Transcendent & Threatening Christianity

Introduction

Do you think two Christians can be members of the same church if one typically votes Democrat and the other Republican? What if a Christian from Russia moved to Diana, and for various reasons (though he hates Putin’s tactics) he actually supports the assimilation of Ukraine into Russia… would you welcome him as a brother in Christ? What if a Christian from Nigeria or from Japan or from New York city became a member of FBC Diana… would you expect him or her to leave all of his or her culture behind in order to integrate into this church family?

In our passage this morning, we are following Paul’s journey to Jerusalem, where he’s been warned that he will face hostility and suffering. And the way in which opposition comes is fascinating, since Paul is truly the target of much hostility, but it is the core and the result of his message that has got his opponents so upset.

Today we are going to read about a transcendent kind of Christianity, a biblical Christianity, the kind that unites believers from all sorts of cultural backgrounds. We are also going to read about how the early church in Jerusalem took pains to protect unity and also to show love and patience with those who were not able to set aside their culture and traditions so quickly.

May God help us to learn much as we consider this passage together. Would you stand with me as I read Acts 21:17-36.

Scripture Reading

Acts 21:17–36 (ESV)

17 When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly. 18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified God.

And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, 21 and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs. 22 What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.

23 Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law.

25 But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.”

26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them.

27 When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, 28 crying out, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against the people and the law and this place. Moreover, he even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.” 29 For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city, and they supposed that Paul had brought him into the temple.

30 Then all the city was stirred up, and the people ran together. They seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple, and at once the gates were shut.

31 And as they were seeking to kill him, word came to the tribune of the cohort that all Jerusalem was in confusion. 32 He at once took soldiers and centurions and ran down to them. And when they saw the tribune and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul.

33 Then the tribune came up and arrested him and ordered him to be bound with two chains. He inquired who he was and what he had done. 34 Some in the crowd were shouting one thing, some another. And as he could not learn the facts because of the uproar, he ordered him to be brought into the barracks. 35 And when he came to the steps, he was actually carried by the soldiers because of the violence of the crowd, 36 for the mob of the people followed, crying out, “Away with him!”

Main Idea:

Christianity transcends culture, though it does not obliterate culture, and this is inevitably threatening to those whose central identity is of this world.

Sermon

1. Glorious Reception (v17-20)

I’m aiming to draw points of connection (really points of origin) from our text this morning to my main idea of application, and the first clause I’ve listed is that Christianity transcends culture. We can see this on display in the glorious reception Paul and his companions received by “the brothers” in Jerusalem (v17).

Let’s start by noting a few observations in this section that are common but often overlooked: (1) the church-centered nature of Christianity, (2) the consistent polity-structure of churches, and (3) the ordinary catholicity of churches who are unified by the gospel and the glory of God.

First, the church-centered nature of Christianity. Where did Paul go to present himself and his fellow missionaries when he arrived in Jerusalem? He went to “the brothers” (v17)… he went to a gathering of Christians!

Friends, in our individualistic culture, it is hard for us to think about Christianity in the way the Bible talks about it. Many Christians in America have fully embraced an individualistic (and unbiblical) idea of Christianity and the local church. And for more than a hundred years, many Baptists have misunderstood and misapplied the concept of the priesthood of all believers.[1] Baptists are right that we need no earthly priest, but some people take this to mean that we have no obligations or responsibilities to any earthly Christian institution.

Winthrop Hudson (a twentieth-century Baptist churchman and Church historian) writing in 1959 said, “It has become increasingly apparent that this [highly individualistic] principle was derived from the general cultural and religious climate of the nineteenth century rather than from any serious study of the Bible… The practical effect of the stress upon ‘soul competency’ as the cardinal doctrine of Baptists was to make every man’s hat his own church.”[2]

But brothers and sisters, we are not a gathering of churches… each with our own authority to baptize, to observe the Lord’s Supper, to form our own confessions of faith, or to define what is or is not Christianity. We are a church of Christians… communally or collectively wielding the authority of an autonomous local church, but mutually sharing and submitting to the authority of the whole.

Our relationship with Christ is personal, but it is not private. Christianity is not merely a feeling, a personal conviction, or a social media description on our profile. Christianity is a communal reality… it is church-centered.

Paul and his friends went to the church in Jerusalem, because that was the community to which they belonged… even though many of Paul’s friends had never been to Jerusalem before! They presented themselves to the church in Jerusalem in order to be “received” or welcomed or affirmed by “the brothers” or the church members (v17). And Paul “related” to them “the things God had done… through his ministry” so that they all might “glorify God” together and share in rejoicing over the expansion of Christianity beyond their own context (v19-20).

