You are viewing page 24 of 34.

The Message of Acts

By Timothy R Butler | Posted at 5:11 AM

Luke could have written a statistical analysis of the growth of the church – if he had lived today, we might expect him to do that on a few PowerPoint slides with a cool animation or two and a little laser pointer in his hand to note the ups and downs. He could have written an epistle-like book that summarized the key teachings of the apostles in a handy “talking points” fashion. He even could have written a narrative that focused primarily on long quotations from the apostles with just a small bit of context, something more like the continuing coverage of the Israelites after the Exodus. But, he didn’t.

Instead, Luke wrote a full fledged narrative that seems to adopt many of the same qualities that one might see in an epic. There is an invocation of sorts, not to the muses, but given by the muse behind all these events, the Holy Spirit. From there, the apostles went boldly forward, empowered by the Holy Spirit, giving speeches that demonstrate the immediate triumph of the Gospel in their own lives. Theses speeches often include recasting and expansion of the information given in the narrative, another quality of classical epics, and one that serves to give the written word a near vocal quality. While Luke has a serious and high-minded purpose, he recognized the importance of telling a good story too.

The Gospel is far too valuable to drown in a death of prosaic dryness! It is a story that deserves the fullness of a rich and visual report, carefully laid out so that the reader can see the amazing power of the triumph of the Gospel. Though the stories to us can be all too familiar and hard to get excited about, these are surprising events! Why ewould Gamaliel so comfortably assert that there was no need to actively snuff out the Christians in chapter 5 if not for the surprising nature of the continued expansion of the church later in Acts? Much as Goliath never thought he had to worry about that little shepherd boy who was walking up to him, so too the opponents of the Gospel had every reason to expect that this movement too would pass. Quickly.

That’s not to say that there wasn’t opposition. Luke continually supplies details of how the epic hero – the Gospel – is facing bitter enemies that ought to bring it down. External persecution follows everywhere, from the high priests in chapter 4, the determined Saul in chapters 7-9, pagans such as Demetrius in chapter 19, and so many more. The Gospel does not arrive by default; it does not spread as matter of convenience. Rather, it spreads only by the Holy Spirit, who overcomes showstopper after showstopper that should have made Acts in to a tragedy. It triumphs by being. It progresses by being alive and transformative.

Like every good storyteller, though, Luke is conscious of the fact that those he supports aren’t prefect. A good writer describes the flaws of the protagonist and not just the antagonist. And Luke does this brilliantly. If he had fancied himself a propagandist, he might have painted the apostles as perfectly clear minded fellows who were bold, determined and ready to do all of Jesus’s mission without any convincing. Instead, we meet a sad band of followers, who, while giving triumphant speeches at times, can’t get the message. As early as Acts 1, we find they still do not understand the nature of the Messiah. There is lying amongst the ranks of the young church (Acts 5) and even ethnic division (Acts 6). These flaws ought to be the tragic flaw that brings down the hero, but like Odysseus, the hero of this story – the Gospel prevails. It prevails against its external foes and its internal foibles.

Luke accomplishes two things by these means. First we can be encouraged that we are not all that different from the people in Acts. When we have disagreements, we can see that even two people as faithful as Paul and Barnabas had major disagreements (Acts 15.36-38). When we realize that we are not doing as good of job bringing all cultures into our midst, we can see that the early church struggled with this too. When some in the congregation seem to betray everyone’s’ trust, we realize that Ananias and Sapphira did that long before. None of these events are justified by Luke, but rather, like a good hero, the church in its triumphant declaration of the Gospel is “someone” that we can see ourselves in.

Aristotle suggested that a good drama needed a main character that was neither perfectly good nor perfectly evil, because a person of either extreme we cannot connect with, and, if they come to a fitting end of one kind or another, everything seems right without the events impacting us. Likewise, if Luke had white washed the history of the church, we might find that though it was perfect, and we could cheer for it, we could not really associate with it, given the less than perfect reality of the church today. The church today triumphs through both internal and external adversity – and so did the church in Acts.

Second, Luke’s inclusion of the flaws keeps us from seeing Acts as merely a feel good story. When we righteously condemn that certain widows got preferential treatment (Acts 6) or scorn the deceit of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5), we soon realize, much as David did when being addressed by Nathan, that the story being told is a mirror to our own condition. I lie, I discriminate, I fail. Luke uses history to bring us to repentance, to catharsis – the book of Acts is a tool for the Holy Spirit to use to bring us to repentance. And, of course, once brought there, Luke reminds us again and again and again of what our goal should be: to work as part of the Holy Spirit’s triumphant spread of the Gospel.

