Perrydox.com is devoted to the pursuit of truth, whether plain or paradoxical, whether simple or sublime, or simply absurd yet absolute.
Acts – A History of Our Church
If we were to write a history of our home church, or of Christianity in our area, what would it look like? That would be determined by why the history is being written. Purpose decides which facts are included and excluded. Seldom if ever is history written to simply record facts – even the simple choosing of which facts to record have a purpose. Behind every historian, there is an agenda behind the story. There is a history to the history being written. In the end, the story tells a very specific story on purpose.
In writing our congregational historical document, we could focus on long lists: attendance records, members names, those baptized, preachers, elders and deacons. What would be our point in such mundane reporting? There could be several, such as honor due to those well respected; or honor due to the forgotten; a tribute to the distinguished history of the congregation, and more. In writing such a list, it would be easy to “forget” to include the backroom battles that ensued between members over preachers and overseers, building arguments such as the color of the carpet, or seemingly endless records of mind-numbing business meetings. It would be easy, and the document could still be historically true absent all those details, because no history is all-inclusive. Coloring our history is a very popular way of recounting memories – but choosing which facts to report also points to a purpose. As an aside, one of the interesting arguments for the inspiration of the Bible as a whole is that its records include the flaws of the heroes. I suggest the ever present issue is that of grace.
Our church document might focus on doctrinal battles that distinguished, and continue to differentiate the “…church of Christ” from denominations or other churches “of Christ.” Such a list could almost become a historical creed and a test of fellowship, if used to determine future faithfulness. The point would be, “We are different because….”
Writing a history need not be a pedantic plodding of names, places and numbers. It can be as thrilling as real life, because it is real life. Luke wrote a church history to someone named Theophilus. We know what he wrote – a record of the commission fulfilled “both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). But why was this information important? What was the point? Is the book simply historical or possibly doctrinal too? Is it something simple, like a “how-to” book; or very personal yet transcendent, Christ in His spiritual body? Is it a fulfillment of OT prophecy? Is it all of the above?
When we read Acts, it is important to understand its overall purpose:
“What are we reading when we read Acts? The question is crucial, because if we do not know the form of a writing we do not know its function. Misinterpretation results. How could one interpret Revelation, for example, if one did not know that it is an apocalypse?” (Willimon, William, H. Acts, Interpretation, p.5).
Acts is a “part 2” to Luke. It is history, but more than just “a history of the church.” Charles Talbert calls this type of history a “cultic biography” where Luke and Acts form a
“…narration of the life of the founder of a religious community is followed by stories of his successors and disciples…to tell the story of Christ and his new community in such a way that the values of the founder and his immediate successors might be emulated today. The writer of Acts wants to do more than to write a chronicle of the past. Rather, the past become the platform from which to preach to the present.” (Willimon, William, H. Acts, Interpretation, p.5).
I wholeheartedly agree with this assessment, and yet we will still need to go deeper because it does not address the essential question of why what was included leads the community to imitate their leader. In other words, how did Luke intend to get this message across? That will determine what facts he includes. Therefore I suggest to you that the theme of Acts, is not the acts of the apostles, nor the acts of the Holy Spirit, but rather “The Acts of the King and His Kingdom.”
Acts is not just about the king. Dispersed throughout the book are the acts of the citizens of the kingdom. Why are they able to have all things in common (2:44); overcome racial prejudices (6); die with forgiveness (7); and so forth? Because they are imitating their king! It is the message of the gospel, and its effects. God’s message produces God’s results. But those results, and that message, are sometimes mangled by people. We see it inside the church (5-6,15) and outside (8,22).
What I find interesting about the book of Acts is that even though it is a history of the first churches, very little is said about what went on in the assemblies. Yes we have Acts 20:7, but that is not much. And yes again doctrinal purity is sought for in Acts 15. Such a de-emphasis does not mean such details are unimportant or unnecessary (i.e., 1 Corinthians), but I wonder if we would emphasize internal activities ourselves over what is divinely emphasized in Acts? What is highlighted is what happens outside the assembly – reaching in to one another, and reaching out to the lost. Is that an emphasis in our church? Or would we emphasize when and where the church building was first erected and then enlarged?
If you were Theophilus, and Paul’s personal friend sent you a historical letter documenting the first 30 plus years of the church, what would you want it to say? But just as important, why would you choose what you did? The answer to that question tells you something about yourself, and the times you live in. But it also tells you how important you think preaching God’s message is. Could other churches today survive and thrive over what we would include in a history of our church?
Comments