THEN PETER BEGAN to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right. 36You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. 37You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached—38how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.
39“We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, 40but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. 41He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. 43All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”
44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.
Then Peter said, 47“Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 48So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.
11:1The apostles and the brothers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him 3and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.”
4Peter began and explained everything to them precisely as it had happened: 5“I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision. I saw something like a large sheet being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to where I was. 6I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, reptiles, and birds of the air. 7Then I heard a voice telling me, ‘Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.’
8“I replied, ‘Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’
9“The voice spoke from heaven a second time, ‘Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.’ 10This happened three times, and then it was all pulled up to heaven again.
11“Right then three men who had been sent to me from Caesarea stopped at the house where I was staying. 12The Spirit told me to have no hesitation about going with them. These six brothers also went with me, and we entered the man’s house. 13He told us how he had seen an angel appear in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. 14He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.’
15“As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?”
18When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.”
Original Meaning
IN THE PREVIOUS section we looked at the first four sections of the narrative surrounding the conversion of Cornelius and his family and friends. This passage gives us the last three scenes—Peter’s speech to the group, the people’s receiving the Holy Spirit and baptism, and Peter’s defense of his actions in Caesarea before the authorities in Jerusalem.
Scene Five: Peter’s Speech (10:34–43)
PETER’S SPEECH IS typical of evangelistic messages of Acts. Each speech is unique and relevant to the audience, but certain features are common to all of them. The audience in Cornelius’s house consists of a unique type of Gentile in that they were God-fearers, who were familiar with the Jewish Scriptures. Thus, for example, Peter was able to refer to the Jewish prophets (10:43). Paul did not do this either in Lystra and in Athens; there he began by describing who God is.
Verse 34 begins with words that literally mean, “And opening his mouth . . .” (NASB). This phrase is sometimes used to introduce a weighty utterance (cf. 8:35; Matt. 5:2)1 and is appropriate here since Peter will announce the great discovery that he has made. Peter’s first phrase (lit., “upon the truth”) implies his surprise at realizing that “God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right” (Acts 10:34–35). As in the other evangelistic messages in Acts, this introduction is unique and specific to the audience. It expresses a truth already implied by the early prophets, who “insisted that God’s choice of Israel was an act of grace, not of partiality, and that it called for a response of obedient service, not of careless complacency.”2
Jesus had already implied that he was bringing salvation to the Gentiles (John 10:16; 12:32). The Great Commission made taking the gospel to them a command (Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8). But it took a special revelation before the full implications of these truths would be understood and practiced. Later Paul expounded on the new Christian attitude towards Gentiles with great clarity and vividness (2 Cor. 5:16; Gal. 3:28; Eph. 2:11–22).
Some scholars hold that Cornelius and his friends were already saved—that this is why they knew the message God sent through Jesus and the events surrounding his ministry (10:36–37).3 These scholars also point to Peter’s not mentioning repentance and conversion in his sermon and claim that the main result of his visit was that these Gentile Christians were baptized with the Spirit. But this interpretation seems unlikely. (1) The angel specifically told Cornelius, “He [Peter] will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved” (11:14). (2) The content of Peter’s speech is typical of an evangelistic message. (3) The absence of a call to repentance and conversion may be because the message was interrupted by the descent of the Spirit. Or such a call may be implied in the statement made just prior to this descent: “Everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name” (10:43).
