Diagramming the Book of Acts

Recently I decided to read the book of Acts in a way I never had done before. I decided to read it through the lens of its geographical shape and direction.

Visually what would it look like if you diagrammed the geographical movement of the early church in the book of Acts? I tried to sketch it out in my notebook. 
Here's what I came up with:

No, its not drawn to scale, nor is it directionally accurate (but that wasn't the point).
It simply allowed me to see where and how the gospel spread.
The darker circles are the more strategic places/factors that aided in the spread of the gospel (Jerusalem, Rome, persecution, Gentiles, Antioch, Joppa, etc)

As I looked at the diagram and reflected on it, several thoughts came to mind:
It's messy.
It's unpredictable.
It's hard to chart.
It has a lot of arrows, lots of movement.
It's all over  the place.
It's a bit chaotic.

Then I wondered: do these things describe the Church of Jesus Christ today? The church in North America?
How many churches can be described with the same words/phrases with what is listed above?

Unfortunately, I think the Church in North America would be described with words that are completely opposite.
It's nice and tidy.
Everything is in order.
It's predictable.
There is not a lot of movement.

What would have to happen for the Spirit-led Church to be described this way?
And how do we work, pray, live in such a way so that the spirit could work in such a way to bring about a similar visual diagram of our faith communities?

Comments

[revtomtravels]

Hey JR, this is an awesome exercise! I would move Jerusalem way to the right, Antioch would be more prominent, just right of center, then add Galatia (I know its a region, but an important one, Paul went through it almost every time he moved out...) Ephesus and Corinth would get big dark circles... I guess this reflects my own Pauline centered take on Acts.

[Paul Berry]

Very interesting observations, J.R., especially the one on movement. I wonder if the tidiness and order are prescriptive of the lack of movement in the church. I'm no early church expert, but what would be the reason that order took over? Was it a desire to fight heresy? To grab power? I imagine that the initial reason was good, but that it became an idol. Any thoughts?

[J.R.]

Tom -

Good thoughts.

I would love to see a visual representation of a Paul-centric view of Acts.
Create one and send it to me via email! I'll post it on the blog.

[J.R.]

Paul -

Order can be good, but when it trumps the spirit of God, that is when it becomes an idol.

I strongly believe that structure is good.
And I believe even more strongly than structure must submit to Spirit.

I, too, am not an early church historian but I believe that many of the decisions for order that we make are out of fear. Fear of the unknown and uncertainty are difficult because it creates disequalibrium - which is very unAmerican if we can't control it. I think another factor is efficiency. Efficiency isn't bad, per se, but trying to be efficient (i.e. quick results) with relationships can be harmful.

If you look through the gospels enough one will notice that Jesus engages in a lot of "inefficient ministry" - and yet somewho...it made a long-term impact (imagine that?) ;)

[Big Al Briggs]

Brosef, good stuff. I like the chaos of the diagram- the way it spread like disease. It's so different than a church planning board would ever dream up. Keep it up bro!