Sermon Addendum June 23rd 2024

 Sermon Addendum June 23rd 2024

(Keep in mind, the date is for the sermon, not the post :) )

This past Sunday, I wrapped up the sermon series in Acts that I’ve been doing for several months. There wasn’t enough time to get all the way through Acts, and when it comes to Acts you either need about 2 years or you have to leave something out. After all, one of my “want but am not spending the money” book purchases is Craig Keener’s four volume commentary on Acts. We do Acts a disservice if we only read it as one-off actions stories.

So, what’s going on in Acts 15?

First, it’s the justification for what is called in church history The Conciliar Movement. At least, one of my textbooks used that label. Most of what we deem standard (orthodox) Christian doctrine is born from bodies of church leaders in the 2nd-5th Centuries AD gathering and establish what Scripture means, how Christianity understands the truths contained in the Word. For example, our understanding of God in Three Persons, the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, was defined by the Councils of the Early Church. It is drawn from Scripture’s revelation of the nature of God, but there is a lot of Bible about God.

And the idea that a group of wise Jesus-followers can make plain what Scripture means starts here in Acts 15, where Peter, Paul, James, Barnabas, and others gathered to sort out how the Old Testament Law needed to be applied on the current church.

Second, we see some basic guidelines on how the Old Testament Law needs to be applied on the current church! Note the nature of the four instructions passed on to the Gentiles. As we look at the expectations given to the people, these were about clear worship (abstaining from idols); clear lifestyle (abstaining from sexual immorality); and clear fellowship (avoiding foods that would have re-divided Jew and Gentile). And the last one we see some development through later years under Paul’s authority as he mitigates that command somewhat. (He never backs up from avoiding idolatry and immorality.) As we examine the traditions and expectations of years gone by, our questions could rightly come back to these: are we clearly worshiping only Jesus? Are we honoring God with our lifestyle? Are we strengthening our fellowship with one another or being self-absorbed?

Third thing that we see here is some of the leadership of the church in Jerusalem. We see James, and we know it is not James Zebedee, as he died earlier in Acts (Acts 12). So it’s another James. Usually we connect him to James the (half-)brother of Jesus, and author of the Biblical book of James. We see Peter, we see Paul, we see Barnabas. Both the primacy of James as spokesman and the equality of all to share their views are important here.

Finally, Acts 15 wraps up with perhaps one of the sadder moments in the flow of the story of the early Christians. Paul and Barnabas have a sharp disagreement, sharp enough that they no longer work together. The text’s statement of “they parted company” implies something deeper than a “well, agree to disagree, see you later,” moment but more of a “Nope, we’re done” kind of event. Tragically, we sometimes go down that path: it is okay to have a disagreement, but strive to keep it from causing you to “part company.” That’s an important idea to keep in mind, that we can disagree. We can even decide that we are not going to work with someone because our approaches are too different. But preferences and styles should never drive us apart in our relationships.

Sermon Recap for June 23 2024

 Good afternoon!

It's time for the sermon recap for yesterday. The morning sermon was the last one in our series on Acts. We've wrapped up that one and we're moving on to 1 Samuel next week.

Sermon Recap for June 16 2024

 Good Monday!

Here is yesterday's sermon. Video and audio. One more sermon in Acts, then it's time to move elsewhere in the text.

Sermon Recap for June 9 2024

 Good morning!

Here is yesterday's sermon from Mt. Olive Baptist Church

Sermon Recap for November 16 2014

Good morning, one and all! Here are the sermons from yesterday. I used handwritten notes, so I'm experimenting with how to post those. I could tape them to the screen, but you couldn't see them if I did.  

Morning Sermon: Acts 4 "Prayer that Shakes the World, Compassion that Moves the Heart." (Title links to the audio file)

Nov 16 AM (Preaching notes)
   

Evening Sermon: Acts 10 "Appearances"

 

 (A quick note: I managed to, apparently, stick the title slide into the point between the 2 video files for the evening sermon. I did NOT stop at the 20 minute mark, hold up a sign, and then go forward. That's just my video oops.)

