A Tale of Three Conversions (Acts 10-11, 15)

May 15, 2010

We often call it the “conversion of Cornelius.” And, indeed, that is a significant moment. Cornelius was a Roman centurion—the commander of 80 men (sort of like a Captain of a company, though centurions could rank much higher in a Legion—stationed in Palestine. This was no honored placement. It was like soldiering on the Eastern Front during World War II. It was hostile, unpleasant and potentially explosive.

But Cornelius was a devout man who prayed incessantly and gave alms to the poor. God heard his prayers and honored his gifts. But that does not strike us as earth-shattering as it was in Palestinian Judaism. We are too tamed by the story, domesticated by hearing it innumerable times.

Let me say it again. God heard the prayers of a pagan soldier who served in the regime of an imperial nation that oppressed God’s people! Does God hear the prayers of a devout, alms-giving Taliban foot-soldier on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan? What Jew would have dreamed that God would hear the prayer of a Roman commander? But he did.

This shocked everyone. It even, I think, shocked Cornelius. His rush to obey God, his obeisance to Peter when he arrived at his house, and his willingness to believe and do whatever Peter told him point toward not only the excitement Cornelius felt but his utter gratitude that God answered his prayer.

Everyone included Peter. Even though he had announced that the promise of the gospel was for even those who were “afar off” in his Pentecost homily, he was unprepared for the three visitors who came from Cornelius’ house in Caesarea to the tanner’s house in Joppa. The Holy Spirit had to tell him to go with them as if Peter was racked with confusion and uncertainty.

Peter’s response was understandable. He had been taught the difference between clean and unclean all his life—clean food and unclean food, clean people and unclean people. And the Gentiles were, as a class, unclean. There was no touching them, there was no visiting them, and certainly there was no eating with them allowed within the halls of Jewish Orthodoxy.

When God told Peter in a vision to kill and eat unclean food, he refused. He reminded God of how he was raised and that only kosher food had touched his lips. Three times—mirroring the three who came from Caesarea—God invited him to eat and Peter refused. Refusing to eat what God has provided is no small act.

Perhaps Peter thought God was testing him; perhaps it was a false vision, even a temptation from Satan himself. But it was actually the first step in Peter’s conversion. He received Cornelius’ friends and they stay the evening in Joppa (they must have been Jewish friends of Cornelius—Cornelius was probably a “God-fearer”). He goes to Cornelius’ house, hears his story and concludes what he had been previously unable to even conceive, that is, God is no respecter of persons and whoever does what is right is honored by God, even among the nations (Gentiles).

But the story is not over. There is yet another conversion to come. It is the conversion of the church itself.

When Jerusalem heard that Peter had gone to the Gentiles—a Roman soldier no less—and ate with them, they were dismayed, scandalized and perhaps even hostile. Remember that those who are “zealous for the law” (even if they had become Christ-followers, as in Acts 21:20; cf. ) are hostile to any Jew who violates the traditions of the fathers, especially when it involves relationships with Gentiles, much less Roman soldiers. Circumcision—an Abrahamic covenant—must be maintained and the distinction between clean and unclean must be practiced even if Gentiles become Christ-followers. They must, so many believed, live by the Torah and embrace the covenant of Abraham through circumcision. This hostility continued for decades within the early church as it even fueled some of Paul’s letters like Galatians.

The book of Acts tells the story of Cornelius three times. The only other story it narrates three times is the conversion of Saul. This was a community-altering event in the life of church. It changed the church, and church had to undergo a conversion. The church had to rethink how it thought about Gentiles, related to Gentiles; it had to think about how it would receive Gentiles and live in the community with Gentiles; it had to think about how Jews and Gentiles could eat together, even eat the Lord’s Supper together given their divergent table manners.

That must have been an excruciating process filled with doubts, discomfort, and fear. Certainly in Acts 11 the church hears Peter’s report with joy and praises God. But the church has to hear it again in Acts 15, along with Paul and Barnabas’ missionary report as well as James rehearsal of Scripture to be convinced. Even then the Gentiles had to accommodate some Jewish sensibilities such as not eating food that had been strangled. That the process was frustratingly slow is evident when Peter himself felt so much pressure in Antioch that he withdrew from eating with Gentile Christ-followers in order to smooth the ruffled feathers of some from Jerusalem.

