Well Asyncritus, this raises a question in me: Why are you judging them?
Really, who are we to judge the servant of another Master. You didn't buy the Catholics, the Anglicans, the Orthodox or the Lutherans with your body and blood. If they choose to honor their Redeemer with beautiful artistry in their sanctuaries, who are you to set yourself up as a judge of them?
By their works ye shall know them.
Remember: Lk 21.5 ¶ And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and offerings, he said,
6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in which there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
Do you get the impression from that, that God wasn't exactly overjoyed about the magnificence of the temple?
And since:
Isa 66.1 ¶ Thus saith the LORD; The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: what manner of house will ye build unto me? and what place shall be my rest?
2 For all these things hath mine hand made, and so all these things came to be, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and that trembleth at my word.
Commented upon by Stephen:
Acts 7.48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,
Given all that, why are these places built and maintained? God is not in them - He says so. So, why go to them, and why build them?
They are no longer 'meeting places' like the synagogues. They don't fit the descriptions in Acts where they met in believers' houses. They are something else altogether, and I'm not sure it's something good.
Harsh? Maybe a little, but then you are coming off as awfully accusatory there. I think we who are Christians have an accuser, and we really shouldn't be so quick to jump in and do his dirty work for him.
Dirty work? Hardly.
I ask you again - why are these things, in which God states quite categorically that He does NOT dwell - not sold off and the proceeds given to the poor?
If the Catholics, the Anglicans, the Orthodox and the Lutherans (aka your brothers and sisters in Christ) were failing in their duty to provide food, clothing, shelter, education, medical relief, and even social services like adoption aid and counseling...then your accusations would hold a little bit of water.
Take as the simplest example:
Jesus says:
Mt 23.9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
What is the meaning of the word 'pope'? Here's wiki:
The
Pope (from
Latin: papa; from
Greek: πάππας (pappas),
[1] a child's word for
father)
[2] is the
Bishop of
Rome, a position that makes him the leader of the worldwide
Catholic Church
Given that, how on earth can anyone say that this obeys Christ's teachings? When right at the very top, there is an abject denial of something He so very clearly says?
That's not all, of course - but we are discussing the accumulation, in gigantic amounts, of worldly wealth. I'm not even going to ask exactly how those gains were obtained.
But it must be obvious that the church's mere possession of such treasures, on such scales, on earth and not in heaven, is highly dubious on any Christian grounds you care to name.
What are the leaders playing at?
I would be the very last person on this planet to knock the work done by Mother Teresa in Calcutta.
But doesn't it strike you as a terrible thing that the sale of the Sistine chapel paintings alone, or half the treasures in Lambeth Palace, would feed the whole of Calcutta for a year at the Savoy in London?
So what are the leaders playing at? And why are you trying to defend the indefensible?
But, we are blurring two different issues here. Whether or not it is biblical to have an altar and whether or not a church is called upon by the Lord to "sell all that you have and give it to the poor".
I'm not sure we're blurring the issues. The fact that this has come up so naturally, shows that there is an organic connection between the two things. The principle behind the two issues is the same.
It's pretty obvious that what may have started off as something merely pious (irrespective of the unscripturality of building altars), has been corrupted beyond recognition, and what we see is a terrible travesty which will not be sorted until He comes again to do it Himself.
The "sell all that you have and give it to the poor" was directed at an individual...and that call isn't even upon every individual. The point to that particular passage of Scripture is that if we ignore the first part of the commandments, those parts about loving God with all our heart, soul and mind...and only do the outward parts, being good to our fellow man, well then, we're in trouble.
You are, of course, right. This is at the individual level of behaviour.
You yourself know that you don't have to sell everything you have to give to the poor. And, you would be hard pressed to find any such commandment directed at the Church. To try to apply that particular passage in order to condemn churches for having beautiful architecture is misapplying Scripture.
If 'the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands' can I ask you why creating such buildings etc is to be even considered?
I was amazed to see in Soweto, a vast church building, in its magnificence holding about 7,000 people - while all around it were the dwelling places of the poor. Not in squalor mostly, I hasten to say, but who could very likely use some help.
That right, you think?
Far more appropriate Scripture would be those texts from Acts that speak of the early church selling possessions and sharing so that no one would have any needs. Even then those particular passages do not command that we need sell all that we have, they just relate that those with resources would sell them and give the money to the apostles so that there would be no need in the congregation. Also, the money didn't go out to all the poor everywhere, it stayed within the congregation so that none of the Christians had need.
Again, I think you are right - but I nowhere see them building vast monuments to worship in. The exact opposite is the truth. They had none - and those they did have, were the houses of people, and so dangerous that someone could fall off and break his neck, at that.
In this the Catholics, the Anglicans, the Orthodox and the Lutherans go the early church one better...often the charities go out to all, whatever beliefs the recipient has. Which is at it should be, because the Body has grown a lot since those early days and has become well established and far more able to help many more people.
More power to their charitable arm, then.
So why not sell off their vast surpluses and give them to the poor? Why send round begging letters for the public to contribute? Why not sell the lot and do the job properly, and earn the admiration of the public? 'That men may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven'?
In those passages in Acts that speak of the congregation selling what they have and sharing, it isn't the "church" selling off possessions, it's the individuals within the church. Acts 4:34 states that "all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles feet."
Handy, the 'church' had no possessions. Nothing like a building or a painting.
Does this mean that we must sell our houses or land?[...] even though it goes into Chapter 5) we see Peter telling Ananias and Sapphira "While it remained unsold, wasn't it your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control?
You're missing the point again. The 'church' had nothing.
In our time, the 'church' has so much, it makes Bill Gates look like a pauper in rags.
Now, the example of the early church was that all who owned houses and land sold what they had and gave it to the church to be dispersed to any who had need.
Are we to follow this example as a "commandment" or even just as something we are supposed to do?
What did the church do with the money? Buy buildings? Construct altars? Collect bullion, land, antiques and paintings.....?
No, they distributed it to the poor believers, and financed the preaching work. They took up so little, in fact, that Paul had to go round to the churches of Macedonia, taking up a collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem, remember?
[...]
But, the specifics of how we fulfill these commandments/instructions is left mainly up to the individual congregations...and there is no need for anyone outside the individual congregation to set up as a judge as to how the congregation fulfills what actually is commanded.
I fully agree. The individual congregations - not the bloated central organisations - are to be the arbiters of their own destinies .
But the congregations have the responsibility of doing as they did in the Acts - spending the money on the preaching work, and on supporting the poor. Not building cathedrals, altars, and definitely not accumulating vast hoards of filthy lucre.
