After a protacted absence, I am back blogging by popular demand. (Popular meaning that one person asked me to do it. I think that is about as popular as I can expect to get).
Let's start today with a trivia question. Why did Paul write the book of the Philippians? Don't know the answer? It is found in our passage today, in verses 10-18. Paul writes there:
"I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at length you have revived your concern for me. You were indeed concerned for me, but you had no opportunity. Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through him who strengthens me.
Yet it was kind of you to share my trouble. And you Philippians yourselves know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church entered into partnership with me in giving and receiving, except you only. Even in Thessalonica you sent me help for my needs once and again. Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that increases to your credit. I have received full payment, and more. I am well supplied, having received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God. And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus. To our God and Father be glory forever and ever. Amen." ESV.
Paul wrote Philippians as a thank you note. By their messenger Epaphroditus, the Philippians had sent Paul a gift to help support him during his time of imprisonment. Roman jails weren't like jails today. Our government meets the costs of a prisoner's survival. In the Roman world, prisoners paid their own bills. If you didn't have the money for your necessities, the Romans would not provide them. The Philippians provided Paul an important service and Paul writes to say thank you.
In the midst of these words of thanksgiving, Paul writes his famous words: "I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need." Those words are interesting to me. I understand needing to learn secrets for facing hunger and need. But it seems odd that Paul would say that he has learned the secret of facing plenty and abundance. Paul's words seem to suggest that living with riches is just as much a challenge as living with less. We understand the challenge of living when you don't have food or shelter or money. But, Paul's words raise this question: what is the challenge of living with plenty? Paul doesn't elaborate. But perhaps experience tells us. Living with plenty presents the challenge of not being selfish. It presents the challenge of being compassionate to those who do have needs. It presents the challenge of living in dependence on God not our bank accounts. In America, even the least among usually have plenty compared to the rest of the world. Maybe we need to pray that we would gain the wisdom of Paul. Maybe we need to ask that God would teach us the secret of living with plenty and abundance so that riches don't become a trap to our souls.
Every Letter, Every Pen Stroke (Matthew 5:18)
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Some Random Thoughts (Acts 12)
As I read Acts 12, I am struck my several things:
1. I am struck by the power of prayer. What allowed Peter to secure his freedom? The passage implies that it was the prayers of the church. When God's people prayed, God worked.
2. I am stuck by Peter's peace. On the night where he is to be executed, what is he doing? He is asleep! Apparently he has no anxiety. That speaks to tremendous faith in God.
3. I am struck by Herod's death. At a moment when Herod had seemed to reach the pinnacle of his power (he is recognized as a god), he is struck down, dying a horrible death. (Note the worms eat him before he dies not after). God fights the enemies of His Church!
This passage gives great encouragement to Christians about God's protection of His people!
1. I am struck by the power of prayer. What allowed Peter to secure his freedom? The passage implies that it was the prayers of the church. When God's people prayed, God worked.
2. I am stuck by Peter's peace. On the night where he is to be executed, what is he doing? He is asleep! Apparently he has no anxiety. That speaks to tremendous faith in God.
3. I am struck by Herod's death. At a moment when Herod had seemed to reach the pinnacle of his power (he is recognized as a god), he is struck down, dying a horrible death. (Note the worms eat him before he dies not after). God fights the enemies of His Church!
This passage gives great encouragement to Christians about God's protection of His people!
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
The Limits of Belief (Acts 11)
I was interested by Acts 11:21 today. In the ESV, the verse says: "And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number who believed turned to the Lord." The NIV translates that same verse this way: "The Lord's hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord." What is interesting to me is that it sounds like there is a difference between believing and turning to the Lord. In the NIV, these things are separated as two actions. In the ESV, there is an implication that not all who believed turned to the Lord. It led me to wonder what could the distinction be between the two terms?
I think the question is answered by asking what the great number who believed, believed. The context tells us that they believed the preaching that was brought to them by those who came from Cyprus and Cyrene. In other words, they believed the content of the Gospel message. But, it could be that believing the content of the Gospel message is not the same as turning to the Lord. Becoming a Christian involves more than believing a story. Turning to the Lord, means confessing Jesus as King and letting Him be the boss.
Imagine a person who is dying of cancer. They are told that there is a clinic in Malaysia that has a drug that is bringing about a one-hundred percent cure rate in their type of cancer. The person dying of cancer believes the story. Will that belief save them? It will if it leads to them getting on a plane and flying to Malaysia with enough money to pay for their time at the clinic. But if they never board a plane, their belief is not enough. They may believe, but they have still not turned to the clinic for deliverance.
I wonder if our churches have many who believe but have not turned to the Lord. I realize this thought is probably more than exegesis of the passage can bear. But I think considering the difference between believing and turning remains a helpful exercise.
I think the question is answered by asking what the great number who believed, believed. The context tells us that they believed the preaching that was brought to them by those who came from Cyprus and Cyrene. In other words, they believed the content of the Gospel message. But, it could be that believing the content of the Gospel message is not the same as turning to the Lord. Becoming a Christian involves more than believing a story. Turning to the Lord, means confessing Jesus as King and letting Him be the boss.
