The Wrong Sort of Followers

The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews.  Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.  Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.  But when the Jews of Thessalonica found out that the word of God had been proclaimed by Paul in Berea also, they came there as well, agitating and stirring up the crowds. (Acts 17:10-13 NASB)

Paul and Silas have survived the Antisemitism of Philippi and it's jail, in fact the jailer was added to the church.  And as they travel on (without Luke for some reason), they come the Thessalonica.  This city is still around today in Macedonia only it's called Thessaloniki.  It's position in the Aegean and prominence on trade routes still make it an important port city in the Mediterranean Sea.  But it's actually in the Macedonian Province of Greece, rather than the country of Macedonia.  Philip of Macedonia and his son, Alexander the Great, were Macedonian (hence Alex the G's dad's name if you hadn't caught that).

Arriving in Thessalonica, they go to the synagogue like normal, and like normal discuss Jesus as the Jewish Messiah for about three weeks without major incident.  Then, when the people accepting this Jewish Messiah are permitted to remain Gentiles, suddenly they're not all having fun.  Thugs from the marketplace are enlisted to help start a riot in the city, and they go to this guy, Jason's, house.  Not finding Paul and Silas, they drag him out into the riot, and back to the market for trial.  The charges are remarkably similar to Philippi, but the treatment is different, Jason and others with him just gave a "pledge" of some sort and are released.  Paul, Silas, and Timothy are sent to Berea, about 50 miles away.

This new city is prominent as well, not as big as Thessalonica, but still good size.  In this synagogue, the Jews are different.  Here they examine the Scriptures for themselves for what Paul is teaching.  Luke says they were more noble and gives two reasons, first, they examine carefully and extensively the Scriptures.  Second, they do so for days.  Many of the prominent people of the city believe, and the Jews don't seem to mind it so much.  But then trouble follows Paul and Silas from Thessalonica.

The Jews there, hearing that Paul and Silas are in Berea, go there and stir up trouble.  There's not a lot of detail, but it's bad enough to inspire the believers to send Paul away (but not Silas and Timothy).  It seems enough to quell the riot that Paul leaves.  So, essentially, it's focused on him.  He has the wrong sort of followers.  He has the good sort too, but this bad sort cause a lot of trouble for him.  It's grounds for some real "soul searching" on his part.

Is Paul wrong to be willing to stir up so much unrest?  Is he doing what he's doing the right way?  Does he have some sort of adversarial attitude that just sets people off or rubs them the wrong way?  People seemed to love Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, but Paul...well, he has his fan club and then he has those following him with clubs.  Why would a group of Jews be so upset with this guy that they travel to cause him trouble?  They're even Jews, like he is.  You'd think they'd get along.  But clearly they don't.  I think there are several reasons, but I'll give the two I think are the most powerful motivators.

Paul senses his call by Jesus, his drive from the Holy Spirit, is to bring the good news of Jesus, the Jewish Messiah, to Gentiles.  This is a huge problem for Jews in the culture of the first century.  Jews at this time are entrenched and embattled to maintain their culture as separate from the Gentiles they live among, while still living among them.  The customs are so different and rigorously separate that this is hard on both the Jews and the Gentiles with whom they interact.  Sometimes the Gentiles responded by joining the Jews in their veneration of God without becoming Jews themselves.  Others responded by ostracizing the Jews leading to various expressions of Antisemitism (like in Philippi).  It was a 'culture' war and the Jews had always been on the defensive with it.  So, understandably, they were real touchy when someone tries to take over their Messiah.  The Messiah is for the Jews!  What would happen to the culture war if this weren't true?  The Jews would be in danger of being assimilated into the cultures around them and lose their heritage, or so it would seem.  That was not an option for a lot of Jews focused on the culture war.

But there is a second reason which I feel affected Jews and Gentiles both.  In Philippi it was some Gentiles who caused the riot.  In all three places, Gentiles are involved in the disturbances.  In some way, there is something about Paul which inspires animosity in people without regard to cultural background.  We probably know people who have this affect on others.  They just rankle most people.  They "don't play well with others."  There are a variety of reason, anger issues, arrogance, rudeness, and so on.  The only reason I don't think these are the issues comes from Paul's writings.  If he had these issues, he would not have been able to write 1 Corinthians 13 with much credibility with the Corinthian church.  In fact, in that letter, he seems to be struggling with credibility from being too gentle in person (which seems odd).  I suspect there something else.  I don't know this for a fact about Paul, nor is there a tremendous amount of "extra biblical" support anywhere, and I have to admit I may be transferring something of myself into this interpretation.  But I suspect that he may have been very frustrating for A-type personalities in much the same way the fictional character, Detective Columbo was portrayed to be.  I don't think Paul stumbled about or seemed distracted, or sort of "out of it", but that he didn't appear to be any sort of "scholar" or worthy debater.  I think he neither looked the part of a "Scribe" nor behaved like one, but he could out-think them most days of the week.  I think the cognizant dissonance between what he looked like and what he was capable of was just too much for certain powerful personalities to handle.  I think of him as essentially a human theological ambush (my hero!).

Now, the last reason is a whole lot of speculation.  Maybe, possibly, but maybe not.  Even if it were a reason, it's possibly not a prominent one (especially not in Philippi where there wasn't much of debate).  I suppose what I gain from it is that people are often judged by outward appearance, but rarely are what they look like.  It's not that people always put up facades, but that we are so complex.  Sometimes the outward appearance isn't "wrong" just not the main plot of our life story.  I find delight in discovering the disconnect between what people look like and who they turn out to be.  People who turn out to be so much more than appearances are so refreshing to me.  People who turn out to be so much less, well, not so much.