Peter introduces his message as containing “good news of peace through Jesus Christ” (10:36)—the “message God sent to the people of Israel.” Peace was the content of God’s basic promise to the Jews in the Old Testament. But by describing Jesus as “Lord of all,” Peter extends this blessing to Gentiles also. “ ‘Lord of all’ . . . was properly a pagan title of deity . . . but it was rebaptized by the early Christians to become an appropriate Christological title (cf. Col. 1:15–20).”4 “Peace” here is a virtual synonym for salvation (Luke 1:79; 2:14; Eph. 2:17; 6:15); it “denotes not merely the absence of strife and enmity between man and God but also the positive benefits that develop in a state of reconciliation.”5
Peter’s speech here is the only evangelistic message in Acts where a summary of the ministry of Jesus is given (10:37–39a). At Pentecost Peter briefly mentioned that Jesus’ miracles were God’s accreditation of Christ (2:22). Here the ministry of Jesus is given in a more narrative style, as the opening comment suggests: “You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached” (10:37). When we remember that Luke is probably recording a summary of the speech, we can assume that “in its actual delivery it would be amplified by the inclusion of examples of Jesus’ works of mercy and power.”6
In verse 38 Peter clearly attempts to show his audience that Jesus’ ministry was accredited by God. It begins with “how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power,” and ends with “because God was with him.” In between are the words, “and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil.” These words remind one of Isaiah 61:1, which Luke cites Jesus as quoting when he began his ministry (Luke 4:14–22). Peter’s point is that the life and miracles of Jesus demonstrate that Jesus was God’s special messenger. Jesus himself had said, “But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matt. 12:28). As in Luke’s Gospel (Luke 4:18–19), the good deeds and miracles of Jesus are associated with his anointing by the Holy Spirit. This probably refers to what happened when the dove descended on Jesus at his baptism (3:22).7
After pointing out that the apostles were witnesses to what happened in the ministry of Christ (10:39a), Peter presents the death and resurrection of Jesus (10:39b–40). That death is described in typical fashion. Peter implicates the opponents of Christ and implies the curse of hanging on a tree: “They killed him by hanging him on a tree” (10:39). As in the other speeches, Peter stresses that God raised Jesus up.
Then the apostle goes on to explain the important place of a select band of witnesses to the resurrection. “He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead” (10:41). He had already talked about witnesses to the ministry of Christ (10:39a). Now Peter makes the point that the risen Christ was seen only by specially chosen witnesses. These witnesses were crucial to the future of Christianity and thus had to be chosen carefully. The behavior of the people in Jerusalem during the time of Christ’s passion showed that they were not suitable for such a high privilege. Lenski says: “People, who in spite of all that they had seen and heard of Jesus had, nevertheless, refused to have faith in him, were unfit to be witnesses of his resurrection, and an appearance of Jesus to them would have increased their disbelief that much.”8
A unique feature of Peter’s sermon is the point that Jesus even ate and drank with the apostles after his resurrection (10:41). Luke’s Gospel is the only one that records this fact (Luke 24:41–43), and to Luke it must have been one of the “many convincing proofs that he was alive” (Acts 1:3). “This emphasis would have been particularly important in preaching to Gentiles like Cornelius for whom the idea of a bodily resurrection was a new concept (cf. 17:18).”9 It was valuable evidence for Jews too, “since in Jewish thinking angels and apparitions are unable to eat and drink, being without digestive tracts.”10
Though many modern scholars would like to discount the historicity of such events, the evangelists of the early church thought it was important to give evidence for the fact that these events really happened. As in the speeches in Acts 2–3, Peter uses arguments to demonstrate the validity of the Christian gospel (cf. also the speeches of Paul and Stephen). As we pointed out in our study of Acts 3, the New Testament evangelists were both heralds of the good news and apologists. Many of them were also people through whom miracles were performed. So they were not specialists who concentrated only on one form of ministry.
Next Peter speaks of the commission the apostles received to proclaim Christ. Christ’s command to them was “to preach to the people and to testify that he is . . . judge” (10:42). Two important words describe the evangelistic task here—“preach” (kerysso) and “testify” (diamartyromai). Kerysso emphasizes the forthright proclamation of the message. “Testify” comes from the context of a witness in a court of law. It carries two ideas: witness and solemnity. Nida and Louw define it as making “a serious declaration on the basis of presumed knowledge.”11 C. K. Barrett points out that because preach “has no independent object noun or clause to give it content . . . it must probably be taken with [testify].”12 Thus, both words describe the evangelistic task. Preaching shows that evangelism is a confident proclamation of important news; testifying points to the solemnity of the task—it is a matter of judgment and salvation—and to the fact that this is something that we have experienced and know to be true.
Here, as with Paul in Athens (17:31), Peter presents Jesus “as judge of the living and the dead” (10:42). Judgment is an essential part of the evangelistic message. It is an aspect of the Great Commission, even though it does not appear in the standard statements of the Commission in the four Gospels and Acts. This suggests that what we have in the New Testament is only a sampling of the comprehensive teaching about evangelism that Jesus gave after his resurrection.