Brothers and sisters, if your Christianity isn’t church-centered… if your Christian goals and convictions and identity are entirely self-focused and devoid of concern for the spiritual well-being of other church members… then your Christianity isn’t biblical. The Bible is full of instructions and commands that we must personally learn and apply, but I bet you can’t find a single command from Christ that doesn’t involve more than one person.

Christianity is church-centered! It is biblically normal for Christians to become more and more involved in the lives of their fellow church members. It is biblically natural for Christians to work through life-decisions with input from their fellow church members. It is biblically typical for Christians to depend on one another for everything from spiritual affirmation to spiritual growth.

A second observation is the consistent polity-structure of churches. We don’t need to spend a lot of time here, but look with me at v18. After having been “received” by “the brothers” in Jerusalem, Paul went with his friends “to James, and all the elders were present” as well (v18). It may have been that James was in a role something akin to a Senior Pastor. Luke’s references to James as a prominent elder among the rest, from Acts 12 onward, makes me think this is likely.

At any rate, I just want to note in passing the common New Testament label and number for those who lead local churches. They are most commonly called “elders,” which is the term here (in v18), and there is always a plurality of them. Elders or pastors are the ones responsible for leading (not ruling, but leading) local churches, and you will not find a single reference to any church in the New Testament that had only one elder or pastor.[3]

Brothers and sisters, there is a consistent polity-structure throughout the churches of the New Testament. FBC Diana is not a perfect church, but we are aiming to align ourselves with the Bible’s instructions on everything… from what we believe to what we teach, from how we operateto how we are structured, from what we do as a local church to what we do not do. May God help us.

A third observation is that there is an ordinary or natural or instinctive catholicity among churches who are unified by the gospel and by the glory of God. The word catholicity refers to the wider relationships all true churches have with one another. Local churches are distinct from each other (often due to geography or secondary doctrinal differences, and sometimes due to the reality of limited space), but they are to be friends or co-laborers, not competitors or opponents.

When Paul “related… the things God had done among the Gentiles” (v19), the church in Jerusalem “glorified God” (v20). That is, they praised God for Paul’s ministry of evangelism and church planting, as well as the ongoing work of God through those Gentile churches in the regions of Syria,[4] Galatia,[5]Macedonia,[6] Achaia,[7] and Asia.[8] Paul had personally established and/or strengthened at least 11 different churches spread out among those regions, and the church in Jerusalem glorified God for all of them.

Brothers and sisters, we too ought to glorify God for His work among other true churches both near and far. I genuinely pray that Walnut Creek Baptist Church in Diana will be healthier and more fruitful in 2023 than it was in 2022. And I will praise God if He should answer that prayer. We pray regularly for other true churches because we want to see the Lord work in and through them. We know that increasingly healthier and more vibrant churches around us will be a benefit to our own church and to our community… and we do not compete with other churches for members or money… we are all on the same team.

After having made some observations of common biblical features that might zip right past us (that Christianity is church-centered, that New Testament churches have a consistent polity-structure, and that a sense of catholicity is common among churches who are unified by the gospel and the glory of God), let’s now consider that it is precisely because of this church-centeredand universal nature of Christianity that the kingdom of Christ is able to transcend culture (This is really the substance of my first point today). It was through Paul’s “ministry” among “the Gentiles” that God Himself had united sinners from various cultures in love for Christ and love for one another.

When Paul and his companions came to Jerusalem, they were “received” by “the brothers,” not because they all shared the same culture or ethnicity or political convictions, but because they shared the same gospel, they were all citizens of Christ’s kingdom, and they were all members of Christ’s body in the world.

Paul had many friends traveling with him. Luke named several in Acts 20, “Sopater the Berean,” and “Aristarchus and Secundus,” both “Thessalonians,” and “Gaius” from “Derbe,” and “Timothy” from “Lystra,” and “Tychicus and Trophimus,” both from “Asia” (Acts 20:4). And there were also “some of the disciples from Caesarea,” which had been late additions to the group, when it became clear that the Lord intended Paul to suffer for the name of Christ in Jerusalem (Acts 21:16).

All these guys knew that God had warned of Paul’s impending suffering, and all of them had decided to come along with Paul anyway. And most of Paul’s traveling party were Gentiles from different regions of the Roman empire. They all had their own unique cultural peculiarities, and they all had major differences with the Jews… who were separated not only by culture but also by covenant.

