kind-of-church-that-is-both-here-there-part-2-study-notes

Acts 11:25‑13:3 "From Church to World"

Illustration of Ambrosia Chocolate and how it permeated the community‑‑and then the world. Positively, through the aroma. Negatively, through association with Jeffrey Dahmer.

A church can permeate the world in those two ways too. Or it can make no impact at all. Like a speed limit sign in Boston‑‑no one pays any attention.

I long for our church to be a place that has a positive impact. I want people in this world to be drawn to Christ because we are here. And there is a world to be impacted. 4.7 billion who are not practicing believers. 1.4 billion with no church in their social existence‑‑including 650 people groups, 18 mega‑cities, many language groups. We have a mission.

So I've been scurrying around to see which churches have truly made an impact in the world‑‑not just big churches but churches that have reached out beyond themselves. And the model church for that in the Bible is Antioch. We read about it in Acts 11:19‑13:3. Missionary vision started there.

What kind of church was it? If we can identify that, maybe we can impact our world more effectively. I've located 5 characteristics. They're the characteristics you should want in your church. They're what I'm striving for in our church. What are they? 1.)An evangelistic zeal for one's own community; 2.)An encouraging pastor.

III. Good Theological Teaching

Vv.25‑26.

There are several things that are important about this characteristic of the church in Antioch. First, it is yet another reminder that all the gifts that a church needs for its nurture and growth are never to be found in one individual. As gifted and fine as Barnabas was‑‑being an encourager, a leader, a wise man, a risk taker‑‑still he did not possess all the gifts needed to lead this new church alone. And, I would want to add, as a part of his greatness he was humble enough to recognize that this enthusiastic group of new believers needed sound Bible teaching.

I would guess that in this metropolitan and largely Gentile setting, there were problems of theological understanding arising that he wasn't equipped to handle. Think of that group. Most had little or no knowledge of the OT so all the vocabulary of religion which was so familiar down in Jerusalem would make no sense to them at all.

Implicitly, there's an example of that in our passage in v.26. The disciple were first called Christians there in Antioch. Now, that taken from the Greek word "Christos." Now, every Jew who had been brought up in a synagogue knew that this word meant "the anointed one"‑‑it was the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew "Messiah." As such, it wasn't a name. It was a title. To say "Christ Jesus" is a bit like saying Queen Elizabeth or President Bush. But to these Greeks in Antioch who knew nothing of a Savior Messiah who was promised in the OT, the word "Christos" sounded like Jesus' family name; Jesus Christos just like I'm Greg Waybright. And that's how the disciples came to be called Christians. It grew out of this confusion of the Greek neighbors of theirs over the name of their new Lord. It could never have happened in Jerusalem. I happened in Antioch.

And that's just a small tip of a great iceberg of potential misunderstanding that Barnabas saw looming ahead. Take the phrase "kingdom of God." When Jesus was on earth, he talked about it all the time. "The kingdom of God is near." He could talk about it because he was talking to Jewish people and they knew what the kingdom of God was. They knew its relationship to the OT Messiah. But the "kingdom of God" didn't mean anything to a Greek just as it might not mean anything to you. They'd never heard of such a phrase. It sounded like pure politics to them. No, other words would have to be found to communicate the same meaning. You couldn't use the terms kingdom of God and hope to convert this secular or pagan society.

This brings us to the second lesson to be learned here, i.e., good theological teaching means the ability to communicate truth about God in terms that the hearers can understand. You see, whenever you present a new idea to people, the first thing they will try to do is fit it into something they've already heard or experienced before. As a result of our culture or upbringing, each of us has a cultural worldview. And all the information that comes to us, we try to fit into those categories that are a part of that worldview. So if two people are talking together and they think in different categories, huge misunderstandings can take place.

I could give you thousands of examples of this. It happens in politics. In fact, I'm sure it's happening now in all this fighting that taking place between us and the Japanese leaders. We think they're insulting our workers. They insist we've completely misunderstood. Translators go back to the manuscripts and analyze the thing again. It's cultural misunderstanding.