Gentiles in the church are fine as long as they are not in our local congregation, or as long as I don’t have to eat with them, right?

The conversion process for the church was filled with pitfalls—starts and stops and start ups again. The centuries of hostility, mistrust and scruples did not cease with one conversion in Caesarea. We might even wonder if the process was ever actually completed as the church failed to learn to live together as Jew and Gentile in peace and harmony (see Romans 14-15).

Sometimes the church needs conversion. When the church becomes encrusted in its traditional practices….when the church erects cultural or racial barriers….when the church favors particular habits over people….when the church finds spirituality only within the walls of its buildings…when the church is so territorial that it fails to plant new congregations…it needs conversion.

Sometimes the church needs conversion. It needs to hear the voice of God anew. It needs to listen to the stories of God’s work among people. It needs to hear the testimony of changed lives.

Given the history of the church in many places, no wonder that those outside the church retort back to it, “heal thyself.” Sometimes the church needs conversion just as much as those outside of it.

21 Comments | Biblical Texts, Theology | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Profiles in Character: A Look at Shepherding and Spiritual Leadership III

July 15, 2009

[This is a brief small group/Bible class series that parallels the sermons of Dean Barham at Woodmont Hills Family of God in Nashville, TN, for the month of July 2009. You may listen to Dean's lessons here.]

A Shepherd Model

Acts 20:17-38

Paul had spent several years in Ephesus ministering among God’s people in that city. As he travels toward Jerusalem he calls the elders of the church at Ephesus to Miletus to remind them, encourage them and charge them.

He encouraged them by his presence. He wanted to say “goodbye” as he believed that he would not see them again. His presence was a final encouraging stroke which brought forward all their memories. Those memories would serve to guide them in how they served the church at Ephesus.

He reminded them how he conducted himself while among them. The leaders of the church in Ephesus had leadership modeled for them by Paul’s own ministry in the city. His litany of tasks, the variety of his presence and his attitude and motives are rehearsed for the sake of shaping how these elders would themselves lead the church. Paul served with…

  • humility though chosen by God
  • courage through many trials
  • publicly and privately (“house to house”)
  • powerful witness to the grace of God
  • proclamation of the kingdom of God
  • protecting believers from deceivers
  • caring for the poor
  • working with his own hands

Paul’s ministry among them was bold and confident, but tender and embracing. He taught the whole counsel of God while at the same time developing a relationship with these leaders soaked in loving tears.

He charged the elders at the church to pay careful attention to the flock, the church of God. In particular, they are to oversee (to have care over) the church as bishops and to pastor the flock as shepherds. They have a task to perform and the language of Paul’s charge carries the seed ideas of their function.

  1. Elders—mature leadership that have wisdom for discernment and to mentor others (as “elders” in Israel did).
  2. Pastors—to lead the flock as God’s shepherd among his people for protection, provision and maturation.
  3. Bishops—to be the presence (visitation) of God among the people as leaders who bear responsibility for the spiritual condition of the church.

Paul left Ephesus in the hands of these leaders. He rehearsed his own ministry among them as a model for them to follow.

But Paul does not believe he leaves these elders totally alone. Rather, they were appointed by the Holy Spirit whose presence still lives within the community and in their lives. The Holy Spirit led the church to select these leaders. God, like in Israel, raises up leaders among his people.

Though this does not mean that particular elders have the Spirit’s permanent sanction (even Jesus chose Judas!), the presence of the Spirit in the process gives the people of God confidence in their collection decision, under the Word of God and out of love, to trust its decision and trust that God will use it to his glory. Thus, when a church selects its leaders in harmony with the Word of God and out of sincere desire to glorify the Father, we may say that the Holy Spirit led the community to select these leaders.

At Woodmont, we trust that God is present among us to select the leaders he wants through a prayer-drenched and Word-soaked process. The Holy Spirit makes leaders; we don’t make them.

