Acts of the Apostles 1

I'd like to enrich my study of Acts by posting my findings and musings here. I'm not sure what will come of this, but I figure it couldn't hurt to open these things up to my community for discussion.

These thoughts come from my initial perusing of 2 commentaries, and 1 book on historical context.

I believe that my previous readings of Acts may have been through the lenses of an incorrect approach to the text. (big surprise) The reason is this: for good and ill, my approach to the Bible as a whole has been formed by the community that brought me into faith when that faith began to become my own. As I grew into Christianity, or it grew into me, I viewed Acts indirectly as the section that is to show 'how' to do church.

Perhaps this transition into deeper, contextual study is natural. Since I was taught to read the Bible as much as possible, (and not necessarily as deeply as possible) what appeared on the surface caused me to draw initial conclusions as to what the text meant. Therefore because this is the first account of Christian community, least affected by long expanses of time that may have caused misinterpretations of Jesus' actions and commands, I naturally concluded this as the 'ideal' or 'virgin' church. Therefore, if culture could allow it, we would be mimicking as closely as possible the actions and directives therein.

An excerpt from one commentary, The Gospel of the Spirit, by Justo L. Gonzalez, sums up a perspective shift:

"Traditionally, we have read this book as a sort of first book of discipline of the early Church, where the apostles and others set the procedures and practices to be followed throughout the ages. Thus, for instance, the election of the Seven in chapter 6 has become the paradigm and the biblical basis for the election and role of deacons at later times. If, on the other hand , the main character of the book is the Holy Spirit, we should be free to see cases in which the Spirit seems to correct, and perhaps even slightly to mock what the apostles and other leaders of the Church do and decide.....When read in this manner, the Book of Acts becomes a call to Christians to be open to the action of the Spirit, not only leading them to confront values and practices in society that may need to be subverted, but perhaps even leading them to subvert or question practices and values within the Church itself."

So if it is not to be read in this way, then how shall we approach it? What is the 'purpose' of Acts, from our perspective, nearly two Millennia down the road?

Two primary purposes of Acts emerge: 1) To defend and explain God's most recent actions, in apologetic form, to Theophilus (possibly either a single person or meant to signify the Christian community as a whole), and 2) to provide assurance to both Jew and Gentile that God intends to extend redemption to 'the ends of the earth' (Acts 1:8)

If this is correct, the burden of referring to a manual from which to model our church, is lifted. The book can more easily be enjoyed as a historical narrative, and not scrutinized for liturgical scientific method. For me, this is both exciting and challenging news. The excitement is the lift of restriction. The challenge is that when you lift restriction, you allow the messy and the undefined in. But such is the picture of the early church more clearly: riddled with debate, discussion, and disagreement (Acts 10 -15).