Acts 15 and Evangelical Tribalism

Read Acts

It is a sad but true fact that evangelicals are considered by the wider culture to be terribly tribalistic. Some perceptions are due to misunderstandings, but much of the perception is sadly well-earned. There is an arrogance among many in the church that leads them to turn their nose up towards those outside their walls. Many in the church frankly think they are better people than others.

Acts 15 records one of the most remarkable transformations of the early church. Jewish tribalism is replaced with humble acceptance. Just five chapters before Peter needed a divine vision to force him to go to a God-fearing Gentile's home. Peter, and we assume most of the church, were amazed that God’s saving grace even extended to the Gentiles. Now Peter, James, Paul, Barnabas, and the majority of this council of Jerusalem agree that Gentiles can be part of the kingdom of God, and they can be so without following the Jewish laws. These same laws that made Peter even wary of associating with anyone who couldn’t keep them fully (Cornelius probably kept them to a large degree but wasn’t circumcised) are now not even a barrier to God. Most breathtaking is James’ quote of Amos 9:11, 12 (15:16, 17) in which he declares that “all Gentiles called by [the Lord’s] name” are included in the “tent of David.” The tent of David is code for the God’s chosen and called people, but it is a code that is thoroughly Jewish. Jewish and Gentiles believers are put on equal footing.

So how does such a transformation take place? Peter’s words state it perfectly, “We believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will”(15:11). Grace is the key that tears down the barriers. If grace comes freely through the person and work of Jesus and not through a set of distinctive rules, then Gentiles are as free to take part of that salvation as Jews are. Or to put it more in James’ language, the tent of David, the people of David, is the tent of Jesus. All those in Jesus are in his tent. It is one’s relationship to Jesus and not to specific groups or rules that allows a person to take part in God’s saving benefits.

What we see in this chapter is the total abolition of tribalism and racism. An abolition due solely to grace. The most detrimental aspect of our moral superiority complex, our tribalism, is that it is totally antithetical to the heart of our faith, grace. Grace says it does matter what group you belong to. Groups don’t get you to God, Jesus does. And no one in any group deserves saving grace, thus the designation “grace.” The result is that Christians ought to be the most accepting, non-tribalistic, non-cliquish kind of people. Whatever goods we have are not earned, they are given. And they are given to us in spite of ourselves. This reminder seems particularly appropriate in view of the upcoming elections. Few things are as polarizing as politics, and sadly evangelicals are as partisan as anybody. I'm not saying we should loose our convictions, but we need to maintain them with the humility that saving grace demands of us. Even if our views are right, remember is but grace that enables you to have them.

Evangelical views of abortion

Opposing abortion is a pretty standard position for evangelicals. So why all the talk about the evangelical vote being more divided. After all, there is only one pro-life candidate. I think the answer is demonstrated in the following videos of Donald Miller and John Piper. For those unacquainted with Miller, he has written, among other books, Blue Like Jazz, a best-seller that lays out a hipper, trendier Christian life. Miller actually prayed at the DNC, and this interview was recorded during his time there. Most intriguing is Miller's assessment that abortion isn't going anywhere anytime soon, and so providing the assumed conclusion that evangelicals just need to deal with it. I seem to remember the same arguments given to William Wilberforce and American abolitionists. Slavery isn't going anywhere, just deal with it. They didn't and thank God they didn't. Piper, as you may guess, offers a very different perspective.

Just in case some of you are wondering what exactly is Obama's stance on abortion the last video should give you a fairly good idea.

Acts 14 and Christian Tribulations

Read Acts 14

Paul’s missionary journey’s were full of trials, rejection, mistreatment, and near death experiences. One can hardly imagine the ups and downs of these early missionaries. They flee for their lives from Iconium. Then they are on the verge of being worshipped as gods in Lystra only to have the same crowd turn on them and stone Paul virtually to death. But what is most remarkable is 14:21: “They returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch.” They went back?!? Most of us when we encounter opposition and hardship simply conclude that God is closing the door. Paul and friends in response to resistance conclude that the gospel is all the more needed.