Questions for Discussion:

  1. What does Paul want these Ephesian elders to learn from his example in Ephesus?
  2. Given the totality of this farewell speech, how would you describe the function of elders within a church?
  3. Why do you think Paul ends his discussion on money, working and giving? What is it about the function of elder that makes this a particular concern or issue? How does Paul address this problem?
  4.  How does our recognition that the Holy Spirit appoints elders highlight the seriousness of their responsibility and our attitudes toward them?
  5. What in this text do you think Woodmont Hills need to hear this week?

Leave a Comment » | Theology | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Fearless and Free during Economic Storms IV

May 20, 2009

Note: This is the second of six small group studies that are coordinated with a sermon series by Dean Barham, the preaching minister at the Woodmont Family of God. Eventually, his sermons will be available here. The first small group study lesson is here. John Mark presented the oral lesson on this topic,
“Living in Community,” Woodmont Hills Church of Christ, Nashville, TN (05/24/2009).

Living in Community

Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.       Luke 12:32-34

And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.  Acts 2:44-45

And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.   Acts 4:33-35

I admit it; actually, I confess it–I find “sell your possessions, and give it to the needy” (Luke 12:33) a hard and difficult saying. Probably more than any other saying of Jesus—even “love your enemies”—I’m inclined to throw up my hands and say “I can’t do that.”

As an apprentice of Jesus, this deeply concerns me, challenges me, and drives me to my knees.

Selling for the Needy

Someone in that crowd to which Jesus said “sell your possessions” asked Jesus to adjudicate between himself and his brother over their inheritance. Jesus refused and pointed to their hearts–only they can act on the nature of their hearts. Life, Jesus said, “does not consist in the abundance of possessions” (Luke 12:15).

Ok, I know that, but what does it mean? Well, it means that we don’t build bigger barns. This is the parable that Jesus told in response to this inquiry about inheritance. What do I do with the blessings God has given me? Do I build bigger barns so I can contain them, hoard them and consume them? Or, and I think this is Jesus’ stinging point, don’t build bigger barns. Instead, take your increase and give it to the poor.

Perhaps that is my starting place on my journey to obey “sell your possessions and give to the poor.” Perhaps I just need to start with the simple resolve to never build any more bigger barns and then take my increases and give them to the needy.

So, if you are troubled as I am by this saying to “sell your possessions and give to the needy,” perhaps we start by refusing to build “bigger barns.” We start with using our increase to bless the poor, and then perhaps we can begin downsizing and increasing our giving to the needy. I think God will honor that direction, but God will not honor the other option.

Communal Living

Living in community not only means sharing with the needy in the community, but also sharing the burden of being a community that serves the interests of the kingdom. When a community of disciples acts as a group to serve the world in a particular way, disciples share a common responsibility.

Being part of a community means we share responsibility for the ministries and needs of the community itself, including paying the bills. We don’t expect people outside the community to support those kingdom interests and neither should we expect the needy to fund the community. But membership in the community entails responsibility, and the use of the services, ministries and facilities of the community involves a responsibility to support the group’s efforts through funding.

Regular contributions that share the burden enable the community to continue its ministry within the church as well as to the needy and those outside of the community of faith. If we have received benefit from participation in the community, then ingratitude neglects to share with the community when we have resources to do so.

Communal living means living as a community in sharing our mutual burdens, including financial ones. This is a mark of the kingdom of God in the world—the people of God use their money for the sake of community and invite others into that community to experience the riches of God’s grace.

Questions for Discussion:

  1. What attitudes or perspectives do you see in these Luke-Acts texts that empower the gracious sharing of resources by disciples of Jesus?
  2. What is a contemporary equivalent to “selling our possessions” in terms of providing for the needy? What does that look like in our contemporary economic system where most think in terms of their income rather than their mortgaged property?
  3. What experiences can you share with the group in terms of “selling your possessions” for the needy either as recipient or provider? In what ways have you seen disciples of Jesus live out this principle?
  4. What does “living in community” as one who shares the benefits of a particular community (like Woodmont Hills) mean for regularly contributing to the needs of that community (e.g., paying for the electricity used, services rendered by staff, convenience of a building, etc.)?