Imagine a person who is dying of cancer. They are told that there is a clinic in Malaysia that has a drug that is bringing about a one-hundred percent cure rate in their type of cancer. The person dying of cancer believes the story. Will that belief save them? It will if it leads to them getting on a plane and flying to Malaysia with enough money to pay for their time at the clinic. But if they never board a plane, their belief is not enough. They may believe, but they have still not turned to the clinic for deliverance.
I wonder if our churches have many who believe but have not turned to the Lord. I realize this thought is probably more than exegesis of the passage can bear. But I think considering the difference between believing and turning remains a helpful exercise.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Power to Witness (Acts 4)
Have you tried sharing your faith in Jesus with anyone lately? It is not an easy proposition. We live in a world that is often inimical to faith and non-material realities. Our world tells us that faith is a matter of personal preference. It says that it is arrogant and condescending to claim that your truth is better than anyone else's truth. In a world like this, where can the power to be a witness come from? I think Acts 4 gives 4 answers:
1. Power to be a witness comes through the Holy Spirit (verse 8). Peter's words were powerful because they were not his. They were given by God.
2. Power to be a witness comes through prayer. Verse 31 tells us that the church continued to speak the Word with boldness after they had spent time in prayer together.
3. Power to be a witness comes through good deeds, done in God's power. Peter and John are not punished by the Sanhedrin because of the miraculous work they did with the lame man. Their compassion was a testimony to God's power and love in their lives.
It is interesting to note one thing that did not lead to a powerful witness: education (verse 13). Now, I am not taking a stance against education. (I have 2 masters degrees after all). But formal education is not a requirement for being a powerful witness. The first church that I pastored in Carteret was founded by a ditch digger. According to church records, he was a man full of the Spirit, devoted to prayer and deeds of compassion. Even though he spoke limited English, these things made him a powerful witness.
Acts 4 encourages me to strive for the power and boldness that the Apostles had.
1. Power to be a witness comes through the Holy Spirit (verse 8). Peter's words were powerful because they were not his. They were given by God.
2. Power to be a witness comes through prayer. Verse 31 tells us that the church continued to speak the Word with boldness after they had spent time in prayer together.
3. Power to be a witness comes through good deeds, done in God's power. Peter and John are not punished by the Sanhedrin because of the miraculous work they did with the lame man. Their compassion was a testimony to God's power and love in their lives.
It is interesting to note one thing that did not lead to a powerful witness: education (verse 13). Now, I am not taking a stance against education. (I have 2 masters degrees after all). But formal education is not a requirement for being a powerful witness. The first church that I pastored in Carteret was founded by a ditch digger. According to church records, he was a man full of the Spirit, devoted to prayer and deeds of compassion. Even though he spoke limited English, these things made him a powerful witness.
Acts 4 encourages me to strive for the power and boldness that the Apostles had.
Still Waiting (Acts 3)
I will admit it. I don't have profound thought or insights about Acts 3. But what does strike me as I read Acts 3 is Peter's sense of expectation. After the lame man is healed, Peter preaches a sermon in Solomon's portico. In the sermon, he calls on the people to repent of the crucifixion of Jesus (verse 19). And Peter says that when the people repent, three things will happen:
1. their sins will be blotted out (verse 19)
2. they will have times of refreshing (verse 20)
3. the return of Jesus will be hastened ("that He may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus," verse 20).
It is obvious that Peter had the idea that Christ was going to return quickly. He was motivated to evangelism by this thought: if Israel repented, then Christ would come again.
We live 2,00 years after these events. We know that Peter's hopes for a quick return of Jesus were not fulfilled. I guess that is why we often live without Peter's sense of expectation. Perhaps, though, we need to be more like Peter. Perhaps we need to be as eager to see Jesus come as he was. Perhaps our evangelism suffers because we don't have Peter's longing for Jesus' return.
1. their sins will be blotted out (verse 19)
2. they will have times of refreshing (verse 20)
3. the return of Jesus will be hastened ("that He may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus," verse 20).
It is obvious that Peter had the idea that Christ was going to return quickly. He was motivated to evangelism by this thought: if Israel repented, then Christ would come again.
We live 2,00 years after these events. We know that Peter's hopes for a quick return of Jesus were not fulfilled. I guess that is why we often live without Peter's sense of expectation. Perhaps, though, we need to be more like Peter. Perhaps we need to be as eager to see Jesus come as he was. Perhaps our evangelism suffers because we don't have Peter's longing for Jesus' return.
Monday, March 31, 2008
How to Grow a Church (Acts 2)
Acts 2 is one of my favorite New Testament passages. I love Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost. I think it is foundational to New Testament theology. And I love the story of the church at the end of Acts 2. I guess as a pastor I am particularly interested by the fact that 3,000 people were saved in one day. I would probably be thrilled by 3,000 in a lifetime. They had 3,000 in a day! And it didn't stop there. Daily, people were being added to their number.
How is it that the church was able to grow? I think the answer is found in verse 42. There were four things that allowed the church to grow:
1. They were committed to the Word of God (the apostles' teaching)
2. They were committed to serving and loving one another (fellowship)
3. They were committed to worship (breaking of the bread, ie communion)
4. They were committed to prayer.
And in all these things who were they really committed to? They were committed to Jesus. There is no real secret to church growth. A church has the opportunity to grow as its people are committed to Jesus.