So, what do people discover with me?  I think my Master wants me to be much more than I appear.  I suspect that, as treasures of heaven in jars of clay, I am to be plain on outside, but precious on the inside.  People should discover Jesus in me and not so much "me" in me.  I don't think people should discover a "know-it-all" or "closet-litigator", but rather the qualities of my Master within me.  Sometimes those qualities do seem to know all, and sometimes they argue remarkably well.  But those can't be the quality they discover, or it's just more of "me" in me.  Perhaps I can be a walking human theological ambush, but I hope that what jumps out at them in the ambush is the Spirit of the Living God.  After all, the in the King James, He is referred to as the "Holy Ghost"!  Mmmuuuuhhhaahhhaahhhaa!

The Problem With Free Advertising

  It happened that as we were going to the place of prayer, a slave-girl having a spirit of divination met us, who was bringing her masters much profit by fortune-telling.  Following after Paul and us, she kept crying out, saying, "These men are bond-servants of the Most High God, who are proclaiming to you the way of salvation."  She continued doing this for many days. But Paul was greatly annoyed, and turned and said to the spirit, "I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her!" And it came out at that very moment.
  But when her masters saw that their hope of profit was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the market place before the authorities, and when they had brought them to the chief magistrates, they said, "These men are throwing our city into confusion, being Jews, and are proclaiming customs which it is not lawful for us to accept or to observe, being Romans."  The crowd rose up together against them, and the chief magistrates tore their robes off them and proceeded to order them to be beaten with rods.  When they had struck them with many blows, they threw them into prison, commanding the jailer to guard them securely; and he, having received such a command, threw them into the inner prison and fastened their feet in the stocks. (Acts 16:16-24 NASB)

So there's Paul and Silas moving about the Roman colony of Philippi sharing the good news that Jesus died for all reconciling all to God, and having a rough go of it.  There's a lot of competing religious views, and due to the glut of differences, there's also a lot of jaded "religious consumers".  One competitor seems to be very helpful.  This slave-girl with a "python spirit".  What this means is that she is considered to be an "oracle", able to tell fortunes and futures by means of a possessing spirit.  Such people were thought by historians to be ecstatic in their pronouncements, which means customers got a show along with their fortune.

This particular oracle is following Paul and Silas about the city claiming that they were servants of God Most High (El Elyon in Hebrew) proclaiming the way of salvation.  The claim was true, that's who they were and what they were doing.  Perhaps Paul and Silas were gaining some traction from her "free advertising", but it seems that a few days of this and Paul has had it with the spirit.  He casts it out in the name of Jesus Christ, and she is freed from the possession of the oracle.  We never find out what she thinks of this.  We do find out what her employers/owners think of it.  Paul and Silas wind up in jail.

While Luke isn't clear on why Paul was annoyed, I did find a possibility.  Remember it takes a few days for his annoyance to reach an action point.  Well, the definite article on "way" is actually supplied in most English translations.  In Greek, this isn't that big a deal, but leaves some ambiguity about how to be saved.  So, when there's a lot of competition in a place, and they are said to be one of possible others, the advertising may have been more detrimental than helpful.  The ambiguity may be why it took Paul a few days.  If the results started reflecting an interpretation of them as part of the "religious cafeteria" then it has to go.

The other result was they they were thrown into prison without trial.  That may not surprise us with low expectations of fair treatment in those days, but it wasn't the norm.  The words of the girl's owners gives a clue as to what caused such harsh treatment.  But the clue needs to be combined with the other element that there was no synagogue in Philippi.  The customs of the Jews were not "illegal" in Roman society, it was the conversion or proselytizing that was a problem.  Even that wasn't illegal, but Jews held themselves apart from many of the Roman customs and legal requirements.  They had a special "legal right" to practice their faith when others did not.  This surely grated on people.  Some embraced their position, others were offended or jealous.  In this city, it seems they were not welcome.

A Roman colony has a special legal status as well.  They were exempt from certain taxes (a poll tax) and the surrounding fields were exempt from property taxes.  Colonies were bastions of Roman culture among barbarian peoples; or so they thought.  The last thing this colony wanted was Jewish elements "coloring" their Roman life.  So, they reacted strongly to the accusation that Paul and Silas were Jews teaching illegal practices.  Paul and Silas may have been surprised by the treatment since being both Jewish and Roman citizens, they usually were able to move about without incident.  And all this happened because Paul frees a girl possessed by both a fortune-telling spirit and money-hungry slave-owners.

What is interesting is that Paul and Silas don't protest.  Even in the jail, they're singing praises to God (and have pretty good voices because the other inmates are listening to them at midnight).  There's no protest, no call for a lawyer, no claim of Roman citizenship before the magistrates or jailer, nothing.  They allow themselves to be beaten and jailed.  It's possible that they did protest, but couldn't be heard over the crowd, it's further possible that they weren't conscious when jailed and couldn't protest then.  But even so, they woke up and praised God from the stocks rather than complained that they were ill-treated Romans.  Even to God they didn't complain that they received this treatment after doing good to the slave girl.

