Snoopy Approaches Acts

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Status
Not open for further replies.
If we look at this through the lens of organizational development theory (Harrison Owen, in particular) the church here is a very new organization.

Morale and commitment typically run high in the early life of an organization. The need for structured processes will emerge and bureaucracy will follow. Owen defines stages of early and late bureaucracy.

Late bureaucracy can be prevented, he says, with renewal efforts and a new story. Get the people engaged and the cycle can start all over again.

Seems to me there has been no shortage of renewal efforts in our denomination. I am really not sure about others.

Harrison Owen passed away in 2024. He was the originator of Open Space Technology which certainly had a moment.
 
I know some organizations focus more on the Church building then they do the needs of the Church itself --I have been in churches where there is discord among the members so to conflicts on money matters as to the upkeep of the building while poor families are in need of being looked after ----their priorities are screwed up -----

AI
Some religious organizations prioritize the physical church building over the needs and well-being of the people within the congregation. This can manifest as an overemphasis on maintaining the building, its aesthetics, or its status, while neglecting the spiritual growth, community connections, and practical support of its members. This focus on the structure can sometimes overshadow the true purpose of the church, which is to foster a community of faith and spiritual growth.

Here's a more detailed explanation:
  • The Church as a Building vs. the Church as People:
    The church, in its truest sense, is a community of believers, the "body of Christ," not just a physical structure. When the emphasis shifts to the building, it can become an organization focused on maintenance and upkeep, potentially at the expense of the congregation's needs.
    • Neglecting the spiritual needs of the congregation: Resources and attention may be diverted to maintaining the building, leaving less for ministries, outreach, and pastoral care.

    • Creating a disconnect between the church and the community: The building can become a barrier, rather than a welcoming space, especially for those who are new or seeking spiritual guidance.

    • Diminishing the sense of community: An overemphasis on the building can overshadow the importance of personal connections and relationships within the congregation.

    • Creating a culture of consumerism: The church may be seen as a place to consume services, rather than a community where people actively participate and contribute.
  • The Importance of Balance:
    While the physical space can be important for worship and gathering, it should serve the needs of the people, not the other way around. A healthy church recognizes the importance of both the building and the people and strives to create a balance that fosters spiritual growth and community.

 
The infrastructure of the church certainly grows over time. (Buildings, creeds, reporting relationships, traditions, music etc)
 
But a church whose roof collapses due to lack of maintenance cannot meet the needs of the poor.
 
BetteTheRed said:
But a church whose roof collapses due to lack of maintenance cannot meet the needs of the poor.
Click to expand...
The people are the Church and they can still meet the poor's needs ---the Church doesn't need a Church building to meet the needs of the poor --

1754269939295.png

​

A church without walls offers unconditional acceptance to people who are homeless​

faithandleadership.com

A church without walls offers unconditional acceptance to people who are homeless

Church of the Common Ground, an Episcopal congregation in Atlanta, avoids the usual attempts to “fix” people who are living on the streets. Instead, it seeks to be a living witness of love and compassion.
faithandleadership.com faithandleadership.com
 
Acts 5:1-11
www.biblegateway.com

Bible Gateway passage: Acts 5:1-11 - New English Translation

The Judgment on Ananias and Sapphira - Now a man named Ananias, together with Sapphira his wife, sold a piece of property. He kept back for himself part of the proceeds with his wife’s knowledge; he brought only part of it and placed it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, “Ananias, why has...
www.biblegateway.com www.biblegateway.com
Ananias and his wife Sapphira sell a piece of property and hold back some of the profits. Ananias is chastised by Peter for this so he collapses and dies.

Ananias is buried and Sapphira comes out three hours later. Peter questions her and predicts her death. Indeed she collapses at his feet and dies.

Great fear grips the whole church and all who heard about these things.
 
Bit of a shift today in the narrative :oops:

There was a time I would have tried to find something metaphorical in the story. But now I am getting culty vibes. The church is evolving into something rather authoritative if you ask me.

Are we to assume God struck the couple dead? Or did they collapse and die from guilt and fear?

Either way is concerning. Now the people fear the church itself in addition to the external threats they are experiencing.