The story not only starts in the midst of the action, but it ends in the midst of the action. The Gospel does not finish spreading. The lights fade and the camera pans with Paul still preaching unfettered (Acts 28.31). The vicious persecutor who was broken and turned into the Apostle to the Gentiles is still hard at work as we depart; he is still putting in the good word for the good news that is triumphant. Much as Homer did in the Odyssey, Luke leaves us here with an improved hero, a triumphant hero, but a hero with much still to accomplish. The triumphant Gospel does not end and sit statically meaning, it continues to be.

Acts is both exciting and intimidating to me because of this triumphant Gospel. Homer and Virgil never ask me to enter into their epic worlds and share in the triumph, but God does ask each one of us to be “fellow workers” in His triumphant Gospel. In sorting this out, I find comfort in both Peter and Paul. Both of them are reluctant participants in the triumph – Peter does not want to be involved with Gentile evangelism, but God makes him do so. Paul wants to destroy the church, but God makes him do a 180. Given that I am a Christian, obviously I have no desire to destroy the church – but I do sympathize with Paul’s position and doubly so Peter’s. At times I resent and resist that which violates my comfort zone, my traditions. And, indeed, sometimes it is good to stand up for “cleanliness” – though not for salvation, the Jerusalem counsel did note that some behaviors were worth strongly encouraging (Acts 15); but all too often, it has more to do with me. I can be like the Pharisees who tithed their garden herbs (Luke 11.42), or Peter who sat under Jesus and heard the command to go to the ends of the earth (Acts 1) and yet needed a vision just to go down the road to a Gentile’s house!

How many times am I like Ananias? I give my time to benefit others, but really just want to hear praise (and make sure the praise that goes to me is greater than that which goes to others around me). How many times am I like King Agrippa – well aware of what the Spirit is urging, and yet content to sit back and say, “So fast? No way” (Acts 26.32). Even in this essay, and this very confession, am I really doing this to bring glory to God and serve the triumph of the Gospel or in hopes that I will receive praise for the “land money” I am donating?

The convicting element is strong in Acts, but the triumph of the Gospel is stronger. Those who are willing to let God correct them are still used! What wonderful news! And news that impacts me directly – without the unfettered Gospel preaching that Paul was allowed to do, would I be here today in seminary saved by the Gospel of grace?

This triumphant Gospel promises curves in the road. We can see that God often works through what appear to be inconveniences, problems and setbacks. This is reassuring, as I have sought to understand my calling and serve in my church. Over the last year, I have been given the blessing to teach the youth group Sunday School class. It is not an opportunity I sought and not one I really had wanted. I was reluctant to say the least – I have always felt called to teaching college age and older, not high schoolers. And when I started, the project seemed anything but triumphant. The students did not seem interested (to understate the situation) and they didn’t remember anything afterwards. I felt hopeless. And yet God has worked in this to the continuing triumph of his Gospel. I have learned a great deal of humility that I lacked (I need more!) and have become better at dealing with the ins and outs of this sort of ministry. Like Peter, God put me out of my comfort zone – but not for an arbitrary purpose, but as part of the continuing epic triumph of the Gospel, however small my part may be.

And that is the message of Acts, the message I continue to struggle to internalize and continue to draw hope from where God has presently placed me to serve. The message of Acts is not simply meaning – even splendid meaning filled with great doctrines – it is being. It is not a proclamation of triumph – it is the active, living triumph of the Gospel. It is a triumph, an epic, a grand story filled with imperfect people – like you and like I – who are called, indeed, drafted to serve that story to push it forward. Forward it is pushed with purpose and direction to spread the Gospel unhindered to the ends of the earth. Active triumph.

Receive the Power

By Timothy R Butler | Posted at 4:19 AM

This is a rather nicely done video from the organizers of the pope's “Youth Day” celebration last week. I thought it was worth sharing, in case you hadn't previously run into it.

Every Christian Should Read the Da Vinci Code

By Timothy R Butler | Posted at 3:23 PM

I have been meaning to write about a new series I am teaching to my senior high students in Sunday School for a few weeks now. I received permission to drop the curriculum I had been working with and build my own summer series based on the Da Vinci Code. While not every student has done so, the objective has been to get as many as possible to read the book and then discuss given chapters each week in class. In addition, we've been delving into the backstory, loosely speaking, looking at the parts of history the Code claims to speak about.