I learn a few lessons here.  First I learn that not everything that is cheap or free is from my Master.  Second I learn that doing good does not guarantee good treatment from others, even the ones to whom I do the good.  And third, I learn that in all things, good and bad, it is always appropriate to praise my Master.  He remains God and on His throne regardless of my circumstances.  Perhaps it is once again an acceptance that heaven makes all suffering here well compensated.  I suppose that could be it, but there is more.  Having been jailed, these two reach the jailer, a significant person in Philippi.  It wasn't easy to endure the beating, but they finally achieved traction in Philippi.  And if the letter Paul writes later is any indication, the church does pretty well after he leaves. 

So was it worth it?  Was the free advertising worth it?  Was the beating and prison time worth it?  The embarrassment of punishment without a trial, was that worth it?  How about my own difficulties?  Well, mine don't really compare to all this, but any I do face from doing the right thing, are they worth it?  If the Kingdom of my King grows and my King is honored, then, yes, it's worth it.  If what I suffer is from serving my King as my King directs, then, yes, it's worth it.  If I am obedient to my King, I must also accept the consequences of such service, whether they're comfortable consequences or not.  Fun.  Well, at least it keeps life interesting.

Denied Passage in a Guided Mission

They passed through the Phrygian and Galatian region, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia; and after they came to Mysia, they were trying to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus did not permit them; and passing by Mysia, they came down to Troas. (Acts 16:6-8 NASB)

One of the aspects of Luke's writing is his knack of leaving things out that don't really pertain to his point, and compressing time down to those things that do.  Like any author, he knew that not everything fits in a story where you have a specific ending point you're trying to reach.  It's a bit like film editing.  But what that does is bring the things he did include into sharper relief.  In Acts I learn that Paul isn't perfect; something that really concerned me reading his letters.  I find another example here in this passage.

His split with Barnabas over John Mark was one "plank-eyed" point in Paul's recorded history, but here's another, or at least one where I feel he joins the rest of Christian humanity.  He tries to go into an area to minister, but is prevented by the One he serves.  I love that because I do that.  I get in my head some idea of what would be a great way to minister.  I have some idea of what would really help God out (because He so desperately needs my help), or see an area where He hasn't reached yet, and think, "I'll go there!"

It has to be asked, why would there be an area where God would not want Paul to preach?  Seriously, at that point in time, there were virtually no reached peoples in the world.  A rock thrown in any direction would scarcely hit a believer anywhere in Antolia (Asia Minor or Turkey).  Yet God did not want Paul going where he so desperately wanted to go.  Instead he winds up at Troas, a huge port city and Roman colony.

Now, about my first statement that Luke leaves stuff out.  You're probably wondering about that.  Well, Galatia is a region where Paul writes a letter, so obviously he's been there and knows the churches.  But until this point Luke's never mentioned that, and even here never mentions Paul and believers in the region.  Clearly something was left out.  In fact, it hardly seems possible that Paul would be in a city the size and importance of Troas without ministering.  Yet that's not mentioned either.  In Luke's "tour of Paul", he's hitting high points.

In my imagination, I see Paul reaching the bustling port city of Troas and ending up as far west as he can go, sitting on one of the quay's staring at the sunset over the Aegean.  He's sad because he couldn't go where he was so sure he was supposed to be, and yet now he's here.  Why here?  As he sleeps that night, the view of the sunset visits his dream, only now, a man on the opposite shore is visible calling him to come over there! Ah ha! That's it!  He's been guided all this time.  That's my imagination.  It's much more likely Paul just went wherever and did whatever was needed believing all along that he was being guided.  But I like the picture in my head.

My point is that I don't always need a clear picture in order to move and minister, but I do need to be willing to be guided somewhere I'm not intending to go.   In a sense it's submission to the greater view point of my Master and His grander design.  It turns out that James later writes to churches in the regions where Paul was prevented from going.  It seems others reached there after all.  God hadn't forgot them.  It just wasn't up to Paul to be the arm with which He reached them.  I need to submit the picture my Master has, even if He hasn't shown it.  But as I wait, it's still good to try to discover this will, look around and try things He may be wanting done.  In a sense, it's good to move, and let the hand of my Master guide me like a trickle of water, wherever He wants me to go.  It sure beats being a stagnant mosquito-breeding pool of slime (like that's the only other option).  Keep the flow going!

When Is "Law" Appropriate?

Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.  Now while they were passing through the cities, they were delivering the decrees which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem, for them to observe.  So the churches were being strengthened in the faith, and were increasing in number daily. (Acts 16:3-5 NASB)

So, Paul gets all fired up and goes to Jerusalem to get a "ruling" on Gentiles and salvation from the apostles and elders.  What he comes away with is a letter that stipulates four things for Gentiles to abstain from so that the fellowship with Jewish believers won't be interrupted or strained.  Circumcision didn't make the list.  In fact that was the crux of the issue with a certain group.  The claimed that Gentiles needed to become circumcised in order to be saved.

Paul has this letter in hand to share with the churches he and Barnabas started on their first journey, and he does.  Yet, in the first "whistle stop", he finds this man, Timothy, who has a Jewish mother and a Greek father.  He wants to take Timothy with him on his current journey, but before he does, he circumcises him.  The reasoning is that "they all knew that his father was a Greek."  But Paul has a letter in hand that says, "so what" to circumcision.

