Case studies that teach readers about community building in a foreign land fill the pages of the book of the Acts of the Apostles. These cases manifest as a result of the reoccurring situation in which the Apostles find themselves. Throughout the book, the Apostles simultaneously integrate themselves within their cultural context while introducing the radically new teachings of the Gospel. They find a way to navigate both the preexisting world and the ideal of the world to come; primarily by involving themselves at the community level. Overcoming this divide is monumental because, as Christians, we are all temporary residents in someone’s land, needing to learn how to faithfully inhabit the places in which we find ourselves. Acts, therefore, teaches us to do this by respecting localities and then demonstrates the positive impact that this can have. Thus, this paper discusses three case studies which address how the Apostles executed a culturally-minded approach at every stage of Church development: during the initial introduction to a place when laying a foundation, once a Church has been established, and when preparing to leave after a Church has been founded.[1] Paul in Athens, the reconciliation of cultural conflict in Jerusalem, and the encounter with Lydia in Philippi demonstrate that the Apostles intentionally engaged with the local cultures and contexts in which they found themselves. Moreover, the displayed cultural sensitivity emerged in every phase of expansion of the early Church. Whether first introduction to a city, during conflict, or after Church formation, the Apostles carefully related to the local populace in ways that resemble common approaches to community building and conflict resolution. As will be shown by using Acts 17:16-34, Acts 6:1-7, and Acts 16:14-16, the Apostles’ ability to integrate into cultures and attention to local context enabled success in expanding the mission of the Church “to the ends of the earth.”[2] The Areopagus: Using Apologetics to Lay Foundation for Community Building The Apostles’ use of apologetics and cultural humility when engaging Athens for the first time about the Christian God demonstrates how the Apostles used their knowledge of local culture to gain access to different communities in the first phase of community building. Thus, Acts 17:16-34 can be analyzed as a case study in the importance of having knowledge of culture when establishing connection in a new place. Upon entering Athens, Paul immediately begins speaking the cultural “language” of the populace when Jews and Greek Philosophers met him in the synagogue and the agora.[3] The South Asia Bible Commentary explains that Athens “was the centre of the Gentiles’ cultural and literacy universe. It was also a place, so the Roman and Greek writers of the time inform us, where every god and goddess under the sun was worshipped.”[4] This context implies that Paul found himself amongst a people with a distinct world view. As such, communicating in his normal language may not have been efficacious in conveying the message about Christ. Paul, therefore, needed to speak according to his context – especially when targeted after being taken, either by invitation or by force, to the Areopagus.[5] According to The New Oxford Annotated Bible, the phrase “may we know…” in verse 19 “suggests a more relaxed setting for discussion…”[6] However, the fact remains that the philosophers took Paul to the Areopagus on allegations of introducing new gods. This accusation, as many commentators offer, resembles the charges against Socrates in the 4th century BCE.[7] Kavin Rowe, New Testament professor, makes the connection that Socrates’ death sentence for introducing new gods would have been “embedded in the cultural memory.”[8] Herein lies Luke’s, as the author of Acts, first appeal to culture. By drawing on common history, Luke situates himself as knowledgeable of cultural influence. Thus, to imagine Paul deliberately using contextualized apologetics follows naturally. Once in the Areopagus, Paul employs Stoic and Jewish arguments to relate to his audience. Biblical scholar Henry Cadbury argues that “There is every reason to think that the author of Acts knew and felt something of this Greek tradition…He viewed its idols and other objects of devotion, including an altar with the inscription to an Unknown God. He met not only the Jews in the synagogue but Greeks in the Agora of market place. Stoic and Epicurean philosophers were among his auditors…” and the reasoning continues.[9] As Cadbury writes, Paul’s lauding of the Athenians in verse 22 as “very religious,” as implied by their many idols, is his first rhetorical appeal.[10] Paul never tells the Athenians to destroy their idols.