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.