Seven points of organization: Acts 6

I thought I would share a few thoughts that I had to turn in for class. We were looking at Acts 6 and considering what ideas we could draw about church organization from that chapter. You’ll need to look up Acts 6:1-7 to get the full context. Here’s what I came up with:

First, the church leadership was listening to the feedback from the organization as a whole. While there is no textual evidence of a formal feedback structure, it is evident that the Apostles were aware of the complaint. This is a positive organizational practice: communication between all parts of the organization.

 

Second, even as the disciples were increasing (v. 1), the organization of the church still broke down tasks that needed done. This is seen by the statement that there was a daily distribution to widows, but the Apostles are not involved personally at the outset. It is a task being handled by others, even though it is not being handled perfectly.

 

Third, facing the problem, church leadership still presented the problem to the body as a whole. They did not, however, farm the idea out for someone else to solve. Instead, the Apostles had gathered, one can assumed had prayed, and then presented their recommended solution to the body. The body then assented and participated in selecting the individuals to correct the problem.

 

This process of leadership deserves extra consideration. A small organization, one made up of eleven to twelve members like the Apostles, can consider nearly all issues together. While the process at this stage is a little cumbersome, like jury duty, it is still feasible. However, as the body grows, this process becomes impossible. The 120 believers of Acts 2 become the 5000+ of Acts 2, and the body continues to grow.

 

Therefore, leadership must adjust the methods of problem-solving. The Apostles take on themselves the responsibility of problem-solving, though they do not impose the solution on the church. The church is presented with the solution and agrees to the idea.

 

This carries into the practice of an organization with leaders. While the ideas can come from anywhere in the organization, the leadership has the purpose of considering all possible ideas and presenting the best one to the group for consideration. This allows a responsive organization that does not spend excessive time in deliberation.

 

Fourth, the Apostles present the solution to the organization, but then crowdsource the details. Rather than assuming that the leadership, twelve, knows the best choices out of over 5000, the Apostles allow the crowd to choose from those who meet specific guidelines.

 

Fifth, the organizational guidelines for service are based in character more than competence. The distribution of food to widows was not a highly technical skill like metalworking or scribal work would have been. There was no need to specify the food weighing skills for these seven men, only to specify their character.

 

Sixth, the seven appointees are not the only ones with a hand in the work appointed. Note verse 3 states that they are “in charge” of the task, but this does not exclude the recruitment of others to aid in serving. In all likelihood, if the task is this large, the seven will have many in assistance. Their role is to ensure proper balance and distribution.

 

Seventh, this method allowed individuals to continue in their best fit responsibilities. The Apostles, eyewitnesses of Christ, were freed from responsibilities that others could fulfill. This allowed them to focus on doing what they were the only ones capable of doing: testifying to the entire life and ministry of Jesus.

Sermon Wrap-Up for September 1

No evening sermon this week. It’s our annual Hibbard Cookout at church, marking another year in Almyra.

Also, if you note any audio or video problems, please let me know.

Morning Audio Link is Here

Video:

The Only Barrier for the Holy Spirit

1: The need for God to work

I. World

II. Church

III. Personal / Family

2. Acts 8

I. Prior religious dispute is no barrier (Samaritans)

II. Ethnic differences are no barrier (Ethiopians)

III. Persecution is no barrier (Antioch)

IV. Prior paganism is no barrier (Samaritans again!)

V. Personal profit? That's a barrier: God shares His glory with no one! (Simon Magus)

A. It is the nearest form of idolatry

B. This is a space where the Spirit God is not unableto work

C. Instead, He is unwillingto work

3. What do we do?

I. World

II. Church

III. Personal / family

Sermon Wrap-up for August 25

Morning Sermon:

Click here for audio

:

Outline: August 25 AM Acts 6 55

A Good Preacher Can't Fix Everything

1. Good preachers are available by the dozen

2. Problems still arise

3. Ideas can come from those who cannot implement them

4. Work together to solve problems

5. Be bathed in prayer so that it is not necessary to have extended prayer over issues---stop praying over your problems and pray over your life!!

