Back to writings

Scripture Reading: The Book of Acts, chapter 10

In his book What's So Amazing about Grace? author Philip Yancey tells of the time he was asked to present the sermon in his church. He started out with a children's sermon and invited all the children in the church to join him on the platform. He had a bag with him and, after they had all sat down, the first item he pulled out was a package of barbecued pork rinds for them to munch on. Next he proceeded to pull out a fake snake and a large rubber fly, which provoked squeals from his young audience. Yancey and a few of the children then sampled scallops.

"Finally, to the children's great delight," he writes, "I reached cautiously into the bag and extracted a live lobster. Larry the Lobster we called him, and Larry responded by waving his claws in a most menacing fashion."

As the children marched downstairs, Yancey took on the task of explaining to the congregation how Levitical laws specifically forbade everything they had just eaten and why no Orthodox Jew would touch any of the contents of his shopping bag.

Peter's "Surely not, Lord!" was grounded in Hebrew scripture, in what can be found in our Bibles under Leviticus chapter 11. There we read that the camel is unclean. The rabbit is unclean. The pig is unclean. You shall not eat these. Anything in the seas or streams that does not have fins and scales (such as the lobster or scallops) - they are detestable to you and you shall not eat them. A list of many birds is given and the law states that "they shall not be eaten; they are an abomination." Many reptiles are also listed.

And so, when God spoke to Peter saying, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat," no doubt Peter reminded God of God's own rules. We may easily miss the force of this scene today. Yancey goes on to state that the only modern parallel that would come close is, if in the midst of a Southern Baptist Convention, a sheet supernaturally lowered, and on it was a fully stocked bar followed by a voice from heaven saying, "Get up and drink." The "Surely not, Lord!" that would follow would probably be comparable to Peter's.

Peter is offended by this vision, and God has to repeat the message three times.

"What God has made clean, you must not call profane."
"What God has made clean, you must not call profane."
"Peter, what your God has made clean, you must not call profane."

This vision has much larger implications than just dietary regulations, of course. The environment that Peter grew up in also applied a ranking to people and labels to those who were clean and those who were unclean - those who were acceptable and those who were not. God is working here to put into reality that which the Hebrew prophets had earlier proclaimed.

Suddenly, the men sent by Cornelius arrive at Simon the tanner's house. Peter is still contemplating the vision - no doubt in the back of his mind he is hearing past temple readings of Levitical law being replayed - some of those probably read forcibly and with great certainty. Peter, just minutes from the rooftop vision, needs another reminder to help him overcome his apprehension. And so the Spirit whispers, "…go with them without hesitation; for I have sent them."

Peter invites them in to stay the night and the next morning they and some fellow believers begin the two-day journey to Caesarea. When they arrive, Peter enters Cornelius' home and finds an assembly of people. Cornelius had invited his relatives and close friends. Peter starts off by saying that everyone knows it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with a Gentile; but God…

I sometimes think that there is great inclusive theology in the phrase "but God…" Certainly it is a very valid method of Biblical interpretation. Whenever an argument can be made biblically for exclusion or for the lifting up of one group of people over another, the intercession of the Spirit places God's "but" right in the way. Such an intercession is recorded here in the conversation with Peter and Cornelius.

Another such scene is found later in the book of Acts. The early church is confronted with the biblical requirement of circumcision. The simple language of scripture demands that all males be circumcised or else be cut off from the community. Shouldn't Gentile believers be required to be circumcised and further more be required to first convert to Judaism and adhere to the Law of Moses? Sounds like a convincing argument - and certainly the movement of exclusion can come up with well-crafted arguments with many biblical references and it can sound convincing. The book of Acts records that there was no small debate. But God, through the Spirit, showed the early church that requiring obedience to the Law was actually contrary to the good news and God's plan for inclusiveness!

Another instance of "…but God" involves slavery. There are some one hundred passages in the Bible that give creditability to the institution of slavery. It takes little or no courage today to proclaim that slavery is wrong, but it took great courage 150 years ago. Families fought to the death over the issue and denominations split over the debate - each side quoting scripture, with the pro-slavery side having far more to draw from. "Slave obey your earthly master," it states plainly in Ephesians 6:5. But the Spirit that proclaims freedom was working to abolish this evil institution that puts God's children into bondage.

The practice of segregation is another example of "…but God" theology. Forty years ago America was still segregated. The South, with its abundance of churches, found biblical reference for racial segregation. Martin Luther King Jr. and the brave men and women of the civil rights movement not only had to fight against cultural injustice, but also against the fundamentalist white church that insisted on segregation and the moderate white church that suggested that the black community submit to the governing authorities as seemingly suggested in Romans chapter 13. But the civil rights movement was being driven by the Spirit of God. The one who created all people equal was working to put an end to a system that gave one group of people a false sense of superiority and another group of people a false sense of inferiority.

