Oct 26, 2014

Acts 11:19-26

Christianity has always struggled when it comes to contemporary culture…

1. Should the church stand against culture? Purpose: Distinction with the World. Should Christians protest against gay marriage, picket abortion clinics, burn CDs, etc? 1 John 2:15, “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.”

2. Should the church operate within culture? Purpose: Transformation of the World. Should Christians embrace culture, build bridges, and seek to work within the system? Matthew 5:13-16, “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men. You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.”

3. Should the church isolate from culture? Purpose: Purification from the World. Should Christians build their own schools, establish their own recreational leagues and clothing lines, and only entertain themselves with their own brand of music and movies? 2 Timothy 3:1-5, “In the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!”

In 1951, as America was coming off one of the bloodiest 50 year periods in human history, Richard Niebuhr (widely considered to be one of the most important Christian theological ethicists of the 20th century) set out to address this particular conundrum in his famous book Christ and Culture. Niebuhr postulated that there are 5 historical approaches to culture.

1. Christ Against Culture | The belief that culture has been irreparably corrupted by sin. Therefore, Christians must withdraw from, oppose, and avoid culture altogether. In essence, for the church to remain holy we should separate from the culture around us. Proponents: Traditional Ascetic Communities, Mystics, and Fundamentalist.

2. Christ of Culture | The belief that the church should embrace culture regardless of any differences. Since Jesus’ overarching plan is the redemption of all the world (people and institutions), cultural expressions are accepted uncritically and celebrated by the church. In essence, Christian truth must evolve to remain relevant to cultural practices. Proponents: Gnostics, Liberal Protestantism, Feminist Theologies, Rob Bell.

3. Christ Above Culture | The belief that cultural expressions are basically good, but need to be augmented and perfected by Christian revelation and the work of the church. Instead of the church conforming to culture, culture should conform to the church. Proponents: Thomas Aquinas, Roman Catholics. 

4. Christ and Culture in Paradox | The belief that culture inherently began as something good, but has since been tainted by sin. As a result there will always be a fundamental and inescapable tension between the church and culture. Christians live in a paradox whereby we simultaneously embrace and reject certain aspects of the culture around us. Proponents: Augustine (in part), Martin Luther, Soren Kierkegaard.

5. Christ the Transformer of Culture | This belief also recognizes human culture as being inherently good until it was corrupted by sin; and yet, instead of living in a state of constant tension, proponents of this view believe that since Christ is actively redeeming all of creation the church should work to transform culture to the glory of God. Proponents: Augustine had his “City of God,” John Calvin had Geneva, John Wesley had England, Jonathan Edwards had America, today we have Modern Reformers. 

While it’s easy to see the pros and cons of each of these 5 different perspectives, when discussing the topic of culture we should consider how the first church addressed the issue.

Acts 11:19-21, “Now those who were scattered after the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to no one but the Jews only. But some of them were men from Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they had come to Antioch, spoke to the Hellenists, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed and turned to the Lord.” 

In these verses Luke explains how quickly the paradigm shift of Acts 10 began to practically change the way the church functioned. For the last 10 years while the Jews “who were scattered after the persecution that arose over Stephen” traveled into Gentile cities like “Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch” Luke is clear their ministry was to “the Jews only.” 

In many ways you could say that during the first decade the church had adopted the “Christ Against Culture” perspective. Consistent with their Jewish heritage, the church was in many ways isolated from the outside, Roman world.

And yet, now that the Gospel has officially leaped from the Jew to the Gentile, this isolationist perspective could no longer be justified. Following Peter’s lead, Luke tells us “men from Cyprus and Cyrene” (presumably Jewish men more accustomed to Hellenistic culture) begin to “preach the Lord Jesus” targeting, not the Jew, but instead the Gentile.

Contrary to the “Christ of Culture” perspective, how did the church seek to engage this foreign culture? Did they water down the truth to be more appealing? Did they blend the Gospel with pagan ideals to make it more palatable? No! They simply “preached Jesus.” And the result… “The hand of the Lord (or literally “the power or might of the Lord”) was with them” and “a great number believed and turned to the Lord.” 

Don’t miss that subtle detail… The idea behind “turned” indicated a departure from something “to the Lord.” In contrast to the “Christ Above Culture” viewpoint, what we find described in this verse wasn’t Christ added to Culture, but Christ instead of Culture.

How radical… Jews evangelizing Gentiles? If Caesarea had been ground zero for this new way of thinking, the city of Antioch would prove to be the perfect place for the Gospel to begin its infectious spread across the globe. “Indeed, it is estimated that by 312 AD one in ten people in the Roman world called themselves Christians.”

