Truth By Torture

And as they were crying out and throwing off their cloaks and tossing dust into the air, the commander ordered him to be brought into the barracks, stating that he should be examined by scourging so that he might find out the reason why they were shouting against him that way.  But when they stretched him out with thongs, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, "Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman and uncondemned?"  When the centurion heard this, he went to the commander and told him, saying, "What are you about to do? For this man is a Roman."  The commander came and said to him, "Tell me, are you a Roman?" And he said, "Yes."  The commander answered, "I acquired this citizenship with a large sum of money." And Paul said, "But I was actually born a citizen."  Therefore those who were about to examine him immediately let go of him; and the commander also was afraid when he found out that he was a Roman, and because he had put him in chains. (Acts 22:23-29 NASB)

The Eighth Amendment of Constitution of the United States protects its citizens from cruel and unusual punishment.  Americans assume that the implied requirement of presumed innocence is constitutional, but even without the explicit wording, the idea is clearly assumed by the framers.  After two hundred years, we also sort of assume all this is universal.  It's not.

The treatment of Paul by the hands of the Romans seems really strange to American ears.  To be beaten by a mob, and then chained, dragged into the barracks and tortured just to find out what was causing the riot is crazy to us.  Yet in that day, it wasn't.  And in our day, it's not as crazy as we might assume.  What I think is really interesting here is the way Paul handles it; very calmly and without fuss.

Paul causes quite a stir in the barracks when he claims to be a citizen of Rome.  His claim is based on his birthplace, Tarsus of Cilicia.  So, while the citizenship had to be purchased with a large sum of money by the commander, Paul was born with it.  This citizenship guaranteed Paul certain legal rights that others did not have.  It may seem odd to think that of all the mob, it may have only been Paul who was a citizen.  We might know in our heads that Roman citizenship was not typical, but when considered in the setting, it might feel odd.

So Paul was protected by where he was born, something over which he had no control.  It may have factored into his thinking that he would be able to get to Rome one way or the other.  It may not have really occurred to him until about to be tortured.  But I tend to believe that Paul had his citizenship very much in mind as he journeyed to Jerusalem.  The Romans kept a very vigilant eye on that turbulent city.  Very little happened that the Romans didn't either know about, or control to a degree.  The threat of Roman violence was never far away.

It had to enter Paul's mind that he would fall into the hands of the Romans at some point, regardless of what the Jews did to him.  I believe it factored into his "plan" such as it was.  But that doesn't mean that Paul used it as an excuse to run amok among the Jews.  He tried to demonstrate his faithfulness to his people with the vow he joined, but the timing was off.  How could the complexities of Jewish relationships with Gentiles be explained to a Gentile? It would make little sense.  But that is what the mob riot was about.

The commander would have understood to a degree since he had felt the hatred of he and his men coming off the people over whom he watched. He had to know that he and his men were not only not welcome, but despised by those they watched.  Judea was an occupied nation, the Jews an occupied people, and they did not take to it well.  But there was more at work than simply Jewish hatred of Roman Gentiles.

The accusers of Paul hated him for teaching of Jesus when that teaching accepted Gentiles.  Jesus as the Jewish Messiah was just fine, that they liked, and as long as that was where he stopped, he was welcome in Synagogues.  But when this Christ became Lord of all alike, the trouble started.  And that is what would be difficult to describe to the commander, torture or no.  It would have seemed to be of such little account that no riot would have ensued from it.

What is it in my life that puzzles others?  What  keeps them from connecting the dots of my behavior and consequences?  Why is it that I do what I do, and why do the things that happen to me happen?  It's not always easy to point to the events of my life and explain that it is my Master bringing them about, nor is it easy to use my Master to explain my behavior.  Sometimes, when these things occur around church, it's easy.  But still, it sounds and looks like what I do is about church, not specifically my Master.

The key I need to find is how to make my life so much about my Master, that the connection is unmistakable.  It my still be confusing and odd, but it should be unmistakable.  Paul will eventually make this clear in his discourses to come.  But I never know if the commander ever get to see or hear that.  What about those in my neighborhood?  Will my life ever display an unmistakable connection to my Master?  Will the Jewish Messiah be seen as the explanation of the behavior and circumstances of this Gentile?  Only if, like Paul, I am crucified with Christ and I no longer live.  Only then will He begin to emerge from the depths of my life.  Now, where can I find some nails...and a hammer.

So, I Was On My Way To Damascus...

