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?