The book of Acts traces the spread of the Christian movement from its
beginning in Jerusalem, to Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the
earth. One of the key passages in this story is the welcoming of
non-Jews into the kingdom of God. Christianity began as a movement
within Judaism, and its earliest followers were Jews who followed Jewish
customs and operated--at least at first--from a Jewish mindset. The
idea of Gentiles converting to Judaism was not particularly unusual in
the first century, and in fact several biblical passages allude to a
future in which foreign nations will stream to Jerusalem to worship the
Jewish God. The notion that God would accept Gentiles directly into the
kingdom, without having them first convert to Judaism, was fairly
radical, however. The book of Jonah hints that God accepts the worship
of non-Jews, as do a few other isolated passages in the Hebrew Bible,
but even those passages were read by Jews in the first century with the
assumption that the Gentiles described therein would become converts.
Today's reading from Acts presents something entirely new. "While Peter
was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the word.
The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded that
the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles,
for they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God." The Holy
Spirit, which for the author of Luke-Acts is not the third person of the
Trinity but rather the seal of God's approval that provides power for
furthering the spread of the gospel, "falls on" Cornelius and his
household, indicating that God has accepted them as they are. They are
subsequently baptized, an act by which non-Jews were consecrated as Jews
in the first century, but in this case they are baptized into the Jesus
movement without the previous requirement of male circumcision. The
mental shift necessary to take in what happens in this story is hard for
modern Christians, who are almost exclusively Gentile, to comprehend,
but it is absolutely necessary to understand it so that we can apply it
in our modern context. A group of people who were formerly considered
outside the purview of God's love has been accepted, without
qualification and without condition, simply because they have chosen to
accept God's love for themselves. There are many Christians today who
do not understand the implications of the Cornelius story. They say,
"Sure, God accepts Gentiles as well as Jews, but God doesn't accept
gays, unless they first become straight." But did God withhold the Holy
Spirit from Cornelius's household until all the males were circumcised?
No! Similarly, God accepts members of the LGBT community as people in
need of God's love (as we all are), without requiring them first to
become something they're not. Other Christians say, "OK, maybe God
loves people all over the world, but clearly God loves Americans--and
maybe western Europeans, except for the French--better than Arabs, or
Africans, or Asians of any sort, even if many of them are actually
Christians." Few American Christians would phrase their beliefs in
those words, of course, but the implication is clear when they blithely
accept dropping bombs from planes or launching missiles from drones with
the purpose of killing people on the ground deemed terrorists, with an
acceptable amount of "collateral damage" figured in as acceptable. Note
that these things happen only in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia.
"All right," others will say, "but surely God only loves Christians, and
maybe Jews if they promise to convert to Christianity after the Rapture,
but not Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and certainly not atheists!" Read
the story of Cornelius again. The Holy Spirit, the sign that God
accepts people and loves them in the book of Acts, falls on the entire
household of Cornelius. Not only is the devout Cornelius accepted by
God, but so are his family and his servants (presumably slaves). In a
large household like Cornelius's, there is little doubt that the slaves
would have followed the traditional paganism of their culture, yet they
too are incorporated into the family of God. This fact tells us that
God values community over specific doctrine or prescribed experience.
The story of Cornelius is a story of God moving beyond the boundaries of
gender, race, or creed. It is a story of God's universal acceptance of
the whole of humanity. It is a story that the church today desperately
needs to hear in order to remain authentic to its calling.
Psalm 98 (first published 21 May 2006)
One of the raging controversies in many quarters of Christianity today
involves identifying acceptable types of music for worship services. One
of my students this semester wrote a very impassioned paper defending a
particular style of music, and I've heard many comments from other people
on the same subject. When churches find themselves in the market for a
new minister of music, they often hear from various groups within the
church who express their specific likes and dislikes. For some people,
music that is loud and boisterous is more appropriate for a sporting event
than for a sacred time of worship. Others think that it is perfectly
acceptable--some would even say mandatory--to worship God with the same
enthusiasm with which we root for our favorite team. Some like the idea
of a free-form, "Spirit led" worship service (the implication being that
anything more structured is necessarily less Spirit-filled), while others
find God more readily in traditional, or liturgical, types of worship.
There is an explosion of different styles of worship: Celtic, traditional,
blended, contemporary, and more. Which instruments are appropriate in
worship? A few say singing without instruments is best, while others
champion organs, pianos, electric pianos, guitars, drums, synthesizers, or
orchestras. When the psalmist speaks of worship, he simply says, "O sing
to the Lord a new song, for he has done marvelous things." His focus is
not on the type of music but rather on God's mighty deeds. I think we
waste an inordinate amount of time arguing over what is acceptable in
worship and what is not. Despite what some would have you believe, the
Bible gives little practical guidance regarding specific instrumentation
for worship, much less worship style. I personally like a variety of
different types of music in worship, though my tastes have definitely
changed over time. However, I don't think that the types of music I
prefer are necessarily the best for all people. On the contrary, I know
that some people would definitely be turned off by my preferred style of
worship, just as their preferred style of worship might not do much for
me. What we need is a variety of churches offering a variety of styles of
music. It's not the music itself that is important, it's whether the
music is conducive to worship that really matters. If you emerge from a
worship service without having met God, then the music hasn't done its
job. On the other hand, if you come out of the service feeling that you
have encountered God, the music has done exactly what it should have done,
pointed you to the one whose right hand and holy arm have gained the
victory.