What is more is that Paul and Barnabas begin a discipleship class for some of the new Christians, and a major part of the curriculum is the encouragement that “through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God”(14:22). Tribulations and trials are not an incidental part of the Christian life. They are a planned, intentional, and necessary part. What a life changing bit of information. Why aren’t we telling people in our churches? Why isn’t this a part of our discipleship? Why are so many of us stunned by the trials that beset us? They are supposed to happen. They are part of the agenda. You don’t run from them. In response to trials you don’t conclude that God is unhappy with you or guiding you to another path. You assume that no matter the path, as a follower of the slaughtered Messiah, you are going to encounter a lot of pain. The pain should not dictate the course of the church just as it did not dictate the journeys of Paul and Barnabas. As the body of Christ, we must stop running from tribulations or else we will stop running to the kingdom of God, for “through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.”

Acts 13 and Some Thoughts on Sensationalism, Evangelism, and the Mega Church

Read Acts 13

In many of the hip Christian circles, mass evangelism is getting a pretty bad rap. The same goes for any kind of sensationalism. Of course, mega churches aren’t going anywhere. Crusades still happen. And TBN continues on. Nevertheless, it seems that more careful and thoughtful Christians (yes, I’m probably a bit biased) have concerns about the use of mass evangelism popular in broad evangelicalism and the sensationalism rampant in more pentecostal and charismatic arenas. Most of these concerns, I believe to be right and proper. However, it is quite clear that the early church successfully and frequently utilized both approaches. So how should the contemporary church view such methods?

In the first section of this chapter we see the sensational. Paul confronts unbelief and opposition to the gospel by casting blindness upon the leader of the resistance. A few things to note. First, God clearly uses the miraculous. While I believe that a fairly strong case can be made for the cessation of revelation, there seems to be no strong biblical argument for the termination of the miraculous. In fact, “power encounters” such as the one recorded here clearly still take place. Our Western-minded anti-supernaturalism does us a great disservice here, for there are well-documented accounts to God’s power triumphing over the demonic powers. Secondly, it is important to note the purpose of this miracle. What makes it so remarkable to the observers is that Paul demonstrates power over a “magician,” a wonder worker. Jesus whips the powers that oppose him. This the point of the miracle. Thirdly, in 13:12 Luke notes that the proconsul “believed, when he saw what had occurred, for he was astonished at the teaching of the Lord.” The power encounter was accompanied by the truth of the gospel. The sensational didn’t stand alone. The “magician” manifested the sensational apart from truth, and Luke calls him a “false prophet.” Miracles without gospel are not good. They deceive. The sensational is meant to serve the spread of the gospel and not stand alone. If miraculous becomes the center of attention, then it is no longer an evangelistic tool. It is a demonic one.

In the second section (13:13-52) we encounter mass evangelism. Paul and company’s gospel witness was limited at first to the local Jews, but by the end of the chapter “the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord”(13:44). What is intriguing is that the Jews were quite willing, even desirous to hear Paul’s words about Jesus, but once the crowds started to assemble they became jealous and eventually drove Paul and Barnabas out of town. Now the Jews were probably more worried about nationality than numbers, but it is curious that many Christians, like the Jews, get a little leery of any evangelistic approach that brings in the numbers. Again, much of this concern is warranted. But mass evangelism was clearly an accepted practice in the early church. The simple fact that the crowd is massive does not mean the evangelistic approach is suspect. It is fairly clear here(13:43), as well as in the rest of Acts, that the early church and its missionaries always developed more personal ministry from the masses, but so many times they began with the masses. The problem, as I see it, with the mega church movement is not the size of the crowd. It is making the crowd primary. The entire focus of the church often becomes getting and sustaining a large mass of people. There is often the lack of personal ministry mixed in with the mass ministry. The best churches do both mass and personal ministry as the early Christians did. In fact, the anti-megachurch mentality of some of us is really baffling. We’re questioning the power of the gospel and Spirit to subdue a mass larger than we can handle. But who is sufficient for personal ministry? All evangelism is more than we can handle. We need to be very cautious about determining what God can and cannot do, and very, very cautious about judging the ministries of other Christians. That especially goes for the ministries that are bigger than ours.

