The last 8 chapters of the book of Acts continue the story of the early church, but focus on Paul's arrest, trials and imprisonments. After being warned not to go to Jerusalem, even having his arrest prophesied, Paul chooses to go there anyway. While there, Jews from Asia stir up the crowd and manage to affect first the beating then the arrest of Paul, who tries to pacify the crowd by speaking to them in Hebrew and claiming his Jewish ancestry - but to no avail. Once arrested, false witnesses get Paul deeper in trouble. He manages to avoid an "interrogation by flogging" (?) by declaring his Roman citizenship. As he is passed from official to official he continues to use every opportunity to tell the story of his conversion and to preach of Jesus' power and messiahship. Even while under arrest he continues to evangelize.
A number of things struck us - why, after following the leading of the spirit as to where to go and not go earlier in the story, does Paul choose to go Jerusalem in spite of the warnings of the local church and a proven prophet? Why do the Asian Jews have such a vendetta against Paul? Why do the people listen to the rabble rousers when Paul was in the temple completing a Jewish rite of purification? Isn't it interesting that Paul used who he was to try to ward off evil? He was Saul the Pharisee to the Jews and Paul the Roman to the civil authorities. Why does it state that, had Paul not requested an audience with the Emperor he would have been set free? On an unrelated note, why is it included that Philip the evangelist had four virgin daughters that prophesied? Unfortunately, we did not have an expert among us so we had more questions than answers.
One thing that struck us was the dissension within the early church. Even then, with Jesus and his teachings so recent, almost still ringing in their ears, they could not agree on how to do church. It is depressing to think that this never changes. It is discouraging as we note different denominations denouncing each other and people within congregations speaking badly about each other. Ok, generally you don't hear people causing fellow members (visiting preachers?) to be beaten and eventually arrested - but does that really say a lot about us? Is it really that much better to smear another's reputation? To tear at a person's self image? Where is the hope in the midst of the complaining and criticism? How can we transcend the tendency to negativity that feels so prevalent as we read even about the early church? If there was lying and back stabbing plotting even in the early church, How can we think that we will ever learn? It feels like dissension is inevitable and this is discouraging.
But I also find some hope in this. The church of the first century had its troubles, but still the true message spread and endured. Two thousand years later we are still around, in spite of opposition from within and without. We can endure. How can we make things better? Let us look for hope in our everyday blessings. When I see a young child playing Jesus Loves Me with her mom for the offertory, I feel blessed and challenged to a simpler, surer faith. An even younger child doesn't want to leave the children's story without giving the doll, around which the story revolved, a hug and a kiss because he had lots of Band-Aids and the story was about how sad he was and she wanted to make him feel better. What beautiful, honest compassion - and an unplanned call to compassion for us! A usually very active little girl signs Silent Night as her sister plays it on the piano. A beautiful call to peace and calm - even when that isn't our natural default. Maybe we should learn from our children.
I also think we need to start a deliberate backlash. What would happen if we refuse to get caught up in critical, negative conversations? What if we made a determined effort to voice appreciation for the contributions of people, even if they aren't perfect? What if we praise people to our fellow church members instead of drawing out any mistakes that may have been made? What if we look for and celebrate the strengths of the people we meet? What if we work hard to give out smiles and hugs (where acceptable) to encourage people? It is so easy, at least for me, to get caught up in negative conversations - "you think that's bad, listen to this" type interchanges. Even things that don't really bother me may become fodder for complaining. It may be that we hope to make the other feel better by showing them that we, not only understand and agree with what they have said, but have an even worse story to share. I think this actually breeds a kind of discontent. It is common, but not helpful. I hope I will do better this time as I determine to work to start a wave of thankful positivity. Will you join me? There are many people that have real problems - like parents and grandparents facing their mortality from a hospital bed and families who can hardly celebrate Christmas because of different religious views within their members. We need to be there for these people and share in their difficult times with prayer and a listening ear. We don't have to be happy or bouncy all the time - but we can still be generally positive. Keeping our eyes open for blessings can, actually, be more helpful even for those who are worried or hurting. So let's determine to be positive.
So here is the challenge - let us find something good to say about everyone we see and/or meet. At every worship service, let us find something that speaks to us, and praise God for it. Let us show thankfulness for all those people who are willing to put themselves out there and try to speak, worship lead, play piano or some other instrument, give a children's feature, or in some other way lead worship. Let us be the pebbles that can start rings of positivity spreading through the church and the community. Let us give those around us the gift of positivity for Christmas - and let us have a wonderful season of Hope, Peace, Faith and Peace as we celebrate the birth of Jesus, the prince of peace.
Tuesday, 9 December 2014
December 1 - Acts 11 - 20
This section of Acts continues the stories of the early church, and a lot about Paul. There were lots of questions and comments - but some of the statements and stances of A. N. Wilson in Paul: the mind of the Apostle got us thinking.
One statement was that Jesus would have been more comfortable in the Jerusalem church than in the churches started by Paul. The idea is that Jesus was, in many ways, a traditional Jew, preached to the Jews, and had some not very nice things to say about non-Jews. While I can accept that Jesus was a practicing Jew, I don't think he allowed himself to be limited by the laws - which often got him into trouble with the established leadership. Jesus put people first so, even if he was more comfortable in the Jewish context, I believe he would have been happy to have gentiles follow him. He praised the hypothetical Samaritan that did not put Jewish ritual cleanliness laws ahead of the welfare of a fellow human being (and he doesn't give the nationality of the injured man). He healed Romans, he talked with women - even Samaritan women, he valued faith in whomever it was found. The thought that he would have disapproved of the preaching of Paul does not make sense to me. Jesus pushed boundaries, Paul pushed them further but in the same direction. That is my sense - but I am no expert.