How, then, were they able to join with Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and be “received… gladly” among them (v17)? It was because they had all become converted to a higher citizenship and identity than any kingdom or culture of this world! They had taken on a new identity as those “in Christ” (Rom. 8:1, 16:3; 1 Cor. 1:30; Col. 1:2), and they had taken on a new citizenship as members of Christ’s New Covenant kingdom (Acts 8:12, 14:22; Col. 1:13; 1 Thess. 2:12)!

With this new and higher unity, they were all able to “glorify God” (v20) together when they heard Paul “relate [what] God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry” (v19). This speaks to the catholicity I was talking about earlier, and it shows the transcendent nature of Christianity in the world.

Friends, Christians are Christian… more than they are American or Chinese, more than they are white or black, more than they are rich or poor, more than they are male or female… more than they are anything else in the world.

2. Striving for Unity (v20-26)

It is a testimony to the glory of Christ and the power of the gospel that Christianity transcends culture, but I also want to emphasize that Christianity does not obliterate culture or personhood. The Christian Jews in Jerusalem were still Jewish, and the Gentile Christians were still Gentile. As we have seen throughout Acts, the Jew-Gentile divide was not allowed to separate Christians from one another, but neither were the cultural differences obliterated or attacked.

We can see a great example of this in our passage when “the elders” of the church in Jerusalem urged Paul to try to accommodate the cultural scruples of the “zealous” Jewish “believers” (v20). There is something of a theological and cultural tight rope here which Paul and the leaders of the Jerusalem church were trying to walk. They were all trying to be careful not to bind the consciences of their Gentile brethren and not to unnecessarily wound the consciences of their Jewish brethren… It’s really a fascinating situation to consider.

First, let’s look at how they tried to protect the sensitive Jewish conscience, and then let’s see how they held to a practice of genuine freedom in Christ. We can see both in Luke’s record of what the elders in Jerusalem said to Paul in v20-25.

They said that there were “many thousands” of “those who have believed” among “the Jews” who were “all zealous for the law” (v20). There were certainly thousands of Jewish believers in Jerusalem itself, but it seems that they were referring to believing Jews from other towns as well. At any rate, there were some unbelieving or non-ChristianJews who had been spreading word that Paul taught “all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses” and “not to circumcise their children or walk according to [the traditional Jewish] customs” (v21).

This, of course, was a half truth, twisted into a lie. It was true that Paul taught Christians – both Jew and Gentile – that the law of Moses was not obligatory. In other words, Paul did teach that “no one is justified before God by the law” since “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” (Gal. 3:11-14).

And Paul said that “Christ has set us free” from the law of Moses; therefore, Christians are “not [to] submit again to a yoke of slavery” (Gal. 5:1). Indeed, Paul said, “if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you” (Gal. 5:2). In other words, if you look to the Mosaic law for justification and righteousness, then you will find nothing but slavery and judgment. Only Christ can set sinners free from slavery to sin and from God’s judgment.

This is the heart of the gospel! Because we are sinners, God’s law cannot save us… it only condemns us further. But God has shown His love and grace for sinners by sending Jesus to live under the law and to be condemned by the law (not for His sins, but for ours), so that sinners can receive the forgiveness of sins.

I spent my entire sermon last Sunday describing what this means and how this applies to sinners like us. If you have questions about what Jesus did or how you can enjoy the forgiveness of sins which God has made available to us in Christ, then come talk to me or some other Christian after the service.

Paul’s teaching was certainly that Christians were free from the law of Moses, but he did not teach that Jews should give up everything they had known. This was the lie that was told by unbelieving Jews in order to divide Christian Jews from Christian Gentiles. But in fact, Paul was careful to guard the conscience of those Jewish Christians who still wanted to keep kosher and maintain the annual observance of various holy days or holidays.

For example, Paul wrote in Romans 14, “One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him” (Rom. 14:2-3). And, “One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5-6). “Therefore,” Paul said, “let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother” (Rom. 14:13).

This seems to be the very motive that drove the Jerusalem elders to advise Paul to participate in the “purification” ceremony described in our passage today. We don’t have time to get into the details, but they were asking Paul to show an outward display of his own “observance of the law” (v24). This was not an affirmation of the law of Moses as a way of salvation, but an attempt to avoid offending the sensitive consciences of those Jewish Christians who were “zealous for the law” (v20). And Paul went along in order to maintain unity in the church.

As Paul wrote to the church of Corinth, “To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law… I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel…” (1 Cor. 9:20-23).

Friends, I wonder when is the last time you gave up a Christian freedom for the sake of the conscience of a fellow brother or sister in Christ. Are we more prone to flaunt our freedoms, or are we eager to keep the peace? I’m not saying that we should never enjoy our Christian freedom, but I am saying that we all would do well to consider how our enjoyment might be inappropriate in certain circumstances. We are free in Christ to do all sorts of things, but we are not acting with Christian charity or brotherly love when we post pictures on social media or publicly joke about our freedoms or try to force them upon other Christians who may not feel as free.

The tight rope in our passage, however, is the attempt to protectthe consciences of some while at the same time guarding against unduly bindingthe consciences of all. And that’s what v25 is about.

In v25, the elders of the church in Jerusalem reminded Paul of the “letter” they sent out to Gentile churches in Acts 15. That’s when the whole debate took place about whether Gentile Christians would be required to follow the law of Moses, and the “judgment” was emphatic (v25). Everyone agreed that justification in Christ was for all who repent and believe… Old Testament days and diets were optional.

This is how the church in Jerusalem was striving for unity. This is how they were trying to put into practice the transcendent nature of Christianity, while at the same time recognizing that everyone brings their cultural preferences and traditions with them. Christianity is above culture, but it does not obliterate it.

Friends, I think we are often inclined to mix our Christianity with our culture, but we would all do well to distinguish between the two. We regularly want other Christians to experience Christianity the same way that we have. We can favor a song, not because of its lyrics, but because of its sentimental value to us. We can do the same with church programs or church schedules and even with church buildings, but we ought never elevate culture to the level of doctrine. Let’s be who we are, but let’s keep our identity in Christ above all other characteristics.

3. Unity is Threatening (v27-30)

As we get into point 3, we are already past the halfway mark in my sermon. These last two points deal with themes that are recurring throughout the book of Acts, and we have considered them at some length on other recent Sundays. However, these are recurring themes, and I think they are quite relevant to our present cultural and political moment in America. Christians in America are having to think about stuff we’ve just assumed for quite a while.

Especially in Southern America, Christians have assumed that good civil government is that which basically affirms and upholds Christian ethics. American politicians have historically been at least neutral on the question of religious convictions, and many civil leaders have spoken and acted positively toward Christianity. However, as the winds of our political climate have changed, we have entered what Aaron Renn has called “Negative World.”[9]

Renn is an economist and a social analyst who wrote an article back in February of this year that I think is pretty helpful for Christians to get an introductory picture of where we are culturally, politically, and socially. The basic outline of his assessment is a timeline of what he calls “American secularization,” and he explains his dating in the article that I am citing here. If you want to read it for yourself, then just ask me for my sermon notes, and I will gladly tell you where you can view them online on Monday or Tuesday of this week.

He argues that before 1994, “society at large [was] mostly positive [in its] view of Christianity.” During that time, “to be known as a good, churchgoing man [was] part of being an upstanding citizen.” From 1994 to 2014, however, “society [took] a neutral stance toward Christianity.” During those two decades, the general cultural and political posture no longer “privileged” Christianity, but neither was it “disfavored.” After 2014, Renn says that “society has come to have a negative view of Christianity.” Now, “being known as a Christian is a social negative, particularly in the elite domains of society.”

There are still pockets of American culture and politics where we might see the remnants of positive or neutral world, but I think his assessment is generally accurate. I also think that this trend is inevitable, but you don’t have to agree with either of these thoughts of mine.

What I am arguing this morning is that Christian unity is inevitably threatening to those whose central identity is of this world. And I think the trends we are experiencing are due to the fact that Christian identity and unity are becoming less and less common in American culture. Non-Christians don’t unify around the gospel (how can they?), and non-Christians can’t stand the fact that Christians (with all sorts of cultural and political preferences) can and do unite around the gospel (despite what other ways they might differ).

In our passage, we can see the threat Christian unity poses to cultural and political expectations in v27-30. The Christians in Jerusalem were united, even though there were Jews and Gentiles among them. Luke doesn’t explicitly say what the Jewish Christians thought of Paul’s gesture of “purifying” himself and “paying the expenses” of “four” Jewish believers who were “under a vow” (v23-24). But the implication is that all was well, since the “reception” Paul and his companions received (v17) was not revoked.

