Kingdom

This past Sunday on the 27-Hour Service (you can see the video here), I took on a couple of my revered Seminary professors. Okay, so I didn't really challenge them or take them on, I just didn't follow their interpretive advice on how to understand the parable of the Treasure in the Field and the Pearl of Great Price.

So, what's their way? They suggest in each case that Jesus is the guy who finds the treasure and the merchant, which would make us (individually or corporately as the church) the treasure or the pearl. His selling everything is then Jesus offering himself on the cross.

So how'd I take it? I took a more classical approach where the Kingdom is the treasure or the pearl and we're the ones who find it, however, the focus was that different people find the treasure in different ways. Some stumble upon it (the treasure), while others seek out that which is missing (the pearl).

So, why not follow the prof's advice? Largely it has to do with context (imagine that). The parables of Matthew 13 all come in response to why the kingdom seems to be failing. Jesus goes on to tell a whole series of parables that outlines the nature of how the Kingdom works and, in the process, let's us know that things are working according to plan.

Now, if we take the profs' approach, then the Kingdom is apparently failing because Jesus isn't finding ... which seems to suggest that we need to remove the word apparently. However, given my approach, the Kingdom is apparently failing because people aren't noticing the treasure as they wander through the field, because they aren't seeking anything out for their lives, or because they're still bypassing pearls that aren't quite right knowing that a better one will come along.

Thoughts?

Today Anita sent me a link to the YouTube video below:

After watching it I began to think about the bit at the end where it brought in the end goal of heaven and how this video might apply to the Christian life. I've heard quite a bit recently from a number of sources that the Christian life isn't about missing hell and making heaven, but it's about being part of the Kingdom of God now. While I think that this can, when blown out of proportion, lead to issues like those in Corinth where Christians thought the Second Coming had already come, there is something to this idea.

At the same time, I think the end goal of heaven assists our dancing and singing during this life. How? Because Christians have a certain hope, because we know our eternal destiny, we can face the challenges of this life with incredible confidence because we know that the greatest hardships of this life are nothing when compared to the eternal glory that awaits.

I've mentioned it here before, but one of the early questions I had to ask myself when thinking about Genesis was, "What makes something Church?" Over the past couple of days I've run into a couple of different ideas on how this question should be answered.

The first of these actually came via Leonard Sweet's "Napkin Scribbles" podcast (click here to subscribe with iTunes) and centered on an invitation he received to join The Beatitudes Society which, as the name would suggest, challenges people to live out the beatitudes of Matthew 5. According to this model, Church is defined by some kind of a moral code, in this case the beatitudes.

The fundamental problem with this approach, be it The Beatitudes Society, Red Letter Christians, or the old school saying, "Don't smoke, drink or chew, or go with those who do." is that it makes Jesus' primary purpose one of teaching ... he becomes the example we are to follow. However, if we look to Matthew 16:13-19, Jesus identifies the Church's foundation in him being the Christ, that is the anointed one of God who came into the world to inaugurate the Kingdom of God through the cross and empty tomb.

This of course doesn't mean that Christians shouldn't hold to a certain set of moral standards, it just means that adhering to a certain morality doesn't make something Church.

Now of course, Matthew 16 is a rather controversial place to go because in it, Roman Catholics find one of their proof-texts for the papacy (16:18). Of course, I chose that passage specifically because it provides a nice transition into another view on what makes something Church.

Today I ran across this article on CNN.com that covers an announcement made by the Vatican which states that "it is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of 'Church' could possibly be attributed to [Protestant churches]". According to the same document, the various Orthodox traditions are better off than Protestant traditions, but are still wounded because of they do not recognize the primacy of the Pope.

While I haven't been able to find the 16-page document online, given the rankings of the various bodies, it appears that Protestants are worse off than the Orthodox bodies because they lack the ecclesiastical structure that is shared by Roman Catholics and the Orthodox. In this situation, something is made Church based upon its organizational structure and a hierarchy of those in pastoral office with, in the case of Roman Catholics, the Pope at the top of the ladder.

So, how do I respond to the proof-text of Matthew 16:18? The verse reads in part, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church." The question we need to answer is, "What does 'this rock' mean?" Roman Catholics argue that because the words "Peter" and "rock" are very similar in Greek (and identical in Aramaic) that Peter himself is the rock and at this moment Jesus is establishing the papacy. Others will point to the rock being Peter's confession, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." in verse 16.

Personally, I think the pronouns make the correct interpretation rather obvious because "you" and "this" have different references so "this rock" cannot be Peter unless we have Jesus looking at Simon and telling him that he's Peter and then looking at the rest of the disciples and saying, "And on this rock I will build my church." Furthermore, the rest of Scripture (for example Galatians 2 and 1 Corinthians 1:10-17) affirms that it's the teaching that is central and not a single man or position.

Now, this doesn't mean that you can't have a some kind of hierarchy among pastors, it's just means that it's something that should be done for the sake of good order and by human arrangement and is not what makes something Church.

Rather, as Scripture teaches and the old hymn sings:

The Church's one foundation is Jesus Christ, her Lord; she is his new creation by water and the Word. From heav'n he came and sought her to be his holy bride; with his own blood he bought her and for her life he died.

In other words, what makes something Church? It's people who have hear the voice of Jesus and gather around the means of grace through which Jesus called them to himself.