Another idea found in the book was that people weren't drawn at all by the preaching of the early church but by the "magic" miracles performed by its disciples. This was a little mind blowing, in a way. I can see how the miracles seemed to prove a power - a power that some would covet. This week I had a physiotherapist appointment that cured the vertigo I have been battling for a month. It's amazing how much one can enjoy the absence of a malady! I can see how even this minor kind of healing could seem like magic and draw people to the one that displayed that power - but I don't think that was all there was to it. Paul spent hours arguing in synagogues and marketplaces. Paul preached and taught wherever he went. Sometimes he performed miracles, but it doesn't seem that he focussed on that. His priority was the message even though some people were even trying to get his shadow to fall on items that could then be used for healing - so obviously he was known for his works, as well. I think the miracles are there to validate Paul's claim apostleship, but not to take away from the message.
So what does this mean for us? Does this mean that, even when we are more comfortable in one setting, another may be a valid alternative? Does it mean that sometimes we need to be sure we are not distracted by the "flash-bang" of a service or community but need to really look at its purpose and meaning?
It is amazing to me that someone that was so dedicated to Phariseeism and the destruction of the early church could turn around and, by invoking the name of Jesus, perform spectacular miracles and speak eloquently in favor the way he had previously tried to wipe out. I find the writings of Paul a bit arrogant and hard to read, in places. But I still find it amazing that he could be so confident of what God wanted. It is one thing for those of us who have grown up in the church to be confident of its preaching and teaching, but to convert to something other, something that, many times, contradicts that of which he had been so sure, is something beyond my understanding. Maybe when he regained his sight, he also gained spiritual sight, without the blinders of religion. How do we do that? How can we remain faithful to what we believe and not be blinded by the "frills", the enticements of the "magic" other faiths offer? At the same time, how do we focus on the essentials of our faith, and not be bound by the trimmings?
Another question that arose is - can other religions be as valid as our own? Does God love people who are faithful, but through a completely different set of beliefs, rites and rules? Can I truly be a Christian, believe that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life and still respect people who believe differently, such as Muslims, Hindi, Buddhists etc.? Do I have to believe they are all condemned because they don't believe in Jesus as Lord? Some of them think similar thoughts about me and my belief.
It is all confusing. I wish I had the clarity of thought and purpose that drove Paul. I wish the Holy Spirit would clearly tell me whether or not to go places or do things. I pray God will work within each one of us and help us to see what is the right thing to think and do, and help each of us to be the person God planned us to be.
One statement was that Jesus would have been more comfortable in the Jerusalem church than in the churches started by Paul. The idea is that Jesus was, in many ways, a traditional Jew, preached to the Jews, and had some not very nice things to say about non-Jews. While I can accept that Jesus was a practicing Jew, I don't think he allowed himself to be limited by the laws - which often got him into trouble with the established leadership. Jesus put people first so, even if he was more comfortable in the Jewish context, I believe he would have been happy to have gentiles follow him. He praised the hypothetical Samaritan that did not put Jewish ritual cleanliness laws ahead of the welfare of a fellow human being (and he doesn't give the nationality of the injured man). He healed Romans, he talked with women - even Samaritan women, he valued faith in whomever it was found. The thought that he would have disapproved of the preaching of Paul does not make sense to me. Jesus pushed boundaries, Paul pushed them further but in the same direction. That is my sense - but I am no expert.
Another idea found in the book was that people weren't drawn at all by the preaching of the early church but by the "magic" miracles performed by its disciples. This was a little mind blowing, in a way. I can see how the miracles seemed to prove a power - a power that some would covet. This week I had a physiotherapist appointment that cured the vertigo I have been battling for a month. It's amazing how much one can enjoy the absence of a malady! I can see how even this minor kind of healing could seem like magic and draw people to the one that displayed that power - but I don't think that was all there was to it. Paul spent hours arguing in synagogues and marketplaces. Paul preached and taught wherever he went. Sometimes he performed miracles, but it doesn't seem that he focussed on that. His priority was the message even though some people were even trying to get his shadow to fall on items that could then be used for healing - so obviously he was known for his works, as well. I think the miracles are there to validate Paul's claim apostleship, but not to take away from the message.
So what does this mean for us? Does this mean that, even when we are more comfortable in one setting, another may be a valid alternative? Does it mean that sometimes we need to be sure we are not distracted by the "flash-bang" of a service or community but need to really look at its purpose and meaning?
It is amazing to me that someone that was so dedicated to Phariseeism and the destruction of the early church could turn around and, by invoking the name of Jesus, perform spectacular miracles and speak eloquently in favor the way he had previously tried to wipe out. I find the writings of Paul a bit arrogant and hard to read, in places. But I still find it amazing that he could be so confident of what God wanted. It is one thing for those of us who have grown up in the church to be confident of its preaching and teaching, but to convert to something other, something that, many times, contradicts that of which he had been so sure, is something beyond my understanding. Maybe when he regained his sight, he also gained spiritual sight, without the blinders of religion. How do we do that? How can we remain faithful to what we believe and not be blinded by the "frills", the enticements of the "magic" other faiths offer? At the same time, how do we focus on the essentials of our faith, and not be bound by the trimmings?
Another question that arose is - can other religions be as valid as our own? Does God love people who are faithful, but through a completely different set of beliefs, rites and rules? Can I truly be a Christian, believe that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life and still respect people who believe differently, such as Muslims, Hindi, Buddhists etc.? Do I have to believe they are all condemned because they don't believe in Jesus as Lord? Some of them think similar thoughts about me and my belief.
It is all confusing. I wish I had the clarity of thought and purpose that drove Paul. I wish the Holy Spirit would clearly tell me whether or not to go places or do things. I pray God will work within each one of us and help us to see what is the right thing to think and do, and help each of us to be the person God planned us to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)