Acts, Chapter 18 (NRSV)How should the Church relate the world around it? That's a question that runs as a secondary or perhaps tertiary theme throughout Acts. In the 18th Chapter we hear how Luke is trying to describe how the new movement within Judaism is relating to the more traditional followers, and to the secular authorities of Rome.
This isn't the first time we've encountered a story about a controversy between the followers of what Luke is calling "the Way" and the Jewish community that has been dispersed around the Roman empire. At times this controversy has turned to violence and even become deadly, as in the case of the martyrdom of Stephen, and as we'll see, the controversy continues to escalate over the remaining chapters.
Did you note the contrast between the internal conflict within Judaism (internal, because at this point, both groups, believed that they were Jews) and the lack of external conflict with the Roman authorities? This framing appears to be intentional on Luke's part.
In Paul's letters, and in the stories of the early Church in Acts, when conflict is described it is centered in internal interpretations of religious matters. That was something that the Roman authorities, in a way not unlike our own government, avoided getting involved in. The Romans used the formal imperial recognition of local religions and cults as a tool to create the glue that held the empire together. Their generals would recognize local gods as "manifestations" of the Roman gods, ask that the local people recognize one more God (the emperor) and simply require that religious conflict not spill over into violence. Violence and the disturbing of the peace were the two things that the thinly spread Roman legions would not tolerate. Their fear was that such agitation would spread, and the legions would not be able to terrorize the populace back into submission to Roman rule.
Given that background, now recall how Luke presents the religious conflict in this chapter. Followers of traditional judaism are being converted to the truth of the new Way as they meet people who are able to instruct them. There are those who won't accept instruction, or who are not willing to be converted, but the conflict is all about internal religious questions within Judaism. When the conflict spills over into the public sphere, it is instigated by the opponents of the Christians.
The Roman authority, in this case a proconsul of Achia named Gallio, follow Roman military doctrine and refuse to intervene. And, being left in relative peace, the Christian community continues its missionary work of proclaiming the Good News. It's worth noting that Good News, literally Gospel, is actually a technical term of the Roman imperial court. When the Emperor wished to declare something of great political import, he would have his ambassadors (apostles…) go to the center of a city and shout "GOSPEL, GOSPEL!" (GOOD NEWS, GOOD NEWS). They would then tell the gathered crowd the emperor's message, generally of a new edict, or news of a military triumph or alliance.
How fascinating that the early Church is using the language of the secular world to proclaim its message to anyone would listen. And how different it must have looked to people used to the imperial trappings of power to have a simple man like Paul stand up in a market and proclaim "good news" about a peasant teacher who the authorities had crucified and who had risen from the dead. Unless we keep that background in mind, we can't fully grasp the fundamental subversive nature of the message being spoken.
Luke is describing a community of believers that is working peacefully within the empire. But there's an electric message being shared to those who have ears to hear it. The Church's role is to live within society, but not be a part of society. That dual role is something that the Church has struggled with again and again in its history. I wonder, for instance, if we ought to be looking at the present state of the Episcopal Church in the United States with gratitude rather than sadness. We can no longer be described as the church of the powerful at prayer. According to what Luke is describing, that's a good thing.
But it's a hard thing to live into for people who remember a time when the Church had a much more privileged place in society. Do you find the present role of the Church in society an easy thing to accept? Do you wish things were more as they used to be? Do you think the Church has not gone far enough down the road of being in but not a part of society? And what does it mean to be in but not part? Where are the limits? Which parts of the secular world should the Church engage? Which parts should it ignore? How should we decide?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe notion that this was an internal conflict is a nice reminder, a reminder of something that is easily forgotten. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were Jewish Christians and the Gospels were seen as a continued commentary on the Hebrew Bible. The importance of biblical discourse so heavily relied upon interpretation in this moment. The stories found in the New Testament were stories of new interpretation and new meaning in the ancient texts. And it is in the dialogue of interpretation that spiritual illumination occurs since the dialogue itself and the meaning that percolates from it is the spiritual exercise.
ReplyDeleteWhen the "Good News" is opened in this way we open our hearts as well. We move from the cognitive, the knowledge, and the belief (as in factual) interpretation of scripture into deeper more meaningful insights. This open interpretation and meaning and curiosity moves us into the deeper truths behind the stories. Even if we look at the biblical stories as myth, the fundamental basis of a myth is that it need not be factual or true to have an underlying truth. And that underlying truth changes for me each time I read scripture.
When people gather together to have a dialogue about scriptures it become more than a bible study, it becomes a biblical experience. They live the scripture and the scripture lives them. A relationship is created, a relationship that emanates from the heart and has profound meaning. The scriptures open our hearts, our eyes, our minds, our bodies, our souls so that we can welcome in these new insights. And here the stranger plays a crucial role and Paul seems to recognize this, as Jesus did. When we reach out to others, even others who may not "believe" certain fundamental truths that we as Christian’s cling to with conviction, we enhance our spiritual experience. As Paul Tillich stated, what is of ultimate concern? It’s a good question. Is it to prove these certain unquestionable truths or is the ultimate concern for the spiritual illumination of all? For the church, this may require a kenosis that is very scary since it will have to “deny itself” or at least parts of itself. It is then that we move from head to heart and where we can experience the divine.
We cannot know Jesus in the flesh but we can put on the mind of Christ, not through lessons and interpretation of doctrine that seems to be the focus of our Christian religion with a priority on proofing Jesus' standing. We can perhaps “know” Jesus not in the gathering of interpretation but rather in the letting go of the smallest details that prohibit us from our own special intimacy with God, where we all become Sons of God. We are reminded again and again that Jesus did not cling to this highest of intimate relationships nor did he attempt to prove it so. He shows us how to empty one's self from identity, role, prestige, position, or self-perception, etc. It seems to me that spiritual illumination and growth for many is limited because the church seems to focus on the truth of the doctrine through its preoccupation with belief that is defined as a truth or as factual while limiting or at least discouraging open, curious, personal interpretation, personal experience, and the richness and the self-discovery that scripture can offer when it is revered for the mythical truths that it contains. Spiritual assent is not based nor facilitated, in my opinion, from an intellectual foundation; it must come from the heart to show our loyalty, not our loyalty to the truth or belief but to open the divine origin of scripture through fresh and inviting interpretation. That was the original intent of scripture and the church seems to have locked its unlimited potential and unimaginable possibilities through the same stagnate one-dimensional interpretation and in its denial of to question, doubt, and interpret.
Thank you for the question and the forum to express.