Leave a Comment » | Spirituality | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Missional Table

March 29, 2009

One formerly unchurched person recently told me about his first experience with the Lord’s supper. He had grown up in the inner city where a gang was his family. Befriended by “good Samaritans” in a time of need, he attended “church” for the first time and sat on the second row with his new friend.

As you might imagine, he was perplexed by the “Lord’s supper.” He supposed that it was a snack of some kind. So he grabbed a whole piece of bread and casually ate it as he passed the plate. When the juice came, he drank several cups while holding the tray (much to the shock and consternation of the server) all the while thinking how minimal the refreshment was. When the contribution basket came to him, he refused to pay for such megar food and drink.

Humorous, yes—but sad as well. As an one unquainted with “church,” the supper—both in terms of its form and meaning—was totally alien to him. While we might be amazed at his total unfamiliarity with Christian rituals, the fault may lie more with the Christian tradition than him. Christianity has so ritualized the Lord’s Table that it has no functional or meaningful connection with tables in life. While we may still call it a “table,” its “tableness” has been lost. The Lord’s Supper has become the Lord’s snack. It is little wonder that the unchurch can see no significance in the practice other than some meaningless and isolated ritual.

The response of the “Church Growth” movement, epitomzed by Willow Creek’s removal of the supper from Sunday services in the 1990s, was to reduce the role of the Supper in worshipping assemblies. The unchurched simply cannot connect with the Lord’s Supper—and not only the unchurched, but many churched as well. The problem is not the supper or the unchurched, the problem is the supper’s present form and discontinuity with the table of Jesus in Scripture.

The Table in the Ministry of Jesus

The table ministry of Jesus is often ignored in framing our understanding of the Lord’s Supper. For some it seems too removed from the Last Supper and for others the Lord’s Supper is a highly formalized ritual unlike the tables of Jesus’ ministry. However, in the Gospel of Luke the Last Supper is linked with the other tables in the narrative by language and content. The Last Supper is one meal among many (Luke 22), but it is also the paradigmatic meal for understanding the rest of the meals. It is a climactic meal in a series of meals during the ministry of Jesus which is continued in post-resurrection meals with the disciples. Instead of the Last Supper standing aloof from these other meals, it gives fuller meaning to them. The Last Supper interprets and gives substance to the other meals as they are understood in the theological light of that Last Supper.

Luke is a narrator. He tells stories rather than writing didactic prose. Through the stories he inculcates the values which he wants his community to embrace. Each meal story reveals something about Jesus and his mission. In Luke 5:27-32 Jesus sits at table with sinners as a physican among the sick. In Luke 7:36-50 Jesus receives a sinful woman at the table of a Pharisee and declares her sins forgiven. In Luke 9:10-17 Jesus shows hospitality to 5000 people as he first calls his disciples to mission (“give them something to eat”) and then models before them his messianic mission. The disciples are called to service. The table has a missional dimension; it reflects the mission of God to commune with his people at table. In Luke 10:38-42 Jesus accepts women as his disciples. In Luke 11:37-54 Jesus condemns the Pharisees because they sit at table only in form, not in spirit. In Luke 14:1-24 Jesus notes that their table does not look like the kingdom of God, but it looks like themselves. In Luke 19:1-10 Jesus invites himself to table with the tax collector Zacchaeus and declares that salvation had come to his house. Luke 24 welcomes a stranger to the table in Emmaus (Luke 24:30-35) and commissions the disciples to bear witness to gospel among all nations (Luke 24:45-49). Just as the disciples offered hospitality to a stranger on the way, so the table is a place where the church welcomes strangers (aliens or “others”). The table has a missionary quality, especially in light of the fact that the disciples receive their call to missions at a table.

The table is a place where Jesus receives sinners and confronts the righteous. The table is the place where Jesus extends grace to seekers, but condemns the self-righteous. Jesus is willing to eat with “others” in order to invite them into the kingdom, but he points out the discontinuity between our tables of social, ethnic, gender, economic, religious status and the table in the kingdom of God. The last (sinners, poor, and humbled–the “others”) will be first in the kingdom of God, but the first (self-righetous, rich and proud–the “churched”) will be last and excluded from the kingdom of God (Luke 13:26-30).