My guess (and it can ever only be that) is that Timothy had been hanging out with the Jewish crowd in Derbe and Lystra.  In that case, he might be well thought of and accepted, but only as a God-fearing Gentile rather than as a Jew.  In a sense, he had an option.  He could choose to be either one, a Jew or a Gentile.  Paul's letter pertains to Gentiles, but Jews were expected to remain Jews.  So Paul, holding a letter stating four non-circumcision things, a letter representing a victory for him among Jews, circumcises Timothy so he would be accepted as his companion by the other church members.

I suppose that Timothy's being a Jew would make it easier for him to be accepted in the Synagogues as they travel.  Yet, I think Luke is assumed to be a Gentile, and he travels with them from Troas.  I don't think Paul's decision or Timothy's acquiescence had to do with them being "traveling companions" but rather with how Timothy was perceived by the church.  If this is the case, I have a hard lesson to learn here.

I think that there are times when acquiescing to perceptions in the church, even when I disagree, is the best path.  Obviously there are several qualifiers here, one of the top ones being differences over clear statements in Scripture.  But where the Scripture is silent, where my Master has decided to not give a clear indication of His "line in the sand" on an issue, I have room to step back from a "fight".  I don't like that.  But, this is one of those things that is not about what I like.

There are a lot of "issues" and theological positions that are not "hard and fast".  Salvation by faith in Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection is not one of those, that is "hard and fast".  But there are others, like how often should a church take communion, pass a plate or use offering boxes in the back, modern Christian music or hymns, pulpit or music stand, coat-and-tie or casual wear (for pastors and/or attendees), King James or modern translation, email or vellum for modern "epistles".  All of those (except the last one) are current issues in churches.  I have discussed things like the place of the Hebrew Scriptures among modern Christian believers.  I have argued for things like women in ministry as opposed to relegated obscurity, acceptance of divorced persons in positions of responsibility and leadership, and my specific view of end times.  I didn't win all or even most of them.  In fact, I suspect these sorts of "discussions" are rarely "won".

The thing I have to swallow is that these points are not points of "salvation" or "lost".  In the days of Paul and Peter, there was no "New Testament", so they "limped along" with 39 books of Scripture.  I suppose that it's possible to "limp along" today with 27 (I don't know why you would, but I suppose you could).  The King James is a fine translation, and people have been saved using that translation longer than anyone today has been alive.  I don't prefer it, but I don't think it's a poor translation, just hard to read due to language changes since it was translated.  I prefer modern Christian music, casual dress, offering boxes, no pulpit of any sort, and chairs over pews.  I believe preachers should preach to what they have studied and not wander into where they have not.  But really, so what?  I have to accept the answer to the question, "who am I" doesn't really give much weight to my "positions" or "beliefs".

The reality is that we, as a body of believers, must be unified more than any one of us must be right.  That's hard, but true.  I want to be right, dang it!  Ironically, a lot of the time, I'm not.  I may want to be really really bad, but that does not change the accuracy of the facts I use.  I simply do not know enough to be right all the time.  I am still learning, and often, learning to accept when I'm wrong.  The reality is that I need help to understand what my Master has inspired to be written.  That is one of the most important reasons I'm in a small group.  I need the perspective of others so my own will be better informed.  The truth I must live out is that my Master designed His Scriptures in such a way that any one person only gets a part; that it's only together we can better understand Scripture, and Him.  That, by the way, is the basis of "Knot-Hole Theology".  It's basically a theology of the church, or "Ecclesiology".  And obviously, I'm still trying to learn to live it out.

When Hope Is Found

And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance;  and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us. (Romans 5:3-5 NASB)

Hopelessness is the condition of a person when they have run out of favorable alternatives.  It is supposed to be a condition unique to those who do not know Jesus.  For inexplicable reasons, it seems to afflict followers of Jesus as well.

Sometimes I imagine the Holy Spirit within me shouting at the top of His whisper, "It will be okay, just be patient and wait on Me!"  And I'm not listening.  I'm hearing the noise from my bank and bills, from the news and alarmists, and from my own wants and fears.  The shouting drowns out the whisper of the Comforter, my Master's Spirit.

Ironically, the noise I hear isn't necessarily a lie, or wrong in whatever assessment, it's wrong in its interpretation.  It's not the facts that are wrong, it's the conclusions drawn.  The conclusions drawn are typically doom.  And for things of this world and life, that could be right.  And fighting such darkness is really hard when it's all I see and hear.  And that's how I arrive at hopelessness.

But when I hear the whisper of the Spirit of my Master, things within me change.  The darkness becomes gloom, and I can faintly make out the workers of evil from spiritual realms.  I see that I, and so many others are deceived into hopelessness.  It is hard to fight against darkness, until I hear and embrace the words of my Master.  Then it's not me against the world, it's me and my Master.  At that point, I win, no contest.

But so often, in the process of losing the voice of my Master's Spirit, I also lose sight of the end of the journey.  This place I live in truly is destined for fire.  A new one is coming, and I am destined for that one.  So when I face the things here as if they are sooo important, so vital to my life, and so overwhelming, I am looking at the wrong world.

I'm not here to make here better.  That ends up being a byproduct of me doing what I am here for.  I'm here to help others find the new world coming.  That only happens when my Master calls them, and they respond to Him.  So, I try to distract them from this world long enough for them to hear my Master's call.  This is impossible if I'm distracted by them and what they're doing.

The problem for me is that this sense of my life is hard to sustain.  I like comfort here.  But look at how Paul puts it: "...tribulations bring about perseverance, perseverance proven character, and proven character hope..."  The path to hope starts with tribulations and perseverance, i.e. "character-building".  That's not the "fun" way. I don't like that way.  But I'm not useful to my Master in rescuing souls without it.