I had already been planning to present my case on here for why every Christian should read the Da Vinci Code, but I got started the other day when Mark was airing more of his distaste for the books and I tried to convince him that he should first read that which he is complaining about.

The Da Vinci Code is an excellent tool to teach what the world believes about the church — a lot of people believe precisely what the book says. Too many Christians live partially or mostly in the Christian ghetto, unaware of what the world thinks about them other than that they are bad, bad people (or worse, “secular humanists”) that need to be rebuked. This is not fulfilling our mission to be salt and light to the world! So, we are working through the Code slowly and carefully, looking at the claims. Now, I could just tell them to read some polemic against it and then my students could go rattle off that polemic to others. But there is another route: I can help them engage the issues thoughtfully, in context, so that they can intelligently discuss them with others. Christians are far too good at keeping up on polemics with no idea what can be affirmed in the stuff they attack. Most things are not black-and-white evil.

For example, many Christians read books like the Kingdom of the Cults and get the idea that there are some serious issues with the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and other non-orthodox groups that claim to have the true Christian message. If that is all the ever read on the issues, they hear that someone is a Jehovah's Witness and assume the person has to be an idiot. Try having a discussion with a person with an attitude like that, and do you really think the love of Christ is going to come through from you?

That is the problem. Say you have someone come up to you and say, “I just read this exciting book, the Da Vinci Code, and listen to what it said about Jesus and Mary!” In response, you reply, “Ah, it's just a bunch of hogwash fiction with a horrible author who claims his work is fact.” Now, we have a disconnect, and the person who enjoyed the book probably assumes you are just another Christian with knee jerk reactions (not that you are, but too many Christians are). You have shown the person zero respect by downplaying their opinion while putting in no effort to actually understand it a bit. They could rightly become angry with you, since you have not even read the book and yet you are telling them what to think about it. Conversely, if you say, “yes, it had me on the edge of my seat too, but you do have to realize yadda, yadda, yadda is wrong with the historical background,” you'll be much better at reaching them and doing good for the Gospel. Isn't that the goal?

In relation to Jehovah's Witnesses, imagine if people read books like the Kingdom of the Cults, but did so as a resource while carefully and critically engaging with materials from the Jehovah's Witnesses themselves. If the Christian would do that, she would understand how the person she is talking to can be a rational, decent human being and still believe the stuff they do. Moreover, by being able to affirm the good of the material — things like affirming the family, acting like Christ to others, etc. — we can build a “bridge,” as one of my professors, Jerram Barrs, would say to help the person we are talking to see that their core beliefs are built up and not torn down by the Gospel.

Think of Harry Potter and how the Christian reaction has made the church look. Conversely, Prof. Barrs insists he can actually find the Gospel in even the first Harry Potter book. And, I think he is right. Christians were so upset at the possibility that Harry Potter would make “witchcraft acceptable” that they missed a really good series that can be used to affirm much of the Christian message! Harry Potter is far less dangerous than the Da Vinci Code, of course. Nevertheless, the reactions to the Code that I've seen from the best theologians and historians are wise enough to say, “yes, I too found it really exciting and well written, but here are the issues.” You can't say that if you haven't read it. And, given that it is possibly the most influential book on peoples' perspectives on church history in a very long time, it seems critical to be able to interact with people on it.

In interacting with it, I have read Evangelical responses, but I am also using Bart Erhman's book on the Code for precisely the same reason. Erhman is an Evangelical turned agnostic and a serious critic of the Church. But, he is also a historian of some merit, so his critiques of the book are extremely helpful. Moreover, if my students have not only read the Code, but also have heard critiques that are informed by Erhman's views, they are vastly more prepared to give answers outside of the Christian ghetto. (As an aside, Erhman said the book had major errors, but “like everyone else” he found it an engaging read.)

Are there factual issues throughout both Robert Langdon books (_the Da Vinci Code_ and Angels and Demons)? Absolutely. Are there glaring factual errors in virtually every piece of pop fiction in a book or movie? Yes. Sure the author claims some facts and he definitely pushes the limit on those fact pages at the beginning of each book. But get over that, and analyze the rest of the book as you would any other very influential work of fiction. That does everybody a whole lot more good.

