BEREA

The city of Berea gets a short but significant shout out in the book of Acts. (17:10-15)

The people of Berea are contrasted with those of Thessalonica where Paul and Silas had just stopped to "reason with them from Scripture" about the Christ. 

The Thessalonians had listened - and quite a few people had been persuaded - but ultimately ... surprise! ... a group of leaders had stirred up the crowds and run the disciples out of town.

The Bereans, on the other hand, "received the message with great eagerness" AND "examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true". (17:11) 

This word "examine" is a strong verb. It means to scrutinize. To investigate.

It is so much more than a casual reading.

They rightly recognized Scripture as the final authority on matters of Truth and held Paul's teaching alongside the Scriptures to see if what he was saying was Truth.

They weren't going to accept Paul's teaching just because it was persuasive or novel.

And they weren't going to reject it just because it conflicted with their prior understanding. 

They were going to listen closely and then read closely. To the extent Paul's points matched Scripture, they would welcome his teaching.

Nice system.

Please note: We are not told that any of these Bereans held a seminary degree.

BLEAK CIRCUMSTANCES

It is estimated that the Apostle Paul spent about 5 and a half years of his 35 years of missionary service in prison. Locked up and awaiting trial.

His first imprisonment is alongside Silas in the city of Philippi. The two of them get into trouble when Paul casts a fortune-telling spirit out of a slave girl. Her masters are not happy over the loss of income. 

So they stir up the crowd and the local magistrates against Paul and Silas. The two men are severely beaten and then shackled in a cell in the heart of the local jail. 

You often hear preachers marvel that many of Paul's most joy-filled letters were written from jail cells.

This story of his first imprisonment proves joy was a habit from the beginning: Around midnight, Paul and Silas are found praying and singing hymns as the other prisoners listen. (Acts 16:25)

In the midst of those prayers and hymns, an earthquake strikes. The prison doors fly open. The chains fall from all the inmates.

And, ultimately, the jailer - and all his household - come to know Christ.

A miraculous escape story! But there's an oddity at the end that I had never paid attention to before.

It turns out Paul and Silas were going to be released the next day anyway. 

At daybreak, the magistrates send word to the jailer to release the disciples. And there is no hint that the Lord is directly behind this decision. (But He undoubtedly knew it was going to happen.)

So why go to the trouble of unleashing an earthquake?

I can think of at least three lessons that God drove home to Paul and Silas in all this:

1) No matter how bleak the circumstances, the Lord is still in charge.

2) No matter how bleak the circumstances, there is still work to be done for the Kingdom. 

3) When it is God's timing - not before and not after - those bleak circumstances will end. 

I don't suppose Paul ever forgot those lessons after that first half-night in prison, do you?

PAY IT FORWARD

I've heard other people talk about it but this morning was the first time I experienced it for myself: Some stranger in line in front of me paid for my Starbucks order.

It was an unusual Saturday morning in that Melissa was scheduled to help out with a church program. She planned to stop at Starbucks on her way to get a special treat of caffeine to help her through.

When she started running behind schedule, I offered to be the considerate husband who would sit in the drive thru line to get her drink so she could still get to church on time.

Imagine my joy when I pulled up to the second window and the barista handed me my wife's Decaf Mocha Latte with Oatmilk and 1 Stevia - but then refused to take my card.

"The car in front of you paid for your order," she chirped.

I've heard how these chains of generosity can go on all morning as each driver pays for the order of the car to follow. What a beautiful world of generosity and selflessness! So blessed to receive and to give! 

A reminder of the brotherhood of man on a morning when the world was watching man's inhumanity to man unfold along the borders of Ukraine.

So I said, "Well, I guess I should pay for the car behind me. How much is their order?"

"$12.67." 

Sorry. 

No way I am paying that much for coffee. 

SLEEP WIMP

I woke up at 3:30 this morning and couldn't fall back to sleep. It kind of messed up my whole day.

I felt run down and unfocused at every step. 

And since it messed up my day, it is not surprising that it is messing up my evening.

Melissa wants to watch some Netflix but I know I will just fall asleep on the couch. 

And I need to be up tomorrow by 3:30 again so that I can be awake enough to drop Sarah at her school by 4:30. She has a show choir competition that is several hours away by bus.

And THEN I need to be awake enough to come back to the house and get some serious work done on my research paper. My goal is to have the first draft complete by tomorrow evening. 

Having my sleep out of whack puts that goal at risk.

It stinks being such a sleep wimp. 