City of Antioch 

Also known as “Syrian Antioch” or “Antioch the Great” the city itself was located in the southernmost portion of present day Turkey and was approximately 300 miles north of Jerusalem while also resting 20 miles inland from the Mediterranean Sea. 

With a population topping half a million people Antioch was considered the 3rd largest city in the world (only behind Rome and Alexandria). In many ways Antioch was viewed as being “Eastern Rome.” She was the main hub for the eastern half of the Empire.

Antioch would not only be known as the first place where Hellenists were targeted for evangelism, but this city would earn the historical title as “The Cradle of Christianity.”

Acts 11:22-24, “Then news of these things came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent out Barnabas to go as far as Antioch. When he came and had seen the grace of God, he was glad, and encouraged them all that with purpose of heart they should continue with the Lord. For he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a great many people were added to the Lord.”

Upon hearing news of the work that was happing beyond the regions of Judea and Samaria, the Apostles send Barnabas to check things out (also referenced in Acts 4 and Acts 9). We’re told upon his arrival in Antioch “Barnabas was glad” when he “had seen the grace of God.” (This is likely a reference to the very existence of Gentile believers.)

Don’t miss what Barnabas does next… Luke tells us he “encouraged them… that with purpose of heart (“prothesis” meaning “a setting forth of a thing”) they should continue (“prosmenô” meaning “to hold fast to, cleave, to tarry”) with the Lord.” 

Barnabas’ only advice for this young group of believers and in many ways the entire key to our spiritual existence as Christians is that they determine to continue their walk with Jesus!

In John 15:4-5 Jesus would exhort His disciples… “Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.”

This new church in Antioch that began with a “great number” of believers now experiences another wave of incredible growth as “a great many people were added to the Lord.” 

Acts 11:25-26, “Then Barnabas departed for Tarsus to seek Saul. And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.”

“Then Barnabas departed for Tarsus…” It’s interesting that while Luke is clear that he was “a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith” even Barnabas recognized his own limitations. The needs of this church had outgrown his ability to be effective. Barnabas needed help.

We’re told the purpose for his trip to Tarsus was “to seek Saul.” This word “seek” is interesting. In the Greek this word “anazêteô” means “to search throughly.” Though Barnabas knew Saul was in Tarsus, he had no idea where he was specifically living. 

The idea presented by Luke is that Barnabas went to Tarsus and literally hunted Saul down! While he had no idea where he was, Barnabas was determined to find him.

Q: Why would Barnabas want Saul and not someone from Jerusalem?

A#1: If you recall back it Acts 9 it had been Barnabas that interceded and vouched for Saul  before he was later banished to Tarsus. Though they had been out of touch for the last decade, Barnabas no doubt believed Saul had the right gifts to meet this need in Antioch.

A#2: Knowing the urgency of the situation and the time it would take to send word to Jerusalem, Barnabas needed a quick solution. Because Tarsus was only a days journey from Antioch Saul might have been a choice of last resort… An act of desperation.

“When he had found him…” Can you imagine what that must of been like for Saul? Judging by his short time in Damascus and then his short stay in Jerusalem we know Saul had a heart for ministry - a heart to preach, but for the last 10 years he’s been benched!

Imagine Saul’s reaction when out of the blue none other than Barnabas shows up and asks him to come serve this growing church in Antioch! Saul was back in the game!

“So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people.” Barnabas and Saul were a dynamic duo… Barnabas was an encourager and Saul was a teacher. Barnabas was people driven and Saul was task oriented. This church in Antioch was blessed because there was a diversity of gifts meeting a diversity of needs.

“And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.” The word “Christian” is interesting for it’s a Latin construction of “Christos” and the suffix “ian” which meant “of the party of.” 

This is how it worked if you aligned yourself with a specific city: Philippi - Philippian, Corinth - Corinthian, Atlanta - A-T-L-iens. In Rome it was not uncommon for soldiers to identify themselves by taking the name of their general and then adding this suffix.

It seems these believers were so serious about following Jesus the unbelievers of Antioch coined this term as a form of mockery. Basically, in calling them “Christians” they were saying they were “little-Christs” or literally “Jesus-people.” Quite a compliment!

“First called Christians…” Understand, for the believers in Antioch this term “Christian” was their primary identifier. They were known as being “Jesus people” before they were know as being anything else. Jesus was changing lives and people were taking note!

What is your primary identifier? What is your fundamental identity?  

Are you a programmer or are you first a Christian programmer? 

Are you an engineer or are you first a Christian engineer? 

