So what do we say? Are they right and we're wrong - the short answer is 'no' (surprise, surprise). The long answer would take many blogs and books. In this discussion I want to paint some broad brushstrokes that will help us begin to digest and discuss these issues.
1. The standard response of conservative evangelicals has been to say that Acts is just describing history. It tells us what happened not what should happen. It is the letters of the New Testament that give us the commands and shape of the church for today. This might seem attractive at first but it is a bit of a lazy cop out - it puts the book of Acts in a lower level in the Bible as just history with little to teach the church. We have to do better if we're serious about the Word of God.
2. So we need to understand what kind of book we're reading when we read Acts. Firstly, it's a narrative or story like the gospels are. This is not saying it's not true but rather that it has a plot, characters, drama, tension etc. We're taken on a journey with the early church which challenges and encourages us. Secondly, it is history. The book is very consciously placed in the historical social geographic context of its events. Thirdly, has a theological purpose - it is written to teach us something about Jesus and his people. We see this in the development of big themes like the fulfillment of God's promises, the rule of Jesus over his people through his Spirit and the expansion of the church. So the best thing to say is that the book of Acts is a theological historical narrative.
3. This means we need to read, wrestle with and obey Acts with that as our framework. So we can't just pluck verses out of Acts and nail them to a church mission statement. We can't say that just because it happened in Luke we MUST do it. So simply because a group of people speak in tongues does not mean Christians ought to or must do today. It's a flawed logic. It would be like arguing that because Paul went from synagogue to pagan temples that must be our model of evangelism. Or it would be like arguing that because the early believers sold their possessions to help out the poor we must to. Or it would be like arguing that our preachers must copy the format and content of Paul and Peter's sermons. So yes Acts has a lot to say to us today but we avoid simplistic pronouncements. As we read Acts we're encourage, rebuked and challenged to live for Jesus. Exactly how requires to read carefully.
4. The way that we read carefully is to prayerfully humbly observe and wrestle with how Luke unfolds his story. If he has written a theological historical narrative with a purpose then the way he shapes individual scenes will tell us what do with them.
5. So let's throw out an example. Acts 8:4-25 is often used as an example that the Spirit does not come at conversion. The Samaritans believe, get baptised and then later receive the Spirit after Peter and John lay hands on them. So people argue that you believe and then later you get the Spirit (often with tongues being held up as THE evidence of that reception of the Spirit). Without unpacking all the detail of my college thesis (that's a whole different blog if anyone is interested...he says hopefully) - this passage does not teach that. If we read carefully and closely we see Luke is telling us that it is a unique event (not a model for us today). The delay in the reception of the Spirit is about God guiding history - God brings the apostles to Samaria to witness for themselves that the gospel has expanded beyond Jerusalem to include even the despised Samaritans.
There's so much more that could be said and no doubt more questions you can ask but this is a start. I'd welcome more interaction and discussion on this. Respond to this post or email me with any thoughts or questions.
James Lewis
No comments:
Post a Comment