In verse 43 Peter gives the scriptural authentication of the person and work of Christ: “All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” This statement implies that Peter’s audience will receive the forgiveness of sins if they respond by believing in Jesus. Unlike in his previous messages (2:16, 25–31, 34–35; 3:18, 21–26), Peter cannot elaborate on this element because the Holy Spirit falls on the people, which cuts short his message (10:44). That Peter had more to say is implied by his comment to the Jerusalem church: “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them” (11:15).
Scene Six: Gentiles Receive the Holy Spirit (10:44–48)
NOWHERE ELSE IN Acts does the Spirit come before baptism.13 Later Peter explained to the Christians in Jerusalem that the way the Holy Spirit came on these people was “as he had come on us at the beginning” (11:15). It was accompanied by “speaking in tongues and praising God” (10:46). In spite of all the leading that God had given up to this point, Jewish believers are astonished that these Gentiles have received the Holy Spirit (10:45). With such unmistakable evidence that these Gentiles have indeed been converted, Peter does not hesitate to baptize them immediately (10:47–48). The specific reason he gives is clear: “They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have” (10:47). This was an argument from experience. Peter’s point is: “They are having an experience just like the one we had, which we know was from God. So this too must be from God.” The earlier specific guidance that Peter received must also have been significant in his coming to that conclusion. But those were experiential too. This points to the role that experience plays in discerning God’s ways. As we will see, it is not the only criterion for deciding what is true, but it is one contributing factor in the decision-making process.
With his scruples about table fellowship with Gentiles overcome, Peter seems to have accepted Cornelius’s invitation for him to stay a few days (10:48). This gives time for the news of what Peter has done to travel to Jerusalem before he arrives there. The consternation of the Christians there must have been immense because not only had their leader baptized Gentiles, he was also having continuous table fellowship with them. The table fellowship, which is what Peter’s critics objected to (11:3), indicated in a powerful way that Cornelius and company were indeed accepted into the Christian community.
Scene Seven: The Jewish Christians Approve (11:1–18)
A REVOLUTIONARY THING had happened in the life of the church, and the news about it spread through the church in Judea (11:1). When Peter arrived in Jerusalem, “those of the circumcision” (lit.) criticized him.14 Luke is probably referring to the group within the church who required circumcision of all Gentile believers.15 The only objection mentioned is that they “went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them” (11:3). It shows how important the issue of table fellowship was to Jews.
In response to the criticism Peter “explained everything to them precisely as it had happened” (11:4). Luke’s report is an extended summary of chapter 10. This repetition “is an indication of the importance Luke attached to that story.”16 We will not go into Peter’s speech here except to point out two elements. (1) The apostle stressed that he had with him “six brothers” (11:12), who could confirm everything that he was telling the leaders in Jerusalem.
(2) As Peter concluded his report, he commented that the Holy Spirit came on Cornelius and company “as [he] began to speak” (11:15). This suggests that he was unable to complete his talk. He clarified that the Holy Spirit came on them “as he had come on us at the beginning” (11:15)—that is, as at Pentecost. In verse 16 Peter recalled Jesus’ promise of the baptism with the Holy Spirit. Just as this promise had been fulfilled among Jews at Pentecost, now it was being fulfilled among Gentiles. This was indeed a Gentile Pentecost!
With so much evidence of God’s work, Peter dared not resist as he had done when he was told to eat unclean flesh in Joppa. He says, “So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?” (11:17). The evidence was too great for further objections. The church then praised God and affirmed a new principle about God’s dealings with humankind: “So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life” (11:18).
For the moment the circumcision party is silenced. They will emerge again in chapter 15 when they see what large numbers of Gentiles have come into the church. Not everyone has undergone the permanent change of conviction that Peter has. They join in the praise now, but as they see the wider implications of this step, they will rise up again in protest.
Bridging Contexts
“THE CORNELIUS FACTOR.” The story of Cornelius is being used in the debate today about whether people can be saved without hearing the gospel. Some argue that Peter’s statement in 10:34–35 (“I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right”) shows that sincere seekers will be saved whether or not they hear the gospel.
