Paul Didn't Do It (Or So He Says)

"And now, behold, I know that all of you, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom, will no longer see my face.  Therefore, I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men.  For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God. (Acts 20:25-27 NASB)

"I have coveted no one's silver or gold or clothes.  You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my own needs and to the men who were with me.  In everything I showed you that by working hard in this manner you must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" (Acts 20:33-35 NASB)

Claiming innocence never really worked for me growing up.  I wasn't an only child, but my younger brother was my closest sibling, and usually whatever one started, we both wound up in.  But when it comes to two guilty parties, it's useless for one to protest, "well he started it!"  Ironically, what I was told was to just ignore him.  Which is great advice as long as while the guy's being ignored, someone intervenes along the way to make him stop.  See, parents, if there's really nothing else to do, the whole "ignoring" thing requires adult intervention to really work, I'm just saying for the sake of those kids out there who tried to say that but without credibility with their parents.

I never thought I'd read Paul saying, "I didn't do it!" and yet here it is.  Of course, context is everything in understanding why he says it, but the greater context still makes it interesting.  First off he begins by defending his service among the Ephesians, right off the bat.  I thought that was interesting, but he's done that in his letters to various churches. 

What really caught my attention, though, was in verse 25 where he claims to be innocent of the blood of all men.  Why would he say that?  Was he even thought of being accused of murder?  Was there a question?  Context tells me what he means, but it makes his claim from odd to extraordinary.  It relates back to his initial defense of his ministry among them.  What he is saying is that he has been so thorough with his preaching that no one can say, "well, Paul never told me that, he denied me salvation!"  Get this, Paul says no one can claim that.  Just let that roll around in your synapses for a bit.  No one?

Just so you know, I can't claim that.  I have never been accused of this sort of thoroughness, nor have I ever claimed such for myself, nor would I.  What would my life be like if I could?  What would be different?  What would I be doing vocationally?  What would my family be like?  I just don't know.  It wouldn't guarantee that I'd be a better person.  It's not the work that indicates that.  I could tell everyone about the good news of Jesus, and still be a jerk.  Still, it's quite a claim, and one to which I wonder about aspiring.

The second "I didn't do it" claim of Paul has to do with money.  He says he has never coveted the silver, gold, or clothes of others.  This would be easier for me to claim.  Probably not for the same reasons though.  Perhaps in my youth I did covet the clothes or money of others.  My younger years were kind of difficult that way because my family went through some financial difficulties.  Anyone who has worn Tough-Skin Jeans knows they have coveted the clothes of others.  But I also learned to value things differently because of those years, so that as an adult I really don't covet.  I still see things I would like, but I don't envy others or want what they have.  It doesn't drive or motivate me like it does for others (although, there is this telescope mount I have my eye on...)

But Paul has a point in saying that he hasn't coveted.  What he is doing is urging the elders to follow his model of serving with his own hands so to be able to give to others.  He didn't covet, he worked for what he needed.  He quotes Jesus as saying, "it is more blessed to give than to receive" although he must have a source for that not used for the Gospels.  I don't doubt Jesus said it; John claims in his Gospel that not everything made it into the accounts of Jesus. 

The point of Paul is that working to give is a much more Christ-like quality than working to get.  And that is definitely a lesson I can take to heart.  It's very different than the environment I work in as a salesperson.  I would be swimming upstream against strong current to hold to such a view.  Yet, I see a way to do it, even in my arena.  Even my manager encourages such a view, and provided a "mental framework" in which to do what they ask yet keep this "service" mindset. Even my Master has made a way for me to follow Him in service through my vocation.  Now that is blessed.  Now to give.

