Acts 13 - Formative or Normative?
BibleWhen I was first learning to preach the Bible it was common to hear people raise the question of whether we should preach the book of Acts as normative or formative. That is, is it intended to be primarily description of how God founded the church 2000 years ago through the apostles, or is it more of a general handbook of how to do it now as well as then?
The usual conclusion that was reached was that it primarily formative rather than normative and that therefore we do not necessarily expect God to act in similar ways today to what we read in Acts. The justification for this view being that it is inherently flawed to take a narrative of a particular situation and particular time and place and apply it by saying "what God did for Paul, God will do for me" (correct). And further that Acts is carefully structured to make a particular case as a whole about the gospel going to all the world (also correct). And therefore not to give general patterns of how to expect God to work (I no longer think this has to be correct). I believed the case and frequently taught in the past that Acts is formative not normative.
I am not sure I believe it any more. It seems to me to take several statements that are correct on their own, but to push them to a conclusion that is not necessarily warranted. Firstly, why should "formative or normative" be the only categories? It increasingly sounds to me like an argument that presupposes a case it wishes to make - namely that we need not apply today parts that we think are particular and historical in nature, especially the miraculous bits. I have heard the case made that very few miracles happen in Acts given the timescale that it covers, so as to make them inconsequential to the preaching of Acts. Therefore to preach very much about miracles is to ascribe to them a disproportionate weight that scripture doesn't. I hope I don't have to explain the flaws in this argument.
But more importantly why should formative and normative be exclusive categories? If God worked in particular ways to establish churches and the worldwide missionary endeavour, would it be so very strange if he continues to do so? Is it not better to say that what was formative for missions and church-planting should generally be normative for missions and church-planting? If we don't see it in our situations today, it is our situation and experience that needs to be aligned to the New Testament pattern, not the other way round.
The main difficulty I have with the formative-not-normative argument is that it leaves me with the freedom to decide which bits I should apply as relevant today and which bits I can avoid. I think Luke wants us to apply all of it. This post has been prompted by a discussion with a friend who was preaching Acts 13:13-52 on Sunday, which describes a lengthy sermon that Paul gave in Pisidian Antioch. My friend took the view that most of the sermon is descriptive of what was said on a particular occasion and that therefore was very hard to see how to apply today. He preferred therefore to take one or two key verses and concepts and explain and apply those rather than the whole. The more I look at the passage (see the next post) the more I feel my friend's concern. I think it is very long, and difficult to see how to apply with contemporary relevance. But I don't think we have the freedom to not try.
It might not be easy to do, but it is crucial to start with the assumption that it is given for us to apply to ourselves and our situation today, not that it isn't. If we believe that it isn't then we will perpetually cherry pick according to our preferences and prejudices. Obviously we all (rightly) have interpretive grids and principles we bring to bear on reading and teaching the Bible, it wouldn't be possible otherwise. But if we are to say that certain parts are less relevant to apply today or that the application of some parts differs significantly from Bible times (and in certain instances I would make both those cases), then we had better have extremely good reasons in the Bible for doing so. In the case of Acts I am not sure I have heard any.
Reader Comments (2)
Maybe that last paragraph sums it all up and is key to it all. Is it the increasingly rare art of interpreting Scripture with Scripture that allows us to say (I hate the terminology too) that the food requirement of Acts 15 is formative not normative? Looking forward to the next post. Perhaps if we preached "the whole counsel" better we wouldn't need such terms?
I couldn't agree more, Adrian. It is frequently our pre-existing interpretive grids that dictate how we deal with a practise like the food requirement. In the absence of an approach of scripture interpreting scripture we always go to some other grid. The two most common would be that we interpret scripture through the grid of our systematic theology or that we interpret it through some appeal to cultural relevance. I think there is a place for both considerations, but it isn't the first place.
If we give first place to our systematic the obvious danger is that the particular systematic, and its best practitioners form our foremost idea of what the scripture must say. I know lots of people who assume that the Bible must or mustn't say X or Y because Luther (or Calvin, Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones, Carson) say so. They effectively set up their systematic as a mediator.
It is much easier to fall for the cultural relevance grid in the case of a practise like the teachings about food. It just seems so...well...cultural. Because our culture is different we assume, prima facae, that where our cultural practise differs from the scriptural situation that the way to deal with the difference is an appeal to cultural relevance that allows us to not apply. If we give first place to cultural relevance considerations then the meaning of anything in scripture is permanently up for grabs. I know people who assume the Bible must or mustn't say certain things because the culture says so (most notably over the matter of gender and authority in the church) Sooner or later everything changes through appeal to cultural relevance.
As I said in the post I don't think we can come without any interpretive grids. The trick is to constantly tell ourself that if our interpretive stance tells us something about a text that we cannot previously substantiate from the scripture we ought to question the grid. And we mustn't ask whether other texts justify our position after our systematic has persuaded us of the answer because then we read the validating texts through our systematic as well.
One of the most interesting instances of this I have found is that when I teach a fully-orbed understanding of grace, that Christians who have only been taught some variation of sanctification-by-moral-holiness assume I am teaching something wrong to the point of being reluctant to look at the relevant texts.
I recall Piper teaching that we mustn't live by a debtors ethic at the EMA. He took care to expound many relevant texts before he said this, concluding that if he said it outright then some people would dismiss out of hand without looking at the case from scripture. Whenever we see someone reluctant to open the Bible and argue the toss from the text itself then we are looking at a pre-existent grid.