TIMING

In Acts 16, Paul, Silas and Timothy are on the move. 

But not quite sure where they are going!

All they know is that they are to preach the gospel. 

They attempt to enter the Province of Asia.

But they are "kept from it" by the Holy Spirit.

Then they try to enter Bithynia.

But the Holy Spirit "does not allow it".

That night, Paul has a vision of a man from Macedonia standing and begging for help.

The next day they head straight to Philippi, the first city they can reach within Macedonia.

I must ask you: Isn't this dependence on direction from the Holy Spirit - as they are moving - just awesome?

This is how I want to live. 

Were there not people in Asia and Bithynia needing to hear the gospel? 

Undoubtedly there were. Multitudes! 

So why didn't the Holy Spirit send the disciples into the first place they came to? 

I can only conclude that it wasn't about the need. It was about the timing.

The Lord has his own timing. And it is perfect. 

We must always remember: He KNOWS things we don't know.

Lots of things.

(*Has anyone created "The Bible in Memes" yet? 

If not, I call it.) 

WORSE THAN BIAS

Online, I usually avoid discussing politics. So fair warning: this post involves politics.

But only tangentially. It's really about the news media in general, left AND right on the political spectrum. 

I am not talking about simple "bias". There is something much more insidious - and less defensible - than bias going on these days. 

At least since my college days, I have been aware of bias in the news media. 

I first became aware that bias could shape the way a story is reported. And that was worrisome to me. It was possible to sway the audience toward a particular conclusion through subtle tricks of language. 

Then I became aware that bias could dictate what was left out of a story. This was even worse. Ignorance of context leaves you unable to get anything meaningful out of a news story. 

Now I see something very different from bias. Something which makes the bias of past decades seem downright quaint in comparison. 

Bias has stepped aside to make room for outright manipulation. 

If you still think you are getting "the news" from the "news media" in 2022, I am not sure what sort of evidence it would take to convince you. 

Maybe CNN's coverage of Trump's comments on Putin?

(Disclaimer: I am not singling out CNN because they are "the only one who manipulates". They are far from alone in this. CNN is simply the vessel for this particular example of media malpractice.) 

Check out "Trump Sides with Putin as Biden Tries to Stop a War" at CNN.com. 

Here's how the "analysis" by author Stephen Collinson begins: "It took only 24 hours for Donald Trump to hail Russian President Vladimir Putin's dismembering of independent, democratic, sovereign Ukraine as an act of 'genius'."

If you bother to look up the full quote from Trump (which is not part of the article or the video clip from their "reporting" of the incident on air), you will understand that Trump is not praising Putin. He is insulting Biden. 

In effect, Trump's message was "Putin is playing Biden like a fiddle".

And CNN reported "Trump praises Putin's musical genius". 

After more than 5 years of Trump in the headlines, to pretend you don't understand his, shall we say, "unique communication style"? That is entirely disingenuous. 

This is much more than bias. It is an outright, intentional lie. And it has been dressed as "The News". 

If you are a fan of CNN, this should more than bother you. (It is not the first time they have done this. It won't be the last.)

If you are a fan of FOX, you won't have to look too hard to find similar examples there. (If you are objective.) 

In my mind, there is no "trusted name" in the news business. 

This is dangerous territory. 

BOOK CRITIQUES

    I am writing a paper on how secular books about habit formation could be usefully incorporated into church teaching regarding spiritual disciplines. 

    As part of my research I looked at many lists of top-rated books on spiritual disciplines. I wanted a sampling of available teaching on the disciplines and needed to see how they approached the subject. I found three that appeared on all the lists and got myself a copy of each to dive in deeper:

• Richard Foster's Celebration of Discipline (1978)

• Dallas Willard's The Spirit of the Disciplines (1988)

• Donald Whitney's Spiritual Disciplines for the Christian Life (1991)

    Sometimes things that should be obvious still surprise me. When I started researching these three online, I found abundant criticisms of all three books and their authors. 

1. Too Catholic.
2. Too unaffiliated. 
3. Too Calvinist. (And not Calvinist enough!)

    And, according to some critics, all three books are just too "mystical".

    (There's no room for mysterious spiritual experiences in the life of a Christian, for heaven's sake.)

    As believers we must be discerning of what we read. And I have found much to question in all three books. 

    But if we're looking for a Christian book (or podcast or blog) with 100% guaranteed true and perfect theology, we aren't going to find it ... outside the Bible. 

    And even there, we can argue over translations!