Wild Ephesian Times

God was performing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were even carried from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out.  But also some of the Jewish exorcists, who went from place to place, attempted to name over those who had the evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, "I adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preaches."  Seven sons of one Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this.  And the evil spirit answered and said to them, "I recognize Jesus, and I know about Paul, but who are you?"  And the man, in whom was the evil spirit, leaped on them and subdued all of them and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.  This became known to all, both Jews and Greeks, who lived in Ephesus; and fear fell upon them all and the name of the Lord Jesus was being magnified. (Acts 19:11-17 NASB)

There is a saying of Jesus that has always given me the "shivers".  In Matthew 7:22-23, Jesus basically says that performing miracles isn't the "proof" it's that I obey His words.  That would be fine, but this is right at the end of the Sermon on the Mount, and He has just spoken some really hard words; "turn the other cheek," "love your enemies," "blessed are the meek," and so on.  It's a hard passage to get through unscathed.  Yet, not following these as a lifestyle is the indicator that my relationship with Him isn't what it is supposed to be.

Now, not to be legalistic, these elements to the Sermon on the Mount are not suggestions, and they are not laws.  Jesus transforms laws into a perspective derived from a relationship with Him.  In other words, these elements are not requirements, but evidence.  No evidence such as these elements, do whatever miracles I like, I'm still not "in" with Jesus.  I always puzzled over that because I have assumed that without the Holy Spirit performing the "miracle" it wasn't going to happen.  And then Ephesus in Acts 19, perhaps I have been mistaken.

Traveling Jewish Exorcists?  I suppose that makes some sense since belief in evil or unclean spirits wasn't especially a Greek belief, but still, putting the spirit under an oath to obey in the name of the Person someone else preaches seems like an odd practice.  Yet it demonstrates the power of the name of Jesus rather than the power of the exorcists.  It wasn't about Paul (who the demons knew about) but about Jesus (who the demons knew).  "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?"  It was about the name of Jesus.  Like the demons knowledge about Paul, these "Sons of Sceva" knew about Jesus.  They knew that His name was powerful, but they didn't know Him.

Handkerchiefs and aprons of Paul are going to the sick and possessed and they are being healed and freed.  But it's not about Paul, but Jesus Whom Paul preaches.  Read it carefully, "God was performing extraordinary miracles" not Paul.  One of my favorite little passages in the Hebrew Scriptures briefly tells of David's "Three Mighty Men" (2 Samuel 23:8-17).  These guys made Navy SEALS look like children (intense children, but still).  These are the guys SEALS want to grow up to be like.  But in these cases where one would defeat the Philistines by himself, it says that the LORD brought about a great victory.  The tough-guy was just a guy.  Sure they would break through the Philistine lines to draw water at Bethlehem, and break out again to bring it to David, but it was God working to bring victory through them.

I read of the miracles, but I have to remember it is my Master doing these things, not these people.  Argue as you may, it is the power of the name of Jesus and God Himself who does these things, not the traveling Jewish exorcists, or even Paul, or his handkerchiefs and aprons.  It never was about the people through whom my Master worked, it has always been about my Master.  Perhaps the reason "miracles" such as these are so rare in America is because we are so keen to make idols of humans.  It's so ingrained in our nature to focus on the person we can see, touch, hear, and blame that we become distant from the works of power of my Master.  Because we are merciless with these "idols" we create.  We set these people up, and crush them when they fall.

What I want is the wild Ephesian times to break loose in my town, and in my church.  It would be great if it became known as a place of miracles of my Master, not about certain people through whom the miracles came.  It would be wonderful if my Master performed healing of diseases, exorcism, raising the dead, and freeing from addictions.  It would be amazing and beautiful if, when asked what person in the community was responsible, no one could point to any one person.  If my Master shone through like the irrepressible sunlight through a break in storm clouds, that would be awesome to see.  So why hasn't it happened?

None of my handkerchiefs or aprons will help anyone I'm afraid.  Those of my pastor are probably in the same category.  It's not the quality of our leadership team to see people miraculously raised from beds of sickness or death, not yet anyway.  I believe that I and a lot of my fellow believers have a long way to go before our Master has the freedom to work in this way.  I really can't speak for all of us, but I know that I have a lot to work through, not legalistically, but relationally with my Master.  I want it, but I'm still caged by fear, shame, and pride.  I haven't yet let the Spirit of my Master loose within my heart and soul.  I should be consumed, but I'm not, not yet.  Not yet.

