is BS, and objective truth is FBS (you figure out the F). It’s all about loving people in this world, which came by naturalistic evolution chance. Does that help you understand where I’m coming from?

“Does that help you understand where I’m coming from?”

Much of what you wrote either isn’t supported by or is directly against what is presented in the Bible. What is your view of scripture?

The first part is the parable (which doesn’t mention angels) and the second part is the explanation of the parable.

the second part still uses the metaphor of harvest and still uses the words wheat and chaff, which are still the metaphors. if he was switching to literal, it would make sense that he would switch and use literal words in the whole explanation. as opposed to just using the literal word “angel”.

a straight literal explanation would read, there are bad people who reject god. but we can’t kill them now. we will let them grow in with those going to heaven. then in the endtimes of the world, we will rip the bad people up and throw them in hell for all eternity. and the good people will be escorted by angels into another world.

and if we’re sticking with a literal reading of the explanation, then a fire would instantly consume any bad wheat. and it would be an eternal fire.

see how problematic reading “end-time” passages get when literal and metaphorical interpretative devices get switched back and forth in every other sentence. i’m not saying it isn’t possible to read it that way. just that it seems awfully mashed together when we’re choosing which words are literal and which are metaphors so that they fit our eschatologies.

alan is joking. obviously. and it made me laugh this morning. nice job alan. i’ll make sure not to show it to any of your southern baptist professors at seminary.

Derek, sorry to confuse you. I was being sarcastic. You and I are probably a lot alike in our beliefs.

Josh, thanks, and glad to give you a chuckle. I’m just not sure where the question about whether or not I believe in Hell came from. I didn’t know I said something to get lumped into the heretic category with you. Geesh.

Alan,

It was a simple question. Thanks for the charitable response.

Wes, I’m not going to say that you’ve never done this. But, after having walked up to people on downtown streets, trying to tell them about a fire escape salvation, and having them look me in the face and curse me for not caring about their plight, I understand the need for the social gospel. I understand Jesus’ words about the sheep and goats in Matthew 25. You question whether I believe in Hell….why? At what point did that “simple question” (and I presume by that you mean with not judgment or underlying motive–and I honestly find this hard to believe) become necessary in this conversation, based on what I have or have not said? I simply think the gospel is more than just “savin’ souls,” and that the massive amount of unnecessary money the church spends on worldly crap may make us feel better, but neglects the side of the gospel to take care of the “least of these.” I don’t need a belief in hell to motivate me to obey the teachings of Jesus. But, lest you think I’m a looney toon heretic, too, I assure you that I believe in perdition.

Wes, one word. T-R-O-L-L. If that’s the way you desire to continue to interact, go to your local Headstart classroom and start a rousing conversation arguing over whose dad is stronger or meaner or more important.

wes.
i don’t get any conservative points for believing in “hell”? i was trying to meet you half way. john stott is no good to you?

or for exegeting a text from that bible that we supposedly hate.

what good is a “hell” if there is no sadism or eternal torment involved? where’s the fun?

It’s a supposed “righteous” sense of judgment…I feel tempted to comfort myself with that kind of hatred sometimes until I realize how twisted that makes me; to exult over someone possibly going to a place of torment.

But sometimes I get like that, and I have to remind myself that I’m not “in” and they’re out; in some ways, I’m held to higher account because I confess that I have said yes to Jesus, and therefore my life should follow my confession.

Seems like I knew some folks in Jesus’ day who were confident the “day of the Lord” would be a good GOOD day for Israel and a bad BAD day for everyone else. All I have to do is remember what they reaped to come back down to earth and remember I’m not in charge of this whole beautiful mess.

nate,

we stand in agreement. i was being sarcastic. sorry. i couldn’t resist. being iced in for over a day here in oklahoma is driving me crazy.

anyway, all the talk about hell/heaven and hyper-emphasis on whatever happens after death seems to be a grand adventure in missing the point to me. if you push that as far as it can go, then what’s the point of life anyway?

i would like to get back to the thought of the original post though, if that’s ok. and this is and idea i’m still thinking about and working through so this may seem like just a bunch of work vomit.

i’m really, really beginning to like the idea that both josh and derek have tossed around of the community of god–the church–being faithful and cooperative within their local context. the more i think about it the more it seems that rather than having some sort of “silver bullet” model that can remedy the post-christendom church, we need to come up with creative ways to be responsive as a local community with a local narrative and a local context. at first, i wanted to be critical of this because it can be interpreted as being very lazie faire, but if taken seriously i think it could be very effective. it would require much more work and diligence than having a trendy, grand-master meta-model, but i think we’ve all seen that that those models usually end up being nothing more than a flash in the pan so to speak.

[...] The Context For My Starting Point, Different Starting Points, The Religious Industrial Complex, Opium & 3 Legged Chairs, The Model Speaks Volumes [...]

Maybe if I hadn’t tried to rush a comment between an hour and a half of traffic and an all-day meeting, I might have caught Alan’ sarcasm. (Or maybe if I knew Alan better.) In hindsight, that is pretty funny.

Josh, back to Matthew 13. The point isn’t to read it literally. The point is to consider Jesus’ explanation. So the first part of the explanation is where Jesus lays out what each part of the parable/metaphor/allegory is:

The farmer = Son of Man (Jesus)
The field = the world
Good seed = people of the Kingdom
Weeds = people who belong to the evil one
Enemy = Devil (evil one)
Harvest = end of the world/age
Harvesters = angels

He then further explains the parable using a mixture of literal and figurative language. Don’t get hung up on this - I imagine this was very cultural and typical. In any case, Jesus talked this way a lot.

I do think that when Jesus says “the harvesters are angels” that He is talking about literal angels, for example, but I think the bad thing about traditional interpretation of passages like this is trying to make it too literal. If we do that, we might miss the main point of the passage.

As an example, the main point of the creation story is not to detail, literally, how creation was made. It was to describe who the creator was. I don’t care if it was a literal six day creation, a six epoch creation, evolution, a big bang, or God snapped a finger one day and suddenly everything was there. The point of Genesis 1 is to make it clear that creation was no accident, and that God was the creator.

Similarly, I believe we can miss the point about Matthew 13 if we get wrapped up in how literal it may or may not be. I think the major point is this: that evil exists in this world because God is waiting for the church to mature into what He desires it to be. That at the end of the age, the church should reveal the full glory of God. The body of Christ must be prepared so that it can “shine like the sun” when all is finished.

Are there are so many other verses and passages in the New Testament to support this. Whereas the total number of verses in the New Testament to support the “change the world” approach to church, in my count, as well as how many verses anyone has presented to me to support this, is zero.

Ultimately, this is why we are called to live simply, to share, and to love others. This is why we are called to live right-side up in an upside-down world. It is because we are sanctified, set apart, and awaiting the return of our king, and as commanded in the New Testament, numerous times, we are called to be prepared for His return.

Fwiw, Dan Kimball has a good post on hell over at his vintage faith blog;

http://www.dankimball.com/vintage_faith/2007/11/if-you-think-im.html

[...] was reading Derek’s post on Josh’s blog about the Consumptive Church and it got me interested and longing to find a house church group to meet with in my area. [...]

[...] Point, Different Starting Points, The Religious Industrial Complex, Opium & 3 Legged Chairs, The Model Speaks Volumes, The Medium Is The [...]

[...] Point, Different Starting Points, The Religious Industrial Complex, Opium & 3 Legged Chairs, The Model Speaks Volumes, The Medium Is The Message, Appeasing The White Man’s [...]