THE RIGHT TOOL

I am currently attempting a 12 page research paper for my doctorate work. And it was kicking my butt. Mostly it inspired endless procrastination. (I've had two months to focus on it.)

Then I came across a writing program called Scrivener, downloaded it for $40, and spent two hours looking through its tutorials.

Scrivener's genius is in breaking long pieces of writing down into smaller parts and keeping it all organized and together.  

And now I am moving forward on the paper. 

It makes me wonder ... How often in life have I assumed I could go no further because I didn't have the ability - when all I was lacking was the tool?

The right tool makes all the difference.

Maybe when you don't see a way forward, it's only because God hasn't put the right tool into your hand yet. 

SAINT MACHAR'S

In front of our house, the daffodils are starting to pop up from the cold, winter ground. It won't be long now!

Daffodils always remind me of one of my favorite Wordsworth poems:

I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud 

By William Wordsworth

I wandered lonely as a cloud

That floats on high o'er vales and hills,

When all at once I saw a crowd,

A host, of golden daffodils;

Beside the lake, beneath the trees,

Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.

Continuous as the stars that shine

And twinkle on the milky way,

They stretched in never-ending line

Along the margin of a bay:

Ten thousand saw I at a glance,

Tossing their heads in sprightly dance.

The waves beside them danced; but they

Out-did the sparkling waves in glee:

A poet could not but be gay,

In such a jocund company:

I gazed—and gazed—but little thought

What wealth the show to me had brought:

For oft, when on my couch I lie

In vacant or in pensive mood,

They flash upon that inward eye

Which is the bliss of solitude;

And then my heart with pleasure fills,

And dances with the daffodils.

I love the simple idea at the heart of this poem. Wordsworth is out walking one day when he comes across an entire field of daffodils. So beautiful. So full of joy.

He loved the moment, but never anticipated how much more joy those daffodils would bring him. Now - years later - he finds that he can be lounging on a couch, half out of it - or maybe feeling down - and his imagination calls up that field of flowers. And his heart is instantly lifted.

At the mere memory!

For me, daffodils are forever associated with St. Machar's Cathedral in Aberdeen, Scotland. 

St. Machar's looms over one end of Seaton Park, the ground situated between Hillhead dorm and classrooms of Aberdeen University. Hillhead was my home away from home my junior year of college. 

Each weekday I trekked across Seaton Park and hiked up the gentle hill toward St. Machar's on my way to class. One February day the hillside was "suddenly" covered in bright daffodils.

Like Wordsworth, I "gazed and gazed". They stopped me in my tracks. 

Here's a photo from St. Machar's Facebook page:

Beautiful, huh?*

This afternoon I plan to take a moment to lay on a couch and let the daffodils of St. Machar's "flash upon my inward eye". 

It's the best way to overcome February pensiveness!

____________________________

* The current structure of St. Machar's dates back to the 1300s, but Machar himself began worship services on this site in 580. A bit of gruesome historical trivia: When William Wallace was drawn and quartered in 1305, one of his left quarters was sent to Aberdeen and was encased in the walls of St. Machar's. 

VENGEFULNESS

We should include an important footnote with yesterday's description of what Paul and Barnabas experienced in Lystra.

You remember that while the Lystrans ultimately stoned Paul to near death, they had first worshiped him. Or at least attempted to.

Paul and Barnabas told these people to "turn from these worthless things" - meaning their devotion to Zeus - and that could not have gone over well. Calling out someone's religious beliefs as false? That's a tough sell.

But this wasn't the only hurdle in the disciples' path. 

In fact, even after Paul and Barnabas finish speaking Truth, they still "had difficulty keeping the crowd from sacrificing to them". (Acts 14:18)

By the end of verse 19, the Lystrans are stoning Paul and dragging him outside the city, thinking he is dead.

What is the catalyst? Just look at the beginning of verse 19: "Then some Jews came from Antioch and Iconium and won the crowd over." 

These are the same leaders who chased Paul out of Antioch by stirring up the "God-fearing women" of the city (Acts 13:50) now teamed up with the leaders who "stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers" in Iconium (14:2).

It wasn't enough for these folks to chase Paul and Barnabas out of their towns, they were out to destroy them and their reputations.

They actually followed the disciples. Tracked them down. And they weren't satisfied until they had turned other people against the disciples. 

An important lesson that I pray Life never has occasion to teach you directly: Never underestimate the strength of vengefulness as a motivator. Or the destruction it leaves in its wake. 

It's not a lesson anyone ever needs to be taught twice. 

LYSTRA

This is not one of the more famous locations in the book of Acts, but it deserves to be: Lystra.

The story set in Lystra begins with Paul healing a man whose feet were crippled from birth. 

To be more precise, it is Jesus who heals the man through Paul. This turns out to be an important distinction, at least to Paul and Barnabas.

The crowd sees only that "the gods have come down to us in human form!" (Acts 14:11)

They decide that Barnabas is Zeus and Paul must be Hermes. Why? Because Paul is the chief speaker, like Hermes, and Barnabas (scholars surmise) was older and taller than Paul - just as Zeus was portrayed.

But at the heart of it, the reason the crowd jumps to this conclusion is that the Roman gods were their framework for reality. There was a temple dedicated to Zeus just outside the city. And it had its own priest. (v.13) 

Everyone in the city knew for a fact that Zeus and Hermes were actual deities deserving of worship and sacrifice. They were also aware of an ancient story of these two gods visiting the area and being unrecognized by all the people save an elderly couple.

The Lystrans didn't want to make that same mistake. They brought out bulls and wreaths to dedicate to Paul and Barnabas. 

[Isn't it fascinating that the people were open to the possibility that their ancestors had made a giant mistake, while still being oblivious to the fact that their entire present worldview itself was a giant mistake?] 

These gestures of worship horrify Paul and Barnabas, of course. "We too are only men, human like you!" Even so, they have great difficulty in discouraging the sacrifices.

But do you remember how the story ends? Even though Paul and Barnabas preach the kindness of God - a God who knows them and provides for them - it is NOT Zeus.

So ...

They stone Paul so brutally, everyone presumes he is dead. Then they drag the "body" outside the city walls. 

Paul shakes it off and goes back into the city, but he and Barnabas leave the next day.

And the Lystrans get to keep their worldview intact. 

AVOIDING CONTROVERSY

When Melissa and I finally resigned from that mission organization and came to terms with the reality of not returning to Haiti, we started to look for work here in Indiana.

Not knowing exactly what God's plan was for our future, I entertained the idea of pastoring a local church. 

A position came open within commuting distance of Columbus - a church we were already familiar with and liked. A church that had financially supported our work in Haiti. 

I applied. 

During the interview the committee asked why we had left Haiti. I did my best to explain - in an evenhanded way - the false accusations that we had endured. And all the pain and controversy that attended those accusations. 

Before the interview ended, the committee said that they were asking for a sample sermon on video from all candidates to review as part of their process. I said that I would have to record one since I didn't have one on file, but I would get right on it.

A few days later a representative of the church called to say not to bother with the sermon. They had discussed my application already and decided I wouldn't be a good fit for the church.

I decided to be bold: "Can I ask why?"

The reply was honest: "It was mainly the accusations that were made against you. That controversy just made the committee nervous."

I didn't fight it, of course. No use in that. 

But it did make me wonder...

Was the church planning to avoid the preaching of anyone who had ever been embroiled in false accusations and controversy going forward? 

If so, might that severely limit even the material from the New Testament they deem useable?

After all, what's the New Testament without the preaching of Jesus or Paul?

OUTSOURCING OPINIONS

Acts 13:49-50   "The word of the Lord spread through the whole region. But the Jews incited the God-fearing women of high standing and the leading men of the city. They stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their region." 

Two short verses which would be easy to pass over without a second glance.

But look closer. There are some important truths illustrated here:

1) When things are going well ("The word of the Lord spread"), opposition is right around the corner. 

2) Being "God-fearing" doesn't give you immunity against buying someone else's lies or misdirection. (The troublemakers "incited the God-fearing women of high standing".) 

3) "Everyone is saying it" does NOT equal "It must be true". 

4) Outside opinions implanted in us can motivate just as powerfully as opinions arising from within. 

5) In either case, that motivation can be 180 degrees in the wrong direction. 

We all have plenty of opinions.

On Politics. Religion. Our Boss. Our Co-workers. Even Complete Strangers. 

It's worthwhile to consider this question: "How many of my opinions are my own and how many were given to me?"

Given by the media?

Given by co-workers?

Given by friends?

Do you think even 10% of our opinions are homegrown? What's YOUR opinion?

ACCEPT

It's common to hear preachers and everyday Christians alike speak about the need for unbelievers to "accept Jesus into their hearts".

"When I was 17, I accepted Jesus into my heart."

"At Vacation Bible School we had 13 kids accept Jesus into their hearts!"