1 John 5:1-6 (first published 21 May 2006)
When the great humanist scholar Desiderius Erasmus was preparing the
first Greek New Testament for publication in 1516, he collected several
Greek manuscripts, which he compared with one another and used as the
basis for his Greek text. He also had a copy of the Latin Vulgate, to
which he referred frequently. When he came to 1 John 5:6-8, he noticed a
distinctly different text in the Vulgate from what he found in his Greek
manuscripts. Whereas the Vulgate included an explicitly Trinitarian
formula in verse 7 ("There are three that testify in heaven: the Father,
the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one"), he found no such
reading in the Greek manuscripts, so he omitted it. Several church
leaders were outraged that he would omit so important a Trinitarian
text--perhaps the most important in the entire New Testament--and they
insisted that he include the sentence in his next edition. Erasmus
replied that he would, if he could be shown a single Greek manuscript that
contained it. "Miraculously," such a manuscript was found, and Erasmus
dutifully included the sentence in subsequent editions, one of which was
used by the King James translators a century later. The sentence is still
printed in both the traditional King James Version and in the New King
James Version, as well as in the most popular Spanish Bible, the
Reina-Valera version, revised in 1960 but originally published in 1569.
The Trinitarian formula was no doubt inserted in the fifth century to
combat Arian forms of Christianity, and its inclusion was insisted upon in
the sixteenth century to combat Socinianism and similar Unitarian
movements within Christianity. Controversy over the obviously secondary
Trinitarian reading has diverted people from paying attention to the more
original reading: "This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus
Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood." Water
and blood may both refer to Jesus' death (cf. John 19:34) or to his birth (by water) and death (by
blood) (cf. John 3:5-6); secondarily, it refers to baptism and
Eucharist (cf. John 1:32-33; 6:52-58). Scholars debate the exact
meaning of water and blood in this passage, but it seems likely that the
passage is intentionally multivalent, referring to the totality of Jesus'
life, death, and resurrection. The thrust of the passage seems to be that
the life of Jesus bears a peerless testimony to God's work among
humankind. That is a sentiment with which all Christians can agree.
John 15:9-17 (first published 21 May 2006)
As the total number of American soldiers to die in Iraq approaches 2,500, Jesus' statement regarding the ultimate demonstration of love has become tragically real to many families across the country. "No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends." Despite my consistent opposition to the war, I can certainly acknowledge the bravery of our soldiers, who have put themselves in harm's way for the sake of their fellow citizens, and many of whom have made the ultimate sacrifice of laying down their lives for their friends and comrades in arms. The American media is good at keeping the public informed about the number of American soldiers killed or wounded (the latter is now about 17,650), but they're nowhere near as good at publicizing the number of Iraqis, soldiers or citizens, who have been killed in the conflict, let alone wounded. Even though I did quote John 15:13 above in reference to soldiers who are willing to sacrifice themselves for others, the context of the verse in John is really completely different. In the first century, Christians were a distinct minority, often a persecuted minority. They would never have been called upon to lay down their lives in battle to save a regiment of other Christians. Where they might have had to lay down their lives for others was in the arena facing lions, like Ignatius, or in the arena being burned at the stake, like Polycarp, or at the hand of the executioner, like Peter and Paul. Countless others, both men and women, and sometimes even teenagers, similarly faced death for their witness to Christ, and out of their blood the church spread and grew strong. Today, while we can acknowledge the bravery and sacrifice of those who have taken up arms against another country, we should also remember the sacrifices of many on the other side, people who are just as committed to their cause and just as devoted to God. I'm not talking, of course, about people (on either side) who kill innocent civilians. We might not like to think about people who target American soldiers with roadside bombs as patriots, but that's certainly how they think of themselves, and if the situation were reversed and it was the United States that was occupied by a foreign nation, would we behave any differently? It's not enough to acknowledge the sacrifice of our own soldiers in a war, but we must recognize the sacrifice of those on the other side, too. And that's really the problem with war, any war. Although we talk about a brave soldier laying down his life for his fellow soldiers, we really want him to take someone else's life rather than lay down his own (a la General George Patton). As Christians, we need to take a step back and recognize that our commitment to our nation too often crowds out our commitment to Christ. Christ called us to lay down our lives, not take the lives of others. For that reason, the people who are really putting this teaching of Jesus into practice are the doctors and nurses, the employees of relief agencies and the U.N., and the Christian peacemaker groups whose members are on the ground trying to prevent further bloodshed.