Are the Turtles Beating us?

[ken_sylvania]

....
I think there are weeds amongst the good crop and I have wondered at times about how far churches should go to weed them out when Jesus seemed to say to let them grow together until harvest time. How does this match up with Paul saying how to weed them out of the local church ? Well, perhaps that is a topic for a separate thread.
....

Jesus explains that parable to the disciples, that the field is the world (i.e., not his followers, His Body, the church). So he is saying that he will not bring punishment on the earth in a move of total judgement until "the harvest", the end of the world.

OK, so the church should only deal with professing believers that are sinning in the church as Paul writes. But what about the weeds (the unsaved) growing up together with the wheat (the saved). This seems to indicate a closeness of the wheat with the weeds in where they live in this world. Perhaps a thought against being isolated from the weeds.

This article suggests - 'The servants want to help the farmer by uprooting the imposters, but they lack the sensitivity of the angelic harvesters. It’s not the job of the servants to make judgments about what is and isn’t actual wheat. Their job is to serve the farmer as He spreads the legitimate seed.' https://www.jesusfilm.org/blog/parable- ... e%20angels.

So, if that quote is correct, our job is not to try to uproot what we believe are the imposters in the world who may appear to be Christians because we can be mis-judging an imposter from the real Christians and in trying to do this we could be damaging God's Kingdom. Does that sound right to you ? What about 'by their fruits we shall know them' ? Isn't this saying we can judge others salvation ?

In 15th Century Europe the civil government would sometimes banish people from their territory, or even sometimes banish them from the earth, in order to "help" God maintain a field without tares. That isn't our job.

As to the claim by some that the tares and wheat weren't distinguishable in appearance - my answer is that there was an obvious difference in appearance between the two - that is how the farmer and his servants knew there were tares in the field.

[Sudsy]

Jesus explains that parable to the disciples, that the field is the world (i.e., not his followers, His Body, the church). So he is saying that he will not bring punishment on the earth in a move of total judgement until "the harvest", the end of the world.

OK, so the church should only deal with professing believers that are sinning in the church as Paul writes. But what about the weeds (the unsaved) growing up together with the wheat (the saved). This seems to indicate a closeness of the wheat with the weeds in where they live in this world. Perhaps a thought against being isolated from the weeds.

This article suggests - 'The servants want to help the farmer by uprooting the imposters, but they lack the sensitivity of the angelic harvesters. It’s not the job of the servants to make judgments about what is and isn’t actual wheat. Their job is to serve the farmer as He spreads the legitimate seed.' https://www.jesusfilm.org/blog/parable- ... e%20angels.

So, if that quote is correct, our job is not to try to uproot what we believe are the imposters in the world who may appear to be Christians because we can be mis-judging an imposter from the real Christians and in trying to do this we could be damaging God's Kingdom. Does that sound right to you ? What about 'by their fruits we shall know them' ? Isn't this saying we can judge others salvation ?

In 15th Century Europe the civil government would sometimes banish people from their territory, or even sometimes banish them from the earth, in order to "help" God maintain a field without tares. That isn't our job.

As to the claim by some that the tares and wheat weren't distinguishable in appearance - my answer is that there was an obvious difference in appearance between the two - that is how the farmer and his servants knew there were tares in the field.

What this article said is that 'citizens might not immediately appear much different than those in the kingdom of man'. I regard this as saying that some professing to be newborn Christians may immediately not be that easy to distinguish as wheat but once these 'newborns' start to mature ('when the wheat sprouted and formed heads'), then those who were real weeds, not truly born again, became obvious. Satan likes to slip people in to the body of believers and they can fool some of us but the real wheat will stand out over time if they grow in grace.

I have observed that some enter the local church, often through an evangelistic crusade or some other form of evangelism and we can make early judgments on them, perhaps by their emotions, that they have been born again. But after some earlier excitement, over varying periods of time, they show that their hearts were not changed and they had no real desire to follow the Lord.

Some want to join a church and be with their friends or some other benefits to them but thats about it. I can think of a few of these that I was so thrilled to see them appear to be coming to faith in Christ and some even got baptised and joined the church but then later fell away and admit they never really had begun a personal walk with the Lord. They just did what the church required of them and lived a lie.

[Neto]

....
I think there are weeds amongst the good crop and I have wondered at times about how far churches should go to weed them out when Jesus seemed to say to let them grow together until harvest time. How does this match up with Paul saying how to weed them out of the local church ? Well, perhaps that is a topic for a separate thread.
....