How is it that the church was able to grow? I think the answer is found in verse 42. There were four things that allowed the church to grow:
1. They were committed to the Word of God (the apostles' teaching)
2. They were committed to serving and loving one another (fellowship)
3. They were committed to worship (breaking of the bread, ie communion)
4. They were committed to prayer.
And in all these things who were they really committed to? They were committed to Jesus. There is no real secret to church growth. A church has the opportunity to grow as its people are committed to Jesus.
Matthias Madness (Acts 1)
As a pastor, I have found two points of Biblical interpretation that people will get quite worked up over. Now, there is nothing wrong with getting worked up over Biblical interpretation. If you are defending the divinity of Christ, or the reality of hell, or the penal substitutionary view of the atonement, go for it. But these two points of interpretation that I have seen people get so exercised over seem to have little true import. Point one: who is the Melchizedek in Genesis? Is it a real flesh and blood person or an appearance of the pre-Incarnate Christ. Give the wrong answer to that one and you will be branded a heretic. Point two: were the disciples right in appointing Matthias the twelfth apostle in Acts 1?
I am long familiar with the Melchizedek question. I grew up hearing all the arguments for that one. I am less familiar with the Matthias issue. Though, in the last 5 years, I have heard the question discussed so much that it makes up for the 35 years I didn't know it was an issue. Apparently, there are lot of people out there who think that the apostles made a big boo-boo in appointing Matthias. As I understand it, there are several reasons why those who take this stance feel the apostles were wrong:
1. 1:4 seems to suggest that Jesus wanted the Apostles to sit around and do nothing until they received the Holy Spirit.
2. The future appointment of Paul as an apostle seems to suggest that the church nominated the wrong guy. Paul was supposed to be 12 not Matthias.
3. Matthias might as well rhyme with anonymous. We hear nothing of Matthias after Acts 1. If Matthias was a good choice, why does he disappear?
There may be more reasons than that. I am not sure. I don't really understand the whole argument. I think that the choice of Matthias was a good one for the following reasons:
1. There is nothing in the text that suggests that this was a bad choice. I mean if it was a bad choice, why does Luke even mention it? He could have skipped the whole incident and nothing would have been lost.
2. The Apostles quote Scripture to defend their actions (1:20). I think that Luke (inspired by the Holy Spirit) is showing this is a Biblical thing to do.
3. The argument that Matthias is not mentioned again in Acts is irrelevant. Many of the disciples are not really mentioned by name in Acts. Was Jesus wrong in choosing them?
4. (The real clincher). God chose Matthias not the Apostles. The Apostles only made their selection after much prayer. And, they decided by casting lots. Proverbs 16:33 says: "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord." I think the text tells us that it was ultimately God who chose Matthias.
To me, the last part of Acts 1 is meant to emphasize the historic reality of the Gospel story. The Apostles were not making up tales. They selected a witness who could tell all that Jesus did. This wasn't a bad choice. It was a good one. The Apostles wanted to remind us that the story of Jesus is true and factual. It is too important to have the truth and details lost.
I am long familiar with the Melchizedek question. I grew up hearing all the arguments for that one. I am less familiar with the Matthias issue. Though, in the last 5 years, I have heard the question discussed so much that it makes up for the 35 years I didn't know it was an issue. Apparently, there are lot of people out there who think that the apostles made a big boo-boo in appointing Matthias. As I understand it, there are several reasons why those who take this stance feel the apostles were wrong:
1. 1:4 seems to suggest that Jesus wanted the Apostles to sit around and do nothing until they received the Holy Spirit.
2. The future appointment of Paul as an apostle seems to suggest that the church nominated the wrong guy. Paul was supposed to be 12 not Matthias.
3. Matthias might as well rhyme with anonymous. We hear nothing of Matthias after Acts 1. If Matthias was a good choice, why does he disappear?
There may be more reasons than that. I am not sure. I don't really understand the whole argument. I think that the choice of Matthias was a good one for the following reasons:
1. There is nothing in the text that suggests that this was a bad choice. I mean if it was a bad choice, why does Luke even mention it? He could have skipped the whole incident and nothing would have been lost.
2. The Apostles quote Scripture to defend their actions (1:20). I think that Luke (inspired by the Holy Spirit) is showing this is a Biblical thing to do.
3. The argument that Matthias is not mentioned again in Acts is irrelevant. Many of the disciples are not really mentioned by name in Acts. Was Jesus wrong in choosing them?
4. (The real clincher). God chose Matthias not the Apostles. The Apostles only made their selection after much prayer. And, they decided by casting lots. Proverbs 16:33 says: "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord." I think the text tells us that it was ultimately God who chose Matthias.
To me, the last part of Acts 1 is meant to emphasize the historic reality of the Gospel story. The Apostles were not making up tales. They selected a witness who could tell all that Jesus did. This wasn't a bad choice. It was a good one. The Apostles wanted to remind us that the story of Jesus is true and factual. It is too important to have the truth and details lost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)