Acts 4:5-12
The next day their rulers, elders, and scribes assembled in Jerusalem, with Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly family. When they had made the prisoners stand in their midst, they inquired, “By what power or by what name did you do this?” Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders, if we are being questioned today because of a good deed done to someone who was sick and are being asked how this man has been healed, let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that this man is standing before you in good health by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead. This Jesus is
‘the stone that was rejected by you, the builders;
it has become the cornerstone.’
“There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved.”
Sermon Text
All people were meant to offer sacrifices toward this personal deity of the Emperor alongside their other gods. For the polytheists throughout the empire, this was not a problem, but for anyone who was a monotheist that simply was not possible. For the Jews they were given an excuse, they were older than the Roman Empire and so their rituals and deity were given special status – monotheism was permitted where it was usually forbidden.[1] Other cults that formed around singular deities were not permitted the same allowance. The denial of worshipping local deities and especially the Genius of the Emperor was considered a form of treason – how could the gods sustain the empire if they were not honored? How could the spirit guarding the Emperor act without propitiation?
Of the dissident faiths of the Roman Empire, only one would survive into the present era. Christianity, founded on the premise of worshipping Jesus of Nazareth as God, had neither the ancient status of Judaism nor the benefit of Roman tolerance. The refusal of worshipping the Genius or worshipping local deities was unforgiveable treason and grounds for execution.
Later historians would inflate the persecution of Christians, at least in terms of numbers, but the reality of Christian persecution is clear. Pliny the Younger, a Roman Governor, seemed to regard Christians as mostly harmless despite their seditious lack of imperial faith. He would ask suspected Christians to recant their faith three times, each time offering them food and wine to offer to images of the Emperor or of a god. When they refused three times they would be executed or extradited. This was the standard form of persecution – particular to specific cases and carried out by people who disliked minority religions more so than by people who hated Christians specifically.
Paul, the writer of most of the New Testament, experienced more hardships than most. Having traveled to new regions and presenting Christianity for the first time, he was often cast out of town and abused by their inhabitants. Those who he left behind likewise would suffer social ostracization and abuse. Within a few years of Paul’s death, itself execution for religious dissidence, the emperor Nero would establish an empire wide ban on Christianity, blaming them for the destruction of Rome. Christianity was persecuted in a way it had never been before and the people of God looked to scripture to understand what to do.
Amid the many instructions of Christ and the disciples was a consistent rhythm regarding personal conduct. On top of the general teachings of the Church, the commandments given by Moses and by Christ, the Christians were meant to live a life that was so obviously good that any accusations laid at their feet would be ridiculous. 1 Peter 3 makes this clear, saying explicitly that someone who lives a blameless life will put their accusers to shame – even if they are killed the people who knew them would know the truth, erasing the power of their oppressors. The same is true of Romans 13, an admonition against violating civil power in order to respect God, but also to preserve the reputation of God’s people.
One problem of the modern Church is that we defend ourselves through obfuscation far more often than we defend ourselves through positive example. Whenever a scandal happens in the Church, we point the other way and try to say that because the majority of the Church does not engage in something harmful, then the Church is not actually responsible for that offense. When a minister in another conference of the UMC was found having inappropriate relationship with a parishioner, he was the sinner in the situation that is true, but when the decision was made to moved him to another church rather than defrocking or rehabilitating him – it seems to me that we all suddenly became complicit in that situation.
That’s a bigger example though, we can look at smaller instances. There is a meme that goes around all the time, “If you left the Church because of something someone did, the Church didn’t hurt you, people did. Come back.” A fine idea, and with some truth behind it. However, there is one problem in this idea from my perspective – what is the Church? The institution? The building? I’ve often been of the impression that the people are the Church, and if the People hurt you, then you do have a legitimate problem with “The Church.” Our defense against people who have been hurt by the Church is to pretend that they were actually hurt by something else, something over there, anything but by us.
Sometimes people I know will distance themselves from clergy and Christians they disagree with. I myself will tell you openly when I think talking heads in the Church-sphere are not good people to listen to. Yet, I do not deny they are Christians and that I am responsible for them to a certain extent. The body of Christ is one body, and even though we have a created a bunch of sects and individual buildings, and barriers betwixt us, we are all one people. Even the parts of us that are hurtful and that we wish were not part of the body, are part of the Church. If they are unwilling to change, they will continue to be both harmful and Christian.
The scripture we read today shows the apostles being brought before the Sanhedrin, a group of leaders in Jerusalem who oversaw religious happenings in Jerusalem and some civil cases as well. Peter and crew would be brought before them several times in the early parts of Acts. Each time the disciples thwarted the accusations against them with a simple truth – they had done no harm to anyone, in fact they were helping other people. The powers that be could organize a mob to hurt them, they had done so with Christ and secured a conviction, however this was not a midnight meeting like the one that convicted Christ. The whole council was there, not just the conspirators, and they were not as zealous in their hatred of Jesus as those who met on Good Friday were.
Peter is asked how he healed these people, and his defense begins simply with the truth, “To be clear, I am here because you did not like how I healed someone! I’ll answer your question, but I want it on the record why you brought me in today!” The tactic worked, and they were released after being reprimanded by the court. A later trial would have them gaining the respect of Gamaliel, teacher of Paul of Tarsus and prominent teacher. It was not until a Greek Speaking Jew, Stephen, was brought before the council that enough animosity could be brought against a Christian to kill them. Again, not by law, but through mob violence. His sin, again, was in feeding the hungry and in proclaiming the Gospel.
If a Church and the people in it aspire to live well, then it will be hard to accuse them of anything. If they are founded on taking care of people, in feeding the hungry, in clothing the poor, then anyone who says “Well you know how those Christians are,” will be able to be told, “Well, I don’t know about all Christians, but these folk are good folk.” That’s the reputation we need to strive for, the thing that makes people question their criticism of faith, and that provides a positive association with Christ. That is what the Church is meant to do.
This is, perhaps, the completion of our message from last week. The Spirit leads us to repent to change, and in so doing we become people that no one can deny are truly seeking to do good. Will we fall short and fail? Of course. However, an earnest attempt at doing right on the part of an individual and of a church makes a huge difference. The Church has fallen out of the good graces of the public, not simply because people don’t want to be a part of us, but because when people pointed out the wrong we have done, all we had was trite and rehearsed responses. If we truly were doing the good work we are called to, no one could shame us and find support from people who know us.
The key thing here is that we do not do good to have a good reputation, but that we understand that the importance of consistently doing good is not just one dimensional. First and foremost, we seek to do good and heal this world because it is good and right to do so. Secondly, and we know it is good because of this, we do so because it benefits the people around us, and if we love people we want them to flourish. Somewhere down the list of reasons to do good is this matter of reputation, but it is important to think that beyond the singular moment of an action and its consequences, there are infinite ripples. Ripples in expectations, ripples in understanding, ripples in truth.
We have to live a life so that the perspective people have of us, of the Church, of Christ, is one of love and truth and power. When we fail, we need to be up front and apologetic, because if we cannot truly make amends for wrong, we will never grow as a people. Yet, if we do all these things, if we can be the Church as it is meant to be – a place of Healing, of Redemption, and of Communion – then we will see the glory of the Lord in this life. We will see the Body of Christ, be as it was always meant to be. – Amen.
[1] This claim is somewhat controversial among scholars. Partly this is because of the clear antisemitism of Roman society. There was also no official status given to the Jews, except by individual emperors. This is why people like Claudius was able to expel the Jews, their status was dependent upon those in power and not secured in the writ of law.
Teach us to Number our Days 