So, this is not all there is, and I am to live the truth of that.  I know better, and I know where I'm headed.  I know the light shining from transparent streets of gold comes from the face of my Master.  That's the "church" I'm headed for.  One day, my Master will drink again of the fruit of the vine anew with me in His Kingdom.  That's where I'm headed.  Does that shake anyone else enough to hear the whisper of my Master's Spirit?  Follow it!

What Do I Give The One Who Has Nothing?

But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their robes and rushed out into the crowd, crying out and saying, "Men, why are you doing these things? We are also men of the same nature as you, and preach the gospel to you that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, WHO MADE THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH AND THE SEA AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM.  In the generations gone by He permitted all the nations to go their own ways; and yet He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good and gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness."  Even saying these things, with difficulty they restrained the crowds from offering sacrifice to them. (Acts 14:14-18 NASB)

What do I tell someone who has absolutely no knowledge of any religion but some hogwash they've been fed since infancy?  How do I somehow convey the wonders of the One True God, Master of all the universe, and His love for them?  Left to ourselves, such sacrifice as my Master made on our behalf seems completely unbelievable.  Who, having such power, would do such a thing for powerless people such as us?  Logically, it works in no culture's paradigm.

I could go back to the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil, and start there with what is wrong with the world, and how my Master fixes it through Jesus.  I could relate how futile it feels to work to serve without any sort of recompense, no knowledge of a master.  It's easy to relate that since that's how we, as humans, manage others.  Everyone would get that part; it's the solution of my Master that strikes sideways, a round idea ill-fitting our square brains.

Paul and Barnabas took this task on, head on.  When in Lystra, after healing the crippled man, they tried to restrain the crowds from offering sacrifice to them.  The argument they used was essentially three parts: who we are, what we do, and Who we serve.  They said they were people like them, that they came to proclaim good news, and that this news came from the One True God.  As they describe this new Deity to those with so many for so many centuries, they make some claims:  1) Living God, 2) Creator of heaven and earth and sea, 3) previously permitted error, 4) has tried using seasons and good things to woo people back.

Such a portrait of deity is vastly different from what the people worshiped.  That region was the path between continents, and was fought over for centuries, by Babylonians, Assyrians, and Persians.  Yet even before these empires, the Hittites ruled there, almost as ancient as the Egyptians, the first to unify these dispersed mountainous rebellious regions.  These have always been a harsh people in a harsh region, and they stubbornly held to their religious culture.  No empire could do more than change deity names, because their idols, symbols and practices stayed much the same regardless of who sat on which throne.

The approach of Paul and Barnabas was interesting.  They couldn't just "change names" as other had done since there is no pantheon.  They had to somehow use one deity as a bridge to the One True God.  This is not easy since it was very common in pantheon lists to have the primary deity worshiped be one of the secondary deities in the myth rather than the one responsible for all the others (father deity).  This forms a dangerous place for preaching Jesus, the Son of God, and yet maintaining One True God.  This very neatly fits the erroneous theological structure of "father-creator" and worshiping a "son" who interacts more with humans (but typically does not "play nice" with them). 

Instead, Paul and Barnabas choose (I think by divine inspiration) to form the bridge by claiming that the theological framework of the people was their attempt to understand the One True God, "In generations gone by He permitted all the nations to go their own ways..."  So, the idea was not to form a bridge, but rather a launch pad.  There could be no connection between their pantheon and true theology, there wasn't room for both.  They would need to leave their old framework behind.  And this is a rough crowd with whom to attempt this tactic.  It seems to have had some success.  At least the sacrifice stopped.

What can I use to achieve such a connection with those around me with such dispersed "theological frameworks"?  Most are more apt to believing in "Bob the beer-guzzling god" than Jesus.  I have spoken with very intelligent "agnostics" who prefer a "cafeteria style" of theology rather than acceptance of some cohesive existing belief system.  The illusion of control and power to form their own view of deity isn't that different from what Paul and Barnabas faced.  "Change what you want, conquer us if you can, but we will still believe what we want."

While the One True God has permitted this in the past, He does so no longer.  Jesus is His answer to the problem we refuse to face, sin.  All things He defines from the foundation of a relationship with Himself.  Life, death, sin, and redemption are all formed from the perspective of whether He knows us or not.  What began as the knowledge of good and evil was the deviation from the knowledge of our Master.  The very origins of humanity stem from this foundation, "does our Master know us?"  This not a question of facts, because He knows all facts about us, even the ones we don't know.  This is a question of friendship, of camaraderie, of relating with our Master.  Does He know us?  Will that be the claim on the day all humanity stands before His throne of judgement?  It will be my claim, based on the work of Jesus to make it so.  It will be by Jesus alone, or I will stand apart, rejected by my Master.  I have nothing to offer One forming stars.

Well, that's it.  Have a great day!

To Be Healed

At Lystra a man was sitting who had no strength in his feet, lame from his mother's womb, who had never walked.  This man was listening to Paul as he spoke, who, when he had fixed his gaze on him and had seen that he had faith to be made well, said with a loud voice, "Stand upright on your feet." And he leaped up and began to walk. (Acts 14:8-10 NASB)

Right before Jesus was crucified, He told His disciples that one benefit for them that He ascend back to heaven was that they would do even great things than Jesus had done (John 14:12).  The allusion was to the arrival of the Holy Spirit in power, but this statement has still "haunted" some believers.  There is an entire belief system within modern Christianity which holds that the Holy Spirit no longer does miracles.  That's an over simplification, but the "cessationist" belief is that He no longer works this way, and only did so while the church was getting started.

The problem is in interpreting what Jesus meant by "greater works".  The easiest and most common is to interpret it to refer to the miraculous signs Jesus did throughout His ministry.  Jesus, in His arguments with the Jews would call on them to believe the miracles and refer to those to overcome their disbelief.  Since the statement is in John, and this call to the Jews is in John, and John records the reception of the Holy Spirit differently (i.e. sooner than Acts 2), I conclude that when John records this statement of Jesus he too considers it to refer to the miracles.  After Jesus leaves, the miracles seem to become less prevalent.  Peter does many and then they seem to fade.  Paul does a few, but only a few.  Or does he?

Luke is the recorder of the explosion of the church in the First Century, and while he includes specific miracles less and less as Acts progresses, he does make references to "signs and wonders" performed.  This statement is what makes up for what is lacking in his specific references to miracles.  In other words, lots of miraculous signs occur, but he only mentions a few specifically, where they are important to piece of his plot or scene (or city, like here in 14:8-10).

It's my theory that cessationists beliefs are more a reaction against ecstatic practices of "spiritual gifts".  I have problems with most of these practices as well because of the unbiblical views they espouse.  There is no biblical support to put in place a "spiritual hierarchy" based on "gifting".  Such a view is actually preached against by Paul in the very books often used for support.

But it is also wrong for cessationists to ignore other passages which not only permit, but promote the use of spiritual gifts, even "ecstatic" ones.  I have a pastor friend who calls them "special effects" gifts.  The problem is that there are inherent problems associated with these expressions of the Holy Spirit.  Not the least is that they must be seen and understood in submission to the Holy Spirit rather than the other way around.  But another issue is the problems such expressions can cause when they become the focus instead of the One dispensing them.  These two issues are very closely related.

In Lystra, the focus quickly shifted from the message of Paul and Barnabas to the two men themselves.  It would seem that such a miracle was virtually unheard of in that region.  What I infer from that is that even "magic" of a dramatic sort was also unusual.  On Cyprus, the proconsul was impressed, but not to the point of worshiping Paul and Barnabas.  The miracle produced through Paul was to blind a magician.  So, he may have been somewhat acclimated to "dramatic special effects".  Here in Lystra, not so much.  They think gods have come down as men.  But even so, miracles of healing and raising the dead can't be common.  They have to be shocking reversals of universal assumptions about the world and how it works.  That is one reason Jesus came in the first place, was to push back on such assumptions.

The problem I see is that healing and other expressions of the Holy Spirit are hampered by the lack of what Paul saw in the lame man.  Paul saw that he had faith to be made well.  Where is ours?  Do I have such faith?  Or have I given up hope that my Master still works this way in this world of His?  I have a friend who has just gone through a very radical cancer surgery as the final step in combating a very aggressive form of cancer.  So far the results are the best that could be hoped for.  He is in ICU and recovering.  The doctors believe they got all of the cancer and were able to effectively rebuild the affected organs.  There may be complications to come, but that part which was trying to kill him is gone.  Is this healing from God?  Why not?  But am I able to have faith that God could have done it without the doctors?  That's where the rub comes.

I don't believe that I have a choice, but to accept my Master as Master over all physical life.  If He can and did "breathe" life into existence, then what sense does it make to not believe He still has mastery over it?  If the Spirit of the Living God decides, for the edification of His people, to heal someone, through someone else (for instance, doctors) or on their own, who can speak against it?  Is there something God is not "permitted" to do in this world?  It's not "my world" or "our world", it's His.  He made it.  So why would I limit my Master in His work, either through me, or, more likely, around me?  Paul stared straight at this guy, saw he had faith to be healed, and in a loud voice (as opposed to his "orator voice") commanded him to stand.  It wasn't Paul healing him, it was Paul telling him to act on being healed.  God healed the man.  Isn't this always the case? 

So whether healing, tongues, prophecy, or other gift of the Holy Spirit, I must seek to perceive the hand of my Master and not be distracted by either the act or the agent.  Perceiving the Spirit of my Master I should worship!  But if I don't perceive the Holy Spirit, and all that remains is the act and/or actor, then I should address the circumstances boldly.  The Scriptures will help me understand the difference.

How Do I Know When to Move On?

But the Jews who disbelieved stirred up the minds of the Gentiles and embittered them against the brethren.   Therefore they spent a long time there speaking boldly with reliance upon the Lord, who was testifying to the word of His grace, granting that signs and wonders be done by their hands.  But the people of the city were divided; and some sided with the Jews, and some with the apostles.  And when an attempt was made by both the Gentiles and the Jews with their rulers, to mistreat and to stone them, they became aware of it and fled to the cities of Lycaonia, Lystra and Derbe, and the surrounding region; and there they continued to preach the gospel. (Acts 14:2-7 NASB)

Paul and Barnabas keep moving from city to city, sharing the good news of Jesus as they go.  Yet they stay in a city as long as it takes for faith to take root.  In verse 3, they clearly stay in the face of opposition.  Yet in verse 6, as they become aware of a turn the opposition takes, they move on.  Moving on, they continued to preach the good news of Jesus.  So, in a sense, they never quit, just changed venues a few times.