It's happened in missions. For instance, there are example of missionaries going into a culture with the worldview that any music with drums is demonic; but the people they're trying to reach have the view that any music without drums has immoral sexual connotations. Put those two views together and see what you come up with.

There's a classic example of this in Acts itself. When Paul was preaching in Athens we're told he was preaching about Jesus and the resurrection (anastasis). But when the people heard it as Polytheists they understood that he was talking about two distinct gods, i.e., Jesus and his female counterpart named Anastasis. They just naturally assumed that Paul believed in many gods like they did and they interpreted his words through that worldview. It was a disaster. Do you see what I'm getting at?

The point is this‑‑Any church that is going to reach out to people other than those who have grown up in its setting, especially into unchurched people and unreached cultures, must have a very clear‑thinking and clear‑speaking Bible teacher. It must set him free for the task. What is called for is people who can take these teachings of the Bible and communicate them in such a way that people can understand what it means. Without that, the world won't even understand who God is and what He requires.

The new missions word is "contextualize." The ideas of the Bible must be brought into the categories that the hearers can grasp without compromising the original truth. And that's no easy task. We need it in our society more than ever before. I don't know if you notice that I work hard on Sunday mornings not to use language that only a long time church goer could comprehend. I try to talk about redemption and propitiation and atonement but in terms that we use everyday. That's because America is quickly becoming a country unfamiliar with those biblical concepts.

Now, it's not easy because the temptation is to compromise the original truth. No, a church that will impact the community and world for God must have a teacher who knows what the the Bible teaches (there is a place for solid theological education) and who communicates that to his people and to the world. Barnabas saw the need of that. He needed someone who knew how to learn to think in the categories of these Greeks and was able to communicate the marvelous truths of God into terms they could understand. And Paul, as you may know from his background and training, was just the man for the job. He was a brilliant intellectual, an outstanding scholar from the University in Jerusalem, and a man who lived in two worlds. On one side, he was a Pharisee steeped in Bible knowledge. On the other side, he was a Roman citizen, fluent in Greek, and totally familiar with secular culture having been brought up in Tarsus. So he went off to recruit him.

I see in this a third lesson, i.e., that we should again recognize the importance of good biblical and theological teaching. We think theologians should sit in libraries and talk about subjects no one cares about only to people who have to take their courses in order to get a degree. I even heard one of our own denominational leaders say that theologians should be a the back lines of the battle simple keeping practical Christians from falling into heresy. But we see here that the theologian needs to be at the forefront‑‑teaching people who are just beginning to know that God is there the essential truths about him and what it means to pray and to live for him and to trust him. The true task of the theologian is to teach God's people how to talk about God in terms comprehensible to ordinary people today in our culture.

So that's the third characteristic of a church that will impact its community and world, it has good theological and biblical teaching. And we should be as bold as Barnabas in this respect‑‑when we see young people who seem to have those abilities, we need to direct them to use those gifts in the communication of God's truths. We cannot win the world for God without good communicators of God's truth communicating the marvelous good news about God into other cultures, other languages while remaining faithful to its truth.

IV. A Heart to Work Together with Other Christians

I think Luke includes this little cameo in v.27 to make that point. Vv.27‑30. Perhaps you know that from the beginning the Christians in Jerusalem demonstrated a remarkable generosity to those in material need. They gave up their wealth to a common purse so that the poor could be assisted. Barnabas was one of the first to do this back in ch.4. Well, he taught that same priority of caring for the poor to the church in Antioch.

But here we see a whole new dimension in this ministry of caring. Here, we see for the first time one church helping another church. Even more significant, we see a Gentile church helping a Jewish church. And notice how they refer to that very different church in v.29: "They provided help for the brothers living in Judea." Isn't that insightful? That's how they thought of them.