The Main Character Revealed

It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples.  He said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit."  And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, "Into John's baptism."  Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus."  When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.  And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.  There were in all about twelve men. (Acts 19:1-7 NASB)

Discussions about the Trinity typically run aground on the Person of the Holy Spirit.  One of the linguistic difficulties encountered is the accident of language where "spirit" is a neuter noun in Greek and Hebrew (or rather, both masculine and feminine).  It's difficult to see such an objective reference as a "person".  But the use of the words shows these references to the Spirit of God acting.  That is not an "objective" reference.

In Acts 19, Paul is on his third journey through the region of Asia Minor (modern Turkey) and comes to Ephesus.  When he gets there, he encounters some disciples with only partial knowledge.  The first reference to the Holy Spirit is as something received, and if that were the only reference we would be left with an objective reference.  But that's not how it turns out.  In verse 6 it the Holy Spirit coming on them, which changes the reference.  Now the 12 men are the objects and the Holy Spirit is the subject.

This may seem like a semantic issue, but it has important implications.  Remember that these men had not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.  In other words they were not even that familiar with the Scriptures.  The Spirit of the Lord is all over the Hebrew Scriptures, so a Jewish person would have encountered Him at several points in their study.  These are most likely Gentiles who have received a partial instruction into the saving work of Jesus.  Their immersion in water was for sorrow at having sinned against God, not identifying with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus; good but not sufficient (i.e. it's not enough to be sorry for what we've done, we must accept Jesus' payment of what we owe for what we've done).

The understanding of these twelve men was incomplete.  Paul completes their training, immerses them once again in water, but this time into the name of the Lord Jesus (notice it wasn't into Jesus Christ - that would be a "Jewish" term; another clue that these are Gentiles).  After their immersion and Paul lays hands on them, then the Holy Spirit acts.  He comes on the men and they demonstrate His gifting.  So when Paul asks them, "Have you received the Holy Spirit" what he is asking them is if they have submitted themselves to His coming, His work, in them.  He isn't asking them if someone gave them a Holy Spirit.  Even Paul laying on his hands doesn't "give" the Holy Spirit.  What happened is the Holy Spirit waited until after Paul had done that to come on them.  It was the Holy Spirit Who chose when and what to do.  He acted.  Only a Person does that, not a 'thing'.

This understanding has to form the foundation for any discussion of what He does.  Submission to the Person of the Holy Spirit; allowing Him to decide when and what to do; and seeking His guidance in the study of Scriptures, prayer, and the rest of life; these are what is necessary to experience Him to a greater depth.  Tongues, prophecy, healing, interpretation, other gifts, are all easily focused on to the exclusion of the One giving such gifts.  We cannot afford to objectify the God of Scripture, not as Father, nor as Son, and certainly not as Holy Spirit.  Such is a sin of disastrous proportions.  He is a Person to Whom we submit.  Once there, we can then worship correctly, pray correctly, study Scriptures correctly, and then live correctly.

So, the Holy Spirit is One to Whom I submit.  To submit to Him is to submit to the Maker and Master of the universe.  He is the God of Scripture, the Creator of all things, and Master of my soul.  To Him I pray, and from Him flows power to accomplish His work.  I am a "smart" extension cord, not the Power Source.  But that probably means that I'm also a dysfunctional extension cord, if human attempts at anything "smart" are an indicator.  I think my track record bears that concept out as well.  But as I submit to my Master, He, the Holy Spirit, will work His work through me in the portion of the world in which He has placed me.  For instance, now I believe He is leading me to make my daughter's lunch and help her get ready for school.

A Very Tents Job

And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, having recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. He came to them, and because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and they were working, for by trade they were tent-makers.  And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.  But when Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul began devoting himself completely to the word, solemnly testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ. (Acts 18:2-5 NASB)

Ministry positions where the minister is required to have some sort of vocation besides the ministry is often referred to as a "tent-making" ministry because of this passage.  Ironically, this is the single reference to Paul having and using a trade while ministering.  That's not to say that he never did, but Luke only mentions it here, and then makes another comment that he stops as soon as Silas and Timothy arrive from Berea.

