Scripture Lesson: Acts 11.1-18
We have been considering the book of Acts for several Sundays now. We have learned in this journey through Acts that its author – who is also the author of the gospel of Luke – seem to have intended to write, both, Luke and Acts as “an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled” (Luke 1.1) with Jesus and by the Apostles so that Theophilus, the intended recipient, would “know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.” (Luke 1.4) I like best the way the Common English Bible translates the writer’s intention for both books, “I want you to have confidence in the soundness of the instruction you have received.”
The purpose of the writer of the Luke and Acts was not to provide blanket theological statements. The intention of the writer was to provide situational, contextual, cultural, and political perspectives of what Jesus taught and how he taught, and of how the apostles sought to be faithful leaders of that early Church in Jerusalem, albeit haphazard. The purpose of Luke and Acts is to let the reader know that our relationship with Jesus has to do with belief and how we live. The writer wants to convey that the social, cultural and theological convictions that will inevitably stem out of that relationship with Jesus are not simply based on what you or I (think we) believe but perhaps more about how we face the challenges to our assumptions about our neighbor – both near and far. Journeying through Acts is an opportunity to learn from the leaders of that early church in Jerusalem that the vocation, ministry and service we are all called into by Jesus as part of his gathered community of disciples and co-laborers is not an expectation of getting it always right. Our call to join Jesus in witnessing to love and in being community together is to faithfully, bravely, and boldly cast ourselves into the awkwardness of engaging with the other we yet do not know and of allowing that engagement to challenge our calling, our convictions, and our witness. We are being discipled to faithfully, bravely, boldly… and awkwardly allow ourselves to engage in Unexpected Acts.
Peter just had what was the most transformational experience of his life only second, perhaps, to being reconciled with Jesus after his resurrection. In the course of about a week Peter had his religious, cultural and political convictions challenged. These were life altering events that would lead him to a series of unexpected acts that would completely redirect his understanding of faith, of salvation, and of community. Peter’s sense of his pastoral vocation and call was simply turned upside down. I would even go as far as to say that after his visit to Joppa and Caesarea, Peter will be a different social human being, a contrasted cultural self, and a transformed witness to the depth and breadth of what the Holy Spirit is capable and wanting to do.
This was all, of course, a secret between Peter and his companions in Joppa. And, naturally, as every secret in the Church, everybody knew about it! And we know this because at outset of the lesson this morning we read that the leaders in Jerusalem “heard.” Peter, either, randomly visited Jerusalem and/or he was recalled by the leaders of the Church in Jerusalem. And upon being questioned about what transpired, Peter went on to tell the story of what had happened in, both, his vision and his visit to Cornelius’ house, and of how he was convicted by what the Holy Spirit did in his spirit and in the lives of the household of Cornelius.
What I find curious:
What was not asked
No question on gentiles receiving the Holy Spirit
No question on the baptism of gentiles
Even today, the suspicion or implication of the Sacraments not being properly administered could provide for some interesting conversation at the heart of a presbytery
What was asked
Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?
The Common English Bible translates v. 3 more aggressively, “They accused him, ‘You went into the home of the uncircumcised and ate with them!’”
The question from the leaders of Jerusalem was about the theological reasons Peter had to do what he did, nor the reasons why he thought it was imperative to baptize and fellowship with these folks without the proper approval or the session or the presbytery. There was nothing theological, ecclesiological or sacramental in how they interpreted the second-hand story (hear gossip) of what had happened. These leaders went to Peter with the half-truth and part story they “heard” and accused him based purely on cultural, social and political bias – a law intended to encourage social purity of Jews was, but the first century, interpreted as a prohibition for Jews to engage with non-Jews.
How Peter responded to the question
Peter provided a background to the story:
Peter disobeys the voice of the Spirit three times and is left hungry.
Are there times when in our personal ministry or our congregational witness we might find ourselves empty because we might have missed (intentionally or not) the call and guidance of the Spirit?
In obedience now to the Holy Spirit, Peter goes to Cornelius, not the other way around
The council in the Jerusalem on that day and the American Church today are being called to go to those we have labeled as other/stranger or strange.
Peter did, and his religious, cultural and political convictions – his whole self – was challenged, altered and redirected making his witness and pastoral leadership far more relevant, reaching and influential
I wonder
how many bodega cashiers, halal market employees, West Indian cooks, Indian and African store owners are waiting for those who might consider themselves the normative cultural, social and religious presence in this community to visit with them and be fully welcomed, fully embraced, fully engaged because of who they are and not because of what the should be
how many of the poor in our midst and in this city might be waiting for us to come to them and ask how they are doing, not because we think we have a way to “solve their problems” but because we are simply and genuinely curious about their plight, their struggle, and their contribution to the community
Let us not confuse style with tradition
Let us not confuse cultural norms with theological affirmations
Let us not confuse social biases with acceptable social standards
Assimilation is one thing. An intentional engagement that leads to mutual awareness and relationship will inevitably change everyone engaged.