So how did they know when the change of venue was warranted?  It's clear later on that Paul does not always move in the face of personal danger.  In the next city he is stoned, and still doesn't move on immediately.  So, how does he know?  What is his criteria?

By piecing together clues from this and the previous chapter, I believe that the criteria isn't always the same.  In this region they are in, the criteria is at least similar; or rather the context is similar.  So, any conclusion drawn is an interpretation rather than some sort of clear indication.  I think that Paul and Barnabas are using a criteria that waits until the opposition is so focused on them, rather than the people in general.  Once the opposition becomes all about them, they leave.

So, once it escalates to stoning in Iconium Paul and Barnabas, they move on.  Once Paul is stoned in Lystra, they move on shortly thereafter.  On the other hand, Luke doesn't tell us why they feel they are done in Derbe.  Maybe opposition wasn't all that bad in Derbe, or maybe Luke simply doesn't provide details which might be too repetitive.  In the previous chapter, Paul and Barnabas move through Cyprus without a lot of opposition, only noting Elymas or Bar-Jesus as an exception.  So, any criteria which included opposition was used in Asia Minor, not everywhere.

What becomes clear is that Paul and Barnabas know when to move on.  Whether they had done all they could and knew to leave the rest up to the locals, or they thought their presence had become more of a problem for the new congregations and they needed to give them some space, or any number of other options.  They knew.  So, the real conclusion I can draw here, solid observation from the text, is that my Master would let me know.  I believe He did in Idaho.  I believe He did in Texas before I brought my family out here to Nevada.  On the other hand, perhaps moving to California from Arizona when we did was not a move led by my Master.  Clearly, moving from California to Texas was the right move, that was confirmed right as we left.  It wasn't easy once we got there, but it was where we needed to be.

I ask this question because, as can be seen from the list of "where's", my family has moved a lot.  I didn't even mention them all.  I look at where I am now, and I know that I'm where I'm supposed to be.  But it is as I look back I wonder if I have always been where I was supposed to be.  I believe I can say with confidence that everywhere I've been, whether led to or fled to, my Master used me in that place.  Now He has led my family and me here.  I hope and believe that here is where He will keep me for some time.  On the other hand, I'm still available to Him for other options.  I believe He saw to that by putting us in a house where it is impossible to fully unpack.  So, here we are.  And here we will work, until my Master calls us elsewhere.

The Hard Road Back

But while the disciples stood around him, he got up and entered the city. The next day he went away with Barnabas to Derbe.  After they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, "Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God."  When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed. (Acts 14:20-23 NASB)

Difficulty after difficulty, after difficulty, and yet Paul and Barnabas still go back through the way they came.  This is interesting for a rather obscure reason.  On a map, these two wound up in Derbe, which is really on the road to Antioch where they started.  It would have been shorter to go to Tarsus (where Paul was actually from), and then a short trip back to Antioch.  But they didn't.  They took the much longer route back the way they came; back through all the trouble they had experienced.

Why do that?  Why not move on?  The answer obviously lies in what they did as they passed back through.  They did the following: 1) Strengthened their souls, 2) Encouraged endurance in their faith, 3) Appointed elders, 4) Commended them to the Lord.  This was so important that it was necessary to risk their lives, and civil unrest to do so?  Yes, it seems it is.  So, in our culture and the churches within it, does this seem like a huge motivating factor?  Do people seem ready and committed to strengthen souls, encourage endurance in faith, to support leadership, and commend their fellows to the Lord with prayer and fasting?  Or are we more interested in our own petty squabbles?

Even if some were willing and interested in those four things, would they risk their lives for it?  To my shame, I would have to say probably not.  I include myself in this because I don't know if it has been my track record either.  In my church, I should be so focused on these four things I should be willing to risk my life to do them.  I should be willing to put myself in danger to encourage the faith of people, to strengthen the souls who attend, to support leadership, and in prayer and fasting, commend my brothers and sisters to my Master.  This should be something I do, not because I'm a pastor (because I'm not), but because I follow my Master and want the things He considers to be important to be important to me. 

Consider how different church would be if these four things characterized those who attend.  Let's forget membership for a moment.  Let's consider instead a level of commitment characterized by activity.  Forget the rolls and lets examine the "roles".  What if those walking through the doors had these four things at heart?  There are a lot of problems in churches today, finances, internal personality conflicts, relational stress, and response to cultural pressure to conform to America instead of Scripture.  So, what would these problems look like if these four priorities were common among those showing up for worship and all the other stuff that goes on throughout the week?

Well, finances wouldn't be a problem.  Giving is a heart and faith issue, not an economic issue.  If these four things were the priority, there would have to be faith necessary to give.  Besides, leadership can't truly be supported by those unwilling to give.  The heart that withholds is adversarial towards leadership, often perceived as "grasping" and dangerous (ironically, by grasping dangerous people).

Internal personality conflicts and relational stress would be almost non existent or short-lived.  How can people characterized by prayer and fasting for each other be at eachother's throats?  Think about what sort of conflicts would arise if those involved were motivated first by strengthening the souls and encouraging the faith of those with whom they were in conflict?  They'd be over things like being of service to them, breaking down barriers of pride to permit fellowship and service, standing strong in facing a crisis in faith.  I would welcome those conflicts!  Bring them on!  These would be conflicts where we would be fighting to face the enemy united as the body of our Master.