As a side note, those of you families who have someone among your family destined for the ministry, please don't use this passage as your support that the minister should have a way to support themselves.  The text actually says otherwise and you'll be shown to be wrong pretty fast.   While having another vocation in one's back pocket may be a good ministry option in our country, it's because of the unfaithfulness of churches not as a general rule of ministry.  Way too many congregational-governed churches simply don't want to pay for the services they gain from a minister, it's just that simple.  A living wage for the minister is considered a "persecution of the saints" for some reason.

The difference that Silas and Timothy made is that they brought a gift from Berea and other places which supplied his needs without the need to work as well.  Perhaps Silas and Timothy worked, perhaps not.  What Luke relates clearly is that Paul devoted himself entirely to the study of the Scriptures and discussion with the Jews regarding the Messiah, Jesus.

In letters back to Corinth, Paul states that perhaps he did the church there a disservice by not relying on them for his living as he had a right to do.  They interpreted that as an indicator that he wasn't really an apostle at all because he had other means of support besides that local group (1 Corinthians 9).  It might seem strange, but Paul considered taking a wage from them might be a hindrance, which might make sense, but they turned it on him, denouncing his apostleship because of it.  The Enemy is very ironic at times and has a wicked sense of humor.

The reality that Paul deals with in this chapter regarding support is that it was not always easy or possible to be supported by those to whom he ministers.  He considered it a possible hindrance to ask.  So he was ready to work to support himself until the Master provided from another quarter, which seemed to come once Silas and Timothy arrived.

I thought it interesting that a rabbi from Tarsus, who studied to be a Pharisee, is a tent-maker.  I suppose there must have been more demand for tents, or tent repair, than I imagine in Europe and Asia Minor.  I imagine the "Roman world" to be more "metropolitan", but merchants may have still required the services of tent making.  Even in Rome it would seem since Aquila and Priscilla came from there.  Perhaps working on sails or awnings or other sorts of shelters was all considered tent-making since the material might be similar.

The point is that this ministry of Paul was supported from something other than the church to which he ministered.  The second point is that this was a choice by Paul not to use his entitlement to the support from the church.  The third point is that Paul suffered consequences from this choice, but accepted them.

There are more details not really explicit here, but left implicit here and in other places.  Paul had a host with whom he stayed in any place, so he was not without a local means of support whether working a trade or not.  He may not have been earning a wage, but he was neither hungry nor without shelter.  He may have been "homeless" as he says in 1 Corinthians 9, but that was his calling to be moving about rather in a fixed location.  It's very different than a "parsonage" which a lot of churches use like a "bird house".  He had a host who provided meals and a place to sleep, possibly work and study.

I think that what this does for me is free me up to see what I do at my local church as ministry.  That would change my view of it, and perhaps take my work level up a notch.  It may not be a vocation, but it becomes a "calling",  I may be "tent-making" but I'm then in a vocation to support my work in our church.  If others who attended had this view, the work of the church would be very different as would the life and work of the pastor.  They'd find lots of eager hands to serve and help with our Master's work in our community.  It might make their lives a lot easier. 

Preaching in Sin-City

After these things he left Athens and went to Corinth. (Acts 18:1 NASB)

This seemingly innocent verse hides a few mysteries.  The verse begins a new chapter, and for many of us, that forms all break we need.  But the preceding events took place in Athens, where Paul was waiting for Silas and Timothy.  Later on in 18 we learn that they find him in Corinth.  Why leave Athens?  There was no riot, no plot to kill Paul, nothing mentioned by Luke suggests a reason.  Not that there has to be one, it's just contrary to the initial purpose of being there in the first place.

Of course, while waiting in Athens, Paul was ministering, arguing in the market, and even spoke to the assembly on the Aeropagus.  He had been busy, yet didn't draw the ire of the people as he did in other cities, or at least it wasn't mentioned by Luke.  Yet he leaves for Corinth.  There was either something in Athens to be left behind or something in Corinth that drew him.  Athens, the ancient city of Greek culture, was at least well ruled and calm.  It wasn't a Roman colony but was thoroughly Greek.  The Jews there seemed unconcerned about what Paul was preaching, and no multitude of them is even mentioned, either for or against him.