Our response:

1. If all your prayer life consists of is praying over problems, then let it grow--began each day with prayer

2. If you are sitting on the fence while there are God-honoring solutions to your problems because you are waiting for a "sign" then stop it and get to work

3. Be part of the solution: don't insist someone else solve it.

Evening Sermon:

Click Here for the Audio

 

Outline:

August 25 PM Acts 7

A Good Deacon is a Dead Deacon

1. Stephen: Deacon

2. Stephen: Witness

3. Stephen: Dead to this World

4. Let us all follow in his footsteps.

Any questions? Arguments? Pleas for letting the deacons live?

Unhindered: Acts 28

We’ve reached the end of the book of Acts. Paul and company are shipwrecked on the island of Malta at the beginning. By the end, Paul is in his own “rented quarters,” where he spends a definite time of two years. He is likely still under guard (Acts 28:16) which makes this a form of home detention.

Yet he nearly did not make it off of Malta. Well, at least that was what the Maltese expected. Back in Acts 28:3-5, Paul is bitten by a snake. The shipwrecked crew, prisoners, and soldiers are gathering firewood and Paul gathers up an asp in the process. The locals expect what is referred to on the internet these days as “instant karma” where Paul is immediately treated as he deserves, but brought on by an unexpected means.

Mid-Nerd Note: v. 4 refers to “justice.” Or to “Justice” as the goddess of right/wrong and law. It is actually rather difficult to tell from the language, as the same word applies to both the concept and the deity behind it in the Greek-speaking world. Either the Maltese expected that the principles of the universe were getting even with Paul, or that a deity of the pantheon was. Either way, they are wrong.

Paul, however shakes off the snake and goes on about his business. The people begin, then, to wonder if he’s one of the gods rather than a victim of them. And Paul goes on about his business. He is asked to heal the father of the chief man of the island, and then to heal about every other sick person on the island. (No word on him leaving a falcon, though.)

They cross the sea over on to the Apennine Peninsula, and make their way up to Rome. Along the way, Paul meets with Jews and Christians, sharing the Gospel and encouraging the people. He remains guarded, as mentioned, but is free to preach and teach those who come to him.

Through it all, Paul goes about his business.

1. Paul is not shaken to depression in the bad parts. While we do not know the finer points of his mindset, we see Paul consistently doing what he is supposed to do. That is worth remembering: do not give in. Keep up.

2. Paul is not pushed to excessive exaltation in the good parts. We also do not see Paul turning into an adrenaline or success junkie through all of this. The good is what it is, the bad is what it is. There is still the day’s work to be done.

3. Paul is confirmed in his commitment. While his heart’s desire, as we see in Romans, is to see his own people Israel to believe Jesus is Lord, he has long counted himself on a mission to the Gentiles of this world. When he meets with the Jews of Rome, he attempts to persuade them of the truth of Christianity, but they refuse. He is again reminded that his goal is to share with anyone, and so takes the Jew along with the Greek.

4. Paul is unhindered despite his circumstances. The closing word of the book of Acts is ακωλυτως. (That should be the unaccented Greek word.) It is the word unhindered. He is possibly chained to a Roman guard, although it is possible that his home detention is more like having a strict parole, with check-in times. Or that the guard just lives with Paul. Whatever the case, no one is stopped from coming to him, and he is able to speak to all. He is unhindered in his preaching.

5. Paul is unhindered in who he receives. This one is important, and I think we overlook it too often. Our focus is often on Paul in the closing verses, but look at Acts 28:30. Paul receives all who come to him. In our days of specialty churches that take people of this type but distance themselves from people of that type or of targeting our evangelism here but not bothering with there, we have Paul. Receiving all. He makes no distinction between Jews or Gentiles, Romans or Barbarians, all.

How many of us really have that mentality in how we live the Christian life? That we would want all to come to us to know the Faith?

Today’s Nerd Note(s): 1. Ever consider how often God uses snakes for His purposes in Scripture? Even at Eden, then coming through Moses, Pharaoh, the snakes of judgment in the wilderness, Nehushtan, and here…and those are just from memory. The snake is possibly the most common non-sacrificial animal with symbolic usage in Scripture. While this should not put us on to snake-charming, that should make us consider something: here’s the creature that helps induce the fall, yet here is the creature that often shows forth God’s glory and mercy for others. Don’t be the snake.