Acts 12

Read Acts 12

The whole point of this chapter is to juxtapose the powers of this world and the divine powers available to the Church. Immediately we are confronted with an arrogant, reckless tyrant in Herod who seeks only his own glory and is willing to kill people to get it. He has no severe qualms with Christians, but he knows slaughtering them will get him high regard among the Jews whom he rules. So, he kills James, one of their leaders and arrests Peter. The church of Jerusalem has no response to such power. As king of Judea, Herod could pretty much kill whomever he choses whenever he choses. But a key verse is inserted here: “So Peter was kept in prison, but earnest prayer for him was made to God by the church.” Herod has all the power of the great Roman Empire behind him. Yes, but the church prayed. And that is the turning point. Everything in this section hinges on that verse. Rome verses the church. Who wins the matchup? The church prayed, and so the fight is really not fair. The church appeals to an almighty warrior-king, and all Herod has are prisons, guards, chains, swords, armies, and dungeons. It’s not much of a fight. All the church must do is pray and all heaven is unleashed upon their enemies. And those prayers do not even have to be made with great faith. All the better if they are, but even these prayers, which it seems the church hardly believed would be answered, were answered in might and power.

The story does not end there, for Herod is still in power, and he is still the same scoundrel he ever was. And so it happens that at the moment he attains the glory that he craved, his life is taken from him. Here there is another pivotal statement: “Immediately an angel of the Lord struck him down, because he did not give God the glory . . . But the word of God increased and multiplied.” Herod who has the authority to wipe out every Christian in Jerusalem actually has no power except that which is given to him. As the powerful tyrant breathes his last, the word of God charges onward.

The message from Luke here is clear. What has the church to fear? Take up your weapons of faith. Commit yourself to prayer. Trust the omnipotent, glorious God to make His glory known. No human power, no matter how great or fierce or wicked, can thwart the expansion of his kingdom.

Acts 11

Read Acts 11

"Now those scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch . . . Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch."

Stephen was a remarkable man with tremendous potential. There is no telling what impact he would have had upon Jerusalem had he lived longer, but he didn’t. In a horrendous hate crime his life was snuffed out. From a human perspective, it didn’t make any sense. Why would God allow such a thing to happen? Things often don’t make sense from a human perspective precisely because it is a human perspective, and by definition that means limited, finite, and tainted with sin. Nevertheless, for some reason we arrogantly cling to the opinion that if it doesn’t make sense to us, then it is clearly senseless. This text, however, says that an apparent senseless death was a catalyst to world evangelization.

The persecution that arose over Stephen forced the Jewish believers to leave Jerusalem and travel to various parts of the known world. Even in doing so, the church was still limited to Jewish people (11:19). Some in Antioch bravely took the daring step of presenting the gospel to Greek-speaking Jews. God shook them up some more with the conversion of Cornelius, a Gentile God-fearer (someone who followed the teachings of the OT but was not circumcised). Each of these stages were major steps, yet to this point no one could possibly conceive of the gospel going to uncircumcised, pagan Gentiles. That is, until Saul or Paul came on the scene. Saul was instrumental in Stephen’s death, and now he is intimately involved in the mission work that erupted as a result of Stephen’s death. The greatest missionary the world has ever known, the one who first took the gospel to total pagans was a product of the martyrdom of Stephen.

It is almost impossible to calculate what would have been had Stephen not been martyred. Who knows how long Christianity would have gone before it spread outside of Jewish circles. The ripple effects of Stephen’s death are simply massive. The greatest impact that he had on the world was in his death. Why do we question the wise plans of an infinite God when we have so little knowledge with which to judge. Our present affliction may seem senseless at the moment, but who knows God could be changing the world through it.