But Corinth is a unique port city.  It too is ancient, but its location in Achia made it very unique.  In those days of dangerous nautical travel, it formed an overland option which made moving merchandise safer; the path around the peninsula could be avoided by moving it a short distance over the narrow "neck" where Corinth sat.  It was unique in that it had two ports, one on the Adriatic, and one on the Ionian Seas.  Between these two sat Corinth.  Corinth had been an ancient city, but then destroyed in one war and then another, and then totally rebuilt as a Roman Colony (here we go again).

But as the wealth of the city grew from the trade traffic, so did the vice and avarice.  Wealth bred excess, and excess bred a lowering of values and virtues.  The city was known in Paul's day as hedonistic and vicious.  So, why go here instead of steady stately Athens?  Paul says in Romans that where sin abounds, so grace abounds all the more (Romans 5:20), not to say sin was a good way to gain more grace, but to say that grace always triumphs over sin.  But, on the other hand, where sin was plentiful could be found a good place for grace to also be plentiful.  Perhaps Paul saw Corinth as an opportunity.

What about my place?  I live where many people do not go to church, or if they do, to a church of a "different gospel", other than that of the Scriptures.  In this small place can be found drug trafficking, human trafficking, suicides, home invasions, and corruption in government.  And rather than being wealthy, this place is considered economically depressed; so we have all the vice with twice the hopelessness.  If sin can abound in such profuseness, then can't grace increase to an absurd degree?  Why not?

But as Corinth had issues after the grace abounded (required two letters from Paul, and is doubtful even that fixed it), so issues will be the result as well.  Paul spent 18 months in the city just to get it grounded, and even then it suffered from internal conflict and personality squabbles.  It's not that grace solves all problems, it that it ushers in an age of change.  It doesn't complete the work of becoming holy in one fell swoop (like we wish it would), it begins the process of struggling out of the chrysolis.  Without the struggle, our wings of faith and total reliance on our Master don't form correctly.  Unlike the butterfly, we do need help; we need to struggle, but we also need help through it together.

So I imagine that in this place, there will be and is now a dire need for growth in faith and grounding in Scriptures.  Something I was raised in, but which is missing here because it was never a part of life as it was for me.  I have the stories people here are missing.  I have a treasure that isn't mine to hoard, but must be spread all over to everyone who shares my faith.  I am a storyteller, so I have stories to tell.  Only mine don't start with "Once upon a time..."  They mostly begin with, "And it happened..."  It might help to work on my "Jewish" accent so I can tell the stories with the proper sounding perspective, as they are mostly stories of Jews.

Finding God

... that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; (Acts 17:27 NASB)

So, one day, a Being decides to form matter into a universe, and place these cognizant creatures in it, hoping they would, with their cognizance, seek Him back.  The barriers were huge.  He was invisible to them, only His effects were perceptible.  Few things deviated from the pattern inherent in the created system.  But that pattern included full provision for the life and continuance of this cognizant creature. 

One story of how this started included a time when there was face time between these cognizant ones and their Maker.  But that was ruined by their rebellion as they listened to another and sought to take their Maker's place.  It's an ancient story, and it seems to deviate from other "origin stories" in several places, like just two were made rather than lots.  They weren't made to be slaves/servants of "gods" but rather there was friendship and companionship involved.  It is truly a strange story, but it describes a good beginning for the problem faced by those cognizant creatures.  The problems seem to continue to this day.

Essentially, the problem is that these cognizant ones are seeking to somehow understand the world in which they live.  They perceive effects, clues, indicating that there is more beyond their world than what they see, but don't really understand that either. 

Some have followed their own capacity for thought and stopped looking beyond their own senses.  It's foolish, but they rely on the senses of themselves and others trusting that all that they need can be sensed.  If it can't be sensed, there's no need of it.