[11] This suggests that he may be accommodating of local practice as a means of establishing rapport before offering the Christian argument. After acknowledging the idols, Paul then offers an answer to the God deemed as “unknown” by the Athenian inscription.[12] Even this, though, Paul does respectfully by using shared language. As the South Asia Bible Commentary explains, Paul “showed respect for his audience and freely borrowed ideas from Greek philosophers to take his hearers from the "known” to the "unknown." He built on the best that others have.”[13] Paul did not explicitly impose another culture on Athens in a demeaning or inaccessible manner. Moreover, God portrayed as Creator in verses 24 to 25, all people deriving “from one ancestor” in verse 26, and the proximity of God as recounted in verse 27 would have resonated with Jewish teaching in Genesis and the Greeks through the teachings of Plato.[14] Paul continues his apologetic approach by literally quoting Greek philosophers and poets. His first allusion that in God “we live and move and have our being” can be attributed either to the Greek Posidonius or Epimenides.[15] The next line, that “we too are his offspring” derives from the Stoic, Greek poet Aratus.[16] Thus, Paul speaks the local “language” to create commonality with the Athenians. In this vein, Paul does not use local culture to create a divide between Athenian and Christian thought. Rather, he uses religious and philosophical understanding of the Athenians to build a bridge between the two worlds.[17] Cadbury further reinforces the argument that Paul purposefully uses language as a means for cultural integration in Athens. He suggests that just like Paul references the Old Testament when speaking to the Pharisees, in Athens, Paul references the Greek poets to create connection with his Stoic and Epicurean audience.[18] Thus, Scripture conveys that the Apostles knew their contexts and found ways to relate, even when introducing a radically new religious framework. Paul’s speech in the Areopagus provides just one example of using cultural knowledge to establish connection in the first phase of community development. Interestingly, this approach has historical precedence in the same region. After conquering the Achaemenid Empire in 330 BCE, Alexander the Great needed a way to relate to the unfamiliar culture in order to build trust and respect for his rule. The ancient Greek historian Arrian documents Alexander’s adoption and permissibility of Persian culture as a means for speaking the cultural “language.” First, Alexander changed the “Macedonian style of dress which his fathers had adopted, for the Median one.”[19] He then introduced the Persian practice of proskenysis in his colonies in Asia Minor.[20] Though not perfect parallels given the contexts that facilitated a need for apologetics, like Alexander the Great, Paul allowed the Athenians to retain customs by not diminishing their idols and retained language by meeting the Athenians where they were in vernacular. What this connection to Alexander does, therefore, is bolster the point that understanding context matters if a leader or organization is going to build lasting trust. Only after Paul creates connection by speaking in a way his audience would understand does he introduce the resurrection. Given that “Greek thought made no provision for the resurrection of the body,” this portion of Paul’s speech was the most contentious.[21] However, because Paul approached the Athenians with cultural humility, at least two Areopagite onlookers were converted and others “joined him and became believers.”[22] This scene in Athens, then, presents the case for the Apostles’ employment of cultural insight when establishing an initial connection with a location and its inhabitants. However, sensitivity to cultural context did not end once a religious community was established. Rather, even after a Church formation did the Apostles’ utilize cultural competency. Conflict in Jerusalem: Reconciliation within Community Community building, even when guided by the Holy Spirit, is messy. Yet, when conflict erupted in Jerusalem among the Believers, the Apostles reconciled the conflict in a way which demonstrated a keen sympathy for cultural dynamics. The conflict between Hellenists and Hebrews in Acts 6:1-7, therefore, emerges as the biblical case study for reconciliation once a Church community has already been established. Occurring in Jerusalem where the first community of Believers was established, Scripture offers a glimpse on internal dissention within the early Church. At stake was the integrity of the community, not just in that moment, but for the future of Christianity in how the community treated their most vulnerable members. The Twelve needed to respond to this conflict in a just manner if the mission to extend the Church “to the ends of the earth” were to survive.