Is it great literature? No, of course not. I am not going to even think about claiming that. But I enjoy my McDonald's double cheeseburger meal as a compliment to my pan seared chicken with alfredo and asparagus. I love Shakespeare, but when I'm in bed, getting ready to go to sleep, I'd rather have some fast food that allows my mind to wind down. Yes, even lit majors do read things other than literature at times.

So ends my catechism.

Post-Modern Absolute Truth

By Timothy R Butler | Posted at 5:13 AM

I recently read a book on Francis Schaeffer for class. Being a thorough look at Schaeffer, it inevitably spent time on Schaeffer's critique of Barth — indeed, it expanded the attack. It also applied Schaeffer's critique of culture to argue that Postmodernism is not a friend to Christianity.

Part of Schaeffer's issue with Barth was that he believed that Barth was agreeing to isolate faith from reason — that Barth accepted Kant's division between noumena and phenomena. However, I believe the fundamental misunderstanding on the part of Schaeffer and those like him is that they do not realize how far the postmodern critique goes, and therefore assume this is a discrediting of Christianity.

Rather, leaning heavily on Spirit-authentication and witness to the Word is acceptable, because it offers more certainty within a postmodern framework than we can provide to anything else. Postmodernism critiques not just religious knowledge, but also scientific knowledge. While Barth (and Calvin) both appeal to the primacy of what we might call a subjective authentication of God's Word, this is not relegating religion to some undesirable country, but rather showing it's uniquely authoritative status. Christianity has the singular status of being authenticated by the ever elusive center to which we otherwise are forced merely to circle around. Science, while remaining worthy, is not given such a handy escape and is left to continue to fend itself off from epistemological attacks.

To me, this seems like a satisifying answer to Schaeffer's critique, but I have only started to mull this answer over the last few days. What do you think?

Affinities with Barth

By Timothy R Butler | Posted at 6:33 AM

The topic of Deconstruction and Barth is one I've dabbled with before, and I'm wondering if somehow I can link it to Barth's doctrine of election in the independent study I am in. I've been meaning to read Of Grammatology for sometime. Perhaps now is the time to do some of it.

I may have to stretch the connection because, primarily, it seems like Deconstruction works in conjunction with Barth's rejection of natural theology, not his work on the topic of soteriology. Nevertheless, something flickers in my head just beyond my reach as of yet that suggests there is a connection here that I am missing. So perhaps I shall pursue it a bit.

What I would like to spend more time, in general, is connecting twentieth century literary and theology movements. The other key affinity in my mind is that of T.S. Eliot with Barth, particularly the Eliot of “the Wasteland” with the early, Crisis Barth. Both the Wasteland and Der Römerbrief come out of the first World War. What other similarities appear? To what extent does modernist literature interact with Barth's neo-orthodoxy?

Barth Study

By Timothy R Butler | Posted at 6:15 AM

One of the classes I am taking this semester is an independent study on Karl Barth's alleged universalism. For a mere one credit hour this class is going to be a lot of work, but so far I can tell it is going to certainly be worth it. While I have spent enough time fooling around with Barth on my own, and I try to bring in his work when relevant to other projects, I am really enjoying focusing solely on Barth in a class. Given his significance, it just seems right.

Not for this particular class, but I'd still like to spend some time researching interactions between Barth and modernist poetry from the likes of T.S. Eliot and Archibald MacLeish. I see a lot of synergies between some of my favorite poets and my favorite theologian. All of them have their styles crystalized by World War I too. The question is if there can be any useful connections drawn out of the trio, other than just mere time.

Reformation Day, CDXC

By Timothy R Butler | Posted at 3:52 AM

For the 490th Reformation Day, I have written OFB's annual Reformation Day piece, this year reflecting on how Reformation Day applies to everyone in the Church — not just Protestants — and not in the divisive way some people may think. If you missed it last year, you may also want to check out Ed Hurst's excellent piece on the same subject.

Jesus Camp

By Timothy R Butler | Posted at 5:49 AM

I saw the film Jesus Camp yesterday at an open discussion held at my alma mater, Lindenwood. The film is… disturbing. It follows a particular “Evangelical” children's camp (which is heavily Pentecostal and, I would assert, more properly labeled Fundamentalist), following the director and several kids during the time before, during and after the camp. The camp presents many truths, but at the same time was truly disturbing. What tactics are proper for a camp to use to get children to “accept” the Gospel? For that matter, do they really accept a personal relationship with Christ if they are scared into it, or do they merely assent to propositions?