Others have come up with all sorts of theories based on the effects they perceive which indicate that there is more than what can be sensed.  Still they look no further than the effects themselves.  They are satisfied with not knowing, like Aesop's fox, the grapes of knowledge is impossible and therefore probably sour.  What theories they have, they hold loosely able to enjoy a cafeteria of various theories without having to either be consistent with or cohere to all the effects; they are satisfied with some (they choose which ones).

There are other options which have been chosen at various points in human history, but these seem to reign supreme today.  They all put the cognizant ones in control.  And in so doing, ignore the grandest effect of all.  Control is an illusion.  One of my favorite illustrations of this is gravity.  I would think that at this stage in human research into physics, we would have mastered gravity.  Why can't we recreate the effects?  Why can't we somehow escape the physical effects?  Seriously, what's the deal with that?  Because the most important effect is that we are trapped on this planet among all the vastness of the universe.  We can see it, but we can't touch it.

Paul's argument in Athens is based on the world in which the Athenians, and everyone else in the world, experienced every day.  Philosophies based on the hopelessness of a world gone mad, totally out of control and lacking sense actually grope very close to the truth.  They just stop short of it, and wallow in the hopelessness.  Instead, Paul proposes that all this is "designed" by a Maker to cause His cognizant ones to seek Him.  This Maker forms the cohesiveness necessary to make sense of "a world gone mad".  But how do we find a Maker both invisible and existing outside of the created universe?  This universe forms the "boundary" beyond which we cannot perceive.  Obviously, He has to reach out to us.

Isn't it interesting that we, as human creatures, understand communication on an intimate level we describe as "reaching out"?  We're not a "touchy feely" bunch normally, but we get that term.  So, this Maker reaches out to us and overcomes the barriers.  If the initial story is true, then many of these barriers were of our making rather than His.  He overcomes them anyway.  In doing so, this extra-sensory Maker defines love and life; two of the most powerful words in all human language.

Paul says that now this Maker has appointed a day in which He will judge the world He made through the One Man, Jesus.  The proof of this is that He raised this One from the dead.  While some in the Areopagus sneered, this resonated with others.  They may not have understood fully, but there was something pulling them out of their acceptance of the way things were into something else, toward Someone else.  They were beginning to discover the definition of love and life, and were about to experience both for the first time.  I have experienced both, and I am still learning the definition from my Master.  Have you?

Moving Where I Am

Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. (Acts 17:1 NASB)

The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. (Acts 17:10 NASB)

Then immediately the brethren sent Paul out to go as far as the sea; and Silas and Timothy remained there.
Now those who escorted Paul brought him as far as Athens; and receiving a command for Silas and Timothy to come to him as soon as possible, they left. (Acts 17:14-15 NASB)

After these things he left Athens and went to Corinth. (Acts 18:1 NASB)

One of my least favorite things to do is move.  I hate it.  Partly because we have too much stuff, but mostly because it's so unsettling (duh, that's part of the point of moving).  I don't like uprooting, and I don't like getting resettled.  Recently (in the last few years), air travel has become another thing I don't like to do.  But for all these forms or types of travel, I do like to travel.

I like to drive long distances.  I like to see stuff, especially local stuff that tells the story of the place.  I like hearing people's story of why they're there or what happened way back when.  When I started college, everything I had for my dorm room fit in my truck; all of it.  It was actually a lot of stuff, but I was very proud that it all fit in one trip, books, rack stereo, computer (before laptops) and all.   It made it really easy to travel, pick up and go, I felt like I could be a gypsy.  I just have never had that mentality, but I had the truck.

Paul moved about a lot.  In fact, in the next chapter of Acts, 18, he doesn't even stay home long before heading out again for the northern regions of Asia Minor.  He didn't have a truck, all his stuff fit in his bag, on his back.  And he walked.  It couldn't have been easy in those days.  Sure merchants did it all the time, but they traveled in caravans, on wagons, and so on.  There was no "bus" to the interior regions of Anatolia, he had to hoof it; and do so with all his "gear".

