How God disrupts us

A paradigm is a way of seeing the world. Paradigms help us understand reality which is complex. We need maps to find our way around the world.

Paradigms are helpful, but imperfect. Sometimes they distort reality rather than explain it. That’s when a paradigm shift is required.

In the battle over the inclusion of the Gentiles we have a case study of a paradigm shift in the disciples’ understanding of their mission. The issue was, should Gentiles have to become observant Jews to be included in God’s people? You can read aboubt it in Acts 10-11 and 15.

Who started it?

The key player in the process was Peter, Jesus’ leading apostle. His credentials are impressive: chosen and trained by Jesus, filled with the Holy Spirit, an apostolic witness to the truth of the gospel, commissioned to take the gospel to every people group.

If anyone could initiate this breakthrough in God’s mission to the world it would be Peter. Yet while Peter played an important role in helping others recognise what God was doing, he was not the initiator. Peter was reluctantly led by God to Cornelius’ house before he finally understood what God was doing.

Others like Stephen, Philip and the unnamed disciples who took the gospel to Antioch, prepared the way. The breakthroughs in the renewal and advance of movements occur on the fringes than at the centre of power. Peter and the apostles had to catch up and get behind what God was doing on the edges.

From the beginning to the end this paradigm shift was a work of God.

Peter was right to be away from Jerusalem, out strengthening and extending the churches, pushing further and further away from the centre into predominantly Gentile territory. God could speak to him there because he was already outside of his comfort zone attending to the core missionary task.

Word, Spirit and Mission

The disciples knew that Jesus had risen from the dead and sent the Holy Spirit to empower their witness. They expected God to intervene to block, redirect, renew and correct their pursuit of the mission. They looked for evidence of his activity. They adjusted as they went.

This was not done in a vacuum. They filtered their experiences through the lens of God’s Word. The Scriptures confirmed and shed light on their understanding of the Spirit’s work. For Spirit is the source of inspiration for the Scriptures. When the Spirit fell at Pentecost, Peter turned to the Scriptures to explain what was happening. When the breakthrough came at Cornelius’ house, Peter relied on the teaching of Jesus to rightly interpret what God was doing (Acts 10:42-43). From his experience of the Spirit was shedding new light on the teaching he had already received from Jesus. At the Jerusalem council the matter was settled on the basis of three overlapping authorities: (1) the clear leading of the Holy Spirit in the field with multiple confirmations; (2) the words of the Prophets recorded in Scripture; (3) evidence of progress in the core missionary task — proclaiming the gospel, making disciples and multiplying churches to the glory of God (Acts 15:7-18).

They expected the risen Lord to continue to lead the way through his Holy Spirit. They interpreted their experience through the eyes of Scripture to confirm what God was doing. Jesus could have left the disciples with a detailed constitution, organisation chart, and strategic plan. Instead he spent his last forty days on earth with them, teaching them to understand God’s purposes from Genesis to Malachi. Then he promised them the Spirit. He built a foundation for them to interpret the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit as they pursued the mission. They had to wrestle with the issues that arose knowing that God would be shaping them through the process.

This could never have taken place if the movement had had been centrally governed, funded and coordinated. The organising principle was to release authority and responsibility to those who were obedient to the Word, dependent on the Holy Spirit and engaged in the core missionary task of multiplying disciples and churches.

Obey first, consensus later

In the ongoing renewal of the movement, there is a dynamic at work. First God will disrupt his people in order to get them back on track or to the next destination. The breakthroughs don’t start with thought leaders, creatives, or even practitioners. God is the author of this story. He shakes Peter’s world and gets him to the house of Cornelius. He provides multiple convincing proofs through the Spirit and the Word of what he is doing.

Movement pioneers such as Peter need to obey first and worry about what Jerusalem will think later. Peter took a risk but he had decided on one thing, “who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?” (Acts 11:17). Like Jesus, Peter didn’t wait for a consensus before he acted. God provoked the conflict that would follow.

The matter was settled at the Council of Jerusalem, but it had taken over ten years to be resolved. (The visit to Cornelius’ house was around AD 37. The Council of Jerusalem was AD 48). Meanwhile, Peter didn’t wait for consensus before he acted. Paul and Barnabas didn’t wait either. When the Spirit spoke to them at Antioch they obeyed (Acts 13:1-4). By the time of the Council, they had already planted churches among the Gentiles who now welcomed the news of their formal acceptance.

Those given a voice at the Council, Peter, Paul and Barnabas, could tell story after story of how the Gentiles were turning to Christ and becoming disciples in churches that were reaching their cities and regions. They were listened to, not the critics or armchair experts. Once it was clear what God had done, James summed up and confirmed this work of the Word and the Spirit. The shift was complete, the change was locked in.

The vote of the Council had caught up to what God had already done. The Word continued on its way from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth.