Technically Speaking...

But striking a reef where two seas met, they ran the vessel aground; and the prow stuck fast and remained immovable, but the stern began to be broken up by the force of the waves. (Acts 27:41 NASB)

 In English, as in any language, there are sets of words reserved or with special meaning in certain specific contexts.  If I use the term schizophrenic, most people think of 'hearing voices' or 'multiple personalities' (Roses are Red, Violets are Blue, I'm a schizophrenic, and so am I).  But psychologists and psychiatrists understand it as a mental disorder sometimes exhibiting hallucinations and delusions, but also other things like mental and emotional 'blunting', intellectual deterioration, disorganized speech and behavior.  It's a technical term, but it has usage in common vernacular as well.

Terms on ships, and especially cargo ships, is an area few of us have much dealings.  Most people, unless in trucking, have ever heard of a "Bill of Lading", but cargo carriers and shippers live off the term.  It's a technical term, but isn't in common usage.  Parts of the ship such as bow, stern, port, starboard, may be familiar, but 'spar', 'mizzenmast' (versus mainmast), and so on may not be that familiar to people who don't sail.  To find the other meaning, the less common words, you would need to look them up or, even better, have a conversation with a sailor.

Paul is traveling from the coast of Judea to Italy.  With him are Luke and Aristarchus.  Luke is writing the account of their trip, and this voyage is especially harrowing.  But to really tell the story and get the sense and feel of it right, Luke would need to know something of the process of sailing.  From the details he records, he seems to have a good grasp of nautical terminology.  He uses specific terms for the ship, but also for the weather, the techniques and strategies of sailing, and the terms for different sorts of shoreline and coastal features.  How did a medical person come up with all those terms?

I suspect that the good doctor talked a lot with the sailors on the trip, and on other trips.  I suspect that he got to know them, their jobs, the terms they used for things, and listened to their stories (where the best terms are discovered - some actually printable).  I suspect that Luke got out of his comfort zone, and into the zones of others.  And I suspect he learned enough about them to write them and their struggles into his account of Paul's journey.  Luke doesn't shy away from details about this trip, he delves right into them, demonstrating that even in this journey, Jesus leads Paul to Rome through every barrier.

Decisions are made in this chapter, and dangers are avoided; sometimes by the skills of the sailors and sometimes by the advice of Paul.  Some dangers are faced head on and survived.  There is a lot of detail in this chapter.  And Luke could not have written the detail without some familiarity with sailing, and I believe he got that from sailors.  It may sound simple, and it may sound obvious, perhaps his knowledge doesn't require familiarity with sailors.  In any case, I believe he got it on the journey, hanging out with sailors, and I learn a lesson from that.

I meet a lot of people, and not all of them are 'comfortable'.  Most homeless people aren't comfortable for me.   There are various reason for that, but part is fear.  But there is a society of people adrift that I don't know or understand.  And I won't unless I overcome my 'uncomfortableness' and become willing to engage them.  They have far less trust of me, and more reason to fear me than I have of them.  Not that there is no danger in dealing with them, but there is more danger for them; I represent a society that fears, hates, and mistreats them.

The question is really whether I am willing to engage in the world and context of others.  If I am willing, then my Master can use me to reach people outside my comfort zone.  If I'm not willing, then I hinder my usefulness to my King.  What I learn from Luke's technical nautical terminology is that he was able to go outside his comfort zone to engage people in a different world.  And so should I be willing to engage people different from me.  Luke was used by my Master in that experience, and after.  So my Master can use me if I am willing and available to Him.

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.

Becoming Less Oblique Toward my Master

As with most of Chambers’ entries, this one examines and probes my stance before my Master.  Is my stance toward Him, focused and concentrated?  Or is my stance oblique, taking Him in as well as all the other options vying for my attention?  Or is my stance facing Him at all?  Chambers address the oblique and focused stance.

Clearly from all the other entries, the position of Chambers is that I am to be focused on my Master in all of my life.  He didn’t come up with that, he got it from Scripture.  As I observe my “stance” lately, it has been less oblique than it has been, but I still suffer from distractions around me.  The very things I see my Master doing become distractions.  I stop looking beyond the wonder of the action, missing the Prime Mover of all things.

In gaining a better and better view of this impending move, I still feel a sense of excitement.  The sense can go two ways, it can degenerate into fear of the unknown details, or it can grow into energizing anticipation.  The deciding factor is my faith.  My faith is dependent upon my stance.  The less oblique my stance, the greater my faith.  When my Master fills my view, then I don’t even notice the unknown.  What is known outshines everything else.

I confess that I am not that focused yet, I am still oblique enough in my stance toward my Master that circumstances still distract me to some degree.  It’s really strange to look back over a day, or even a few hours, and see the silly things which distracted me, caused me stress or fear.  When I shake myself back to reality, and return my focus back to my Master, all stress and fear is gone.  Even knowing that, starting my morning with that, rehearsing it on the way to work, I still get it wrong after turning on my computer at work.  Is that selective memory, or evidence that my stance is more oblique than I thought?  It’s probably both, like being distracted by movement out of the corner of my eye. 

So, the goal in any given day, including this one, is to remain in an closed, facing stance focused on my Master.  The morning ritual, the drive in, the start up for the day, and the insatiable clamoring of tasks and customer; all must find their context and meaning in my focus on my Master. So, what is my Master’s interest in this next call?  What is my Master’s interest in this next task, fix, solution, conversation, or application?  I need to remember that He does have an interest in all those daily minor details.  The washing of a dish serves to teach a lesson of keeping my life clean, so does answering a phone, typing an email, and examining data to develop a solution. 

What would You have me do today, my Master?

Oswald Chambers' "My Utmost For His Highest": June 10th.

Asking my Master for…

I’m not so sure that my abject poverty before my Master exhibits itself in asking for things.  In a sense it does, but I need careful thought to see when that is true.  For instance, when the details of moving were up in the air, but the move itself was not, I didn’t pray that my Master would make the details clear.  Instead I prayed for patience and peace while I waited.  The point of my spiritual poverty was at the lack of peace and patience.  I was called to wait, worship, and walk before my Master.  To accomplish that I needed those two qualities.  I didn’t have them, so I asked my Master.  The other stuff like details I didn’t ask for.  I figured to do so was to miss the point of having faith and walking without sight.

Perhaps I’m wrong, but my spiritual poverty has more to do with the “Fruit of the Spirit” than something physical or circumstantial I wish I had.  That may be what Chambers is getting at when he says, “The next best thing to do if you are not spiritually real is to ask God for the Holy Spirit on the word of Jesus Christ.”  Since the fruit of the Spirit are not fruit of my spirit, but the Spirit of my Master, asking for that fruit would be asking for more “spiritual reality”.  Although, I confess that I’m not entirely sure I understand Chambers at this point.

A lot of things in my present circumstance that I see now, I never thought to ask for.  It didn’t occur to me to ask my Master for house to move into when we arrived there.  It didn’t occur to me to ask that my wife and I would be able to move with our current jobs, keeping benefits and so on.  It did occur to us that one town might offer better home prices than another, but we still assumed proximity to the in-laws was better, and I guess we were wrong.  We’re just over 20 miles away, but on the way that way.

Is it a problem that these things we see now are things we did not ask for?  I don’t think so.  But I see points of my spiritual poverty and complete dependence on my Master within me.  I am weak when it comes to my particular brand of obsession, and even with some small distance from it, weakness abounds.  I still have fears and worries.  I take them captive to my Master, but then, later, I let them loose to run around my emotions.  I still have difficulty responding appropriately to my daughter.  She defaults to smart-aleck and I go off instead of breaking the conversation off.  She’s a pre-teen mess and I’m surprised and shocked.  Clearly I have a lot of growth ahead.

Chambers keeps referring back to passages in James where I am told to ask my Master for wisdom, but to ask with right motives.  I think that I do lack wisdom in a lot of areas, spiritually and circumstantially.  So, I have a lot of growing that will require a lot of asking of my Master.  My motives in those requests should be to grow closer to my Master, not to appear more spiritual to others or gain their approval.  Going into a new place with a new church, that is a real issue to watch.  The temptation will be there, but will I be conscious enough of myself to spot it and repent immediately?

My real need at this moment has to do with how I respond to my daughter.  The other details out of my control are my Master’s problem.  But my responses to my Daughter are weakness for me which will affect her and her walk with my Master.  She needs a loving coach, mentor, and leader.  She doesn’t need a bully, but does need firm boundaries.  She doesn’t need another buddy, but she does need a responsible emotionally mature parent.  I have some growing, humbling, and  relaxing to do.  I think my Master wants to work in her life, but I have probably been a hindrance.

I suppose that is enough to work on for one lifetime…I mean day.

Oswald Chambers' "My Utmost For His Highest": June 9th.