Jesus explains that parable to the disciples, that the field is the world (i.e., not his followers, His Body, the church). So he is saying that he will not bring punishment on the earth in a move of total judgement until "the harvest", the end of the world.

OK, so the church should only deal with professing believers that are sinning in the church as Paul writes. But what about the weeds (the unsaved) growing up together with the wheat (the saved). This seems to indicate a closeness of the wheat with the weeds in where they live in this world. Perhaps a thought against being isolated from the weeds.

This article suggests - 'The servants want to help the farmer by uprooting the imposters, but they lack the sensitivity of the angelic harvesters. It’s not the job of the servants to make judgments about what is and isn’t actual wheat. Their job is to serve the farmer as He spreads the legitimate seed.' https://www.jesusfilm.org/blog/parable- ... e%20angels.

So, if that quote is correct, our job is not to try to uproot what we believe are the imposters in the world who may appear to be Christians because we can be mis-judging an imposter from the real Christians and in trying to do this we could be damaging God's Kingdom. Does that sound right to you ? What about 'by their fruits we shall know them' ? Isn't this saying we can judge others salvation ?

Not everyone will agree, but I understand this parable to be dealing with the final judgement. As in, answering the question of "Why doesn't God immediately judge evil doers?" It is possible to over-analyze parables, but because the wheat is being harvested, and the weeds burned up, I understand it in that sense - as referring to the final judgement.

[Neto]

I don't have any experience with what Jesus referred to as (in English) 'tares', but I grew up in wheat country, and what we saw there was what we called 'cheat'. It has the same root system as wheat, and as Sudsy suggests, in the early stages of growth it is not distinguishable from wheat. But when the wheat heads out, the cheat becomes obvious, because its heads are different.

In that sense I think the parable could be seen to have an application that touches on false believers in the church, but I don't think that's what it's about, because of the reference to the harvest, when the wheat is thrashed and brought into the barn. But I could also be wrong. (I have been before. )

[cooper]

I've been pondering something about Brandon's talk that seems "off" to me. As I was pondering this yesterday, I had the thought that there is a parallel here to atheists who don't believe in God but think religion is a good thing for humans.

Christian atheism is an ideology that embraces the teachings, narratives, symbols, practices, or communities associated with Christianity without accepting the literal existence of God.

Like Christian atheists who don't believe in God but don't want to let go of the good things they see as fruit of Christianity, I hear this talk as saying, "These Old Order practices aren't biblically necessary, but they produce good fruit and so this is something we want to hang onto." This presentation deconstructs "Old Order" spirituality and presents it sociologically. Which I think is very interesting, but I don't think will be persuasive. I don't think Brandon's talk will have a long-term impact at Shippensburg or other so-called transitional churches. Old Order practices are "enchanted" to them. By enchantment, I mean "physical" practices that are seen as having spiritual significance. In other words, they aren't doing them because they are sociologically valuable. I think there's something about a focus on being "biblical" that kills this Old-Order type enchantment. I don't think arbitrary extra-biblical rules can be transmitted across generations if this way of living is not "enchanted."

This isn't very thought out and I'm not doing a great job of expressing what I'm trying to get at. Maybe I'll come back later with more clarity.

[Sudsy]

I don't have any experience with what Jesus referred to as (in English) 'tares', but I grew up in wheat country, and what we saw there was what we called 'cheat'. It has the same root system as wheat, and as Sudsy suggests, in the early stages of growth it is not distinguishable from wheat. But when the wheat heads out, the cheat becomes obvious, because its heads are different.

In that sense I think the parable could be seen to have an application that touches on false believers in the church, but I don't think that's what it's about, because of the reference to the harvest, when the wheat is thrashed and brought into the barn. But I could also be wrong. (I have been before. )

Thanks Neto. I appreciate you sharing these views. I agree that one can read into parables more than what was intended and perhaps that is what I am doing with this one.

[Josh]

I would argue the Bible does teach and it’s biblically necessary to construct a Christian culture that indeed does pass on the faith to the next generation.

[barnhart]

Like Christian atheists who don't believe in God but don't want to let go of the good things they see as fruit of Christianity, I hear this talk as saying, "These Old Order practices aren't biblically necessary, but they produce good fruit and so this is something we want to hang onto." This presentation deconstructs "Old Order" spirituality and presents it sociologically. Which I think is very interesting, but I don't think will be persuasive. I don't think Brandon's talk will have a long-term impact at Shippensburg or other so-called transitional churches. Old Order practices are "enchanted" to them. By enchantment, I mean "physical" practices that are seen as having spiritual significance. In other words, they aren't doing them because they are sociologically valuable. I think there's something about a focus on being "biblical" that kills this Old-Order type enchantment. I don't think arbitrary extra-biblical rules can be transmitted across generations if this way of living is not "enchanted."