[23] Else, the movement would have died in Jerusalem. As such, when conflict emerged in Jerusalem between the Hellenists and Hebrews, the Apostles utilized reconciliation practices to overcome the group tension that the South Asia Bible Commentary characterizes as stemming from “cultural differences.”[24] Acts 6:1 discloses that the conflict was between the Hellenist and Hebrew members of the group.[25] The Hellenists, the Greek-speaking Jewish Christian minority group, felt as if the Hebrews, the Aramaic-speaking Jewish Christian majority group, neglected their widows in the daily food rations.[26] The Apostles must have recognized the power dynamics inherent in the community in order to have proceeded as they did. Rather than allow the power-holding majority to single-handedly make the decision about rations, the Apostles called together the “whole community” to create space for the minority and aggrieved voices to be heard.[27] By including all people in the healing process for internal conflict, the Twelve modeled reconciliation and conflict transformation processes. Reconciliation practices uphold “truth, justice, mercy, and peace” which, as academic and activist Charles Hauss argues, means reconciliation finds its roots in religion.[28] Perhaps the religious underpinnings of contemporary reconciliation efforts enabled the Twelve seemed to inherently model reconciliatory behavior. Haus continues that, in reconciliation, practitioners bring “people on both sides of a conflict together to explore their mutual fear and anger and, more importantly, to begin building bridges of trust between them.”[29] This is exactly what the Apostles did in the Jerusalem community. They brought all members together, ensured both sides were represented, then encouraged those who were involved in the conflict to resolve it.[30] The South Asia Bible Commentary takes this a step further and insinuates that the Apostles saw this conflict as a strategic opportunity to empower others in their ministry so the Twelve could focus on prayer and teaching.[31] Moreover, it is easy to envision the use of restorative “circles” in this setting. Lynette Parker, scholar of restorative practices, defines the practice of “circles” as providing a “space for encounter between the victim and the offender while simultaneously moving beyond the encounter to involve the community in the decision making process.”[32] The Apostles modeled this in bringing the entire community together to determine a way forward. While they may not have formed an explicit “circle,” the underlying philosophies seem to match. Ultimately, the conflict was then transformed into the creation of the Deaconate, a new order of ministry, filled by “seven men of good standing” from the group who would oversee rations.[33] Not only were seven men selected, but based on the Greek origins of their names, these men all appear to be from the marginalized Hellene group.[34] As conflict transformation pioneer Paul Lederach explicates, “To increase justice we must ensure that people have access to political procedures and voice in the decisions that affect their lives.”[35] Acts 6 implies that the Apostles innately understood that insiders and the aggrieved know best the needs of the community and, therefore, should be the ones to implement policies. That the Twelve employed reconciliation practices was key to the successful transformation of this internal conflict, the creation of more disciples in Jerusalem, priests becoming “obedient to the faith,” and the word of God spreading.[36] As Hauss explains, without reconciliation, peace agreements become “orphaned” which means that “the parties reach an agreement that stops the fighting but does little to take the parties towards…stable peace, which can only occur when the issues that gave rise to the conflict in the first place are addresses to the satisfaction of all.”[37] Thus, conflict transformation among the Jerusalem Church was only possible by paying attention to the cultures represented in the conflict. These lessons in reconciliation in an existing community build on the lessons from Acts 17 of using culture to establish a community. Thus, Acts shows readers that the apostles knew to pay attention to local context in the development and execution phases of community building. A final case study, yet, completes this picture by assessing post-Church formation. Church Settlement in Philippi: Empowering Local Leadership The empowerment of local people to continue the Church in Philippi before Paul and Timothy left suggests that, even after Church formation, the Apostles intentionally thought about cultural context. Paul’s connection to, and then encouragement of, Lydia and her household in Acts 16:13-16, 40 presents the final case study of how the Apostles’ displayed cultural sensitivity in every phase of community development. A place like Philippi would have been new territory for the Apostles. Not only was Philippi a current Roman outpost full of Roman military veterans, but also a historically Macedonian district with Hellenistic roots stemming back to Philip II in the 4th century BCE.