Sermon - Acts 11.1-18 An Extraordinary Development

Acts 11.1-18

Something EXTRAORDINARY happened in our reading from Acts, something you very rarely see happen today. Did you notice it?

·         I’m not talking about the apostle Peter having his deepest prejudice challenged and his mind changed by a combination of the Holy Spirit’s prompting and a pastoral encounter – that happens.

·         I’m not even talking about God reaching out beyond and ahead of the church to pour out his grace and mercy on outsiders – that happens too.

·         The thing I occasionally see happening in local churches but hardly ever in the national or denominational headquarters of churches these days is the extraordinary thing that happens in Acts 11.18: the church changes its mind on a fundamental matter of membership and the sacraments.

The change from this:

When Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticised him and said, ‘You went into the house of the uncircumcised and ate with them.’ Acts 11.2-3

… to this:

When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, ‘So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life.’  Acts 11.18

… is a big and a hugely significant change. For the first time, non-Jewish people are accepted as having a rightful place in the church. The church has changed its mind and redefined itself and its membership criteria.

If we look only at Acts 11 the change appears to have happened easily and quickly. We know from Acts 15, the account of the Jerusalem Council, that there was in fact more resistance to the change and more debate, but the decision of that Council confirmed that Gentile members were not only welcome but that membership was to be made easy for them; rules and definitions were altered to accommodate them.

What I would like to do this morning is to encourage you to think about why and how this remarkable change happened as easily as it did in the early church. Then I want to go on to contrast the way in which a comparable issue is being faced by the Church of England today: the issue of whether or not marriage should be redefined to include same sex partnerships. If time allows I will be happy to respond to a few questions, before winding up with some conclusions and suggestions.

First, the easy part …

·         Peter was praying in the middle of the day when God gave him a vision which opened his heart to the possibility of taking the good news to a Roman centurian’s house. Even though Peter was enjoying great success as an apostle, including the healing of a paralysed man and the raising to life of a dead woman, which we heard about last week, he still gave priority to prayer and not just asking prayer but waiting, listening, meditative prayer (10.9ff). This made him open to being instructed by God, even as far as being challenged at the level of his deepest beliefs and prejudices.

·         Peter thought about the vision God gave him and on his way to Cornelius’s house he realised God was not just showing him something about food but about people:

“You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with Gentiles” he told the crowd of gentiles assembled by Cornelius, “But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean.” Acts 10.28

·         God did the rest and it became obvious to Peter and his Jewish Christian companions as soon as he began to speak about Jesus, that God was already baptizing the whole crowd with his Holy Spirit. Peter and those with him recognised straightaway and without doubt that the same gift which he and the apostles had received on the day of Pentecost had already been given by God to these people, without the church’s prior authority.

·         Now even though in Peter’s own sermon at Pentecost he had proclaimed that God was at this time pouring out his Spirit on all people, fulfilling the prophecy of Joel 2.28, as far as that prophecy applied to Gentiles, he had to see it to believe it. He remembered that Jesus had said “John baptised with water, but you will be baptised with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1.5) He concluded “So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”

·         So the Church’s baptism in water was given after the Spirit baptism given by God – the Church’s representatives responding to what God had done (Acts 10.47-48). Peter may well be considered to have been overstepping his authority, and indeed was initially criticised by the other leaders of the Jerusalem Church. But crucially, these Church leaders recognised God’s hand in what had happened and gave their approval, affirming that God had clearly given salvation and new life to Gentiles.

·         If we were to look ahead to Acts 15 we would see how the church even eased its membership requirements so that Jewish festivals and food laws and ritual washing laws and even the rite of circumcision were dropped to make it clear that Gentile Christians did not also have to become Jewish.

In Contrast – the current crisis over same sex partnerships

·         Let me make a comparison with the way the Church is currently handling the crisis over same sex marriage. There is a crisis because nation after nation are passing laws redefining marriage to include same sex partnerships. Spain was one of the first countries to do so, New Zealand the most recent. Similar legislation is currently passing through the UK Parliament.

·         The problem with this for the Churches, including the Church of England, is that Christians are deeply divided on this issue. Some of the most vociferous opponents of this change in the law are Christians, and some of the strongest voices in favour are Christian voices.

·         You can make a biblical, Christian argument either way. People I love and respect can be found on opposite sides on this issue.  Personally, as I’ve made clear before, I have become convinced that the Bible passages traditionally thought to  condemn homosexual orientation and to prohibit same sex partnerships actually do no such thing, when properly understood.

·         If we look at the message of Acts 11, we see God changing things while the church was cautious. I wonder if we aren’t being overcautious today? Is the Church of England, despite our new Archbishop’s comment last week that he supports loving, stable same-sex realationships, just too bound by its traditions and political divisions?

·         Perhaps the Church needs to take Gamaliel’s approach – if this movement is from God, it won’t go away; if it isn’t, it will fail.

·         If only we were facing this dilemma in the 1st Century and not the 21st Century perhaps we would be more flexible, less inhibited, and more in agreement about what the Holy Spirit is saying and willing to respond.