Acts 10 and Cultural Transformation

Acts 10 (Click to read)

Jesus left his disciples with the promise that they would be “his witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” There was one major problem with this world changing plan. The disciples were Jews. Now of course there is no inherent problem with being Jewish. However, at the time there was weaved into Jewish cultural identity a certain hubris about their moral superiority. You can see this in Peter’s comment: “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate wit or to visit anyone of another nation”(10:28). Unlawful? Good luck trying to find that in the OT law. But it was very prevalent within the Jewish religious tradition and culture. Now if part of your core identity is never to taint your holiness by associating with anyone not of the same nationality as you, becoming a witness to the ends of the earth seems pretty unlikely. The conviction that non-Jews were “unclean” was so ingrained in Peter’s mind that questioning it probably never occurred to him. So God’s response is to shake up Jewish cultural values and transform them, at least for Christians, into Christ-centered values.

What happened with early Jewish Christians happens everywhere the gospel makes inroads. There are so many values and beliefs ingrained in us by our culture that we never think to question them. These values are what we have always believed to be true, and we never even think whether Christianity changes it. For example, rugged individualism, a value of a particular view of freedom, our consumer mentality, dislike and distrust of other cultures, unquestioning commitments to certain economic philosophies, etc. can become such a part of our identity that we never think to question whether they are right and Christ-centered. The transformation of our cultural habits is perhaps the most profound and difficult change for no other reason than we are often ignorant that a change is needed. So there are several valuable lessons to learn here.

First, culture is not neutral. Our national heritage is not a benign influence. Indeed, there is no such thing as a neutral value. It is either good and Christ exalting, or it is wrong and Christ belittling. We cannot assume that because our parents believed something and everyone around us believes it that it is therefore right and true. God alone determines what is clean and unclean. Secondly, our cultural biases often greatly diminish our effectiveness as witnesses for Jesus Christ. American individualism, for example, disables the transformative influence of the church, a community. Thirdly, we are often blind to the detrimental values of our particular culture. It virtually impossible for us to critique our cultural biases. Even when we turn to Scripture, our understanding of Scripture is effected by our cultural perspective. And fourthly, Christ must transform us deep down into even our cultural identity. The gospel doesn’t just transform immoral people into moral people. It transform idolaters into worshippers of Christ, and that means that idolatrous culture must change into Christ exalting culture.

So how does the gospel transform us that deep? How do we seek to dig out the deep roots of sinful culture that has flourished in us since we were born? Obviously, I don’t have all the answers, but here are some ideas.

First, bombard your mind with the Scriptures. But don’t just read the Scripture, seek to uncover the cultural context of the Bible. The Bible is after all a product of a foreign culture. As you reflect on it, it will force you to reflect upon your own cultural identity.

Second, read broadly. Interact with the literature and history of other cultures. Read early American literature and history, British, French, Russian, African, Asian, etc. literature and history. Read ancient Christians, the Reformers, Puritans, and Christians of other nationalities. Of course, this takes time, lots of time. But don’t restrict your reading to contemporary American writing, even if it is Christian writing.

Thirdly, seek out friendships with peoples of other religions and cultures. We have a greater opportunity than ever to do this, since America is becoming more and more diverse. Don’t begrudge this. Embrace it as an opportunity to grow in Christ.

Fourthly, when you get the chance ask missionaries all the questions that you can about the cultures they are trying to reach, and their thoughts about American culture. You will discover that these individuals who are constantly faced with their own biases coming into conflict with those of another culture have some deep and excellent insights. If any one else has more ideas, I am open to them.

Driscoll on Hard Words

Mark Driscoll will be speaking about the use of harsh language at the upcoming Desiring God National Conference. Here he offers some provoking thoughts about God's use of harsh and cutting communication. As a preacher, I am certainly very interested in these kinds of issues. However, though I do use some shocking language sometimes in preaching, I find that I need to use some of the harshest remarks in one on one conversations. So I don't think this is a preachers only issue. I would love to hear of experiences where someone needed to use harsh language to communicate truth.