The video also raised some questions about the fundamental debate between the camp and its so-called “enemies,” the “liberal relativists.” I wrote the following in an e-mail discussing the film; the comments are somewhat stream-of-consciousness in form, but hopefully they are intelligible:

I've been mulling over “Jesus Camp” some more. I'm not sure if anything I came up with is worthwhile, and they aren't really unique, but for what its worth…

It was really very interesting, if a bit nauseating. Perhaps it is because I've been busy deconstructing my theology since Dr. Schnellmann's Criticism got me thinking about deconstruction, or perhaps my “Covenant Theology” class is emphasizing a “post-modern critique” aware “narrative theology,” or maybe all that is apropos to nothing, but I was thinking: isn't the whole debate essentially yet another airing of two ugly heads of the Enlightenment Project's (dying) beast? Maybe it is time I try to make a reference to Foucault. In fact, perhaps this is where Prof. Stevens was heading with his Foucault reference…

After all, the fundamentalist movement, and many of the “enemies” that Fischer worries about […] are products of the Enlightenment/modernist perspective.

While the homeschool mom, for instance, was busy attacking evolution, she was doing so with the assumption that the Bible speaks in essentially scientific propositions. That reminds me of Dr. Meyers's discussion on category errors with Genesis, and the “walk to work or eat your lunch” example. The “offensiveness” of evolution exists largely among Christians who buy into such a reductionistic, modernist worldview that the only thing that matters is the physical creation and hence see a creation viewpoint and evolution as necessarily opposed. For that matter, the pressure Fischer felt that she must use whatever rhetoric necessary to gain converts would seem to be taking a very naturalistic view of what is required for true conversion (what happened to God in this picture?).

The whole lack of grace among the Christians of the video would seem
to come from the fact that they are primarily reading the Bible as propositions of law rather than a story of grace (to sound all deconstructionist again, they seemed to lack a sense of a redemptive
meta-narrative). Despite the “manifestations of the Spirit” there was little real sense of a relational understanding of Christianity.

Perhaps the (seemingly ever increasing) antagonism between modernist factions will lead to their eventual collapse? Maybe I am overly optimistic there. Of course, then that would mean one thing (logically) in theology: a second wave of Neo-Orthodoxy! I can only imagine all the new books on St. Karl of Basel that would be written…

Anyone here see this film? What did you think?

A Musing on Deconstruction

By Timothy R Butler | Posted at 5:44 AM

I was at the bookstore the other day, and I found myself flipping through several books by Jacques Derrida, trying to figure out if I felt up to the task of reading more of that most interesting and difficult of fellows just now. Though I am not entirely comfortable with every place Deconstructionism will go, the basics of it seem to fit the way things really work. I've spoken mostly of Deconstructionism in the sense of the hermeneutical spiral, but let's consider it somehow other than that.

Consider faith. We accept Christ. We try to make Him the center of our lives, and to that end Christians start and continue churches to be used by Him. The churches are meant to be centered around Christ with the aim to spread the Good News. But, our attempt is futile. In as much as we attempt to pursue “His goals” on our terms, we find that our churches are not so much accomplishing the spread of the Good News, but rather maintaining their self-perpetuating existence as organizations and finding ways to amuse our members with ever increasingly spectacular displays.

It isn't malicious intent, but rather the complete inability of humans to be centered. We are constantly slipping away from that which we most aim to do, and, in fact, our attempts in and of themselves are as effective as is the effort of pulling one's fingers out of a Chinese finger trap. It simply does not work.

The key of course, and the place where the Christian parts way with the agnostic Deconstructionist thinker is that something I hinted at above. The problem appears inasmuch as we depend on our terms. God certainly is powerful enough to do what needs to be done, but if He is going to use us, we need to quit thinking we can escape the gravitational force exerted by the phenomena we call Deconstruction and allow God to deconstruct our frameworks for us.

Wretched Man that I Am

By Timothy R Butler | Posted at 5:24 AM

I always find myself drawn back to the following passage. Paul has razor sharp clarity and insight that is amazing throughout his letters, and leaves little wonder why his letters were unquestionably canonical. Though I am hardly preacher material, I cannot help by lapsing into something like a preaching mode when talking about the Pauline Epistles. Nevertheless, this passage offers such a sense that I know exactly what Paul is talking about that it really stands out; I am thankful for it… what a marvelous reminder of the grace of our Lord.

So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
-Romans 7:21-25 (NIV)
You are viewing page 24 of 34.