Is Acts a Church Manual?

[Adapted from a paper I wrote]
Is Acts a Church manual? If we want to figure out Luke's purpose, we must start with Luke. Acts is the second part of Luke's writings to Theophilus, which is written to give him "certainty concerning the things you have been taught". Therefore, any explanation for Luke’s purpose of writing Acts must first start with how it gives Theophilus, and others, certainty.

But does "the things" include the Church? Kaiser addresses this when he says, “Luke-Acts was a work dedicated to assure Theophilus and all like him that no amount of persecution could be interpreted as a sign of God’s judgment or a sign that the promise-plan of God had failed” and later that “At the center of that promise-plan that Luke portrayed were two foci: Jesus and the Church he was building. What had been inaugurated in the life and ministry of Jesus was now continuing to be fulfilled through the church.” The Church is indeed part of God's plan to fulfill His promises and she is central to Luke’s narrative.

Specifically, it is clear from the structure of the Acts account that Luke is particularly interested in the Church’s transformation from a small, Jewish sect to what seemed to be a worldwide, multi-ethnic movement. Jesus says that His people will be witnesses “ in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” and we then see the Christian message as it is preached and manifested in local Church bodies: first with Jewish believers in Jerusalem, next as the Church spreads throughout Judea and Samaria, and finally, as local Churches are established throughout the known world. Fee and Stuart write, “Although Luke’s inspired broader intent may be a moot point for some, it is our hypothesis… that he was trying to show how the church emerged as a chiefly Gentile, world-wide phenomenon from its origins as a Jerusalem-based, Judaism-oriented sect of Jewish believers, and how the Holy Spirit was directly responsible for this phenomenon of universal salvation based on grace alone.” (98) It is clear that the universal nature of the Church is a primary interest of Luke’s. Therefore, any event in the book must be viewed through this lens.

However, Luke is not only interested in what the Church is but also how the Church came into being. Carson and Moo write, “Luke seeks to secure the full belief and commitment of such a person by describing the historical foundation for Christian faith and by showing, through this historical survey, that the church of his, and Theophilus’s day is the culmination of biblical history” (305) If Luke does want to defend the Church, he must also demonstrate to Theophilus and other readers that there is legitimacy in how the early Church was established. Giving more weight to this argument is that the sheer volume of information of Paul’s methods, both in the Acts accounts and in the Pauline Epistles, strongly suggests that the Biblical authors intend for us to learn from Paul’s model. Scholars such as Fee and Stuart have rightly identified Luke’s lack of interest in discussing the mode of baptism (not that it isn't important). However, other details of Church life, especially Paul’s plan for bringing the Gospel to the ends of the earth, are provided in great detail.

Not only is Paul’s plan given in great detail, it is revealed with a significant amount of uniformity. Fee and Stuart suggest that Luke is not interested in presenting a uniform Church with regards to structure or form. Giving the example of conversions, they write, “when he records individual conversions there are usually two elements included: water baptism and the gift of the Spirit. But these can be in reverse order, with or without the laying on of hands”. While this is true in the case of many controversial topics that use Acts as the primary exegetical fighting ground, other passages, particularly the missionary journeys of Paul, reveal a clear, consistent pattern. For example,  Paul’s first missionary journey reveals a pattern. Paul and Barnabus's three major stops are Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, and Lystra. In all three cities, they first preach Jesus in public places and saw people respond (Acts 13:14, 14:1, 14:9). Next, they encountered opposition and left (Acts 13:50, 14:5-6, 14:19). Then, on the way back, Paul’s team returned to the believers and strengthened them (Acts 14:22). Finally, they appointed elders in what were now established Churches (Acts 14:23). Having finished this, they could pray to God, entrusting the Churches to Him (Acts 14:23) and return to their home Church in Antioch where they were commended to the grace of God for “the work they had fulfilled” (Acts 14:26). As Jeff Reed points out, “This pattern – evangelizing strategic cities, establishing new churches, and appointing leaders over the new churches – was consistent throughout Paul’s entire ministry.” Therefore, we see Paul’s first missionary journey functioning not only as an apologetic for the Holy Spirit’s actions amongst the Gentiles, but also as an apologetic for Paul’s Spirit-empowered work, including this model of Church-establishing.

In conclusion, while the Book Acts does not operate primarily as a manual for Church-planting, it is written to the Church to defend the legitimacy of God’s work of bringing the Gospel to the ends of the earth. This includes an intentional, repeated model of ministry that is presented. Therefore, it is legitimate to look at the Book of Acts as providing instruction for Church practice.