This passage has clear features that disqualify it from being used to develop a doctrine of the possibility of those who have not heard the gospel being saved. (1) Though Cornelius was not a Jew in the full sense, he had heard and responded to the Old Testament message so that he is described as a God-fearer, who “prayed to God regularly” (10:2). Thus he is not typical of the people we refer to when we speak of “those who have not heard.” Though he was not a Christian and these acts did not merit salvation, God did regard with value his groping for God (see 10:4) and saw an attitude that was close to saving faith. Proof that this was the case is that Cornelius accepted the gospel the moment he heard it from Peter.
(2) Even after he had expressed an attitude that comes close to saving faith, “God’s response was not to save Cornelius by fiat, but to show him how he could learn of the appointed way.”17 In fact, the angel told Cornelius that Peter “will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved” (Acts 11:14). Only after they heard the message would salvation come to that house. Therefore, when Peter said that God “accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right,” he does not mean that such people are saved because of this attitude. Rather, as Harrison points out, it shows “that they are suitable candidates for salvation. . . . Such preparation betokens a spiritual earnestness that will result in faith as the gospel is heard and received.”18
What, then, does Peter mean when he suggests that God accepts right deeds (10:35)? According to some, it refers to acts that believing Gentiles commit after salvation; when they are saved, they will do these righteous deeds. This interpretation means that Cornelius will do such acts only after his salvation. But this chapter describes Cornelius’s preconversion acts elsewhere (10:2, 4), which makes it likely that these are the acts spoken of in verse 35 as well. To me, the stress is on the attitude out of which these actions emerged—an attitude of fearing God. Cornelius did not think that these acts merited salvation. Rather, he did them out of humble devotion to God. God accepted these righteous deeds, but they did not save the centurion. God mercifully extended the offer of salvation to him through the preaching of the gospel.
From the fact that God revealed the gospel to Cornelius, a sincere seeker after God, we can conclude that he does reveal the truth about salvation to such sincere seekers. It would be perilous to build a doctrine of this nature based on one example. But we know that Jesus said, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled” (Matt. 5:6). We can infer from this text that an unbeliever who thirsts after righteousness will be shown the way of salvation by God. The only way we know from Scripture that people can be saved is by responding to the gospel, which they have heard in an understandable way. Paul says, “ ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?” (Rom. 10:13–14). If God has chosen another way to bring salvation to people, he has not revealed it to us in his Word.
The life of Christ in evangelism. Peter’s message is an important model for us in presenting the gospel to devout people who, like Cornelius, may know something about God but are ignorant of the saving gospel of Christ. Many features of this message have already appeared in the other speeches and have been discussed especially in our study of the Pentecost sermon (2:14–43). Of particular interest is Peter’s stress on the life of Christ in this sermon (10:36–43).
Many scholars have pointed to the relationship between this speech and the Gospel written by Peter’s disciple Mark. Bruce says, “The scope of the kerygma, as attested by this address of Peter’s, is almost exactly the scope of Mark’s Gospel.”19 Bruce gives the following features of similarity: “beginning with John’s baptismal ministry, and going on to tell of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee, Judaea and Jerusalem, of his crucifixion and resurrection, followed by the insistence on personal witness and on the coming judgment, with the offer of forgiveness through faith in him here and now.”20 The second-century church father Irenaeus wrote this concerning the second Gospel: “Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing the things preached by Peter.”21 In our study of Peter’s message on the day Pentecost (2:14–41), we saw the value of using the life of Christ in evangelism.
The place of witnesses. In this speech (10:39, 41), as in three other speeches (2:32; 3:15; 5:32), Peter testifies that there are witnesses to the events he describes (see also 1:22; 13:31). The testimony of the eyewitnesses was important to the Christians in the first century and is so for all generations. This is because Christianity is based on events surrounding Christ’s sojourn on earth. Though we ourselves have not seen the risen Christ with our own eyes, our faith rests on the fact that he did rise from the dead and that a host of reliable witnesses attested this fact.
The place of judgment. Judgment was a key way in which God arrested the careless and disobedient Jews in the Old Testament. It was also an essential part of the message of Jesus, who spoke more about hell than anyone else in the Scriptures. Now we see that it was also a part of the evangelistic message in Acts (10:42). This suggests that it should be part of our message too. Elsewhere I have delved into the place that judgment should have in our preaching.22 I have shown that Jesus did not speak about judgment primarily to inform people with details about what hell will be like. Rather, he did so to warn people so that they would repent, live righteous lives, and avert punishment.
Peter Toon has listed thirty-one different passages (not counting parallel passages) in the Gospels that contain warnings of hell.23 The strategy of Jesus can best be described with his words in Mark 8:34–38. First there is a call to deny oneself, take up one’s cross, and follow Jesus (8:34). Then Jesus says that those who attempt to save their life by rejecting Christ will end up losing it (8:35). Next he says, “What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?” (8:36–37). When he comes in glory, he will be ashamed of those who have been ashamed of him on earth (8:37). His point is that if people do not deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow him, they will be destroyed in the judgment.
Creativity, criticism, and community. When Peter took the revolutionary step of baptizing those at Cornelius’s home, he faced criticism from a segment of the church (11:2–3). This is natural, for those other Christians had not gone through the spiritual pilgrimage of discovery that Peter had before he came to accept Gentiles as full believers. Criticism is something any creative person who leads the church into new areas of obedience and ministry will face.
But when the church criticized Peter, he did not reject the church and go out working alone. Instead, he did everything he could possibly do to gain their approval. This is why he took six Jewish brothers with him (10:23; 11:12). He wanted them to witness what was happening and testify to the church about it. This is also why he “explained everything to them precisely as it had happened” (11:4). He wanted the community to accept what he had done, so that they would be united over this new direction the church was taking. That is what happened, for the members of the church “had no further objections and praised God” (11:18).
From the space Luke gives to the process of Peter’s receiving the approval for what he had done, we can see how important these events are. Many facts are repeated. Thus, while this passage teaches that criticism from Christians is inevitable in creative ministry, it also teaches that we should regard the wider community, especially our critics, with utmost seriousness and work hard to win their approval for what we are doing.
Contemporary Significance
THE GOSPEL REVEALED to seekers after truth. The history of missions has many examples of people like Cornelius, who, after sincerely seeking for God, have an opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel of Jesus Christ. One day in the early part of this century, a chief in Malaysia was repairing one of his wooden idols when he told his wife, “This is foolish. Here we are worshiping these wooden objects, but our hands are greater than they are. Surely there must be a higher Being, the God who created all of us. Let us worship him.” So for twenty-five years they went into their prayer room every day and prayed to “the unknown God.” One day a Christian missionary came along and introduced the chief and his wife to the Bible and to Christ. When they heard the good news, they rejoiced and said, “This is the true God we have been seeking all these years. We now believe in him.”24 This couple had responded to the light they received through creation (see Rom. 1:19–20) and began a search that resulted in their hearing and accepting the gospel.25
We must also keep in mind the teaching of Paul that “there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God” (Rom. 3:11). In their natural state people are incapable of seeking after God, because of the heart of rebellion that sin has produced. To this is added the fact that “the god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (2 Cor. 4:4). Those who do seek after God, then, do not do so entirely by their own efforts but by the enlightening of their minds and the energizing of their wills by the Holy Spirit.
This activity has been described differently by different theological traditions. Even the Wesleyan tradition, where there is a greater emphasis on the human involvement in the process of salvation than in the Calvinistic tradition, has the doctrine of prevenient grace. Thomas Oden describes prevenient grace as “the grace that begins to enable one to choose further to cooperate with saving grace.” He goes on to say that “by offering the will the restored capacity to respond to grace, the person then may freely and increasingly become an active, willing participant in receiving the conditions for justification.”26
Proclaiming judgment today. That the message of judgment is not popular today is well known. It seems out of step with contemporary thought.27 As theologian Donald Bloesch has said, “If anything has disappeared from modern thought, it is the belief in a supernatural heaven and hell.”28 This is the age of pluralism, which seeks to unite people of differing viewpoints.
But the message of judgment speaks of an irreversible division of people. Reincarnation is becoming more and more popular today, even in the West. It presents the opposite of the message of judgment—that people can keep improving through a series of births rather than have to account after death for what they have done with their lives. The memory of hellfire-and-damnation preachers who abused the doctrine of judgment may cause many to be cautious about bringing up the topic today. Moreover, the emphasis on human potential directly clashes with the idea that if we try to save ourselves by our efforts, we are headed for judgment. Besides, it simply does not feel good to talk about such “uncivil” topics as hell today.