·         The fact is we are not in the 1st Century and we can only start from where we are, with all the baggage that we individuals, our church and our society have. Even so perhaps we can at least try to recover the priority of prayer, real, open, meditative prayer.

·         And perhaps we can open our hearts and our churches to give love, friendship and support to everyone who comes in response to God’s love, without being judgmental.

Homosexuality and the Church as Body of Christ

1 Corinthians 12.12-end

Paul’s letters to the Church at Corinth can be a frustrating part of scripture to read, because we only have one side of the correspondence and we may not even have all of Paul’s side of it. Reading between the lines, together with what we know of the history and culture of Corinth, we can appreciate some of the problems Paul was writing to address:

·         Membership was divided, with different loyalties splitting the church and so reducing its health and effectiveness.

·         Some members felt shame and inadequacy, that they weren’t good enough to be part of the church.

·         Others felt proud of who they were in the church and looked down on other, inferior members. They rejected some others from church membership altogether, saying “I don’t need you”.

In today’s passage he addresses both these kinds of people within this lively but chaotic and divided church. Each person, each member is part of a body, the body of Christ and needs to be functioning healthily in order for the whole body to be healthy.

If you prevent a body part functioning healthily, it will function inadequately or unhealthily, affecting the health of the whole body. For example, there is nothing in the Bible against smoking. But if I choose to fill my lungs with tobacco smoke ten or twenty times a day, my lungs will be unhealthy – and not just my lungs; my whole body will be unhealthy as a result. Or I might decide to wear a patch over one eye all the time, as some sort of fashion statement. It will not only be that eye which can’t function normally, my whole body’s judgement of distance and speed will be impaired. If I wear this patch long term, the sight of that eye may eventually be lost. The eye will become incapable of functioning as a healthy eye.

First (v14-20) Paul addresses those who felt INFERIORITY, SHAME, JEALOUSY vis-a-vis others in the church. “Because I am only a foot and not a hand I don’t really belong here. I am not part of this.” Paul insists that they do not cease to be part of the body just because of their feelings of inferiority. God put them there for a purpose and they need to be living healthily, to their full potential, if the body of Christ is to be healthy.

Then (v21-26) he addresses those who felt SUPERIORITY, PRIDE, SELF-IMPORTANCE vis-a-vis others in the church. He tells them firmly that they cannot say “I don’t need you” to others in the church, without losing something essential to the healthy life of the church, the body of Christ (NB not just some-body or any-body, but the body of Christ).

(V25-26) In a healthy body, all the parts serve and support and value each other. When one suffers, all suffer; when one rejoices, all rejoice. Neither shame nor pride are healthy and the body of Christ needs to be healthy if it is to fulfil its purpose in the world.

Now I’d like to relate this teaching to a controversial issue, which is the position of homosexual people in the church. This was in the news last week because of high profile Baptist Church Minister Steve Chalke’s article in Christianity magazine and interviews he has done.

(Here is a link  to Steve Chalke’s article in Christianity magazine and here is a response from Steve Clifford of the Evangelical Alliance, defending the traditional view.)

Many other evangelicals, myself included, have reached same conclusions as Steve, briefly that the Church should bless and affirm gay and lesbian people who wish to live in faithful, stable partnerships. It is not a matter of throwing away the Bible and just deciding to be nice and liberal and inclusive. This change of viewpoint has been reached through seeking to understand the experiences of gay and lesbian christians and a re-evaluation of what the Bible actually teaches about homosexuality. It is not a subject that Jesus said anything about at all and although there are a few Old Testament and New Testament passages which appear to prohibit homosexual relationships, it is likely that the former refer to temple prostitution and the latter to the sexual abuse of vulnerable people such as slaves. It is extremely unlikely that faithful, stable partnerships between people of the same gender are the target of any of these Bible texts.

Personally I agree with Chalke that there is a strong case for revising the Church’s view of the subject and whilst you don’t have to agree, it should at least give us all pause for thought. Especially when we relate this controversy to the Bible passage we are looking at today. If homosexuality is not an aberration or something that needs to be repented or healed of, but intentional and part of the diversity God has created, it follows that the body of Christ as a whole will not function healthily unless homosexual people can live healthily within the Church. The Church of England’s official teaching currently allows homosexual members to live in partnerships but does not allow blessing services for these partnerships. If one of the partners is a priest, the relationship must also be celibate.  Is forcing people to stay single, celibate or silent about their orientation healthy? Celibacy is a very specific and demanding vocation and not something which should be forced on anybody because of their sexual orientation. Wouldn’t it be healthier for individuals and for the whole body of Christ  to encourage, bless and support faithful, stable partnerships, including same gender partnerships?

The Anglican Communion is deeply divided on this issue, with homosexual partnerships already allowed and blessed in the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopalian church of the USA, but firmly rejected by many other Anglican Churches.For the time being, many of us may have to agree to differ on this emotive issue and I pray that we may be able to do so with respect and compassion and that we may avoid our natural pitfalls of shame and pride.