Sermon: “Sacred and Profane”

Text: Acts 11:1-18

5^th Sunday of Easter (C)

May 2, 2010

Scripture introduction.  Our second reading this morning is another in the selection of post-Easter passages from the book of Acts.  This one, from chapter 11, tells how Peter defended himself against criticism when he returned to the Christians in Jerusalem after having baptized the Gentile Cornelius in the port city of Caesarea Maritima.[1] 

When Peter had first preached to Cornelius and his family, the Holy Spirit fell upon them; and Peter decided they should be baptized as Christians.  When Peter returned to Jerusalem, however, word of his actions had spread among other Christians; and some thought that he had made a mistake.  Or, at least, they were unwilling for his actions to become a precedent for future dealings with Gentiles.  In our text today, Peter’s defense to his critics boils down to this—“I didn’t do it.  God did it, and how could I have resisted God?”  This was an amazing point of departure for the Jewish Christians, who had always understood that being in right relationship with God required them to be separate—complying with rules of social and dietary purity.  Was God now teaching a new truth?  Had you been one of the early Christians, what would you have thought?

Sermon.   It would be hard to overstate the significance of the story from Acts that we just heard.  Although Jesus had occasional interactions with Gentiles and Samaritans, at least as the Gospels tell the story his pre-Resurrection ministry remained almost exclusively directed toward Jews.[2]  But now, with the story of Peter’s vision of invitation to the food that was ritually unclean and Peter’s subsequent visit to and conversion of the household of Cornelius, we have moved into an entirely different context.  True, Cornelius was sympathetic to Judaism; but he was a Roman soldier—a centurion, a non-commissioned officer.  That made him about as Gentile as a person could be—one of the despised, foreign, occupying army.  Jews were reluctant even to share a meal with Gentiles because in that culture sharing a meal with someone implied a sort of spiritual fellowship.  For a Jew to eat with a Gentile was like becoming spiritually linked with a person who, from the standpoint of Jewish law, was ritually unclean and impure.[3] 

Before this incident the followers of Jesus never had to ask whether someone could become a Christian without first becoming Jewish or at least complying with Jewish law.  But now, they were invited to embrace the entire range of cultures of the ancient world, just as Peter had been invited to eat the unclean foods that had been laid before him.  As Christians, could they—should they—become spiritually linked with those who were not Jewish?  This was not a trivial question, and the answer would determine whether Christianity remained a sect of Judaism or became a separate faith.

How the brand-new Christian church resolved this question is instructive.  The first thing to note is that Peter submitted himself to the judgment of the larger group of believers.  That is, he recognized the authority of the body of believers.  Even though Jesus himself had told Peter that he was the rock on which Jesus would build the church, Peter did not arrogate to himself the right to declare what the practices of the church would be.  Second, Peter’s defense included a large measure of testimony from his personal experience.  Our Christian witness is always strongest when we are speaking from our personal experience of how Jesus has been active and significant in our lives.  Not only Peter, but others too, could testify about what had happened at Cornelius’ house.  A close reading of the text (cf. 10:45 and 11:12) reveals that at least six circumcised Jewish Christians had been with Peter in the house of Cornelius.  They must have supported his testimony about what God did there—about how the Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles just as it had fallen upon the Jewish Christians at Pentecost at the beginning of the book of Acts.  The body of believers listened carefully to the testimony of witnesses.

Third, Peter appealed to the Word of God.  He quoted Jesus, although everyone was going from memory at that time because at this early date the Gospels had not yet been written down.  Peter said, “[When I saw that the Holy Spirit had come upon the household of Cornelius,] “I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’  If then God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?”  Note that Peter, with his interpretation of Jesus’ original statement—“you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit”—actually extended it to a context and to people who were not present when Jesus first made the statement.  Jesus originally had been speaking to his close circle of disciples.  By applying Jesus’ statement to Gentiles, Peter in effect applied the principle of Jesus’ statement to a new context.  Finally, having heard all the testimony and arguments, the assembled group of Christians in Jerusalem agreed that Peter had been justified in accepting the Gentiles and in baptizing them as Christians.