There is a powerful lesson here about what the "Church of Jesus Christ" is all about. This is a Gentile, Greek‑speaking, congregation, 300 miles away from Jerusalem, in a different Roman province, with a large majority of people who had never been to Jerusalem in their lives, in a community in which most of them would have grown up with an anti‑Semitic background‑‑yet this group of people feels that they are family with their Jewish fellow Christians. And they're willing to sacrifice for them.

Now, this was not easy. In ch.15, it becomes clear that many in the Jerusalem church had a real suspicion of those Gentile Christians in Antioch. What a refreshingly disarming gesture this must have been. Those very ones who were suspect show such practical love to their suspicious Jewish brothers. It must have been a major help toward developing the unity and fellowship among very different kinds of people that Christ died for.

The clear point for me is that Antioch, for all its new ways and different constituency, felt that it was in partnership with all other churches committed to proclaiming Christ. It wasn't out to compete with Jerusalem. It wasn't a rival. It simply saw itself as the local and visible expression of God's family that met in that location. And the same was true of the brothers in Jerusalem.

And I am convinced that such an understanding is essential if we are truly going to have an impact for Christ in our world. And this is just where it is too easy for us to go astray. All too often, large and fairly successful churches in their own area have become self‑absorbed. Oh, they may like to have others come in and learn from them and their seminars about how they do it. They may want to teach others in other parts of the world about their successes. But they almost lose interest in learning from others and rejoicing when others see God's blessing even when it happens in a different way. It's an "I'm the one who's all right" isolationist mentality. All they seem to care about is that they grow bigger and bigger‑‑failing to see that no matter how big they grow they will not reach the 4.7 billion non‑Christians alone.

And there are denominations that all over the world have refused to join hands to take Christ together to unreached people. There have been American missionary organizations who wouldn't work with German Christians because the Germans drank beer. There have been German conservative Christians who would serve together with Americans because the American women wore make‑up.

One of the greatest joys of being a Christian is that we are made a part of a worldwide family and given a joint mission of proclaiming Christ to the world. One of the greatest privileges we have in being here so close to Chicago and to Trinity Seminary is that we are able to worship together with Christians from all over the world and learn to serve together in partnership.

Now, there is a dangerous side to this. There are those with whom even I cannot join hands. When a person denies the deity of Christ, the authority of God's Word, the message of salvation through faith in Christ‑‑then I have nothing in common. The key word is fellowship, i.e., that which we have in common. When we have placed in the Jesus who is taught in this Bible and are committed to making disciples of him in the world, then we must have a heart to join others in partnership. It's called the fellowship of the Gospel. The world is not going to be reached by isolationist congregations or denominations doing their own thing‑‑no matter how big they might grow to be. It's only as we respect one another and pool our resources helping one another and plan together that the world will be reached.

V. A Praying Leadership

13:1‑3. This brings us at last to the crucial step. Up until this point the circles of influence of the gospel have been increasing in a haphazard way. God is directing it of course‑‑but there is no conscious strategy of missionary advance on the part of the Christians. In fact, it has been persecution rather than planning that has driven the church out to give witness to new locations.

Here, for the first time, an entire congregation is seeking to push the frontier of the unreached world back by a deliberate step of missionary outreach. That's why these verses are so significant. Now, there is some debate about who is praying in v.2. But I'm fairly convinced that the ones praying are the five church leaders mentioned in v.1. These men were true spiritual leaders seeking God's guidance so that they could lead the people His way. They were a praying leadership.

Notice several things here. First, notice what a mixed bag this leadership was. Barnabas is the only expected type, he was a kind priestly Jewish man. Simeon has a Jewish name‑‑but he probably had been one converted earlier to Judaism because his nickname, Niger, implies that he was black. It's even possible that he was Simon of Cyrene, the one who carried Jesus' cross. Certainly his colleague Lucius was of Cyrene in N. Africa. And then there was Manaen, foster brother to Herod Antipas, the one who had executed John the Baptist. Isn't that ironic. Two boys brought up in the same family yet one of them became an unscrupulous politician who contributed to the persecution of God's people; while the other becomes a church leader. And finally, of course, there was Saul‑‑the Pharisee and persecutor of the church turned Christian.

