The Consumptive Church: The Model Speaks Volumes.

The Context For My Starting Point, Different Starting Points, The Religious Industrial Complex, Opium & 3 Legged Chairs

On this particular post I’ve invited Derek Mooney to guest blog. If you ever have a chance to follow the comments of this blog, you’ll know that Derek and I come off as polar opposites. From economics to politics to the inspiration of Scripture. To call the give and take that we have back and forth robust would be a gross understatement. But to be honest, one of my best conversation partners that I’ve had through this blog has been Derek and his push backs to my heretical leanings. A lot of people are under the impression that I don’t tolerate or can’t get along with people who are different than me . . . my growing friendship with Derek couldn’t be further from the truth. Derek is different than most people I tend to disagree with . . . he actually is intelligent and “argues” intelligently. Even when I think he’s wrong (wink, wink). He doesn’t proof-text (as is the habit of some), rather he couches scripture in the historical context of the church and the practice of his local community. Derek is also a “house church” guy, along with some of my other friends (Eric, the D10s, his brother Britt).

Derek left a great comment under The Religious Industrial Complex making the connection between the “model” of church being deeply connected to our views of consumption. So I asked him to expound upon it and devote a whole guest post to it. Which is probably a good idea because I originally started a post on this connection but only got as far as the title (Churches Are To Temples What Christians Are To Pharisees) and an opening sentence (But some of the biggest opposition towards Jesus came from, what at the time was the institutionalized religion and it’s religious leaders. Jesus threatened the status quo of the temple) before I realized that I didn’t want to write another negative post if I didn’t have to.

So without further ado or rambling setup . . . here’s Derek’s post. Be sure to stop by his site and follow his thoughts.

Most Christians today, myself included, ascribe to the Bible some level of authority in church discipline and practice. We believe that the Bible is, in a very mystical way, somehow “God-breathed,” despite that it was written by men. I do believe that God inspired and guided the process, and that the New Testament reflects a new covenant between God and man. Most Christians today would have little to disagree with me in that belief.

Yet for some reason, our churches today look vastly different from the church described in the New Testament. This is true in many areas that I’ve covered on my blog in the past, but I think that the New Testament actually has a lot to say about consumption, on both a personal level and on a church organizational level.

And all of the believers met together constantly and shared everything that they had. They sold their possessions and shared the proceeds with those in need. They worshiped together at the Temple each day, met in homes for the Lord’s Supper, and shared their meals with great joy and generosity. (Acts 2:44-46)

This is the foundational scripture of the church, part of Acts 2:41-47. The Holy Spirit had just descended at Pentecost, and 120 leaders, including Jesus’ hand-picked disciples, added 3,000 people to their little Jewish sect. I’ve heard many megachurch pastors focus on Acts 2:41, and say that it’s perfectly fine for them to focus on numbers and what it takes to achieve them. After all, there’s an emphasis in Acts on numbers, so why shouldn’t they focus on it? But megachurches usually ignore Acts 2:44-46, which is the core description of what the early church actually did with those 3,000 people, describing the level of relationship and sharing that they had.

Compare how the early church got started to today’s church. They didn’t start by hiring an architect – they used the meeting places that were readily and freely available at the time, including public meeting places (the Temple court) and private ones (their own houses). Surely not all 3,120 of them could fit into one home. You can imagine that they “daily” split up into smaller groups in order to make this feasible.

So on an organizational level, they refused to let the reality of their situation – rapid growth – push them into spending large amounts of money on their need for a place to meet.

The very reason why they did this, I believe, was rooted in the way they were called to live in their personal consumption, which was rooted in one word – sharing. They shared everything they had with each other, but also gave stuff away to people who had less. If this was your personal philosophy, it’d be hard to convince you to pour a lot of money into an organizational building.

To really understand why this is amazing, consider where these guys came from – a religion that was focused heavily on the temple and the synagogues. The Jewish religion was very wrapped up in the place to meet. Look at Jesus’ answer to the woman at the well:

“Sir,” the woman said, “you must be a prophet. So tell me, why is it that you Jews insist that Jerusalem is the only place of worship, while we Samaritans claim it is here at Mount Gerizim, where our ancestors worshiped?” Jesus replied, “Believe me, the time is coming when it will no longer matter whether you worship the Father here or in Jerusalem. You Samaritans know so little about the one you worship, while we Jews know all about him, for salvation comes through the Jews. But the time is coming and is already here when true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth. The Father is looking for anyone who will worship him that way. (John 4:19-23)

In this passage, the woman is asking Jesus who is right, in regards to where the right place to worship is. The temple was a sign of Jewish affluence. More than that, it contained the presence of God, and was the only place where sins could be forgiven. But Jesus turns all of that around, and says it’s not about location. Putting an emphasis on where we worship, and more importantly, devoting large amounts of resources to it, does not have a place under the new covenant.

There’s also an emphasis in the New Testament on contentment. This drives right at the heart of consumption. Of course, you have to eat, you need a place to sleep, etc. There’s a basic level of consumption that we require. But the desire for consumption far beyond that is rooted in our nature of discontent – that no matter where we are at in life, or what we have, we always desire the next thing, the better thing, the bigger thing. This is true in our personal lives, but I’ve also seen it to be true in church.

Yet true religion with contentment is great wealth. After all, we didn’t bring anything with us when we came into the world, and we certainly cannot carry anything with us when we die. So if we have enough food and clothing, let us be content. But people who long to be rich fall into temptation and are trapped by many foolish and harmful desires that plunge them into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is at the root of all kinds of evil. And some people, craving money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many sorrows. (1 Timothy 6:6-10)

I don’t think that consumption driven by discontent has any place under the new covenant. I think it is part of our flesh, which we are commanded to renew into the image of Christ.

Jesus’ approach to ministry, and the realization of the early church, went directly against the norms of the Jewish religion (as well as the similar Roman/Greek pagan religions that were abundant outside of Israel). The church continued to be a counter-cultural movement until Christianity found favor with the Roman government and was subsequently polluted and corrupted by becoming the “official” religion of the state.

But the New Testament is clear. We are called to live simply. This is not so that we can give all of our money to the church so that the church can be extravagant. That basilica/cathedral style of religion is simply the Jewish and pagan systems repackaged with a new name. The New Testament example runs counter to all of that. The New Testament reveals a church that shares with each other, and gives to those in need. If we want to address consumption patterns in today’s society, it starts with the individual, and it starts with the church as the example. There’s no better example than the model of church that Jesus’ hand-picked followers used. And there’s no way to truly accomplish it, in our personal lives or in the life of the church, except through the life-transforming power of the Holy Spirit.