[38] This unique cultural composition manifested throughout society. Societally, it meant varied religious practices and ways of life, as evidenced by the women gathering by the river as their place of prayer.[39] Politically, people of both ethnicities comprised the elite ruling class. Both Macedonian-Philippians and Roman-Philippians participated in the governing systems.[40] Thus, Philippi was a place with a unique blend of Greek and Roman cultures which would have been best understood by a native of the region. At least superficially, Paul and Timothy seemed to recognize this dynamic. As such, they followed their typical pattern of first approaching the local synagogue or place of worship.[41] While conversing with the women gathered to pray, Paul met Lydia who, Scripture tells us, was a “worshipper of God.”[42] “Worshipper of God” could either have signified that Lydia was a proselyte, like Nicolaus in Acts 6:6, or a woman of “high standing.”[43] Regardless, Lydia was likely societally informed and culturally aware due to having to study to become a Jew or because of her position in society. Moreover, God identified this native of Philippi to sustain the Church after the Apostles left. This is evidenced first by the conversion and baptism of “[Lydia] and her household” and then by the encouragement Paul gave to Lydia and all “the brothers and sisters there” before leaving Philippi.[44] That this episode in Acts concludes with Paul and Timothy specifically visiting Lydia’s house before continuing their mission shows that they left Lydia, a local, in charge of the burgeoning church in Philippi. Not once does Scripture reference foreign influence in leading the Philippian Church after the Apostles departed. By choosing Lydia to sustain the Way in Philippi, the Apostles provide two major lessons about the role of culture in organizational development. First, they paralleled Church governance with the secular governance of this colony by selecting a local person. In accordance with the governance structure of Philippi that combined Macedonian natives and Roman-Philippians, Paul selected a person of influence who, as a business woman, would have understood the structures and institutions of Rome and who, as a minority, could relate to the ethnic Hellenes.[45] As Jerry DeFrancisco, President of Humanitarian Services at the America Red Cross explains, it is important to install local leadership because local leaders “care deeply about helping the community and have the ability to influence the people living there,” have influence that outsiders – such as Paul and Timothy – may not have, and understand their “respective localities.”[46] This, however, is not a new principle. Rather, Rome understood this necessity as evidenced by their inclusion of Philippians in the elite classes in the colony of Philippi and in their governance structures in other coloniae which included representation of the conquered groups.[47] For a new community or organization to survive, regardless of spatial and temporal context, nesting within preexisting structure is essential – especially if that structure is one as powerful as the Roman Empire. The second example of sensitivity to cultural dynamics provided by the Lydia pericope resides in the fact that a woman was selected to lead the Church. Even if gender was not purposely considered by the Apostles, and there is no way to know if it was, contemporary literature supports the argument that organization success correlates with female leadership. A study conducted by the RAND Corporation assessed the “multilayered development of women’s diverse roles in the post-conflict context” of Afghanistan.[48] As a historically Macedonian territory founded after the conquests King Philip II and a contemporary Roman outpost seized by Rome in the 1st century BCE, Philippi meets the “post-conflict” criteria of this study. The RAND study ultimately found that “Greater stability and improved outcomes would likely result from…women [being] included even in the earliest phases of economic reconstruction and administrative reconstruction.”[49] Also, that “the status of women is not merely a litmus test, but also an active agent in bringing about” equity, rule of law, peace, and prosperity.[50] Thus, gender plays a role in stability. Though this study pertained to nation-building which is the act of “putting new governments and new social compacts into place,” its findings can be extrapolated to community or organizational development.