"Change Keeps Coming" Acts 15: 1-33

Another week in Acts.  I really enjoy the sermon series that follow a book of the bible sequentially.  WE get a better fell for Acts, in this case, by reading story after story, although we still miss a lot of the stories because we are only spending the summer in Acts.

One of the challenges of that approach is that sometimes the sermons seem to have themes that repeat themselves, and I struggle to distinguish between the themes.  Several weeks have focused on community and how the church operates.  And, of course, we discover a discussion of how to change in this week's text.  I wish I had spent more detailed time in laying out the series to make sure that the sermons picked up different themes and that there was some semblance of order to how the sermon theme were laid out throughout the series.

This week's sermon went better in the Sanctuary service.  Interestingly, I mentioned this to the organist, and she commented that some weeks one service sounds better than the other on the organ.  I suppose I need to work on being more consistent in both services.  Although I literally preach each sermon to an empty Sanctuary to get a feel for how it will play out, preaching with the Chapel group sitting there is different, which leads to the inevitable changes between the two services.

The text below is a little different than what I actually preached as I freelanced a bit more than normal.

“Changes Keep Coming” FPC, Troy, 8/17/14; Acts 15: 1-33; Significant Moments in Acts preaching series

Introduction: Chapter 15 of Acts is arguably the most crucial chapter in the book of Acts (439), both in its structure and theology. (The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, Ben Witherington)

I might add, that it is also the last appearance of Peter – from here on out Acts will be mostly the Paul show.

At stake is what will the church look like – can the church overcome the major ethnic divide between Jew and Gentile and become one, or will it remain divided. (Wiitherington, 439).

But, I confess that my first thought as I read this text is that it feels very Presbyterian.

Imagine the scene – there is conflict brewing in the early church. We've seen glimpses of it already.

Strong arguments. Probably strong disagreements. A lot is at stake; both the shape of the church and who will have the power in the early church.

IN the midst of this ongoing argument, amazingly, leaders from both sides gather together and have a meeting! They present arguments. What we read in Acts 15 becomes known as the Jerusalem Council.

We who inhabit a church that has session meetings, committee meetings, presbytery meetings, synod meetings, General Assembly meetings, congregational meetings, and of course, the writing of a letter to announce a decision;

we ought to recognize ourselves in this gathering. I do believe that the early church was well on its way to what we know as the Presbyterian Church! But beyond our obvious Presbyterian roots, I want to notes three things – one of which is a comment on how they acted organizationally; then two comments made during the arguments.

Move 1: Shared responsibility for change.

a. As they debate and consider the need for change, they do not set up a false dichotomy between tradition and change.

1. In fact, they go to great pains to connect the outreach to the Gentiles to what the prophets were saying generations ago.


2. They do not forsake their rich tradition and history, but instead find room in their tradition and history to not only include the Gentiles, but also change the requirements for Gentiles who want to become Christians.


3. They showed a clear recognition that the strength of the early church does not reside solely in the call to the call to change, but also in the tradition out of which the change grows.


4. Not about one group winning and another group losing, but about the whole of the early church shifting together to new opportunities and potential.


b. I am also fascinated by the fact that once the decision was made, not only do Paul and Barnabbas, the identified leaders of the one side of the debate, take the decision back, but two of the other leaders go with them.

1. The symbol for all the churches is made clear – we are in this together.

2. The change is not about a new church that rids itself of the old, but the people of God shifting together in response to what God is doing.

The early church makes a powerful statement about community and change in the way they handle themselves at this critical juncture.

Move 2: Look for a moment at how Paul and Barnabbas make their argument.

a. We might expect Paul to use his time to make a theological rationale.

1. Certainly, in his letters we get lots of Paul's arguments and theological thinking.
2. Paul helps shape how we think about God.
3. But this decision in the early church is not about a theological rationale or about whoever has best argument wins the debate.


b. The decision to change is about the signs and wonders that God is doing about the Gentiles.

1. Paul and Barnabas speak to those gathered and simply tell their stories of how they have seen God at work among the Gentiles.

2. They do not invite the early church to sign on to a theological rationale; they invite them to make room for what God is doing in the world.

100. I am reminded of being the guest preacher at a church and talking to one of the older members about the church's history. It had been a new church development in the 50s and then struggled in the next few decades and had reached its point where it was a small church with an uncertain future. He proudly told me about the way he had led the resistance to any changes through the years.
     He was proud of how he had helped the church hang on to that original image of what that church should be. How he had protected it against the changes that threatened it.
     He never connected his resistance and the dying of any future for the church. He never saw the lost opportunities that come when we cling to our understanding and do not make way for the signs and wonders of what God might be calling us to do in our midst.

Our calling as the church is not to protect the God, but to follow God's spirit into the world.

Move 3: Finish with Peter's argument before the gathering: “We believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.

a. The bottom line – the grace of God we discover in Christ Jesus.

1. God's grace will not be bound by us.

2. God's grace is not our possession.

3. God's saving grace is there for all.

b. As we baptize Ainsley this morning, we will not baptize her in the name of First Presbyterian Church, but in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

1. In baptism, we Presbyterians lift up the role of community in a powerful way.

2. We understand baptism to be an act of God that takes place in the context of community.

3. It is not that community is unimportant; but our community of faith owes its existence to the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, a grace that is sufficient for us all. Amen.

Extra material:

[I might note that the pattern of gathering together to hear speeches that make their arguments is consistent with how conflict would have been resolved in antiquity (Witherington (450)]

Witherington argues that we should interpret the prohibitions suggested in the context of Gentiles and Jews meeting at the Temple, since that is the likely place for the two groups to interact (462). I've been thinking about the difference between mandating certain behavior to be a part of a group and writing to them to ask that they abstain from certain practices.