Acts 11. 1-18: “Critical moments.”

The circumcision: Luke writes from a non-Jewish, grown-up church perspective. He's able to look back at the story he tells from the perspective of just a few years later. By that time, “the Circumcision” was just one part of the Church. His worldwide Church was circumcised and uncircumcised, Jew and Gentile, African and European, slave and free. So he quite deliberately injects an anachronism into his telling of the story. It's a bit like describing the Pilgrim fathers as the “First Americans” or saying “Up until the time of James VI, the United Kingdom had two kings.” But Luke is making a point of showing what the Church had become in the years after this incident. .

But that is not how the Jerusalem Church saw things. They weren't “the circumcision”. They were “the Church”. Their Church was a sect of Judaism, the fulfilment of Messianic promises that they weren't able to see as pertaining to the whole world. For them, anyone who wanted to join “the Church” had to join the Circumcision, the Jewish Church, becoming not only a believer in Jesus but also part of the Jewish community.

Criticised: διακρίνω = to separate one from another, to distinguish, to settle, decide. It can mean, as it does here, fault-finding. It can (and usually does in the end) mean division, or it can mean exercising discernment. It can be a good thing or a bad thing: Paul talks about discerning of spirits (διάκρισις – same word!) The enemy can counterfeit the work of the Holy Spirit. He can counterfeit the gift of “Discernment” that allows us to know the difference between what is from God and what isn't.

Here is Acts 11, is a false discernment at work. It was simply a shallow, narrow view on issues of what and who really are “unclean” in God's sight. We need the gift of discernment: but I have problems with much that professes to be the “gift of discernment” today, that I see matches exactly the judging that happened in Acts 11. Things that don't fit our predetermined world-view are dismissed.

There is real anger, deep division, and harsh judgement present in this line of questioning. It resulted in people finding fault with Peter for going among the gentiles, and both its roots and its shoots were division You see, by the old paradigm, Peter had done something terribly wrong. “You went into a Jewish home, a Roman Officer's; and you had dinner? I suppose they had a hog-roast for you?”

This was more than a critical moment for Peter. It was a critical moment for the Church. Was the old Jewish paradigm on the whole of life, that divided clearly between “Jewish” and “non-Jewish” to continue to control their thinking? Or will there be something new? There is judgement, and there is the beginning of a separation, the potential for a real severing and splitting up of the worldwide Church, at this point in time.

In response, very briefly, Peter tells his story.  Starting from the beginning, Peter told them the whole story: Literally, from the beginning, he laid it out in order (or gave a blow-by-blow account)... “Orderly” is the same word Luke uses to describe his own work as a Gospel writer (Luke 1. 3). Telling the story “in order” is a great way of clearing away the rubbish: the “fragmentary and garbled reports” that seemed to have got back to Jerusalem before Peter did. Before we enter into judgement we need to clear the rubbish away and get the facts.

As Peter tells the story, from his own point of view, he simply pulls out one or two details to show that it is a “God story” and make his point. He had this dream-like experience challenging his ideas of what was “unclean”. That would have been enough on its own. But then, lo and behold, a delegation come to see him, asking him to go and minister to a gentile. And the Spirit says, go with them without making a distinction. (NIV says “hesitating” but the word is the same as in verse 2.) When he arrived as Caesarea and preached the Gospel, the Spirit came upon them “As he had come on us at the beginning” – the experience Cornelius' household had was an exact match with the experience of Pentecost. Peter identified this as “Baptism with the Holy Spirit”. God had taken these outsiders, and given them a taste of the Kingdom of God; he had joined them with Jesus the King and made them part of the Kingdom community. It demonstrated that God accepted Cornelius and his household as already “Israel” and reminded the Jerusalem Church that part of their Holy Spirit Experience was a breaking down of language (and therefore racial) barriers. If God had already accepted these people, what could Peter do? What could the Apostles do?

I believe there is great strength and virtue in the honest telling of our story, especially if we can tell that story in a way that is both down to earth, blow-by-blow, and clearly as a “God” story, a story that demonstrates in some way that God is at work. We need doctrine; but we need doctrine that is not just theory but is facts, that grows working arms and legs in our historical situation; that bears out, and makes us reflect upon the truth of God's word; that may even challenge some of the ways in which we have interpreted that word. You see, Peter could have got his Old testament out, and gone to verses like

• Genesis 18.18 and all nations on earth will be blessed …
• Or the story of Ruth the Moabitess
• or the wonderful shortest Psalm, 117 which says

Praise the Lord, all you nations; extol him, all you peoples.
For great is his love towards us, and the faithfulness of the Lord endures for ever.

And that's it. No “House of Israel, praise him”; it calls all nations to praise the Lord because he is good to us all – all nations including Israel.

• Isaiah 56:7 my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations

He could have made a doctrinal case. The Story doesn't contradict the doctrine – it confirms it. But sometimes we need the story not the doctrine!

Silence! When they heard this, they had no further objections. Literally they were silenced. The story evokes a generous response, that arises out of an inner stillness. We need to hear people's stories, and let God do what God wants to do. This was a critical moment – not just in terms of the things that were said to Peter, but for the entire life and mission of the “Church” worldwide. Was it going to maintain a sense of cohesiveness; was it going to remain “one”? Were the new believers gong to be part of this historic thing with its roots in God's promises of a coming Kingdom? Or was the Church going to fracture only a few years into its existence? Were the circumcised Christians going to continue to see themselves as the only true believers? Were these new fellowships going to be cut off to become some “Jesus movement” unconnected with the Kingdom promise and the Old Testament story?

The step that they took in accepting what Peter said, was vast. Remember that the division between Jew and Gentile was bigger, much bigger, than anything that comes between us in today's Church. It was bigger than “Worship wars”, bigger that Denominational differences, cultural clashes, and so on. This was fundamental. For the respectable, right-living Jew, gentiles and their ways of living were to be avoided if at all possible. Eating with a gentile was something so bad as to be disgusting. These people had to start taking their barriers down, and it was a painful and difficult thing for them to do. They didn't know where it would all lead. It would put the growth and development of “The Way” maybe a little bit beyond their control. As Catholic Missiologist Vincent Donovan says, when the Gospel is given to a new tribe, it becomes in a sense “theirs” and it is up to them how they receive it and what they make of it. New people need to be allowed to give new “shape” to the “wineskins” of church structure and religious activity. Honouring others; honouring others who do not share our preferences, is a challenge, but a necessary one.

And the Apostles praised God, saying, ‘So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life.’. Narrow thinking, closed minds, exclusive-ism, that attitude that says “we are the Church, If you want to be part of it yo have to become just like us” will rob you of something: quite simply, it will rob you of joy. But the openness to move on from narrow, exclusive, critical religion, will mean that, as you get a handle on what God is doing – for surely he is at work in our day – you experience a surge of praise! Religion on the defensive is such a poor, joyless, sad thing. Religion that is on the crest of the wave, seeing what God is doing, is by contrast so full of joy.

© Gilmour Lilly November  2013