The three hour interval between the two deaths is interesting
 
paradox3 said:
There was a time I would have tried to find something metaphorical in the story. But now I am getting culty vibes.
Click to expand...

My view on this

I think this is a passage that needs the explanation of the indwelling Holy Spirit to give the Believer some Spiritual understanding in what happened Here -----

Worldly understanding here will give one all sorts of negative vibes I would say -----

Their cause of death is not mentioned so our imagination can run wild on us -----But if you know God and think back to the Garden --where God tells Adam that if he eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you will die ----Sin brings death ---God could have Physically killed both Adam and Eve for their sin ----But He didn't ----but from the SHAME and GUILT and Fear they felt they HID Themselves from God ---and their punishment came because of their own bad decision which they put into action all by themselves through their Free Will to do so ---they were fortunate to escape physical death in the Garden ---

The man who touched the Ark of the Covenant fell dead for touching the Ark ----if you go back and read the scripture you see that David got instructions not to put the Ark on a cart but it was to be carried with polls on men's shoulders -and no one was to touch it for death would result --David DISOBEYED the instructions and put it on a Cart ====and when the man touched the Ark he fell dead ----so God didn't kill the man ---David's bad decision which he himself put into action ---killed the man ----the man thought he was doing a good thing ----


Here ---where were the Couples hearts --and motive --not totally with God that is for sure --they did't trust God to provide for them --they -they were liars and hypocrites ---they pretended they gave all the money to the Apostles when they didn't ---Satan is mentioned by Peter in this scripture ---the enemy got in their minds and corrupted their thinking -----God didn't strike them dead --they were confronted with their sin and their shame and guilt and fear and Lies and Hypocritical nature was to great for them to handle and that is what probably killed them ---the stress on their Bodies was to much and just maybe that caused them to have heart attacks ??????----whatever physical thing happened to them they caused it by lying to God and the church community --

the early Church could not accept or allow hypocrites --deceivers ----liars -- thieves ---half in have out Christians to be in the Group as it would taint their ability to gain church members --the Church was suppose to be a Holy Church

We cannot Blame God for the sins we commit ----nor can we blame Him for the Consequences we suffer because of our bad decisions that we put into action -----from being able to Freely choose what we want to do -----

Fear crept in and they wanted a stash for themselves ------for maybe a plan 2 ----??????? if plan 1 didn't work out ---who knows ---but we do know their Heart and Motive was Bad -----

1754317260110.png
 
Ananias brought only part of the proceeds from the sale and laid it at the disciples' feet.

The lesson doesn't say he claimed to be offering the full amount. So how is this a lie to the holy Spirit and to God?

Peter clearly disapproves of the couple keeping back a portion of the money. Tough leader this one!
 
paradox3 said:
The lesson doesn't say he claimed to be offering the full amount. So how is this a lie to the holy Spirit and to God?
Click to expand...
Well I think it all depends on how one reads this ----as it doesn't say they were honest in telling Peter that they kept some back --and were only giving a portion of the money to them they were deceptive in that they gave them only a portion of what they got ---and they all were selling their property and possessions and give all the money to who had need

see in
Acts 2

44 All the believers were together and had everything in common.

45 sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.



this is the AMPC version

Acts 5
​

5 But a certain man named Ananias with his wife Sapphira sold a piece of property,

2 And with his wife’s knowledge and connivance he kept back and wrongfully appropriated some of the proceeds, bringing only a part and putting it at the feet of the apostles.


3 But Peter said, Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart that you should lie to and attempt to deceive the Holy Spirit, and should [in violation of your promise] withdraw secretly and appropriate to your own use part of the price from the sale of the land?

4 ;As long as it remained unsold, was it not still your own? And [even] after it was sold, was not [the money] at your disposal and under your control? Why then, is it that you have proposed and purposed in your heart to do this thing? [How could you have the heart to do such a deed?] You have not [simply] lied to men [playing false and showing yourself utterly deceitful] but to God.

I say ---So it seems that it was well known and agreed upon by all the Apostles that all the money was to be brought to the disciples ---not just a portion of it -----

That is how I see this ------you may see it different -----
 
I think what's creeping in here is that the believers are no longer of one heart and mind.