Acts 9 and the Adventure of God

Acts 9 (Click to read)

There are few passages of Scripture that display the unpredictability of God as clearly as this one. Paul was the greatest missionary in the history of the Christian church, the embodiment of Christian humility, compassion, and zeal. Indeed, Paul’s ministry is so stunning that we often forget what he never forgot, that Paul was once Saul. Saul was the greatest enemy of the early church. It seems he orchestrated the stoning of Stephen. He ravaged the homes of Jerusalem Christians and drug men and women, fathers and mothers, off to the dungeons for their commitment to Jesus.

We’ve already read of some peculiar divine strategies like sending Philip into desert to meet a eunuch. In fact, the whole book of Acts is an exercise of unpredictability, but this blows everything out of the water. The Pharisaical terrorist, the number one perpetrator of anti-Christian hate crimes in a moment is converted to faith in the Jesus he hated. So outrageous is God’s plan that Ananias can’t believe it, the apostles and Christians in Jerusalem can’t believe it, even Peter who in next few verses has the faith to raise a lady from the dead just can’t believe it. But God is a God without limitations to his power. He can raise dead people, and he can transform evil people. When you work with a God like that, there is no telling what will happen. Standard procedure may be tossed out the door at any given moment.

It’s a scary business working for such a God, for who knows where and to what he will call you. But it is a exciting adventure. It makes me wonder. Is this sense of adventure, this anticipation of the unpredictability of an almighty God often lost on us? I was pondering the other day what would happen if I prayed, like Peter, for a person who just died to come back to life, and it actually happened. Though you could never say until it happened, my guess is that most Christians would not meet the news with grateful joy but with cold skepticism. They’d think I’m nuts or a liar. Of course, I’m not advocating that we throw discernment aside and eagerly accept all claims of supernatural acts. But it seems that we almost presume to know the full agenda of God. We know exactly where he is going and how he is going to get there. There are certain lines that he simply cannot cross. I mean everybody knows that once an auditorium is 80% full people will stop coming, that only 10% of your congregation will ever be evangelistic, that mortally sick people don’t get well, and dead people don’t come back to life. Certainly there does seem to be common patterns, but as co-workers of the Savior of the world maybe we should assume that those lines are pencil not ink. Ink lines are predictable and safe, but when the lines are in pencil a knock on the door, a text message, a trip back home could change your life forever and all the world with it.

Acts 8 and Church Strategies

Acts 8 (Click to read)

"Ch _ _ ch - What’s missing? U R.” I can’t recall how many times I’ve seen this corny message displayed on a church sign. I’ve even come across a beautiful wooden church sign with this message permanently carved into it. It makes you wonder whether churches really think that a passerby is going to read the sign and think, “Oh that’s rich! Didn’t see that one coming at all. And yet it’s so true. I should be in church. I’m going to that church this Sunday.” Of course, many churches and church growth experts are much more sophisticated in their endeavors. They speak of the marketability of the church, run publicity campaigns, and even tailor their services to appeal to a certain slice of the surrounding population. But how biblical are all of these approaches? What is the role of human strategy, publicity, and human initiative in the spread of the gospel? And what does it have to do with Acts 8?

One thing is certainly clear in Acts 8. The advancement of the kingdom of God is foremost God’s initiative. In this chapter, the gospel expands rapidly into all Judea and even Samaria. An influential official of the Ethiopian government is converted and no doubt takes this news of a Savior back to his homeland. Jesus promised that his salvation would spread throughout all Judea, Samaria, and into the nations (1:8), and it’s already happening. But what brought it about? I really can’t help but notice that their is really very little publicity, strategy, or any human initiative. The church expands because it had to. Persecution made the church scatter. The Holy Spirit lead Philip into the desert to meet a eunuch. Who would conjure up that strategy? “I know. I’ll go off into the middle of nowhere, meet a eunuch, and tell him about Jesus.” Perhaps, though, the most striking statement of the chapter is from Peter when he rebukes Simon saying, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought that you could obtain the gift of God with money!” Peter’s problem was not the offer of silver. It was with the mentality that God’s power, God’s gift could be controlled by human devices. Simon thought he could take what belonged solely to God and wield it at his will.