Paul seems to love this sort of thing.  He goes to churches, strengthening them, and moving on to the next.  I'm not so wild about it.  It may fit some people just right, and they may love the very idea.  We're not all the same, and we're not all that different, but I believe that God has prepared and gifted some for this sort of Christian Road Show.  I read a book about a pastor from China, who moved about a lot.  He had a home, wife, children, but he also moved around to various churches.  It was a hard life, on him and his family, yet he felt compelled, and God used him tremendously because of his willingness to be a Christian Road Show. 

I don't feel so compelled.  I don't believe this is my "gifting" from my Master.  On the other hand, I wonder if I'm just too comfortable.  What if it is my "calling", but I'm too much in love with the "setup" I enjoy in this place?  That never lasts long.  I know something about myself.  I don't have a "road show" to take.  I have a gospel to proclaim, God is reconciling the world to Himself through His Son, Jesus.  But my "audience" is here.  I'm not one to take this message on the road.  At lest, not so far.  I have no "audience" beyond my neighborhood.

I suppose what I'm saying is that I'm not out there in front as much as back here in the background.  I'm okay with that.  I'll travel for vacation and family events, but my Master has planted me here, for these people.  I need to be about what my Master has for me rather than looking outward for 'the next big thing'.  Paul was not my model for method, but he is for attitude.  He submitted to the Master and went.  I need to submit to the same Master and stay.  There are others my Master has who are destined for Paul's model of method.  They need my prayer support and financial support.  And so I give of both.  But I also need to be about the work here around me.  There's plenty to do here.

Some From Among The Scoffers

Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some began to sneer, but others said, "We shall hear you again concerning this."  So Paul went out of their midst.  But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them. (Acts 17:32-34 NASB)

It may seem odd, but the word, "others" doesn't appear in the Greek text of verse 32.   It can be understood as "supplied' from a grammatical particle which has some flexibility of meaning, but it's not overtly stated.  It does lend some sense to the verse to put it in there, but I wonder about leaving it out.  With it out, this group sounds like churches of which I've been a part; including the "some men joined him and believed" part.

In several churches I've been a part of, it isn't "polite" to be honest, but neither is it in our best interest to reveal character flaws.  I can sneer in private, but publicly applaud.  I can nod my head in agreement, but in a whisper to the wife cut down the preacher.  I can, I have, I don't any more because I learned that lesson in a harsh manner.  Yet, it seems only in the context of church. 

Now, on the outside of vocational ministry, I have no problem conducting myself this way in business meetings, or with customers.  In fact, I consider it a big part of my job to be polite to customers, even difficult ones, while I'm on the phone.  That part is good.  The part that is not good is cutting them down after I hang up.  Or ripping the executive or management behind their back after they've made a decision with which I don't agree (I work in a democracy, right?).

The problem for me in this activity is that it erodes my credibility without my being aware.  Not that I have to be all about "credibility" but this characteristic stems from authentic living of my faith.  I gain credibility when I am authentic with what I believe, when my faith in Jesus has a pronounced effect on my attitude towards others, even those I can't see or don't believe will ever find out about me. 

The reality I deny when I behave that way is that my True Master knows, even when my earthly masters do not.  And, my Master has designed this world so that, even if they do not know what evil I do, the effects of that evil I do spread, and infect other relationships.  I will not escape consequences of my evil simply because "no one knows."  I know, and it effects me.

Yet, on the flip side, when Paul goes out from their midst, some follow, and some are prominent "Areopagite" sorts.  Paul is true to his belief that all men need reconciliation to their Maker, and sees success in his pursuit of that reconciliation.  He didn't focus on possible polite deception, or his detractors.  He was joined, and he focused on those who responded to his good news. 

I can focus on the things with which I don't agree, but there's enough with which I do agree to keep me busy without complaining.  It's a choice.  Being polite does not "require" dishonesty, and I can chose to be both polite and honest with both customers and co-workers (including the management chain).  I can choose.  The question is will I?

Groping for the Unknown God

Act 17:23
23 For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. ’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.
(NASBStr)

The observant Paul found something odd in Athens, a 'catch-all' altar. It wasn't to just any 'god' but to one for Whom they had no name. They were 'groping' for Him (v.27), or used to.

