# Interpreting Acts as historical narrative



## nwink (Oct 7, 2011)

I was reading through the Westminster's "Form of Presbyterial Church Government" the other day and reading through the Scripture references. In supporting a lot of details defending Presbyterian church government as being the only Scriptural form of church government, the Westminster divines turn to what the apostles did in Acts for Scriptural support (amongst other Scripture passages). 

I've heard some Christian teachers who don't give too much weight to the book of Acts to support doctrines since it is a _historical narrative_ (they say, "Well, since it's historical narrative, that makes it hard to know which aspects we are to follow and which we aren't"). I even heard one teacher say that he thought Paul was just having an angry outburst in Acts 17 since it says in verse 16 "Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, _his spirit was stirred in him_, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry."

So my real question is on what basis can we interpret Acts, though historical narrative, as an example that we can follow...and use it for Scriptural support for various doctrines we believe?


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 7, 2011)

We have to interpret it in the light of the Epistles and the fact that we know that the Apostolic era was foundational.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 7, 2011)

It is a mistake to turn to a story (even history), even from the Bible, to derive the *basics* of either doctrine or practice.

On the other hand, it is a mistake to ignore the concrete implementation of doctrine and practice as it is told to us in Scripture.

If all we had was the book of Acts to tell us how the church should exist in our age, we would not have very much. And what we had would be even more prone to widely divergent interpretation than we deal with already. People would pull an incredible amount of stuff from very little data (creating all sorts of controversy); or what is more likely, we'd have an even worse free-for-all than we have now, because people would be doing countless, contradictory things that "Acts doesn't speak to." Of course we have the same problems today, but the point is that the situation would be worse: much worse.

The main reason I can say that narrative is the least-best source for doctrine or practice, is that we *have* the better sources for those things: the epistles. These are situational, occasional pieces that address representative conditions and problems by appealing to then-current doctrine and practice, as instituted by the apostles--Christ's personal ministers trained and appointed to that very task by him. What the historic narrative surrounding those letters does is, it shows didactic Christianity being lived-out. It lets us _test_ (to some degree) our interpretation of the epistles.

The book of Acts also shows us a whole period of time. It is not a "moment in time" as much as a period of about 30 years--a period of time in which initial conditions give way to more permanent ones. Not entirely; the founding of the church lasts until the death of John. But even by the end of Acts (by which time the perhaps most of Paul's letters-to-churches are written, or in the process), it is possible to see many effects of the apostles' work, and to observe the church moving into the age of "ordinary" means.

Part of the problem of narrative-derivation is that, unless there are explicit explanatory statements in the text, it is impossible to tell even something as simple as _right-and-wrong_. Often, we find clues that indicate to us the narrator's approval or disapproval of certain actions; but the point is that a simple description of an event doesn't automatically convey a value judgment. We bring to the text an incredible amount of personal contextual baggage, and we read such things into the text. One great advantage to being steeped in the Bible as we grow is that the whole rest of the book forms a huge part of our unconscious. Our "instincts," though imperfect, are not utterly foreign to the admittedly ancient and far-removed contexts of the original audience.

One of the reasons post-modernism appeals to interpreters of the Bible today is that, supposedly, post-modern readers are able to approach the text "value-free." Having rejected the idea that the Bible is a self-contained text and a coherent whole; and rejecting that those who are steeped in it have in some sense avoided "alienation" from its moral or sociological context; they rip and divide the millennia-long story into competing contexts, and try reading the contents as though they were strangers to the pastiche moral-universe(s) of primitive goat-herders.

The post-moderns write and speak as if they were highly sophisticated interpreters of the text, opening new windows of understanding on the exotic world of the Bible that previous generations had "tamed." But in reality, theirs is a deeply naive and profoundly self-serving hermeneutic. By denying a common human "nature," they impose their idiosyncratic (and late) atomism upon the generations of readers (and writers) of Scriptures who affirmed solidarity with the past, and whose contributions to the Bible reflected that worldview.

Are the post-modernist interpreters _entirely_ wrong? No, as with certain elements of previous "schools" of criticism, when they challenge a tenuously based "traditional" interpretation, that has more in common with 21st century (or 20th, 19th, 18, etc.) predilections than with norms of the biblical world, they do good service. The problem is that they take a "tool" from the box (perhaps one that wasn't used for a while), knock the rust off, and proclaim it the overlooked key that turns all the locks. Everything goes "up-for-grabs," and no settled conviction is safe.

Post-moderns LOVE narrative. They like it lots more than anything explicitly didactic, because it can be turned to putty so much easier. But they can read almost any narrative text of the OT or the NT, and find a slant that suits them. And because the narrative isn't of a piece with the didactic (which is just one other guy's conditional take), the rest of the Bible doesn't govern that narrative interpretation. Today's preacher isn't bound to consider the Bible's own literary context. God, according to them, never spoke once for all time.

So, to come back to the true and proper use of narrative: it is not possible to read the narrative accurately apart from the context set for it by the material surrounding it, or even embedded in it (which the post-modernist might well define as a disruptive, late-insertion). We need the narratives; they are indispensable. They anchor our faith in the history of the world. They provide to us situations--ordinary, extraordinary, and mixed--in which to see the teaching of Scripture exhibited.

Tongues-speaking, miraculous healings, etc.--are these things to be expected in every place? Do variable experiences or the fixed letter function normatively for the church? What do the apostles teach on this matter (not merely what happened in some place and time)?

How is the church to be structured and governed? How did the apostles teach? In what way did the manner of church-government of the days prior to Christ set patterns for what followed? Do we find the NT record then affirming or contradicting *or illumining* our expectations?


----------



## au5t1n (Oct 7, 2011)

Rev. Buchanan, you do a great service to the board when you take the time to answer a thread so thoroughly, as you consistently do. Thank you for helping make this a more edifying place.


----------