And it's dangerous to oppose the groupthink.
 
Jesus never established a system that required his followers to sell off all their assets. Hard to say if this idea came from the grassroots of the movement or from Peter and the other apostles.

One commentator suggests the author of Luke/ Acts might be showing us that Peter has lost his way here.

Or, as another wonders, is it a humorous attempt to illustrate the folly of imposing unity?
 
so in verse 11 ---we see that the Church and others who heard of this happening were appalled and so they became filled with terror and dread -----

This would have been quite the eye opener for many I would think -----it certainly would make one a bit nervy for sure ----

11 And the whole church and all others who heard of these things were appalled [great awe and strange terror and dread seized them].
 
paradox3 said:
Jesus never established a system that required his followers to sell off all their assets.
Click to expand...
Jesus did not set an established system that required his Followers to sell all their assets and give it to the Poor you are right there -----

But --------Jesus was not shy about telling His Followers to sell their possessions and give to the poor -----Giving to the poor is a voluntary action that True believers want to do NOT out of obligation -------but to show their Agape for God by doing what pleases Him --and trusting that He will Provide what is needed

The Apostles were selling their possessions and giving to the poor out of True Compassion and their Agape for God in not because they had to sell their possessions

Luke 12:33 AMP​

33 “Sell your possessions (show compassion) and give [donations] to the poor. Provide money belts for yourselves that do not wear out, an unfailing and inexhaustible treasure in the heavens, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.

This is the rich young man that came to Jesus -----

Luke 18:22 AMP​

22 When Jesus heard this, He said to him, “You still lack one thing; sell everything that you have and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have [abundant] treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me [becoming My disciple, believing and trusting in Me and walking the same path of life that I walk].”

--you either believe this Scripture below or you don't ---you either trust God or you don't -----

The Apostles believed this and Trusted God to give them what they needed ---if they sold their land and gave it to the Poor ---and they needed land for God's purpose ---God would provide the land for them ----

Luke 6:38​

38 Give, and [gifts] will be given to you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over, will they pour into [the pouch formed by] the bosom [of your robe and used as a bag]. For with the measure you deal out [with the measure you use when you confer benefits on others], it will be measured back to you.

The Will Be -----here is a Promise -----God will provide ---if we Trust in Him ---
 
Yes you are correct @unsafe Jesus had plenty to say about the poor.

The apostles may be taking His teachings to the extreme though.
 
paradox3 said:
Today's story suggests they expected the believers to liquidate all their assets. Seems extreme to me.
Click to expand...
Well this is verse 1 it says nothing about all their assets had to be liquidated -----

Acts 5 AMP
​

Fate of Ananias and Sapphira​

5 Now a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property,

Verse 3 ----they violated their promise to give all the money to help the poor

3 But Peter said, Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart that you should lie to and attempt to deceive the Holy Spirit, and should [in violation of your promise] withdraw secretly and appropriate to your own use part of the price from the sale of the land?

So they did not sell all of their property ---it clearly says Sold A Piece of Property ------and no body made them sell their property ---they choose to sell a piece of it ----they still had some property =====but the land that they decided to sell all on their own ---they kept back a portion of the money from the Apostles when they were all in Agreement of giving all the proceeds over to the Apostles to help the poor ----they broke the agreement they committed to ---

This is from Strong's Concordance

The Jerusalem Community of Believers (Acts 2:44)

Luke twice notes that the earliest disciples “had everything in common.” Their radical generosity demonstrated the incoming reality of the new covenant: possessions, joys, and burdens are shared because believers now belong to one body. κoινός here celebrates unity, not uniformity, and provides a compelling paradigm for gospel-driven stewardship.

Ministry Implications
1. Stewardship: Acts 2 and 4 encourage voluntary sharing that meets needs and displays Christ’s love.



AI

  • "And had all things common":
    This phrase describes the communal sharing of possessions. Believers sold their property and goods and distributed the proceeds to anyone who had need.

  • Voluntary Sharing:
    While they shared possessions, it wasn't a forced communalism. The sharing was voluntary and motivated by love and a desire to meet the needs of the community.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top