Of course, there is human effort and strategy in this chapter. The church did proclaim the gospel, the disciples did plan a prayer trip to Samaria, and Philip did start up a conversation and explain Scripture. But all strategy and all effort was placed under the umbrella of God’s sovereign control. And harsh rebuke meets Simon the moment he considered the primacy of God’s sovereign power subservient to the initiatives of men.

It's unbelievable how much mail I receive every day from Christian organizations informing me of the new strategies and programs that are going to fill my church with people. There is nothing wrong with strategies or publicity. But when those human endeavors start taking center stage, when all our hopes get placed upon new programs, when we begin to equate evangelism with being cutting edge, we are in very dangerous waters. May our programs, initiatives, strategies, publicity campaigns, technology, websites, concerts, dramas, bands perish with us if we think we can obtain the gift of God through them.

Acts 7

Acts 7 (Click to read)

I would guess that for most people today understanding the point of Stephen’s sermon is a bit difficult time . Why is he rehearsing this long stretch of historical facts that his audience had probably heard since they were children? The reason we don’t get it is because today history is at best some interesting stories that might provide some good or bad examples for us to emulate or not emulate. That wasn’t the case for Stephen and the early church. History, and especially the inspired interpretation of history (i.e. biblical history), was seen not as historical facts and examples. Rather, these early Christians, and Jews for that matter, saw history as providing a story that gave the proper framework to understand all the world, past, present, and future. They looked back to understand what was happening now. This is a huge divide between the way they understood life and the way modern people do. When they encountered life, they didn’t look inside themselves to find answers. They looked to history to find answers.

Stephen, then, is looking to the past to interpret his present circumstances. He rehearses Israelite history, but he comes to very different conclusions than those of his hearers. Israel, at this time, reveled in their privileged position as God’s chosen people and of their descent from the great Abraham. However, Stephen points to another very clear fact in their history. Regardless of God’s gracious election of them, they have always rejected God. They rejected Moses and the oracles that came through him. They rejected God after His miraculous and awe-inspiring deliverance of Israel from Egypt. They rejected God when they entered into the promised land. They rejected all the prophets that foretold of the coming of the “Righteous One.” So, says Stephen, it is not surprising that when the Righteous One comes, they reject him. Their current behavior accords perfectly with history. Israel is God’s elected people, but they are also the same wicked, stiff-necked elected people.

But perhaps the most amazing part of Stephen’s sermon is that he combines a demand for repentance with a humble and compassionate heart. Stephen confronts them boldly and clearly about the seriousness of their sin. He tells them not only that they are wrong, but that they are in perverse rebellion against the God they claim to worship. Today, we are told that such talk is arrogant, narrow, and even hateful. Yet the same Stephen who shouts condemnation also prays, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” Compassion and hard truth are not at odds in Stephen’s heart. In fact, they work in perfect harmony. He confronts because he sees the massive rebellion of their ways, and the condemnation that awaits them unless they repent.

Here are two excellent principles for the church today. If we want to spread the glory of Christ in this world, we need to learn the full story of the gospel, and we need to proclaim clearly as truth with compassion flooding our hearts. We need to look into the story line of the Bible to interpret our lives and our world, and not to contemporary culture or to our own hearts. Then we need to bring this biblical interpretation of the world to the ears of our neighbors. We must be uncompromising, but we must also burn with compassion for them. We need Stephens. May God bless his church with multitudes of them.

Won't Find a Savior On Capitol Hill

With all the political buzz (vast understatement) surrounding the upcoming presidential election, Derek Webb offers this helpful reminder.