The meal stories have theological meaning for Luke’s community, and they are stories that shaped meals in the early church. The table during Jesus’ ministry should shape the table in the church because the table of Jesus is the table of the kingdom. The table of Jesus’ ministry continues in the church when his disciples gather at table. Jesus’ table etiquette is kingdom etiquette, and Lord’s supper is the Lord’s kingdom table.

The table announces the presence of the kingdom. It announces that “today” salvation has come to the world as God communes with his people at table. Jesus came to seek and to save the lost, and also to eat (commune, to be) with them. The Jubilee motif, articulated in Luke 4:16-19, not only invests the table with great joy, but it also calls the disciples of Jesus to embrace all those who are invited to his table. The table is inclusive and intentionally includes the poor, blind and oppressed; it intentionally reaches out to the “others”. The table reaches across all socio-economic, racial and gender barriers as it unites lost humanity at one table. Jesus modeled the invitation of all to the table as he welcomed Pharisee and tax collector, rich and poor, male and female. This inclusiveness testifies to the socio-ethical character of the table as a uniting moment in the kingdom of God.

The Table in the Church

The table in the contemporary church looks more like the “in-crowd” than it does the redeemed community of Revelation 7 or the ministry of Jesus. It is a gathering of the righteous, rather than a missional invitation to “others”. It is where the community gathers to take pride in its place at the kingdom table rather than a table which serves the poor, the weak, and the sinful. The table in the church looks more like a ritualized, formal Pharisaic table than it does the table of the messianic banquet. It is little wonder that the table in the church is not only misunderstood, but even despised by the unchurched and outsiders because the church’s table has become an “insider” phenomenon. The church’s table is intimidating, meaningless or irrelevant rather than inviting and comforting to the outsider.

That an unchurched person who visits some assemblies would have no idea of what is going on during the communion—in terms of both form and meaning—is an indictment that our language (“table”) does not fit our practice (when there is no table). That an unchurched person could misinterpret the communion bread and juice for a snack says more about the divorce of the supper from the preached Word and the divorce of the meal from our table language than it does about the naiveté of the unchurched. We call it a table, but it has no visible/communal table function, form or meaning.

The supper is a concrete proclamation of the Word, but it is exactly its concrete character (bread and wine—and as a meal!) which must be explained and applied. The supper needs to be joined with a preached Word from God so that not only the “alien” (the welcomed stranger among us) will appreciate its significance, but that the church will remember the work of God in Jesus Christ for them. The gospel should be proclaimed when the supper is served and the supper must proclaim the gospel as it embodies its meaning.

Jesus invited all to the table and sat with all. If the table embodies the gospel and bears witness to the gospel, then it should reflect the universal intent of the gospel. Just as our preaching invites all to faith, so the table should invite all to eat. The table, just as the ministry of the Word, offers grace and testifies that Jesus died for all. The table is a place where “others” can not only hear but experience the gracious message of the gospel through eating with the community of faith. All are invited to eat with Jesus. The community of faith receives ”strangers” at its table. The table of the Lord should epitomize gospel hospitality.

In the same way, the church as a community invites all who would seek God to the table. It invites the sinner, the unchurched and the weak family member to the table to hear the gospel of grace. It invites all (except the rebellious, cf. 1 Corinthians 5) to learn the gospel through eating and drinking.

When the Lord’s Supper is conceived as a meal at a table, then the exclusion of seekers is incongruous with the genius of the meal. If the Lord’s Supper is a meal, then it would be a counter-testimony to exclude “others.” It would deny food to the hungry, both spiritually and physically.

As the embodiment of the gospel and reflective of the essential nature of the church, the table is missional. It is a shared meal that bears witness to the universal grace of the gospel. Just as the gospel invites all to come to Jesus, so all are invited to the table to hear about Jesus and experience the community of grace.

