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.

Getting God's Attention

Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him. (Acts 10:34-35 NASB)

The Philippian jailer would eventually ask Paul, "What must I do to be saved?"  This is a very important question for which to have an answer.  The person of Cornelius presents an interesting twist on it.  I wonder at what point was Cornelius accepted by God as one of His family?  In other words, when was Cornelius no longer in danger of going to hell, and assured of going to heaven?

In the opening verse of this chapter, the angel of the Lord tells Cornelius that his prayers have been heard and his giving has ascended as a memorial before God.  Is this something characteristic of one going to hell?  Would God hear prayers and accept memorials from one who is not His own?  In my opinion, Peter's revelation is also mine.  I realize that those who fear my Master and do what is right (in other words, seek to obey Him) are acceptable to my Master.  There is no partiality with my Master.

To bring this into the present, those around me who look, speak, possibly smell different than I do are acceptable to my Master when they fear Him and seek to obey Him.  I am in no way able to classify people on what they look like, their accent, or where they live.  In some sense I can look at their behavior, but I have to be careful here.  Obedience to my Master will not look the same for everyone.

There are many different legitimate ways to worship my Master.  There are plenty of activities not expressly prohibited by Him or obliquely referred to by Him.  I may not want to do or behave that way, but I must be sure to evaluate on Scriptural grounds rather than personal preferences or my cultural behaviors.  Now, why ask this question?

I have been asked about "people who have never heard of God or Jesus" and how they can be held accountable for salvation.  Paul is pretty clear in Romans that the world has enough clues to God's existence that everyone is responsible before Him.  "So," goes the question, "what about someone who has never heard but responds to this evidence of God in this world?"  Well, at that point, is where I believe this concept in Acts 10 (and Acts 8 with the Ethiopian eunuch) kicks in.  This statement by Peter indicates the criteria, fear God and obey Him.

But I have to concede two points.  First off, both Cornelius and the Ethiopian official had already responded to the Judaism of their day.  In other words, they had embraced something "monotheistic" which had been revealed by God already.  Second, they were both brought into the fold of believers by having the good news of Jesus preached to them.  Even though these events were divinely appointed, Jesus is preached, and they accept. 

Here's my answer to both points: so what?  In the first point, the setting is Palestine, but neither one of these people is from there.  Seeking God would only be found through Judaism at this point; Christianity is local at this point.  The second point I discount because this is the only way they would be brought into this story.  Had either one remained apart from the influence of Jesus' followers, we wouldn't know of them.  What I believe addresses this issue in this account is that the angel tells Cornelius that he's acceptable to God before Jesus is preached to him and he accepts.

So here's the lesson I walk away with, it's not about me nor my ability.  People will not be coming to my Master in droves because of me.  People will seek my Master because of Him.  For whatever lack in their own lives and culture, the answer they find will be my Master.  I get so afraid that I will mess it up some how, that my foibles and weaknesses will be the downfall of someone else.  I don't even try or fear what to say because I don't want to mess up.  And I don't want to be thought of as some religious nut or looked down on for my beliefs, and so on it goes.  It's all a lot of hogwash; ridiculous hogwash.  All my excuses come down to one thing: me.  So, now I see conclusive proof (like I didn't have it before) that it's not about me at all.  See how stupid I am, how can I be trusted with the good news of Jesus if I'm such an idiot?  Simple, it's not about me.  Since I'm without excuses, I guess I need to start jumping into those conversations.

Is Obedience the Key to Usefulness to my Master?

In John 14, the “pep-talk” Jesus gives His disciples is full of rather peculiar elements.  Chambers says that Jesus never insists upon obedience, and yet Jesus says to His disciples in the same discourse referenced by Chambers that, “a new commandment I give you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.”  Is a commandment not insistence?

 

I suppose such a command is not insistence like Chambers is referring to.  He basically means that Jesus doesn’t force obedience, but allows choice regarding obedience.  It does seem rather strange that in this I have choice, in salvation not so much (am I the elect?).  Here again, I see his point, but I also believe he goes a bit far with it.  He says that my Master does not give me rules, and yet He gives me a new commandment.  True it’s not a rule in the traditional sense, but it has a few similarities.

 

What I can’t do is limit my Master to what He will accomplish, even through me.  I have seen far too often in retrospect, that my Master will accomplish something through me almost regardless of me.  I think He does this because it demonstrates how little I am needed for His work.  I’m invited, but not indispensable. That’s comforting, because of the sheer number of mistakes I make, I’d hate the stress of believing someone else’s eternity depended upon me.  So, I don’t posit my Master’s ability to reach through me on me.  What I posit on my obedience is the degree to which I participate and the degree to which I am aware of His work.

 

When my fear stops me from engaging obediently in my community, then I cut myself off from the blessings of seeing my Master work.  He still works, and will even use me from time to time, I just don’t see it except in retrospect.  I miss the blessings of joy and excitement to see my Master accomplish the miracle of redemption in the lives of people around me.  That’s a big blessing to give up just because I don’t know what might happen.

 

I hope to have a teacher meeting this afternoon, and perhaps that will provide an opportunity to engage obediently with my community in a real manner.  But there may be others.  I had a remote control helicopter crash two back yards away, which gave me the opportunity to meet some neighbors I don’t normally see.  I guess I just never know where the opportunities may come from.  Perhaps I need to fly the silly helicopter more and meet more people that way?  I’m sure there are better ways, like… wow, such a lack of creativity.  I am so dependent upon my Master, even for creative ways to meet the neighbors.  Maybe I need more coffee this morning.

 

Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest, November 2

A Philosophical Theology of the Necessity of Missionary Work: Being a Catalyst of Life

There is a question in the discussion of religious thought about what happens to those who have never heard of the saving message of Jesus.  The answer is critical to any missionary enterprise.  Chambers hits it obliquely and seems to create a defense of not sending missionaries at all.  He doesn’t because his discussion isn’t complete, but his discussion of sin is very interesting.

In Romans, Paul addresses this question head-on.  As a missionary, he has a vested interest in defending what has become the enterprise of his whole life. Chambers refers to a portion of this discussion in Romans 5:12.  Paul is using a compare and contrast between Jesus and Adam to make his point about the problem with humanity and the solution Jesus provides. 

So, how does Chambers define sin? He says, “The disposition of sin is not immorality and wrong-doing, but the disposition of self-realization - I am my own god.”  Once upon a time in my not-so-distant past, I was all excited about what I believe is the central theme of all of Scripture.  I believe that all of Scripture (and therefore all of this life) is “School” and we are all being educated on the difference between life and death.  The definitions seem easy, except that I don’t believe they are physical events. I believe life and death only have meaning on a relational level, and especially in the relationship with my Master.

So, what?  Well I think that Chambers and I are together on one point, though my describe it differently.  I believe that it is theoretically possible for someone to seek the Creator of the cosmos without having heard of Jesus.  And that someone like that would be saved.  I say “theoretically” because it’s an argument from silence, and is impossible to test, and, therefore prove (nice argument to have until someone point that out).  Paul says people are without excuse precisely because the cosmos declares the existence of the Creator, but he also says that no one seeks the Creator and people are satisfied worshipping the creation instead. 

But if Chambers is right in his definition, then his definition supports a “theoretical” situation like mine.  In fact, Chambers says that God does not hold us guilty of the disposition toward sin (self-realization), but of rejecting Jesus as the solution.  That would mean telling others of Jesus would suddenly make them culpable before the Creator.  There is more to the belief, I assure you.  Yes, at the point the specific choice is presented, the choice, once made, decides eternity.  But the opportunity only provides a new option where before there was only one.  Without the missionary effort, the cosmos will only descend into deeper darkness swallowing any potential random isolated lights.

So, when I keep my life (my relationship with my Master) to myself claiming that is is my business, I rob my community.  I rob my community of faith, and I rob my community of those without such a relationship.  When I claim that my relationship with my Master is my business I sin by claiming that self-realization that puts me on the throne reserved for my Master.  I refuse to obey and serve when I do that.  My relationship with my Master is not my business precisely because it is not mine, but His.  He started it, He reached out to me, He chose me, and He is the One making it possible to maintain.  How can that be my business?  I deny my Master’s claim on my life when I refuse to disclose that relationship to my community.

I know where I need to change.  I need to develop the practice of referring to my Master in conversation.  I need to become known for that.  My references to Him should become just the normal way I refer to elements of my life.  Right now that would sound forced and canned.  It would take time for such a practice to become natural.  I need to spend that time, and adopt that practice.  If I am not a sign pointing to my Master, then my life and my relationship with Him is a waste.  Remember, I claim to believe that life is defined by relationship, especially with my Master.  So then why would I not want others around me to live as well?  Why would I let a community remain dead?  All it would take is a change in my normal behavior, and then I could be a catalyst for others to have life.  Right now, I have little to no effect what so ever.

Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest, October 5