Are you a public school teacher or are you a Christian public school teacher? 

Are you a mom or dad or are you first a Christian mom or dad? 

Are you a student or are you first a Christian student? 

Your fundamental identity will be the primary driver of your purpose and satisfaction.

LeCrae has a song on one of his earlier albums call “Identity.” Let me play you a clip. In case you missed it let me read you that final stanza, “I'm not the job I work. You can't define my worth. By nothing on God's green earth. My identity is found in Christ, is found in Christ.”

And this leads us to a core dynamic often lost when we have this conversation about Christianity and our role in contemporary culture. You see the fundamental problem with Richard Niebuhr’s approach (specifically the remaining two: “Christ and Culture in Paradox” and “Christ the Transformer of Culture”) is that the conversation on culture ends up obsessing over the wrong thing! 

Culture is actually nothing more than a simple reflection of the people who make up society. In and of itself culture is neither good nor is it bad. In many ways its amoral. For example…

Miley Cyrus, Lady Gaga, and Katy Perry aren’t corrupting society by flaunting sex and promoting lewd behavior through their songs. Instead all they’re doing is reflecting a corrupt society that’s both lewd and sexually promiscuous. It’s all about marketing.

Why is Gay Marriage now legal in 32 states? Is it because liberal judges are overriding the will of the American people? I’m afraid not! According to Pew Research, while in 2001 57% of Americans opposed same-sex marriage today a majority of Americans (52%) now support same-sex marriage. That a 17 point swing in 14 years. 

How does a self-proclaimed “show about nothing” become such a cultural phenomenon that it’s nominated for a total of 68 Emmy’s over a 9 season run? (Yes, I’m referring to Seinfeld.) I mean seriously… How does a show where every episode lacks any type of moral, where the show never has a serious moment or special episode aimed at dealing with an important issue, and never once attempts to teach its audience anything of substance become such a hit that it grossed an annual revenue of $200 million? 

Answer… Seinfeld’s brilliance was that it was able to tap into a philosophical outlook that gained steam through the 90’s known as Nihilism (the belief that life is completely meaningless). The show resonated in our culture in such a profound way that a record 76 million people tuned in to watch the series finale.

Charles A. Browning, “Seinfeld reflected the realities of the average person in America in the 90’s… As a few people have pointed out, the key flaw in the popular notions of postmodern relativism is that the only thing that can’t be tolerated is intolerance. If everything is true, then nothing is. Seinfeld was an important show because it was the first sitcom to successfully break away from a form of idealism… And because Seinfeld came about in the midst of a paradigm where other TV shows’ protagonists were seen as heroes to be imitated, the show also gave voice to the growing indifference of our current culture. The show about nothing gave rise to the world about nothing.”

Sadly, the church’s obsession with our changing culture misses the point entirely. Culture is not the problem with our society… People are! Seeking to change a culture without first effecting change in the people who make up that culture is completely pointless. 

It’s interesting to think, but while Jesus undoubtedly challenged the religious establishment of His day He never once addressed His culture. As a matter of fact, we have no record of Jesus preaching against slavery, the sexual debauchery of Rome, the economic plight of minorities within the Empire, or the oppressive governmental system that ruled the day. 

Instead, Jesus focused His attention on changing the lives of people… A methodology adopted by the early church. Consider… How did the first century church end up making such a radical impact on the culture around them? Answer - One transformed life at a time! Social critic Herbert Schlossberg rightfully said, “The salt of people changed by the gospel must change the world.” 

In conclusion… Recognizing that our primary role is to reach people with the Gospel of Jesus, how should the church interact with contemporary culture?

While we play an important role in seeing people transformed by the Gospel, Scripture never mandates the church to play a role in the redemption of cultural institutions. Though this can be a byproduct of revival and spiritual awakening, this final phase of redemption can only be brought about by the 2nd Coming of Jesus Christ.

While we’re called to remain pure and undefiled, Christians should never isolate from the people we’ve been called to reach. “A lighthouse is most effective when it’s been constructed at a point where it’s surrounded more by the sea than the land.”

While we are more effective reaching people by engaging culture and remaining socially relevant, Christians should never become so relevant we’re no longer distinct. 

As we referenced earlier, in Matthew 5:13 Jesus told his disciples, “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men.” What’s interesting is that we know salt or NaCl cannot loose its flavor. By its very nature this compound is salty. 

With this in mind, the only way for salt to become flavorless is for the chemical compound to dissolve and then re-crystalize with other elements. This means in order for Christians to remain “the salt of the earth” we must guard against moral and doctrinal compromise.