[Modified version of a piece originally published in New Wineskins (Sep/Oct 2002).]

15 Comments | Theology | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Breaking Bread in Luke-Acts VI: General Observations

March 28, 2009

The previous posts in this series (listed in the Serial Index under “Biblical Texts”) have focused on exegetical detail within the framework of Luke’s two volume narrative (Luke and Acts). This final post in the series will serve as a summary of what I consider some of the more significant theological ideas embedded in Luke’s narrative concerning “breaking bread.” I trust that my exegesis (both in Come to the Table and the previous posts) grounds my theological summary.  :-)

The church continues the ministry of Jesus. The early church did what Jesus did; they followed Jesus into the world teaching what he taught and doing what he did (Acts 1:1-3). Part of this ministry was “table fellowship,” and more specifically the “breaking of bread.” Jesus sat at table with saint and sinner, insider and outsider. He broke bread with thousands (Luke 9), with the twelve which included Judas the betrayer (Luke 22) and with a wider range of disciples in post-resurrection meals (Luke 24; Acts 1).  The continue continued this practice–they broke bread as a community and with outsiders. The church continues to break bread on the ground of what Jesus did, not on the ground of what the church did.  We imitate the church as it imitated Jesus. Looking beyond the few “breaking bread” texts in the Gospel of Luke, the church finds its model for table in the table ministry of Jesus itself.

The church eats a meal of redemptive hope.  Every “breaking of bread” in Luke-Acts is a redemptive and eschatological in character. Luke 9 is the eschatological presence of the Messianic Son of Man who feeds his people–the curse of hunger is reversed in that moment and the promise of a future aswell as the fulfillment of the past (the prophet like Moses has arrived!) is embedded in that moment. Luke 22 anticipates the coming kingdom of God and at that table Jesus announces it will come as a fulfillment of the Passover.  Luke 24 declares that the future has arrived in the presence through the resurrection of Jesus. Acts 2 inaugurates a communal reality upon which the risen Christ has poured his Spirit. Acts 20 declares the hope and comfort of the resurrection through the resuscitation of Eutyches who is a symbol of the resurrection hope proclaimed in Jesus who was raised on the first day of the week and broke bread with his disciples. Acts 27 is the assurance of hope through breaking bread and eating; it is the promise of salvation. Eating the meal (breaking bread) is a promissory act–God pledges the future to us. 

The church eats in the presence of Jesus.  While the meal promises the future, it also is an experience of eschatological presence of the living Christ.  When the church breaks break, they sit at the table of the Lord who is both the nourishment and the host of the meal.  He is both lamb and host; indeed, he is servant at the table as well. When Luke uses “breaking bread” in his Gospel, Jesus is always the living host. This is particularly significant in Luke 24. Jesus promised he would break bread with his disciples again in the kingdom of God and in Luke 24 he breaks bread with them. The church eats a post-resurrection meal with Jesus through the breaking of bread. Eating in the presence of the living Christ is not a funerary act or a sad memorial of his death, but a vibrant declaration of the gospel (good news) that Christ died and rose again for the sake of the world. But more than a declaration–it is, indeed, an experience of the living Christ himself. Thus, joy and celebration encircles the table rather than mourning and sadness. Why would anyone eat a post-resurrection meal with Jesus in sadness?

The church invites “others” to share the meal. When the early church follows Jesus into the world, it is for the sake of the world. Their table is not exclusive but inclusive. Their table is inviting and includes “others” at the table. Just as Jesus willingly and intentionally sat at table with “others” (Luke 5), so the church intentionally sets a table that welcomes all. There is no reason to presume that the “breaking of bread” in Acts 2 or Acts 20 only included disciples. As communal meals, just as the communal meals of Israel, the inclusion of “outsiders” (“aliens” in the Hebrew Scriptures) is consistent with the purpose and meaning of the table itself and demonstrated by Jesus himself. He sets the table etiquette of his kingdom table and he practiced it as the presence of the kingdom in the world. The table is not simply communal but also missional (more on that in the next post).

16 Comments | Theology | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

« Previous Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 936 other followers

%d bloggers like this: