Skip to main content

The Royal We: Acts 20

Moving forward into Acts 20 (link), I want to comment on something we haven’t seen since Acts 16, but is integral to the story. More than that, it’s integral to our understanding of the growth of Christianity.

What is it?

The use of “we” in the narration. Our tradition and scholarship points to Luke as the author of Acts, and so we gather this: when Acts refers to the events occurring with “We” that tells us that Luke is present in the situation.

Some of Acts is simply history, recorded under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and likely based in eyewitness account and personal recollection. Those segments are as valuable as the others, because that “inspiration of the Holy Spirit” phrase means something: there is no one part of the Bible that is better than another part. Some might be easier to apply, but none are superior to others.

Some of Acts, though, is the recollections of a person who was right there, in the midst of the action. Luke is in the middle of things. He was there when Eutychus died in the middle of church. He was there when Paul raised Eutychus and then finished his sermon. And keep in mind: Luke is a physician—if Paul had to raise Eutychus, that means Eutychus was all the way dead: no medical help would help, or Luke could have handled it.

Luke was there at the painful farewell to the Ephesians. Luke was there to know what Paul had faced. He was there, and knew the heart and soul of both the preacher and the people. He was there, and heard Paul’s warning that men would arise and try to mislead the church. Perhaps this was part of Luke’s reason for writing.

We can take this away from the situation, though:

Christianity does not call for passive observers but active participants.

Now, you may come alongside and watch us, but at some point, a person must either join in or reject the life that is believing that Jesus is the Son of God and King of Kings. As the Spirit and power of God move you to that point, you are certainly welcome to observe. Please understand, however, that you are observing through dirty glass and mis-aimed mirrors: none of us quite reflect properly the truth, and so you need to look broadly and also look to the source.

You will, eventually, be in or out, but for now, watch as you will. I’m not really after you on this one.

Who am I after?

The person that thinks Christianity is about sitting in a pew, or a movie theater seat, or their recliner, and watching. There is no place for that. Scripture knows nothing of an uninvolved Believer in God. Not even of one whose main job is to record what happens: there is no evidence that any author of any portion of Scripture was not involved in the events that they recorded.

(Within reason, of course, since Moses records several thousand years and was only involved about 120 of them, and the authors of the Books of the Kings were likely not involved in every century they recorded. Still, they were a part of what happened when they were alive.)

You do not get to sit back and just watch it happen.

Not and call yourself a Christian. There is an active pursuit of obedience that is necessary.

So get out there and make certain that the record of the Kingdom of God can be written by you in the First Person Plural. If you aren’t part of “we” then you are missing the point.

Nerd Note:

Actually, preacher note: Don’t preach people to death unless you know you can raise them from the dead: Eutychus.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Book Review: The Heart Mender by @andyandrews (Andy Andrews)

The Heart Mender: A Story of Second ChancesEver read a book that you just kind of wish is true?  That's my take on The Heart Mender by Andy Andrews.  It's a charming story of love and forgiveness, and it's woven into the historical setting of World War II America.  For the narrative alone, the book is worth the read, but the message it contains is well worth absorbing as well.However, let's drop back a minute.  This book was originally published under the title Island of Saints.  I read Island of Saints and enjoyed it greatly.  Now, Andrews has released it under a new title, with a few minor changes.  All of this is explained in the Author's Note at the beginning, but should be noted for purchaser's sake.  If you read Island of Saints, you're rereading when you read The Heart Mender.  Now, go ahead and reread it.  It will not hurt you one bit.Overall, the story is well-paced.  There are points where I'd like more detail, both in the history and the geog…

Abraham Lincoln Quoted by Jesus! Mark 3

Mark records a curious event in his third chapter (link). If you look at Mark 3:25, you'll see that Jesus quotes the sixteenth President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. After all, one of the highlights of the Lincoln years is his famous speech regarding slavery in the United States where he used the phrase that "a house divided against itself cannot stand." This speech was given in 1858 when he accepted the nomination to run against Stephen A. Douglas for Senate, but is still remembered as the defining speech regarding slaveholding in the United States. I recall being taught in school how brilliant and groundbreaking the speech was, how Lincoln had used such wise words to convey his thought. Yet the idea was not original to Lincoln. Rather, it was embedded in Lincoln from his time reading the Bible. Now, I have read varying reports about Lincoln's personal religious beliefs: some place him as a nearly completely committed Christian while others have him somewh…

Independence Day 2017

I don’t know if Thomas Paine will be aggrieved that I paste his thoughts from Common Sense here, from the electronic edition. It’s a Public Domain work at this point, so hopefully none will be bothered that I am not paying for it...I think there is value in seeing the underlying reasons of Independence. I find a couple of things noteworthy in his introduction:First, he speaks of those who disagree and, while calling those out, holds the strength of his affirmative argument will be enough to straighten them out. We could do well to think more like that.Second, his final sentence should be a required view: the influence of reason and principle. Not self-interest masquerading as principle. Not party propaganda disguised as reason.That being said, not everything Paine said is right. If he and I lived at the same time, we’d argue religion over a great deal. However, the idea of “natural rights of man” follows from the idea of humanity as a special creation—that all are created equal and en…