Acts 6

Acts 6 (Click to read)

The priority of proclaiming God’s truth was a clear passion of the early church. Acts 6:1-7 make that evident as much as any other passage in the book. This first church had a major concern for the poor and destitute (2:44; 3:1-7; 4:32, 37; 5:12-16). And the apostles certainly seemed to lead the way in this concern as picked up where their teacher, Jesus, left off. Yet the burdens of the people, due most likely to the amount of people, became so great that preaching and prayer were getting neglected. What is evidenced here is not just good management strategy. The apostles refused to lay off the task of preaching for the task of caring for physical needs.

This priority of God’s truth is further seen in the following account of Stephen. If ever there was a man in this group that resounded love, integrity, graciousness, and joy, it was Stephen. Luke deliberately draws attention to the links between the injustice done to Stephen and the injustice done to Jesus. Both were tried on trumped up charges. Both were totally innocent. Both had false witnesses accuse them. And like Jesus, Stephen’s “face was like the face of an angel.” Okay, that was never actually said about Jesus. But the point, I think, of the statement is that like Jesus Stephen overflowed with kindness, love, and grace. He was so clearly innocent that even his enemies, though blinded by hatred, could see the goodness of this man. Just like Jesus, he was not being tried because of his love for the poor, his kindness to widows, or even for the miracles that he did. He was going to die because he spoke truth. His enemies instigated his demise simply because “they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking”(6:1). They couldn’t refute him. They knew what he said was true.

So why do people kill other people for saying what they know is true? The answer is that human beings don’t care so much about what is true, but about what they want to be true. Such is the nature of all mankind. So what do you do with people who not only don’t believe the truth but don’t even want to believe the truth? The early church’s answer was quite simple. You proclaim truth, you trust God, and you expect to suffer. Two things always happen when God’s saving truth is proclaimed: 1) God uses the truth to make unbelieving hearts believe (“And the word of God continued to increase . . .” 6:7), and 2) individuals harden their hearts against it and lash out at you. So these first Christians merely made known God’s salvation and expected both of these to happen. And so should we.

Acts 5

Acts 5 (Click to read)

If there is anything clear about the early church it is that it was thoroughly God-centered. Peter and the apostles’ response to the Sadducees sums up the church’s perspective well: “We must obey God rather than man.” These first Christians were deeply impassioned to bring people to salvation. They were not at all concerned whether they were popular or liked. At least it seems that if they were they wouldn’t say things like, “The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree,” which predictably elicits the Sadducees enraged desire to kill them (5:33).

In fact, it is the love of popularity that consumes Ananais and Sapphira and brings their destruction. Certainly, they were judged because they lied about the property they sold, but what drove them to lie was an obsession to appear as thriving, generous Christians. God’s response to their sin may seem harsh, but we must understand the full atrocity of their actions. What they did undermined the very heart of grace and salvation. The good news of God’s grace is that he is taking those worthy only of his condemnation and instead giving them his love. It is that Jesus dies for those who are his enemies. In other words, not being what you should be means, at least in God’s economy of grace, that you get what you don’t deserve. Not being what you should be simply means you need grace, which through Jesus is amply supplied. Pretending to be what you are not is the greatest of evils. Not only is your pretense deceit, but it is also a rejection of grace. He who pretends to be what he is not, also pretends to have no need of grace.

If you are merely concerned with being liked, the true message of grace will not be what you proclaim nor what you live. And you won’t be God-centered, for to be grace-centered is to be God-centered. I must be clear here, because I don’t think that the story of Ananais and Sapphira speaks primarily to morally loose, uncharitable hypocrites. The message is for those who have made their faith into being moral, being charitable, and even being sacrificial. But their Christianity is a Christianity about them, and what they are doing. It is not about God and what he in his grace is doing. Their faith is about appearing faithful and not about faith in Christ.

Malwebolence and Worldviews

Ran into this article yesterday, which catalogs a new form of internet malevolence. What is most interesting is not just the cyber crimes, but the worldviews behind them. What you think is not neutral.

Malwebolence - The World of Web Trolling