But the Jews outside the church were not happy about the unity that believing Jews had with believing Gentiles, and they blamed Paul for threatening cultural and political Jewish solidarity. Luke says, in v27, that some “Jews from Asia” saw Paul in the temple, and they “stirred up the whole crowd” against him. They accused Paul of “teaching everyone everywhere against the peopleand the law in this place” (v27). That is, “Paul is turning everyone against the Jewish people and the Jewish law!”

When the unbelieving Jews heard this, “all the city was stirred up, and the people ran together… [they] seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple” (v30). They would not stand for Paul to teach anything that would unite Jews and Gentiles, since this would mean that those whose Jewish identity was central were under threat of losing their cultural and political and religious unity.

Friends, we have to take a couple of steps to get from first-century Judaism to our present culture but let me cut to the chase. Any identity that people outside the church want to unify around is inevitably threatened when Christians find their unity in the gospel and in love for Christ and in love for one another… over and above any worldly identity.

The unbelieving Jews in first-century Jerusalem were threatened because believing Jews and Gentiles were able to overcome their differences at the foot of the cross of Christ. So too, in our own context, there are voting blocks and social groups and economic classes and family units that are threatened by Christian unity… and non-Christians will try to get Christians to take up their worldly priorities and convictions.

They will want Christians to make ethnicity (not Christianity) more central to who they are. Non-Christians will want Christians to make social or economic class (not Christianity) more dominant in the way they spend their money or in the way they choose where to live or in the way they educate their children. Those outside the church will want Christians to make political affiliation more influential to the way they vote or to the public policies they are willing to endorse.

And when Christians do not take up these worldly priorities, non-Christians will feel threatened… and they will fight for worldly unity over Christian unity. They will not tolerate a Christian unity that joins the rich with the poor, the ethnic majority with the ethnic minority, the folks who live on both sides of the railroad tracks, and even those who vote for completely contradictory political candidates.

Brothers and sisters, let’s not be surprised when non-Christians feel some sense of threat from genuine Christian unity. Let’s understand that this is bound to happen, because Christians (from all classes and cultures) are citizens of Christ’s kingdom which is indeed a huge threat to everything this world stands for.

Let’s be honest about our other-worldly allegiance, and let’s be united by those doctrines and truths that transcend every worldly culture and identity… And let’s invite our non-Christian neighbors and friends into the glorious kingdom of Christ, which is not marked by tribalistic infighting and self-preserving hostilities.

There is so much more we might consider on this subject, but I’m planning a topical sermon series for next year that (Lord willing) will travel further down these tracks than our text is taking us this morning. I hope you’ll pray for me as we all try to think and speak and act as more faithful Christians in our current cultural moment.

4. Clashing Jurisdictions (v31-36)

This last point will be very brief, since the last several verses of our passage really give us a transition into the remaining content of the book of Acts, and since we will be considering all this more as the book of Acts comes to a close. For now, I want to finish our time this morning by noting that in a fallen world, the practice of applying distinct jurisdictional responsibility and authority is complicated, and jurisdictions will often clash.

Biblically and historically, there are three basic institutions of any society: (1) the family, (2) the church (or some religious institution), and (3) the state. These three institutions are essential to societal structure and function, and these three each have their own set of responsibilities and authority (i.e., their own jurisdictions). Well-functioning societies are those which draw the lines most clearly between the three (though there is some overlap) and in which each institution takes responsibility for that which God has created or established it.

But in a fallen world, these institutions will clash, and we have already seen this in our passage… but it really stands out in v31-36. Luke says in v31 that the Jews in Jerusalem “were seeking to kill” Paul. This was because of their perceived threat of Paul’s teaching against their political and social and religious institution – the Jewish priesthood, the Jewish synagogue, and the Jewish theocracy. It’s complicated, because first-century Jews were citizens of the Roman empire, but nevertheless, they were trying to protect their own institutions.

Luke says that their murderous riot “came to” the attention of the Roman “tribune” in Jerusalem (v31). The word there literally means first or leader of one thousand. It’s a military term, and this man was something of a general. Luke says that the “tribune” took “soldiers and centurions and ran down to them” (v32). Their job was to keep law and order in Jerusalem, and remember that Paul was aiming to be there during the time of the Passover, so they were probably on high alert during that time. A lot of foreign Jews would have been in Jerusalem.