[51] As such, correlation between Lydia’s selection to lead the Church and the success of increased membership may hinge on gender. If the selection of Lydia was intentional, then this further suggests that the Apostles had a progressive and nuanced understanding of community building. Ultimately, like in the examples of Acts 17 and Acts 6, cultural attentiveness in Philippi led to increased Believers.[52] Luke argues for empowering local people to lead community movements through his story of Lydia and the Apostles in Philippi. Use of a local woman to continue the Church after the Apostles leave, therefore, completes the narrative of sensitivity to demographics in every phase of Church formation. Of course, because community building is messy, even within these narratives rest contradictions that threaten the viability of the Apostles as attentive to culture in their mission to spread the Gospel. Disrespecting Culture: The Counterarguments A close reading of each case study presents flaws in the argument that the Apostles intentionally engaged with and respected local culture to further their cause. For example, Paul’s reference to the Athenians as “very religious” in Acts 17:22 could be construed as an insult to their practices, rather than an appeal to their religiosity in idol worship. Or, as Kavin Rowe argues, the entirety of Paul’s speech is “politically charged.”[53] Rowe asserts, that Paul is not appealing to the Athenians, but rather, calling them “to embrace a new way of life and abandon pagan worship.”[54] Thus, Rowe believes that Paul subverted the philosophers in a way that both they and the reader of Acts would have understood throughout Paul’s speech in the Areopagus. Counterarguments continue for the Acts 6 case study because the Apostles appear to ignore women when reconciling the conflict, though the widows were the aggrieved party. Given that Scripture only references the men selected as Deacons, one could assume that women were excluded from the conversation. The oversight of women in Jerusalem directly challenges the argument that Paul purposefully selected a woman to lead the Church in Philippi. Reading this conflict in such as a way also privileges the mission – the establishment of a new order of ministry – over a proclivity for culture. Lastly, Acts 16 can also be read to champion mission over culture. The Women’s Bible Commentary offers that Lydia “had been colonized; and she becomes a representation of Philippi.”[55] The commentary then suggests that her household was “co-opted…without discussion.”[56] Essentially, Lydia was used as another stepping stone in the expansion of the Church, rather than calculatedly selected to lead the mission in Philippi as a means for connecting with the local context. These three counterarguments provide a general overview of the challenges that could be made against the argument that the Apostles leveraged cultural knowledge during Church development. Yet, each of these counter-arguments fails to address the fact that each pericope ends with increased numbers of Believers. If the Apostles had truly insulted the Athenians, excluded women in Jerusalem, and forced Lydia to convert in Philippi, genuine growth would not have occurred in any location. Moreover, positive news about the Gospel would not have spread nor would the Apostles ever have been welcomed into the next town. To insult, disregard, and abuse the places the Apostles inhabited would have been completely counterproductive to the mission. Acts’ narrative arch of continued Church growth throughout the known world implies that the Apostles had to be sensitive enough to local culture and context that they would not have been deemed as disrespectful by all lay persons. Thus, reading Acts as a series of case studies which demonstrate attention to culture at every stage of Church development appears more viable than assuming a posture of cultural insensitivity. Believer growth resulting from cultural humility, inclusive reconciliation practices, and empowerment of local leadership suggest artful integration into cultures and attention to context. Conclusion: Engaging Culture for Faithful Inhabitance The case studies of Acts 17:16-34, Acts 6:1-7, and Acts 16:14-16, 40 provide Biblical examples of common community development practices. The Acts of the Apostles, therefore, teaches Christian and secular readers, alike, about methods for community building such as apologetics, reconciliation, and local empowerment. These studies, therefore, all have major implications for Christians, generally, but especially Christians with migratory ministries. Even more broadly, Acts teaches all readers how to enter foreign places with a sensitivity towards culture; then how to faithfully inhabit said places as temporary residents. The successful outcome of the discussed pericopes suggest that the Acts method of development, one that intentionally engages local context at every phase of community building, is a viable method. Ultimately, Acts is one reconciliation project. The narrative reconciles polytheism to monotheism, Jews to Christians, and native to foreigner. Working from the communal level in which context was understood, minorities were heard, and locals were empowered correlated with the success of the mission to expand the Church “to the ends of the earth.”