* * * * *

Not only in ancient times, but also in our own era the church faces major and dramatic changes.  Earlier this week I was in Louisville, Kentucky, at my seminary reunion.  One of the regular features of the reunions is a dinner at which a speech is given by the moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  The moderator is elected by the commissioners to the General Assembly; Scott Paul-Bonham was a commissioner to the last General Assembly.  The moderator serves without salary for a period of two years until his or her replacement is elected at the next General Assembly.  The current moderator is Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow, of mixed Chinese and Philippine descent.  At forty years of age, he is among the younger persons elected to the office.  He spoke to us about change—scary and exciting change.  

In fact, he embodies change in our denomination.  Just before giving his speech, he “twittered” or “tweeted” or whatever-you-call-it the main points of his speech.  Some in the audience already had received the speech before he delivered it.  He had no paper notes from which to speak: he used an Amazon “Kindle” to guide his presentation.  Every day he posts diary entries and photographs and other materials of interest on his “blog” (short for “web-log”), which you can find at www.mod.reyes-chow.com.  He recognizes that young people live in the world of electronic social media, and he is committed to reaching them there.  Before becoming elected as moderator, he was the organizing pastor of a new church development, which just received its charter this week.  The average age of the congregation is considerably less than 40, which makes him one of the older members of the congregation.  By design, their congregation tries to elect persons in their 20s to the governing board of the church.  Older persons stay involved, but mainly as advisors.  Policies are made by the youngest adult members.

Our moderator reminded us that many young adults are deciding not to become engaged in the life of a church.  Young adults who came just behind the Baby Boomers as a group sometimes contended with church the way they found it.  They argued and pushed for change.  Sometimes we older members gave in, and sometimes we did not.  The youngest young adults—the so-called Millennials—are said to have much in common with the World War Two generation—the Builders.  They appreciate structure and tradition and are willing to build up institutions, but most of them also are avoiding church.  Rather than argue with the existing church structure, they simply find other institutions where they can apply their energies for doing good.  Of all the comments made by our moderator, I was most convicted by this one.  Commenting on worship styles, he said, “If you have a form of worship that is completely comfortable for you, then that is what you have—something that is comfortable for you, but not necessarily inviting to anyone else.”  I’m not sure I can go as far as the moderator, but he said that there should be more freedom in our worship, maintaining that “if we don’t cringe at least once or twice during a service,” our worship may have become sterile and mechanized.  He did not say that worship should be of any particular style.  In his church it is very informal, but in another church across town, whose membership is equally young and vibrant, the style is very liturgical.  We make a mistake if we ask what style of worship will draw young persons.  Rather, we should be asking whether a real sense of worship and awe is at the heart of whatever we are doing.  I think he was saying that people will respond to authentic worship, whatever style it is.  He also acknowledged that change is not something that can be forced on a church.  Some congregations will decide that change is necessary and desirable and will voluntarily undertake it.  Others will decide that change is too hard, but they will probably pay a price in membership as their older members pass on and as fewer younger persons are attracted to the church.

Well, how can I wrap all this up?  Peter was confronted with what may have been the biggest change ever to face the church—including the Gentiles.  When he saw what God was doing among the Gentiles, he was willing to change even his deepest convictions about the church.  He tested his insights by referring to the Word of God.  Yes, his interpretation pushed the envelope a bit; but it was consistent with the principles for which Jesus stood.  He submitted to the discernment of the group the new truth that he thought had been revealed to him.  The group listened to him and listened for the movement of the Spirit.  Finally, they validated Peter’s insight; and the church has never been the same.

Are there any issues facing our denomination and our church that could be addressed with this process?  I invite you to think of your own examples—using the story of Peter and the Gentiles as your guide.  Are we willing to be guided by our experience of the Holy Spirit, tested by the principles of Scripture, and submitted to the discernment of the body of believers?  This sort of process only works if everyone admits that his or her understanding may require modification.  What before has seemed profane may, in the light of the full gospel, be seen as sacred.  It only works if we realize that God is always free to do a new thing.  We should not and cannot “hinder God.”