What about cultural pressure?  A church characterized by these four motivating factors would stand and face those pressures in strength of numbers in faith.  No problem.  Scripture would be held high and studied vigorously for the truths revealed by the Spirit.  The Spirit of the Living God would rule against the feeble abilities of human reason and philosophies.  It would be a simple thing with these four things in place to perceive the difference between the perspectives of our Master and the conflicting views of our culture.  We would be driven to divide the two very widely in our lives and in our church.

I suppose, in all of this, I have some work to do.  First in my own life.  Prayer and fasting is not something to take lightly, and it is not something done to address a light problem.  As it turns out, these attitudes are actually part of a conflict I see brewing in my own church tomorrow.  My church is on the brink of making an enormous mistake from which we may not be able to recover.  The Master of the universe seeks obedient people to use to do His work, and I don't think He's finding enough of them in our congregation.  The leadership of our church needs to address this issue in a united fashion.  Man I hate missing meals.  Oh well.  Perhaps going into this conflict hungry will help tone down my emotions.  They're running pretty high right now.

The Fickle Foolishness of Popularity

Even saying these things, with difficulty they restrained the crowds from offering sacrifice to them.  But Jews came from Antioch and Iconium, and having won over the crowds, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing him to be dead. (Acts 14:18-19 NASB)

If Paul measured success in the same ways we do today, he would have been very depressed most of the time in his mission work.  He did experience lots of people responding to his preaching, but not always like he wanted.  Some believed, and that was great!  Some didn't and persecuted him and the other believers.  Some believed something completely wrong, and responded in very wrong ways.  That last option is the one the people in Lystra chose.

Paul sees a man lame from birth who is believing the message and has faith, so he speaks to him calling him to get up and walk.  When he does, the people of Lystra think Paul and Barnabas are Hermes and Zeus.  So, of course, they want to offer sacrifices to them, and the priest of Zeus comes out with a garland and bull for the party.  Paul and Barnabas tear their clothes, run out, and attempt to prevent what is going on by explaining that they are men with a message from the True God.

The people of Lystra at least realize that what happened was divine, but they are not able to see beyond the divinity their normal paradigm.  They love that they see this miraculous sign, but they are not ready to read it.  They still want their own brand of religion; the brand where capricious gods are more like them than the God revealed through the Hebrew Scripture.  They were struggling to look any higher than the world around them. When Paul and Barnabas were finally able to keep them from their act, instead of making the shift to the One True God, they were ripe to turn against the apostles, keeping their paradigm of limited vision.

There is a frightening paradigm shift required for belief in and acceptance of the One True God.  It requires a belief in something much like a "fairy tale".  There is a "Good Guy", a palace or powerful magical kingdom, there is an enemy, there is death, and there is life.  Santa Claus has the North Pole, but El Shaddai has Heaven.  El Elyon rules heaven and earth.  He is the Maker and Sustainer of all matter in the universe.  But, in some ways, like Santa Claus and so many other "mythical legends", God has an interest in us yet chooses to be in the realm of "faith" rather than "fact" (at least from our perspective).  The difference is that this One is true.

Perhaps, it is my adult mind, my belief in myself and my own abilities, coupled together with my desire to be approved by others that makes such faith difficult.  Jesus says in more than one gospel, that without the faith of a child it is not possible to enter the kingdom of heaven.  Like the North Pole, Heaven is reserved for those with faith without sight.  The difference is that heaven is real.  The similarity is that we can't see either one.  The danger is that, without the faith in what I cannot see, and the willingness to adjust my paradigm or accept a new one, I will not only die apart from my Maker, but will actively try to destroy His message.

I have to have the faith of a child in order to believe in what I can't see.  But in this faith is peace and joy.  Outside is stress and frustration.  I believe I am made with a capacity to believe in such things as Santa, the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, precisely because that same capacity is what is supposed to be filled by the One Who made me.  When I relegate that capacity to childishness, reject it as foolishness, and seek instead for knowledge and reason of my culture and race, I miss a world with color and texture and savory smells and song.  I trade that world for a colorless and tasteless world the size of my vision.  At least I'm with everyone else, we're all together using the same language, seeing the same things, and sharing the same limited knowledge.  But it's real, tangible, and able to be reproduced in a lab under controlled circumstances.  How comforting...a lab, glass, stainless steal, and blinking red lights.  Sounds...festive.

The only other option offered by my culture is to create an alternative where Santa is real, the Easter Bunny is real, and any god is of my own design, nice, kind, and does what I want.  I choose the colors, textures, spices, and write the songs.  The extent of the vision remains the same though, my horizon.  The colors are limited by my imagination, the smells and tastes are limited by my tastes, the textures are limited to what I have at hand, the songs...well, let's just agree that will never work.  I don't want to offer bulls and wreaths to men in the city gate of my own paradigm, calling them "gods".  Someone else looks for me.

Now, I have, as a child, accepted and embraced this One.  I didn't understand, and I still don't.  I have tried to grapple with my faith, my understanding, my abilities to reason, and so on, but I always fail.  It has always come down to faith.  It has always come down to my inability to understand my Master.  He has always remained immaterial, yet responsible for all matter.  At least that was true until Jesus.  Then He was material for 33 years or so.  Now He's back to His throne, heaven, and He calls me there.  There is somewhere real that I cannot see where I will one day live eternally.  Let me just say that I willingly believe this tale regardless of what is conjured in a lab to the contrary.  I believe I can safely say that because where I'm going doesn't fit in a lab, and the One calling me there is the One being studied in the lab (the scientists just way too often don't know it).  Happy New Year!