Despite certain readings of scripture that exclude women, the Spirit proclaimed the call of women to ministry. The "…but God" method of interpretation utterly rejects the false conclusion that women are not to be ministers of the gospel. Anyone who gets to know women ministers can plainly see God's call in them.

The full inclusion and acceptance of gay and lesbian people is an area where the Spirit is working today. Some churches that are sensitive to the movement of the Spirit are already welcoming and affirming. Most, unfortunately, are not. Many perpetuate misinformation about gays and stubbornly hold onto a few questionable verses of scripture to mask their prejudice. These brothers and sisters need to hear the call of the inclusive Spirit. They need to learn from the radical Christ. They need to walk a few steps closer to the God of justice, the God who makes no distinction between Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, black nor white, heterosexual nor homosexual, for all are one in Christ Jesus.

The radical Christ was the person who most modeled his life on scripture. So much so that his disciple John, when later in life reflected back on the life of Jesus, wrote that "the Word became flesh and lived among us." And yet, this Living Word stood ready to violate injunctions of scripture in order to do justice. Jesus was willing to let his actions scandalize the religious community because he loved mercy. Has there been anyone in the history of humankind that has more closely and humbly walked with God? And yet this Jesus walked, dined, and bound his life up with outcasts of every kind. It seemed the more a person was marginalized by society, the more Jesus sought that person's friendship.

In sad irony, by doing these very things, the Word that became flesh incurred the hot condemnation of those who proclaimed they were the guardians of the word. Let us in the church who are students of the Bible and believe in the authority of scripture be ever mindful of the fact that scripture is in service to the Spirit and not the other way around.

The inclusive Spirit was at work here in this meeting of a Jewish fisherman and Gentile Centurion of the Roman Army. While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the word, and the circumcised believers were astounded that the Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. Peter proclaimed, "Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"

And so the truth that was whispered in portions of the Old Testament - that all nations are apart of God's creation and that all people are made in the image of God and are much loved by God - this truth is being loudly proclaimed now during the birth of the early church.

Expanding on the Peter's question, "Can anyone withhold the water?" I would just like to say that the Bible makes other references to water. Martin Luther King Jr. was fond of quoting the prophet Amos, who declared, "Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream."

Through the prophet Jeremiah, God states that God is "the spring of living water." Jesus references this living, flowing water when speaking to the Samaritan woman at the well. He described it as a spring of water gushing up to eternal life.

"Can anyone withhold the water?" Peter asked.

Sadly, some have tried. It is ironic that the structure designed to physically hold back the flowing streams is called a dam. On the spiritual side, when we work to hold back the waters of justice and righteousness and attempt to withhold the living water from some of God's children, do we not damn them instead of bless them?

As we go out into the world this week, let us all examine ourselves. Are we in any way a dam to the flowing waters of God's justice and righteousness? Are we withholding water from someone who needs it to grow and thus contributing to the drying up of their spirit?

If so, let us go to the well of our Lord and ask for the living water that springs up to eternal life. And let us, as the body of Christ, go out and proclaim the good news of the one who said, "Come to me, all you who are thirsty."

Sources

"In his book What's So Amazing about Grace? author Philip Yancey tells of the time he was asked to present the sermon in his church.": What's So Amazing about Grace? chapter 12, "No Oddballs Allowed."

"There are some one hundred passages in the Bible that give creditability to the institution of slavery.": This references the article "A Welcoming and Affirming Biblical Theology," by George Williamson, Jr., pastor of First Baptist Church in Granville, Ohio. His article appears on page 63 in the book, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth: a resource for congregations in dialogue on sexual orientation. There, Williamson writes, "One hundred nineteen pro-slavery passages, versus the total absence of biblical critique against slavery as in institution, dominated church debates 150 years ago."

"...a system that gave one group of people a false sense of superiority and another group of people a false sense of inferiority.": This references Martin Luther King Jr.'s, Letter From Birmingham Jail, in which he wrote, "All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority."

"Let us in the church who are students of the Bible and believe in the authority of scripture be ever mindful of the fact that scripture is in service to the Spirit and not the other way around.": This references the article, "Saint Peter and the Jerusalem Protocol," by Ken Sehested, executive director and editor of the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America. The article appears on page 212 in the book, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth: a resource for congregations in dialogue on sexual orientation. There, Sehested writes, "Peter was on to something important. His was a precedent-setting theological argument: clear evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit - evidence attested to in the Bible - overrules any particular regulation. The regulations, in other words, are in service to the Spirit, not the other way around." (It should be noted that I said "Scripture is in service to the Spirit," whereas Sehested wrote, "The regulations... are in service to the Spirit.")