It's an extraordinary group, isn't it. Yet they had in common that they had turned to Christ. They had in common a sense of family in Christ. They had in common a zeal to proclaim the good news that they believed. And they had in common a commitment to the fact that the world needed this message. So I doubt that they were surprised when they somehow determined that God would have them take a step to carry the Gospel beyond their borders. This was already a part of their hearts and lives.

But, in spite of that, they waited until they were convinced that the vision for mission they had was also God's vision. This missionary vision is not something initiated from a few individuals but from God. It was the Holy Spirit who said, "Set apart for me..." That's very important.

Notice also, when God's leading took place‑‑"while they were worshiping the Lord and fasting." Here was a group of church leaders who didn't spend all their time organizing things or establishing budgets or doing job reviews (though I'm sure that had to happen). No, they were known to be leaders who sought God. It happened with real commitment‑‑with fasting. They occasionally gave up meals so they could spend time in prayer.

And notice also whom the Holy Spirit eventually set apart‑‑it had to be Barnabas and Saul. These were the cream. These were the very two who had built up the church at Antioch. Giving up one would have been a big sacrifice‑‑but both! Clearly, this church believed that the mission field wasn't a scrap heap for pastors or business people who couldn't make it elsewhere. It is the best people whom we should send to this kind of work.

Now, not all missionary activity has happened though such energetic churches as that at Antioch. It is, I think an ideal model. But not every church has this kind of committed spiritual leadership. We must be careful as new leadership is determined for next year. Many times, God's work has had to happen in spite of those who are leaders in the church‑‑leaders reluctant or narrow‑minded or unspiritual rather than dynamic and visionary. Some missionaries like the famous William Carey had to go out completely unsupported by a church which had no vision for reaching the world. Sometimes para‑church organizations have had to come to the front because the local churches have been negligent.

But let us learn from Antioch. There are two principles. One, Paul and Barnabas didn't have to act independently. There is a danger in trying to be a Lone Ranger. So often, God's leading comes as we pray and consult with others in the church.

And principle two, the church didn't wait around idly until Paul and Barnabas said they felt led. No, the leaders were pro‑active. They approached Barnabas and Paul and all sorted it out together. Too often in our churches we wait around until someone ways, "I feel called to be a missionary on the beaches of Maui for $80,000 a year"‑‑and then we feel obligated to support them. I think that from the earliest points on the church and the individual should be talking and praying together.

The church should have a missionary vision of its own and should solicit those appropriately gifted for the tasks God has called that church to.

Here it is then. A church with a world wide impact. Did you notice the kinds of characteristics‑‑there's nothing about kinds of programs, or worship style, or form of government. Those may be important but they're still secondary. Antioch was a church with a missionary vision‑‑the first one that ever was. It was the kind of church you should want to be a part of. It's the kind of church I want ours to be. What are the characteristics we're looking for?‑‑evangelistic zeal for its own community, encouragement from the pastor for grassroots ministry, solid biblical and theological teaching, a heart for fellowship and partnership with churches and believers all over the world, and a praying leadership.

That was the church at Antioch. And the task of reaching that 1.4 billion unreached people will not be completed unless we have other Antiochs with a similar vision. You see, in spite of this clear section and the undeniable calls to make disciples of the world, there is still a huge number of people with no Christian witness whatsoever. There is still an enormous frontier. And each day 368,000 new people are born‑‑many of them in those lands without any church; and most of them in cities.

But we can make a difference. Many feel we can penetrate every people group in our world by the end of this century. But we dare not be naive about what such a goal demands. Unreached people will not become reached without creative missionary initiative. We must find ways to communicate the gospel where no missionaries are allowed. We must be imaginative. We must pray‑‑and give‑‑and send our best.

For we are a people with a mission‑‑a mission given to us by God himself.

To His Glory,

Dr. Greg Waybright
Senior Pastor