[57] Yet, this paper presented a pragmatic approach to analyzing Acts that did not leave much room for mystery. As such, for this paper to truly be about the book of Acts, one must acknowledge that no development would have been possible without the work of the Holy Spirit in every community while the Apostles executed the Christ-inspired mission to make disciples of all nations. [1] See Appendix 1 for a diagram overview of the community building process as it pertains to Acts. [2] Acts 1:8 NRSV. All scripture references are NRSV unless otherwise noted. [3] Acts 17:17. [4] South Asia Bible Commentary, ed. Brian Wintle (Rajasthan: Open Door Publications, 2015), 1494. [5] Acts 17:19. [6] The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha, ed. Michael D. Coogan (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 1953. [7] Henry Cadbury, The Book of Acts in History (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1955), 53. [8] Kavin Rowe, World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Graeco-Roman Age (New York: Oxford University Press Incorporated, 2009), 31. [9] Cadbury, 44-45. [10] The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1953. [11] South Asia Bible Commentary, 1494. [12] Acts 17:23. [13] South Asia Bible Commentary, 1495. [14] The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1953. [15] Ibid., 1953. Acts 17:28. [16] The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1953. [17] South Asia Bible Commentary, 1494. [18] Cadbury, 45-46. [19] Arrian the Nicomedian, The Anabasis of Alexander, trans. EJ Chinnock (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1884), Book IV, Chapter VII, 218, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/46976/46976-h/46976-h.htm#Page_223. [20] Arrian, Book IV, Chapter IX, 223. [21] The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1953. [22] Acts 17:34. [23] Acts 1:8. [24] South Asia Bible Commentary, 1466. [25] Acts 6:1. [26] The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1930. [27] Acts 6:2. [28] Charles Hauss, “Reconciliation,” Beyond Intractability (2003), https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/reconciliation. [29] Ibid. [30] Acts 6:1-2. [31] South Asia Bible Commentary, 1466. [32] Lynette Parker, “Circles,” Centre for Justice and Reconciliation (Washington, DC: Prison Fellowship International), Last accessed 6 December 2018, http://restorativejustice.org/restorative-justice/about-restorative-justice/tutorial-intro-to-restorative-justice/lesson-3-programs/circles/#sthash.oHWxDQx7.dpbs. [33] Acts 6:3. [34] South Asia Bible Commentary, 1466. [35] John Paul Lederach, “Conflict Transformation,” Beyond Intractability (2003), https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/transformation. [36] Acts 6:7. [37] Hauss. [38] The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1950. [39] Acts 16:13. [40] Ross Wagner, “Exegesis of Acts” Notes, Duke Divinity School (Durham: Duke University), 17 October 2018. [41] Acts 16:13. [42] Acts 16:14. [43] The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1950. [44] Acts 16:15, Acts 16:40. [45] Acts 16:14. [46] Jerry DeFrancisco, et al, “The Power of Local Leadership,” The New York Times, last accessed 6 December 2018, http://nytimesineducation.com/spotlight/the-power-of-local-leadership/. [47] “Colonia,” Livius, last accessed 8 December 2018, http://www.livius.org/articles/concept/colonia/. [48] Cheryl Bernard, et al, “Women and Nation-Building,” Rand Center for Middle East Public Policy (Arlington: RAND Corporation, 2008), xiii, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG579.pdf. [49] Ibid., 2. [50] Ibid. [51] Bernard, xiii. [52] Acts 16:40. [53] Rowe, 41. [54] Ibid. [55] Women’s Bible Commentary, ed. Carol Newsom, et al (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010), 543. [56] Ibid, 545. [57] Acts 1:8. Appendix 1. Community Building Process. This diagram provides a general outline for the community building process. The case studies discussed in this paper map to distinct parts of this process. Acts 17:16-34 represents the initial stages of community development, Acts 6:1-7 highlights a community in conflict, while Acts 16:14-16, 40 represents the final stages of community development conducted by the Apostles. In each case study, or at every phase, the Apostles engaged local context to facilitate success.
|