Luke tells us that the whole scene was so chaotic that the “tribune” came and “arrested” Paul, binding him with “chains” (v33), just as Agabus had prophesied (Acts 21:10-11). This was as much to protect Paul from the mob as it was to arrest the man who was the center of the “uproar” (v34). And as our passage comes to an end, it is not insignificant that the crowd was shouting the same thing about Paul that they had shouted about Jesus just some years earlier… “Away with him!” (v36; cf. Lk. 23:18).

As with every part of our text today, there is so much more for us to chew on. But let’s note at least the following.

First, the Jewish religious institution was trying to enforce their religious convictions at the point of a sword (or maybe by stoning Paul to death, as they had done with Stephen in Acts 7). But this is not the way Christ intends His people to act. Jesus said that His kingdom is not of this world (Jn. 18:36), and He rebuked His disciples when they drew the sword to fight for Him (Lk. 22:47-53). Under the New Covenant, until Christ returns as King and Judge, the sword belongs to the state and not to the church or any other religious institution.

Second, at least in this passage, the Roman state was acting in accordance with its God-established jurisdiction. The Roman tribune stopped the mob and preserved Paul’s life, at least for a time. This is an example of the right use of civil government. Earthly kings and rulers are responsible to protect life and preserve the dignity of humanity.

Conclusion

Friends, as Christians in America continue to revisit the application of biblical principles in the arena of church-state relationships, and as we see good Christians come to different conclusions about what a civil government should or should not do, let us at least be grateful for those ways that God has given us principles and even instructions in His word for the basic institutions of society. We are not left to figure this stuff out on our own, but God has graciously provided His wisdom for us.

Let us also be realistic about what we expect to see in a fallen world. In our post-Genesis-3 world, the basic institutions of society will never operate perfectly as they should. Marriages will fail, families will disintegrate, civil governments will both overperform and underperform, and churches will sometimes be more and less faithful.

But within the institution of the church, we have a supernatural reason for hope and peace. Among the people of Christ, among those citizens of a transcendent kingdom, among those whose identity is “in Christ” above all else, there can be real and lasting unity and joy.

In the church, Christians are free to be who they are, Christians don’t lose all their preferences or their culture. But so too, in the church, Christians are able to set aside their personal preferences and their own cultural traditions and even some of their personal convictions because of a shared love for Christ and for one another… and because of a shared expectation that Christ is returning soon, and He shall bring to an end all dysfunction and conflict.

May God grant us just such unity, and may God help us show our neighbors and our friends and our family members what it looks like to be Christian more anything else in the world.

Endnotes

[1] See this helpful introduction and explanation of the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers by Jonathan Leeman. https://sbts-wordpress-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/equip/uploads/2019/09/SBJT-23.1-Leeman-Priesthood-of-Believers.pdf [2] Winthrop Hudson, ed., Baptist Concepts of the Church: A Survey of the Historical and Theological Issues Which Have Produced Changes in Church Order(Philadelphia, PA: The Judson Press, 1959). 215-216. [3] For a helpful summary of the New Testament terms and functions of pastors, elders, and overseers, see this article I wrote. https://marcminter.com/2019/10/23/pastors-and-elders/ [4] Antioch (Acts 13:1-3). [5] Antioch of Pisidia (Acts 13:13-52), Iconium (Acts 14:1), Derbe (Acts 14:20-21), and Lystra (Acts 14:21-23). [6] Philippi (Acts 16:11-15), Thessalonica (Acts 17:1-4), and Berea (Acts 17:10-15). [7] Corinth (Acts 18:1-11). [8] Ephesus (Acts 19:1-10) and Troas (Acts 20:6-12). [9] See Renn’s full article at First Things dated February 2022 here: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2022/02/the-three-worlds-of-evangelicalism

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aland, Kurt, Barbara Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger. Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th Edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012.

Biblical Studies Press. The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press, 2005.

Calvin, John. Commentary upon the Acts of the Apostles. Edited by Henry Beveridge. Translated by Christopher Fetherstone. Vol. 2. 2 vols. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010.

Hudson, Winthrop, ed. Baptist Concepts of the Church: A Survey of the Historical and Theological Issues Which Have Produced Changes in Church Order. Philadelphia, PA: The Judson Press, 1959.

New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update. La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995.

Peterson, David. The Acts of the Apostles. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, England: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2009.

Polhill, John B. Acts. Vol. 26. The New American Commentary. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992.

Sproul, R. C., ed. The Reformation Study Bible: English Standard Version. 2015 Edition. Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust, 2015.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016.

The Holy Bible: King James Version. Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009.

The Holy Bible: New International Version. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984.