"If you are ready to accept Jesus into your heart, come to the altar as the worship team plays."

It's a phrase you hear on many lips.

But never see in the Bible. 

How do we justify that?

And what does it even mean to "accept" Jesus "into your heart"?

Does anybody know?

As I have read slowly through Matthew and now into Acts, it's hard to miss this fact: the push is never to "accept".

The key word is always "repent". 

It seems to me that in a modern American church, it might be possible to be a member for years - even decades - without ever being challenged to repent.

But is it possible to even begin an authentic Christian journey without repentance? 

PRAYER UNTETHERED

Yesterday I wrote about Scripture-less prayer having real world consequences. In the best case scenario, we ask for the wrong thing and the worst consequence is wasted time. Ours and God's.

It is when we "hear God's direction" through our untethered prayers that the consequences can become destructive - to ourselves and others.

What is the best way to be certain the voice we hear is really God's? I would say we can have confidence when the instructions, tone, and priorities align with God's voice and character as expressed through his word. 

I feel strongly about this for good reason. I (and my wife) have been on the receiving end of serious repercussions of untethered prayer.

But I will share here only my own experience (though my wife had it worse) and I will leave all names out. 

The lack of proper discernment in prayer, in a nutshell, was one of my main beefs with the mission organization which sought to discipline me on the basis of false accusations from a co-worker. 

The process was quite drawn out. And painful.

Throughout, the leadership of the organization said things like "We prayed about this and we believe God is saying ... ". And "We prayed long and hard about our response and we have decided to ... " 

The implication was that if they had "spent time in prayer", the matter was settled. Their discernment was not to be questioned. Even if their conclusions ran counter to Scripture. (Not to mention, common sense.) 

Every time I tried to direct attention back to Scripture, my complaints went unaddressed.

I said things like "The Bible says 'you shall not bear false witness'. How many of the accusations must be proved to be lies before you throw out my accuser's entire testimony?" 

- Silence.

"The Bible says if we feel a brother has sinned against us, we should go to him personally. Why is the organization encouraging and upholding anonymous accusations?" 

- Crickets.

"You say you are seeking reconciliation and yet the anonymity makes reconciliation literally impossible. (Punishment, on the other hand, is very doable.)" 

- Nothing.

And finally "Jesus says, 'Let your yes be yes and your no be no'. Do you think it is right for you as a Christian organization to force my silence about all of this nonsense by requiring me to sign a legally-binding document written by your lawyer? Under threat of termination for not signing?" 

- - - Well, we didn't actually wait for a response on that last one. Melissa and I resigned when presented with that legal document. (Writing the things contained in this blog post - even speaking them - would have gotten me fired ten times over!) 

Take it from me, prayer untethered from Scripture is destructive. 

Discernment in prayer requires deep familiarity with Scripture. 

PRAYER WITHOUT FOUNDATION

Yesterday, I wrote about how my increasing discipline towards reading and studying Scripture is leading me to desire greater discipline in prayer.

This is a healthy progression, for sure. 

Developing a good understanding and appreciation for Scripture can prevent our prayer life from going astray. Without a biblical foundation for our prayers, we are likely to waste time and effort in asking for the wrong things (best case scenario) or act unwisely based on faulty discernment of God's voice in answering us (worst case scenario).

The classic example of what I mean is the man, struggling in his marriage, who goes off to pray in solitary. He returns to tell his pastor, "God is telling me to get a divorce because I am not happy."

Isolated from Scripture, it is difficult to distinguish between God's direction and wishful thinking.

Or between God's direction and Satan's lies. 

Hopefully that man has a good pastor, who replies, "God is undoubtedly telling you no such thing. Let's turn to the Bible." 

CONVICTION

I knew there was danger in increasing the time and attention I was giving to Scripture.

I knew it might alter my perceptions of reality. (Which can be a little scary, but nothing I can't handle.)

And I knew it might convict me. On multiple levels.

(Because that is one of the Bible's main jobs.)

And I hate to admit it to myself - much less to you - but I knew one of the things I would eventually be convicted on was my prayer life.

This has been a long time coming.

My prayer practice has ebbed and flowed over my entire life, but it has never, ever been stellar. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe I am finally ready.

And so I am open to hearing from you - What practices have you found useful in drawing you deeper into prayer?

LOPSIDED CHRISTIANITY

The Apostle John urged his “dear children” to “not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.” (1 John 3:18)

The stress is on the word “and”:

Love with actions AND in truth.

In recent decades the American church has split into two camps: Actions OR Truth.