This isn't very thought out and I'm not doing a great job of expressing what I'm trying to get at. Maybe I'll come back later with more clarity.

I think you were quite clear. My parents often told me "we do this to honor Jesus" without lapsing into the fundamentalism of biblicism.

[Ernie]

I've been pondering something about Brandon's talk that seems "off" to me. As I was pondering this yesterday, I had the thought that there is a parallel here to atheists who don't believe in God but think religion is a good thing for humans.

Christian atheism is an ideology that embraces the teachings, narratives, symbols, practices, or communities associated with Christianity without accepting the literal existence of God.

Like Christian atheists who don't believe in God but don't want to let go of the good things they see as fruit of Christianity, I hear this talk as saying, "These Old Order practices aren't biblically necessary, but they produce good fruit and so this is something we want to hang onto." This presentation deconstructs "Old Order" spirituality and presents it sociologically. Which I think is very interesting, but I don't think will be persuasive. I don't think Brandon's talk will have a long-term impact at Shippensburg or other so-called transitional churches. Old Order practices are "enchanted" to them. By enchantment, I mean "physical" practices that are seen as having spiritual significance. In other words, they aren't doing them because they are sociologically valuable. I think there's something about a focus on being "biblical" that kills this Old-Order type enchantment. I don't think arbitrary extra-biblical rules can be transmitted across generations if this way of living is not "enchanted."

This isn't very thought out and I'm not doing a great job of expressing what I'm trying to get at. Maybe I'll come back later with more clarity.

Good thoughts here!

[Praxis+Theodicy]

I finally got around to watching this lecture. Here are my stray thoughts.

1) Coming out of evangelicalism, I still have it pretty engrained into me that a sermon rightly delivered is exegetical. It examines a text, explores it, draws out truths, finds the natural application that the text demands. Occasionally, topical sermons are productive; but they are done by simply asking and answering the question:what does God say with clarity in regards to this topic? The topical sermon may spend even more time in scripture than an exegetical sermon, because it is doing a tour of a topic throughout the Bible.
"Are the Turtles Beating Us?" In contrast is not what my evangelical brethren would have called a "sermon rightly delivered". It is very akin to a persuasive essay or persuasive speech I would have been assigned to give in a college course. Of course, it uses the Bible on a couple occasions as a source and authority for what is being argued. But it feels like an entirely different beast.
This lecture is not saying "Hey, I was reading the Bible, and I want to share some the things I've learned and conclusions I've come to after studying this passage or topic." Instead, it is saying "Hey, here are some conclusions I've come to based on my life experience and I want to argue that these conclusions are important for us to consider, and I'll use a couple out-of-context Bible verses to bolster my predetermined conlusion".
He spent about 40 minutes talking about his life and the different experiences he had that led him to his conclusions. He spent maybe 5-10 minutes discussing things in the Bible that could kind of support the conclusions.
I don't even entirely disagree with his conclusions, but the way he presents them is everything I've been taught to look out for in false teachers.

2) His conclusion that the Evangelical movement is huge and spends a lot of effort but has had negligible effect on the world, while the Amish are small and don't spend much effort but have a huge impact on the world... this opinion is absolutely wild to me. Evangelicalism has had a negligible effect on our world? This is just patently false. For better or for worse (and to be honest, its both), the evangelical movement had had a huge impact in shaping western society, especially America. The Amish, meanwhile, are well-regarded because people view them with a kind of distanced fascination. The Amish are seen as quaint others, inoffensive BECAUSE they don't really try to push their influence.
There is a big Amish "tourism" industry. People are very aware of the Amish but they are not very influenced by the Amish.
Many people identify as evangelicals, even many people who don't attend church. People might not be entirely aware of what an "evangelical" is, but they are nonetheless very influenced by evangelicalism.
Again, I don't want to even disagree with his conclusions. But his assertion that evangelicals have had little influence on the world compared to the Amish is just wildly inaccurate.

3) Personally, I don't like plain coats. I don't care to elaborate, and it's personal for me. I don't judge those who wear them, but personally, I feel strongly convicted against them for myself.