In this environment of hostility to the idea of judgment, we are called to be faithful to the biblical message, which includes judgment. Yet we must remember that the sense that sin should be punished is present in all people. This is why even those who care little for morality, when confronted by a disgusting act like the sexual abuse of a minor, will exclaim, “That deserves to be punished.” Our task is to resurface this sense in people that sin deserves punishment and to present Christ as the answer to that dilemma. I do not think the answer is to preach a whole series of sermons on hell. Rather, it is to include the aspect of judgment as one among many points as we argue for the validity of the gospel, just as Peter did here and Paul did in Athens.29
The portrayal of Christ as the supreme judge of all humanity counters a common misconception of Christ as a gentle and weak person, one who fails to win the respect of those in our generation who like to present themselves as being strong, self-sufficient people. They think of Jesus as being a crutch for weak people needing comfort and regard him as being of no use to them. What if we present him as the supreme Lord of all people, the weak and the strong, to whom all humanity will have to give an account at the end of time? The wise will heed such a warning and consider carefully the claims of Christ.
Creativity, criticism, and community. All who bring pioneering-type changes in the church—for that matter in any sphere of life—usually face criticism.
• When styles of music we are unfamiliar with are presented in church, many protest, saying it is irreverent, without really trying hard to understand why the changes have been made. We showed earlier how this happened when Handel’s Messiah was first performed in England.30
• William Booth, founder of the Salvation Army, broke new ground for the church by going out to the poor, the alcoholics, and others considered undesirables in society. But respected and devout leaders of the church criticized him. Even the great evangelical politician the Earl of Shaftesbury, who was himself a champion of the rights of the poor, once announced that after much study he was convinced that the Salvation Army was clearly the Antichrist. Someone else even added that in his own studies, he learned that the “number” of William Booth’s name added up to 666!31
• When missionaries like E. Stanley Jones in India expressed solidarity with the Indian struggle for independence from Britain, evangelicals accused them of liberalism.
• Many immediately branded the Pentecostal revival as demonic because it did not square with their understanding of the place of some gifts of the Spirit in this dispensation.
Peter’s actions show how important it is to take pains to get body approval for the directions we are moving in. How often we try to sidestep this difficult process. Many evangelicals who try out previously untried applications of biblical social concern are accused of espousing a social gospel and turning theologically liberal. Unfortunately, some end up theologically liberal because it is the liberals who welcome their new ideas. This is partly because they do not try hard to contend for their viewpoint with other evangelical leaders. It seems easier and more efficient to fulfill their vision alone or through a group that is more sympathetic to it. Prolonged fellowship with “liberals” and alienation from evangelicals, however, can easily lead us to jettison our evangelical convictions.
Making a serious effort to convince the church of a new position takes hard work and sometimes comes only after a long and tiring struggle. Modern day pragmatism, which does not have much place for commitment to long-lasting relationships, does not have patience for such a long struggle. They feel their agenda does not allow such a “waste of time.” Thus, they simply leave the group and join a new one.
Given the individualism of our age, people place less emphasis on community ministry today. We are often too impatient to involve the Christian community in our ventures. We find it too time consuming to explain everything to them and to spend hours trying to get their support. Everyone seems to be so busy, and there are so many things to get done in the short time available to us. As a result, we have evolved a structure taken more from the secular business model, where leaders are put at the top of the organizational chart and are given the freedom to lead creatively, using others as consultants, but not having to submit to the rest of the body in spiritual accountability for their actions. People have got used to this structure, and they usually do not question a leader unless some serious problem emerges. If they do not like the leader’s philosophy, they can simply go somewhere else. In Acts, by contrast, we find the church grappling with issues until they reached agreement.
The community orientation of the church in Acts, then, provides a huge challenge to the church in the twenty-first century.32 The individualism of the society in which we live has influenced our thinking so much that we have jettisoned some of the principles of community solidarity seen in Acts. It may be possible to get quicker positive results from the individualistic method of ministry. But whether such success is success in God’s sight is another matter. God’s way of doing ministry is surely the way that involves the rest of the body to which we belong. And we must learn to do our work in God’s way, however inefficient it may initially seem.