The authors of Churches that Make a Difference*, summarize this divide well:

“One branch, quoting the Great Commission, claims nothing is as important as leading individuals to a saving relationship with Jesus Christ.” 

The other side “stresses that the calling of Christians is to care for those who are poor and to seek justice.” 

Sider, Olson, and Unruh conclude: “Both sides have it partly right - but neither has the whole picture.” (p. 45)

The result is what they call “lopsided Christianity”. 

As always, Jesus should be our role model. He found no conflict in balancing his time and attention between preaching the message of “Repent, for the Kingdom of God is near” while also feeding the hungry, healing the sick, and setting the oppressed free from the demons seeking to ruin them. 

Love in action AND truth.

This is what gets me excited about serving with Mission Resource International. It might seem like such an organization is bound to be a bit slanted toward "loving in action". What some would call (sometimes with a sneer) the "social gospel".

But I am finding that MRI actually strives to maintain balance in the work God has called us to. Yes, the Lord has given us the privilege to serve in places where we see hungry people fed and willing people employed.

But we have also seen lost people finding the Savior and local churches strengthened. 

And THAT sort of holy balance is exciting to me.

___________

*Ronald Sider, Philip Olson, and Heidi Unruh, Churches that Make a Difference, 2002.

GHOSTWRITING

I found out this week that a friend of a friend is making an extra $5,000 a month writing for other people. While living on the mission field!

"Ghostwriting".  

And he's doing it part-time.

And you know what? If I made $5,000 a month at anything, it would be the highest paying job of my entire lifetime. By a significant margin.

(Which, I suppose most people would think is pretty sad for someone who is 53.)*

So I start asking myself, "Why can't I do that?"

A voice in the back of my brain then generates a list of reasons why I can't. 

But you know what else? I am slowly coming to the conclusion that there is only one thing stopping me from doing the same thing as that friend of a friend.

And it's not any of the items on that voice's list. 

It is the voice itself. 

*************************

* Those people might be right.

PARENTAL ADVICE WIN

It is a few minutes after 3:00 pm. My daughter's school day has ended and she has entered the school auditorium by now, God willing. 

As I write this, I am anxiously awaiting a verdict. Was yesterday's parental advice to Sarah wise?

Or did we set her up for trauma?

Sarah came home from school yesterday torn. Her school is pulling together a musical in the next few weeks and Sarah would love to be one of the background dancers. 

But even the background dancers have to audition. And that involves singing a solo in front of an audience of 40 classmates and adults. 

A daunting prospect!

The thought of it left Sarah bouncing between "I can do that" and "I am going to embarrass myself to death". 

After texting a friend later in the evening, she came to the kitchen and announced, "My friend isn't going to audition, so I have decided not to do it either. I am just going to be a part of the crew - backstage. Such a relief!" 

In that moment, I recognized myself in her: looking for an excuse to back away from what I feared might happen. And missing a golden opportunity.

And so her mother and I both spoke up. I think Sarah expected to hear "Well, it's your decision ..."

Instead, we repeated our confidence in her ... and urged her to face her fears.

This morning, although she lost a night of sleep, Sarah said she was going to audition after school.

****

It's now 10:00 pm and I am happy to report that Sarah stuck around after school - for almost three hours - and then took her turn on the stage and sang her song. 

She said her stomach was in a knot all day. She had considered backing out but then decided all her anxiety would have been for nothing. 

Now we wait to see if she made the cut.

For dinner we celebrated with some Chinese take-out from Yee Kee. 

Sarah was exhausted but nothing could wipe that smile off her face all evening. 

AN EXPERIMENT

I launched a little experiment today, Tuesday, February 8, 2022. 

Gonna grow some green beans. 

In sand. 

I have high expectations, but it's going to take a couple of weeks before I see anything interesting. 

It's one of those things where I have heard something that seems too good to be true. So now I need to see for myself. 

If this turns out to be something, you are going to be hearing a lot about it from me in the coming weeks and months and years. And it will spawn further experiments. 

But for now, I am going to patiently watch and pray. The beans won't even sprout for 6 to 8 days. 

Sorry to be so vague - I am leery of getting my hopes up. But this has the potential to be so much more interesting than it sounds right now. 

I will report soon ... when and if there is something to say. 

NOW I GET IT

After Cornelius, the centurion, explains the angelic visit that prompted him to send for Peter, it drives home to Peter the point God was making with the sheet full of animals: the Lord is not the Lord only of the Jews. Salvation is offered to all people. 

I love Peter's response: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism." (Acts 10:34, NIV)

If you had asked Peter a week before all this started if God showed partiality in his dealings with his creation, it's a fair guess that he would have said, "No, of course not - God does not show favoritism!"

But now? Now he sees "how true it is". 

He has reached a much deeper level of understanding.

Here are a few other translations of Peter's epiphany:

"I see very clearly" (NLT)

"Truly I understand" (ESV)

"In truth I perceive" (NKJV)

"I most certainly understand now" (NASB)

In other words: "I finally get it."

When the Holy Spirit is poured out on Cornelius and his entire Gentile household, the text says "the circumcised believers who had come with Peter" are "astonished". 

It seems that Peter himself is not astonished. He gets right to baptizing them.

Because now he gets it.

BUT GOD HAS SHOWN ME ...

Is it not amazing that over a third of the book of Acts passes before the early church wakes up to God's intention of spreading the Gospel even to the Gentiles?

In chapter 10, here is Peter, one of Jesus' inner circle. He has walked with Christ. Witnessed the death, resurrection, and ascension. Experienced the filling of the Holy Spirit. Practiced miraculous signs and wonders and healings. And suffered persecutions.

And yet it takes three repetitions of a supernatural vision - a sheet dropped down from heaven with all kinds of animals - to impress upon him God's openness to the entire world. Not just the Jewish people. 

This was a blind spot a mile wide. And Peter was far from alone.

I think modern Christians fail to recognize how ingrained the Jew/Gentile divide was and how much of the New Testament is written to address the scandal of God's concern for, love of, and sovereignty over, yes, even the Gentile world. 

We take it as a given. Peter obviously did not.

So eventually he finds himself in front of the Roman centurion, Cornelius, and his entire family. And Peter explains, "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him." (Acts 10:28)

But then come those thrilling words: "But God has shown me..."

******

Was it really unlawful by Old Testament standards for Jews to associate with Gentiles? 

No. This was more of a cultural taboo that had grown out of some specific rabbinical rules. 

So kudos to Peter for allowing the Spirit to overrule even deeply ingrained cultural biases.

Maybe we all could adopt "But God has shown me" - when we need it - as an easier alternative to saying "I was really wrong". 

POP EISEGESIS

Craig Groeschel, the pastor of Life.Church, introduces his book Winning the War in Your Mind with this thesis:

"Our lives are always moving in the direction of our strongest thoughts. What we think shapes who we are."

He seems to think he might get some pushback on these statements. Perhaps from people who argue that our thinking doesn't really matter? Our thought patterns don't affect our lives?

Regardless, he is prepared for opposition. He continues, "But don't take my word for it. Both the Bible and modern science provide evidence that this is true."

He promises that in his book he will "unpack both Scripture and what we've learned from scientific research". 

But by page 3, rather than un-packing Scripture, he is clearly packing it. 

In other words, he is practicing eisegesis. 

Take a look: 

Groeschel writes, "What science is demonstrating today is what God told us through Solomon almost three thousand years ago: 'For as he thinks in his heart, so is he' (Prov. 23:7 NKJV)."

First, notice he only quotes the first half of the verse.

Then notice the translation he cites. The New King James Version.

His default translation throughout his book is the New International Version. So why intentionally choose NKJV here?

Because in the NIV Proverbs 23:7 doesn't quite say what Groeschel is wanting it to say:

"For he is the kind of person who is always thinking about the cost. “Eat and drink,” he says to you, but his heart is not with you."

It doesn't even look like the same verse, does it?

Unfortunately for Groeschel, the NIV is the more accurate rendering of the Hebrew text. This becomes obvious when the verse is placed in context:

"Do not eat the food of a begrudging host, do not crave his delicacies; for he is the kind of person who is always thinking about the cost. “Eat and drink,” he says to you, but his heart is not with you. You will vomit up the little you have eaten and will have wasted your compliments. (Prov 23:6-8, NIV)

I don't think these verses say anything about the way our thoughts shape our actions in any general sense. In fact, these verses specifically describe a stingy man whose thoughts and actions do not line up.

I don't have a quarrel with Groeschel's thesis. My quarrel is with this shallow handling of Scripture. 

A pastor should refrain from eisegesis. 

Especially a pastor with such a large platform. 

EXEGESIS AND EISEGESIS

Here are two seminary terms that every believer ought to get familiar with: exegesis and eisegesis.

Maybe it will explain what has been bugging you about the sermons you've been hearing. 