Don't people do that? It would take some serious evidence to convince me that all humans are not religious creatures. We are all 'groping' for the Unknown God, yet, sadly, as Paul points out, 'He is not far from us.'

So close, yet still so dead. The is no life apart from our Maker, and the poor dead souls about me seek that life I have, groping in the dark for the light I enjoy. I feel so powerless to communicate the truth, yet so compelled to try. If only I would see others this way all the time, and not just while I'm blogging. They may be pathetically dead, but I'm pathetically alive. This must change.

Competing In The Arena of Thought

Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was being provoked within him as he was observing the city full of idols.  So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present.  And also some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him. Some were saying, "What would this idle babbler wish to say?" Others, "He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities," -- because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection.  And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, "May we know what this new teaching is which you are proclaiming?  "For you are bringing some strange things to our ears; so we want to know what these things mean."  (Now all the Athenians and the strangers visiting there used to spend their time in nothing other than telling or hearing something new.) (Acts 17:16-21 NASB)

Some faithful readers (more likely "reader") probably know that I am a philosopher.  But some who are more familiar with the term 'philosopher' would also know that I fit it in the sense that I think about what I think about, rather than in the classical sense found in colleges and universities.  I think a lot about my faith as well, since it's what takes up a lot of my thought.  So, in that sense I am a Christian philosopher.  I see myself that way anyway.

Paul doesn't really look at things this way.  He's into building bridges that connect people to Jesus.  I use that analogy because one bridge really doesn't fit several different spans, they have to be "custom built" or adapted to fit (normally).  Techniques are reused, but the bridges typically aren't.  Paul "builds bridges" and discovered a really difficult "span" in Athens.  These guys did a lot of "religion" and thought long and hard about it.  But philosophy also has a popular aspect to it, and different philosophies were in vogue at different times in Athens.  In Paul's day it was the Epicureans and the Stoics who captivated the prevailing arguments.

There's no great succinct description of a 'school' of philosophy, but here's an attempt with these two.  Epicureans believed/believe in the pursuit of pleasure as the center of life.  Their arguments all seek to support this viewpoint in some fashion.  The Stoics believed/believe that suppression of emotions was what brought harmony and peace.  They had their arguments as well.  As you can see, these two 'schools' were diametrically opposed, and debate was often lively.  One consistency between them was the rejection of any notion of resurrection; obviously an issue with Paul's faith.

Paul spoke in the synagogue, but really got traction in the marketplace.  This is where the "junior debaters" everyone else debated/discussed the philosophy of the day.  But new stuff (like Paul's view) went up the hill behind the market, to the Areopagus.  After days of discussion in the market, Paul is taken to the Areopagus.  In his presentation, he uses a lot of philosophy instead of Scripture.  How much of the Epicurean and Stoic writings with which he was familiar isn't known.  It's possible, in Tarsus, he was raised knowing some.  But he was raised to be a Pharisee which forced him to specialize.  I suspect he learned most of what he knew in the Athenian market.  And he displayed his use of it within days of his arrival in Athens.  This guy learned fast and learned well.

The take away for me in this is Paul's willingness to enculturate the good news of Jesus without sacrificing the news.  There is a huge similarity between Jews and Gentiles where the good news of Jesus is concerned; they both face the same problem.  The problem is that they are separated from their Maker and only Jesus can reconcile.  Regardless of their ethnic background, they are separated from a loving Maker, and Jesus reconciles.  That's pretty much the essence of the good news, everything else makes up the Who's, why's, and how's of the reconciliation.

Why can't I look at people this way?  What is so hard about seeing this as the only common ground necessary to engage in a discussion of faith?  It's everywhere in Scripture, both Hebrew and Christian.  How can it be that I would seek some other more complex, and often less meaningful, opportunity.  I wonder if my excuse has been that I'm seeking opportunity, but really just need to ask a simple question of their standing before their Maker.  Perhaps, and it can't be that hard to come up with a way to ask that question anyone will understand.  Perhaps it's not 'appropriate' with my customers during work, but it might be, depending on the customer.  I have a lot to do so that I practice this differently.