"But it happened that as I was on my way, approaching Damascus about noontime, a very bright light suddenly flashed from heaven all around me, and I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?'  And I answered, 'Who are You, Lord?' And He said to me, 'I am Jesus the Nazarene, whom you are persecuting.' (Acts 22:6-8 NASB)

Paul had faced mobs all over Asia and Europe, and now, as he faces this one in Jerusalem, he gives his "defense" as he calls it.  We would call it a "testimony".  It's typically made up of what our lives were like before submitting to Jesus, how we did that, and then what our lives were like after.  He's giving what is probably a common story for him to tell.  He's done it in nearly every Synagogue from Judea through Greece.  Here he includes some local flavor, his return to Jerusalem and vision in the Temple, and so on.  But he never gets to finish.

As soon as he mentions God sending him far away to the Gentiles the mob starts up again.  The funny thing about this is that earlier, in Chapter 21, the commander couldn't get any consistent story from the crowd about what Paul had done to spark such a riot.  They seem pretty clear that it has to do with Gentiles, regardless of what other details they don't know.  What sparked the riot was the claim that Paul had brought Gentiles into the Temple by some Asian Jews.  That much seemed to be known by all or most.

The problem with Paul's testimony is that God includes Gentiles.  That's a real cultural and political problem for Jews.  Their survival has been based on being the Chosen People.  If God is also choosing Gentiles, then their standing before God is endangered, or so they think.  The problem is that they have turned a corner in their relationship with their Master.  They have "possessed" God rather than being possessed by Him.

This is a problem I see in my own life.  I am very skeptical of most religious ideas, practices, and people.  I've had these told to me all my life, only to find that the Scriptures weren't so pat and tidy.  The ideas, practices, and people of my religious youth were not always like what I read in Scripture for myself.  It tainted me, and I became cynical about church, religion, and practice.  I saw it segregating groups of people along racial lines, denominational line, social lines, and even educational lines.  It was not what I saw in Scripture, or at least what I saw was taught against, used as negative examples; what not to do.

But the problem was, I became my own "group".  One of the practices I saw and with which I should have disagreed I embraced instead.  I was proud of my viewpoint.  Those that differed in my view of Scripture I held in contempt.  I became those of whom I was cynical.  I became exclusive, not by telling others they couldn't be a part of "my group" but being rude to those who didn't.  My group was my group.  I missed out on being in my Master's group.

I think that I am in a much better place, theologically, than when I was raised, but all of us should be, and most are (if you think about it, even new adult believers are).  The other problem with these unscriptural viewpoints around which I was raised is that they were also exclusive.  The problem that the Jewish mob had that caused them to stop listening and throw cloaks and dust in the air, that was my problem too; and sadly still is sometimes.

Lately, in the last several years, I have intentionally chosen fringe and unpopular views of Scripture, all within the bounds of conservative Biblical views, but out there.  I know they are not all right, but I'm waiting for the discussion on the topic.  Because on the other side of it are a few things I really want.  One of the minor ones is clarity.  It's over rated with God, since He's Holy, but it's nice to gain a bit more clarity when possible.  Another one is perspective, which is something I can never gain on my own with just my own view through my knot-hole.  But two other important ones are the most often missed.  I gain fellowship with those involved in the discussion, and therefore with my Master who pulls us all together.

I have discovered that when I cast my cloak and throw dust, I'm pulling away from a relationship with my Master, and possibly some of His other servants.  Not every viewpoint is derived from Scripture, and not every viewpoint derived from Scripture handles Scripture correctly.  But with the bounds of rightly-handled Scripture there is much room for viewpoints and discussion.  If I can let go of my fear, pride, and resentment I'm pretty sure I can find a lot of fellow servants with whom to fellowship. 

The Danger of Pulling All-Nighters

On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight.  There were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered together.  And there was a young man named Eutychus sitting on the window sill, sinking into a deep sleep; and as Paul kept on talking, he was overcome by sleep and fell down from the third floor and was picked up dead.  But Paul went down and fell upon him, and after embracing him, he said, "Do not be troubled, for his life is in him."  When he had gone back up and had broken the bread and eaten, he talked with them a long while until daybreak, and then left.  They took away the boy alive, and were greatly comforted. (Acts 20:7-12 NASB)

I've preached before.  I've had people fall asleep while I preached; regularly.  And while I may have wished at the time they would fall from a window (or be pushed, there were times, I'm just being honest) I've never had it happen.  Of course I've never preached on the third floor, or to a room so packed someone had to sit in the window.  So, this experience related by Luke is not one with which I identify easily.  It's not a humorous event, but Luke does relate it in ways humorous in our culture.

Paul prolongs his message until midnight.  I used to get complaints when I ran over 12 noon in a service that technically started at 11 am, and was heavy with worship songs.  If I had 30 minutes to preach I was relieved.  He goes to midnight, and the room is packed.  Not that I'm bitter...still, after thirteen years.  Or jealous of Paul.  This is just one of those places where I see that I was never "him" in ministry.  It may have been a wish from time to time, but the stoning and foot travel was always a deterrent to me.

At midnight, with oil lamps burning, it's hot, stuffy, and an open window becomes a welcome perch, just not when tired.  Paul is fascinating to hear but these guys work for a living daily, so midnight is tough.  Being tired and sitting in the fresh air of the window was not a good combination for Eutychus.  I have fallen (or been pushed - depends on who you ask) out of a second story window and lived to tell the tale (like here).  But I was 18 months old, awake, and wasn't "picked up dead".  As it turns out I missed a concrete slab by some inches, landed on my back, and on the one piece of sod in the new yard.  So it was miraculous, but in different ways from Eutychus.  It was decided that God had a purpose for my life which was so important that I had to live past dumb mistakes (like trying to look straight down out of a window with a screen - don't do it).  I'm still not sure what that is exactly.

Paul "falls on him", which is a funny way to put what someone does to a fallen dead person, but I get the idea.  He then says that his soul is in him, and they all go upstairs to eat.  That's where I think it's funny.  Luke doesn't say that Eutychus joined them, nor that he sat up or was "fine", he just quotes Paul as saying that his "soul is still in him."  I just envision this guy being left on the sidewalk and everyone going back into the house to eat, relieved, but without the fallen guy.  And then having the guy blink a few times, and say, "Hello? Guys? I've fallen and I can't get up!"  I'm sure Luke just left that part out.

The speaking engagement seems to be over, so they now spend the rest of the night eating and talking.  It's the party time after the service.  Still it's after midnight.  I remember trying to pull all-nighters with my friends in high school.  It didn't work so great.  We had this game that always took days of sessions to play.  So we decided to get it done in one night.  The problem was it took brains and awareness to play.  So, eventually, everyone crashed on couches, recliners, and so on.  Then we picked up the next day and kept going.  Even in my "youth" I couldn't pull all-nighters.  But I remember what it was like to be and see my buddies past midnight.  Little sense is made past midnight.  Everything was funny.  We couldn't remember the next day what was so funny, but we remembered laughing so hard we had to pee.  It was like we were on drugs without the drugs.  Senselessness without chemicals can be achieved by sleep deprivation; who knew?

So, the lesson I come away with from this passage is the camaraderie of those in Troas.  To get it, I have to impose my memories of my buddies and I trying to stay up all night on this event in Acts.  By superimposing that memory over top of the events related by Luke, I come away with this warm fuzzy feeling of laughter and silliness.  It sounds interesting, but probably not what it was like.  I doubt everyone was "punchy" after midnight, or being silly from sleep deprivation (which I'm pretty sure takes days, not one night).  I suspect it was such close sharing of their lives that time just slipped away from them.  It was suddenly midnight, then it was suddenly daybreak.  I've had times like that, not for that long, but like that.  They were times that deepened relationships, and times of great happiness.

If you're reading this and remember us having such a time, remember the feelings.  I can't describe them very well, but I remember them with a tinge of jealousy; I want them again or more often.  What if these were common church happenings?  What if this camaraderie were typical of the time spent with other believers?  What if time just got away from us and we just spent the whole Sunday at church?  What if we just decided to keep it going and order in pizza, and that became almost common?  Can you imagine your church and being with the church people that long?  Can you imagine being so packed in a room that it becomes stuffy, but the joy of being there just won't let you leave, can you imagine that?  I can.

Parenting The Church in Corinth

Now, brethren, we wish to make known to you the grace of God which has been given in the churches of Macedonia, that in a great ordeal of affliction their abundance of joy and their deep poverty overflowed in the wealth of their liberality.  For I testify that according to their ability, and beyond their ability, they gave of their own accord, begging us with much urging for the favor of participation in the support of the saints, and this, not as we had expected, but they first gave themselves to the Lord and to us by the will of God. (2 Corinthians 8:1-5 NASB)

For it is superfluous for me to write to you about this ministry to the saints; for I know your readiness, of which I boast about you to the Macedonians, namely, that Achaia has been prepared since last year, and your zeal has stirred up most of them.  But I have sent the brethren, in order that our boasting about you may not be made empty in this case, so that, as I was saying, you may be prepared; otherwise if any Macedonians come with me and find you unprepared, we -- not to speak of you -- will be put to shame by this confidence. (2 Corinthians 9:1-4 NASB)

Chapters 8 and 9 of 2 Corinthians deal with the readiness of the church in Corinth to have an offering ready for the church in Jerusalem.  Paul uses two methods of motivation (technically more when examined closely), and they are so opposite I'm amused.  I would think it would be easy for the church there to spot, even if it weren't easy to ignore.  The two are captured in essence in the passages above.

First off, Paul mentions the churches in Macedonia to get the Corinthians going through guilt.  It's so much harder for them than for you, yet they are so excited to give and wouldn't let us leave them out.  Mom's have used this sort of thing forever.  It works, not always as well nor in the way intended, but it works.  The Corinthians would have been shamed into participating because the implication is that they have it so much easier than the Macedonian churches.  And note that Paul begins chapter 8 with "...the grace of God given to the churches..." claiming that this desire came from God, so not to have such a desire to give might mean the church in Corinth was less "spiritual" than the Macedonian churches.

Secondly, in chapter 9, Paul drives the point home with the old, "we've already bragged about you to them, don't disappoint us" line.  This is used by both fathers and mothers, and usually used to motivate the child to do what they don't feel like doing.  It's amazing how much decisions parenting are often motivated by a desire to not be embarrassed.  "Don't you embarrass me!"  Here Paul says that and throws it back on them that they would be embarrassed as well.  But he's a bit different in that he's already bragged on the church.  His assumption all along is that they will be ready when the times comes, and that's what he's told everyone.

So, two different prods, both lightly charged with electricity, both used to inspire a church to give money to a need.  So, what do I learn?  I learn something every pastor needs to know, every church goer needs to know, and every believer should appreciate.  God uses the money given by church people.  It may sound stupid or obvious, but I think that may be because most of the people reading this already give.  But consider how many others in your church don't, at all (and just so you know, statistically, I can tell you there are some who don't give a dime).

So pastors who ask for money (which they hate to do) are in the same boat as Paul, face the same difficulty, and have the same problems as the "early church".  This is one of many examples where I think people miss something important when they claim they want to be like the "early church".  They had issues too, and many of them were the same ones we face.  Church goers need to know that giving has always been part of God's plan.  They need to know that there has never been a time in the history of the church where giving was not a major activity in the church.  Basically, you go, you give, period.  And this is not "time" it's money.  The people in Jerusalem didn't need Corinth's "time" they needed the money.  It wasn't an option to give time instead of money.

Every believer, including myself, needs to appreciate that my Master must be Master over my money if He is to be Master over me.  As a slave, I don't have the right to anything around me, it's all provided by my Master.  I'm His slave, and He provides everything for me.  All I have is His, because I'm His slave and have nothing of my own.  It's just the way slavery works, it has always worked this way.  So when He tells me He wants something I have, like money for instance, what right do I have to refuse to give it?  He's the slave-owner, He doesn't need the money I have.  I need it to feed my family and provide for them, and that's why He gave it to me, for those things.  Yet, He asks for it anyway, and He has the right to do so; it's His anyway.

How believers miss this is beyond me.  Yet I am among those that miss it.  I write it and then miss it.  I believe it, and if asked would claim that it's obvious I don't "own" I "manage" as a steward not an owner.  Yet when it comes to then giving, I still struggle.  What about other areas of my life?  If I do find it easy to give money, how about time too?  What about other "things" I have, can/will I give them back to my Master if He asks?  This belief that I own nothing because I'm a slave, and that my Master owns it all should be pervasive, not merely surface or compartmentalized.  Yet, I have my compartments.  I suppose that my lesson from these passages is to tear down the "cubicle walls" of my interior life, and open up the "loft" so I can live in the "studio" of an unhindered life with my Master.  It's all His and it's all visible and available to Him for His use, money and all.

Engage!

And when they had come to him, he said to them, "You yourselves know, from the first day that I set foot in Asia, how I was with you the whole time, serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials which came upon me through the plots of the Jews; how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house, solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts 20:18-21 NASB)

I don't know if you have ever met anyone like Paul, but I think I finally have.  I don't know why, but I can become emotionally detached from things that seem to emotionally overwhelm some.  I just returned from Mexico where we saw poverty that was pretty amazing, but up close and personal.  It was, in a sense, in my face.  But it didn't make me weep.  It still wasn't my poverty, it was the poverty of someone else.  I didn't speak the language, so I didn't get to know people, and hear their stories, so I never really "engaged" in the setting.  But here is where I met the person I think has much in common with Paul.

Paul relates that he served the Lord "with all humility and with tears", and that sounds so odd for Paul.  He seems so strong and bold, that tears seem at odds with his character.  Yet he claims that these elders from Ephesus saw this in him.  They saw him declare the whole good news of Jesus, do so house to house, and to both Jews and Greeks.  I have met someone who does this in a very real sense in Mexico.  She doesn't live in Mexico, instead she travels across the border constantly.  She shares the good news of Jesus in impoverished places, to people who have very little except need.

Because work is scarce, food is needed.  Because food is needed, nutrition is poor.  Because work and money are scarce, hopelessness is rampant, skepticism is common, and abuse of self and others is also common.  I saw one "Catholic" Church, and I say that only because it was the largest "church-like" building and compound in the area, so I'm assuming it was a Catholic Church.  I never saw a sign as such.  There are heard that there are other churches in the area, but not enough.  The poverty means that any support for a pastor must come from outside the community.  It's difficult to get a church to remain for long.  The one we visited and at which we worked had been there for at least three years.

The lady who was responsible for getting it started did so through a Bible study for women.  She had started close to the border, in Tecate, but heard that many were coming from a village 20 miles south, so she moved it there.  Then she heard that many women were walking from an even smaller village 3 miles beyond that, so she moved it there.  In each place she left, she left a new church which still operates.  In this place where she works now, this church has been there for three years, and is adding a third building.  So she has been working through hard times to bring the good news of the love of Jesus to people without hope.

As we left, she prayed for us.  As she prayed, she broke down in tears of thankfulness to Jesus for His work through us.  What was so evident was her love for Jesus, even more than her love for the people in Mexico.  It was her love for Jesus which drove her to share Him with those she served across the border.  Sure, she worked until she is now nearly exhausted, but what I noticed was that it was her love for her Master that drove her to do so.  She had come from that poverty in which she served, and others who have that background leave it far behind.  Her Master would not permit her to do so.

It may seem like a semantic difference, but it is an important one.  In her prayer, less was said about the people we served, than was said about the Master we served.  In this way, people who know little beyond the poverty in which they live gain a perspective of heaven.  So these living so differently from us lived with hope and joy I don't.  Focus on them would not transmit the hope and joy, only focus on the Master.  It was clear, it was amazing, it was powerful, and it showed me the error of my focus.  I couldn't see it without the contrast.

So I couldn't really engage emotionally with the setting, but I think I caught the perspective of the people.  I think I understand better the focus off of the stuff of this world, and on my Master.  I think I get that more now than I have, and I think it scares me more now than it has.  It's not a terror, but a sense of unease.  What I want is for that unease to change from hindering my change in focus and into driving me into that change in focus.  I want to be afraid not to focus on my Master.  That may sound obvious or an assumption, but I realize I am moving that way, and am not there yet.  I have met a person who is so far down the path of such focus as to be almost unrecognizable to me.  I see that I, like Paul, like her, can and should focus solely on my Master.

Rest and the Story: Submission When I Don't Know

For it is superfluous for me to write to you about this ministry to the saints; for I know your readiness, of which I boast about you to the Macedonians, namely, that Achaia has been prepared since last year, and your zeal has stirred up most of them. But I have sent the brethren, in order that our boasting about you may not be made empty in this case, so that, as I was saying, you may be prepared; otherwise if any Macedonians come with me and find you unprepared, we—not to speak of you—will be put to shame by this confidence. (2 Corinthians 9:1-4 NASB)

 In Acts 20, Paul again tours Macedonia and Greece, winding up in Corinth.  It happens within 2 verses, and his stay of 3 months is in the third.  It sounds like a whirlwind tour, but there is evidence that it may not have been.  In the letters to the Corinthians, Paul writes of a collection being taken up for the church in Jerusalem, where he happens to be headed.  In 1 Corinthians 16 and 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, Paul writes to them about being ready to send the collection to Jerusalem once he arrives (he's including letters of introduction for the couriers).  But he also indicates that this collection is being taken all over Macedonia as well as Galatia.  So Paul's trek back even makes more sense (his route is never really explained by Luke).

So this collection provides some back-story to the events of this Chapter, and parts of Acts 19 as well.  A few questions immediately come to mind, such as why did Luke leave this collection out of his account?  It's also clear from the letters to Corinth that there were other issues with which the church was struggling.  It's possible that any of them could help flesh out Paul's stay of 3 months in Corinth.  None of them made it into Acts.  Instead detail after detail of where Paul went, how he got there, and so on until he speaks to the elders of Ephesus when they visit him in the port of Miletus.  There Luke spends over half the chapter, just on Paul's good bye to Ephesus.

It's curious to look at the two letters, and then Luke's account in Acts, and wonder about the differences.  It seems clear that there are enough points of correspondence between Acts 19 and 1 Corinthians 16 to make it clear that Paul writes during the events of Chapter 19, perhaps as the silversmith riot is brewing.  The elements in 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 are clearly additional inspiration on the same topic.  This seems to be a big issue for Paul, why not Luke?  I don't know for sure, but I suspect it has to do with an element to Luke's writing that often gets ignored.  Luke has a point, a goal, in writing his account we refer to as Acts.

The problem is that we have framed Acts as a historical record of the church in Jerusalem and Paul's work outside of Palestine.  It is, but this historical record has been written for a purpose.  There is a goal in mind for Luke, partly revealed in how he begins, writing to a person, Theophilus (friend of God).  Here he also says that this account continues the work of Jesus.  So, the purpose here is also tied to the purpose of Luke's account of the life of Jesus.  A lot of that purpose is tied to the word, "taught" or "instructed" in Luke 1:4.  But this word can also mean "inform" or "heard".  If it is the latter, then this friend of God could be one to whom Luke makes an appeal on behalf of Paul.  Considering how Acts ends, this is not outside the realm of possibility.  A "friend of God" may be found in many places among Roman society, and in hoping to either enlist the help of a representative or even a powerful official, these accounts may have been of use in providing "back story" to why Paul was so vilified by the Jews.  It's a possibility, and no where close to a certainty.  It's also very likely that Luke wrote to help a young, possibly influential or remote, believer better understand what he has chosen to believe.  I doubt it due to elements in the way Acts moves, especially in the end, but a very good case can be made that way.

So what's my point?  Sure, Luke had a point, and in reaching for that point left some stuff out.  So what?  I suppose that my real point in this is that I don't always get to know the whole story.  And I need to be okay with that.  I want to know why, about most everything.  I want to know why my company makes what I see as dumb decisions.  I want to know why my government is so convoluted that anything resembling truth is impossible to hear.  I want to know why both sides of every issue seem to so clearly share only what facts help their case.  Who shares all they know so "educated choices" can be made.  Why vilify people, even powerful ones, when there are facts on both sides of an issue that reveal it to be much more complicated than is ever presented?

I will never know why.  I will always be like everyone else, having to dig to disentangle fact and fiction, or facts underlying and beside the fiction.  I will constantly have to think through the smoke and haze I'm being shown to get at whatever substance lies behind it.  But I will also have to be content to with not being able to discover the substance.  Most of the time it is imperceptible, regardless of how much I look.  This is why I get lazy and don't look into much of the political hype on both sides of issues.  I know that I won't always be able to get to the root of things.  I will always be dependent on who is presenting facts, and how they present them.  I hate that.  I simply don't trust people who are telling me whatever because I am being kept from the facts that led whoever to whatever they are saying.  It's a pride issue really.

It's not like I can say to my Master, "Wait, how did you make stars?" before believing that He did and still does.  It's not like I can say to my Master, "show me" before believing.  This problem I face impacts my relationship with my Master directly.  It is a pride issue, and it interferes with my submission to Him.  I don't need to know why.  Even the things I can comprehend I do not need to know.  I haven't earned the right to the information, nor have I done the necessary work to discover the information, nor have I even made a decent argument why I ought to be given the information.  I just want to know, as if I'm somebody to whom my Master answers.  He didn't tell Job, so why should He tell me?  All my Master told Job were the things Job knew, the amazing things that make my Master truly Master of the universe.  Who am I if Job were not one to whom my Master was answerable?

So, while I should dig for facts and truth, I should also be content in faith that my Master is always Master over everything, even the unknowable.  Dig, but not in pride.  Dig in submission, seeking the truth my Master has hidden for me to find.  The truth He hides will, in discovering, enlighten my soul and deepen my relationship with my Master.  That's what I should pursue.  Some of that is found in pushing through political haze, some is found in wading through relational haze, and some is found in digging through personal baggage.  But it is mostly found in Scripture.  So, I'll continue to spend most of my time digging there.