EXEGESIS

Exegesis is interpreting a passage of Scripture based on careful discernment of what the author set out to communicate. 

Exegesis is the foundation for solid biblical preaching. It is what your pastor should do on a daily basis whenever his or her Bible is opened for study. 

Put simply, exegesis is drawing meaning out of the text. Listening to what it wants to teach. The sermon is simply the vehicle for passing THAT along. 

EISEGESIS

Eisegesis is when the "interpreter" comes to the text with an idea already formed, looking for a passage able to carry that idea. 

The preacher may need to twist or inflate or shrink a particular passage to be able to fit the idea inside. 

The opportunity to flash a verse or two on the screen in seeming support of the sermon's thesis is all that matters come Sunday morning. 

The context of the verse is ignored. The sermon might be slick - depending on the rhetorical skills of the preacher - but it is predestined to mediocrity. 

Or worse.

We should demand careful exegesis from our preachers. We should discourage eisegesis.

But we don't.

If the difference between exegesis and eisegesis is still a bit foggy, come back tomorrow when I will provide a textbook example of eisegesis - courtesy of a rising star of the mega-church scene who is also a "New York Times Bestselling Author".

 

ERODING SOCIAL NORMS

Dan Ariely is Professor of Psychology and Behavioral Economics at Duke University - and seems to know what he's talking about. 

In his book, Predictably Irrational, Ariely devotes a chapter to an idea that is worth chewing on. 

That chapter has the provocative title "The Cost of Social Norms: Why We Are Happy to Do Things, but Not When We Are Paid to Do Them". 

Ariely explains that we all intuitively understand two very different sets of rules guiding our lives: social norms and market norms. 

Rules governing the role of money play very differently in the two circles of our lives. Payment is expected in the marketplace - and it had better be commensurate with time, skill, and effort. 

In social situations, on the other hand, a payment would be insulting and counterproductive. A gift is the furthest you can go without being insulting. 

Ariely imagines a Thanksgiving dinner where a son-in-law stands up at the conclusion of the meal, praises the host and says, "Mom, for all the love you've put into this, how much do I owe you? Do you think three hundred dollars will do it?" 

The celebration would come to a hasty and awkward conclusion and the man would not be invited back next year.  

Ariely goes on to explain that there are quite a few careers - such as law enforcement, military service, and education - where workers are motivated by more than the salary. "It's the social norms - pride in their profession and a sense of duty - that will motivate them." 

This makes sense of a distressing trend I observed as a teacher: a growing job dissatisfaction. 

I feel like America is relationally poor ... and growing poorer. As our material wealth has grown, our relational wealth has decreased. 

In those careers that have traditionally depended on workers performing for the greater good of society, if the social motivation is eroded and all the focus goes to market motivation, you end up with unhappy workers. Or lazy workers. 

Because how much do you have to pay teachers to make it worth their time - in purely marketplace terms - to spend all day every day instructing junior high students, for example? 

What role might this play in "The Great Resignation" that is taking place across the American workplace even beyond our schools?

THE ANTI-MISSIONARY

I love irony. Don't you?

I think God loves irony too. There's a lot of it in the Bible.

One instance of irony I had never noticed before this morning: Saul's conversion story in Acts 9.

The disciples had been scattered outward from Jerusalem because of widespread persecution following the stoning of Stephen.

Saul, after thoroughly terrorizing the believers around Jerusalem, was now traveling to Damascus.

Why go there? 

Damascus was the next big city outside of Jerusalem, about 150 miles away. Quite a few Jews lived there.

It seems reasonable to assume that, knowing quite a few believers had fled Jerusalem, Saul had left the city and was headed to the next likely hub in an effort to stop the spread of the Christian faith.  

The New Testament's most successful missionary started out failing as its greatest ANTI-missionary!

STRUCTURE

Some nights I get started writing on a topic and it proves too complex to complete at 10:30 pm, when my mind is not at peak performance. And all I can think about is climbing into bed.

Tonight is one of those nights.

For that reason - and others - I am trying to shift my daily writing to mornings. 

So far, rather spotty success.

In fact, my whole morning routine has been jumbled now that my schedule has changed and I am working from home and don't have to leave for school at 7:05. 

I still have certain duties (like cooking breakfast for Sarah) and time-bound obligations (like driving Sarah to a friend's house to catch a ride to school) and activities that get my day started right (like Scripture study and physical exercise). And I am still waking up between 5 and 6:00. 

So I am currently experimenting. 

Structure will come in time.