2. Notice Paul’s usage of Isaiah at the end. He cites the lesser-remembered part of the call of Isaiah, where God points out that people will hear but not receive, see but not understand. This is the story of Paul’s life, and is part of the pattern of Christian witness in the world: here we are, but are we heeded? What difference does it make? Faithfulness is our call. Faithful to the truth, the love, the holiness, the grace of God. Handle that, and let the rest come as it may.

Down with the Ship, Up with the Courage: Acts 27

Apologies for last week. Sometimes you master the calendar; sometimes the calendar masters you. And then the Alexandrian/Koine Greek comes along and kicks you while you’re down.

Paul has been back-and-forth with the Roman authorities on the eastern fringe of the Empire. He appealed to Caesar, which our understanding of Roman History gives us as Nero Claudius Caesar, last of the Julian-Claudian Roman Emperors—yep, his family finalized the transition from Republic to Empire, and then he ended their dominance of that country. Nero is not exactly remembered as being a very good judge for anyone, but Paul knew certainly being turned loose, without any protection, in Judea would be a disaster for him.

So, off to Rome he goes. This chapter of Acts, Acts 27, is mostly the travel record of Paul moving from Caesarea on his way to Rome. A good commentary or Bible Atlas/History book will help you fill in details about the ship, its passageway, and where the various cities and islands mentioned in this chapter are. Those tools are really helpful in study.

I want to point you to one verse in the midst of this chapter that I think is worth noting. Take a look at Acts 27:25. Paul is telling the soldiers, the crew, the passengers, and his fellow prisoners that they have nothing to fear in the storm. Only the ship will be lost, but God is going to keep them all alive. He then tells them to do one thing:

Keep up your courage.

The Evangelistic Baptists in the crowd may now, collectively, cover their ears and throw a fit. Why? Because there are a group of us that would think Paul’s appropriate response to the situation would be to line out a Gospel invitation and hand out response cards. After all, we never know about tomorrow, do we?

Except in this case, Paul does know. He actually knows about the next couple of weeks, as the rest of the chapter gives us, there were at least fourteen nights to deal with in this storm-drenched saga. And no lives are lost at all.

Instead of pushing for a storm-promise response, Paul focuses on the need of the moment. The men involved in the situation (and possibly ladies, hard to be certain) need to focus on their survival. They need to trust that something or someone will carry them through.

In this case, they need to trust God. In the midst of the chaos, though, is no time for the likely superstitious Mediterranean sailors to add to their pantheon of gods. Paul chooses the right course in keeping them in the moment. His course reflects the importance of the Gospel message.

First, it reflects faith: Paul has been told by God that everyone will make it to a “certain island.” He shows his own faith in God’s words by not hedging and pushing some to think they may not make it. We do not get that type of message these days and so have to behave slightly differently, but how often do we act like we have no faith that God will provide the right opportunity?

Very often we Christians attempt to argue people into the Kingdom because we lack the faith that God can and will persuade them himself. If we witness with faith, it will include trusting that if we present the whole Gospel, the love and the truth, God can handle persuading people of the reality of the Gospel. Rare is the case where “I lost an argument with a hot-headed angry Christian” is the summary of a person’s testimony.

Second, Paul’s course of action reflects worship. Worship requires recognizing the greatness of God and the holiness of God. A corollary part of worship is not encouraging people into false worship. Paul could have pushed everyone on the ship to say a quick prayer in Jesus’ name for safety. Instead, he holds that back.

We as Christians in America need to consider this: Paul urges the people on the ship to virtuous necessary action: have courage and do your jobs well. He does not ask that they carve a quick “God Bless the Ship” into the mizzenmast or quickly print a Psalm on the topsails. We should be as concerned about whether or not someone who campaigns with “God bless America” on their lips actually knows thing one about God as we are with the person who refuses to bring God into their campaigning at all. Likewise with any celebrity or other person, including ourselves. Our problems are not skipping “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Our problems began with the people of God not acting like it and get worse when we Christians expect lost people to act more like Jesus than we do.

There are certain virtuous necessary actions that we can and should call all those around us to do. However, artificial prayer is not one of those.

Finally, Paul’s course of action resounds with grace. He does not shout gleefully that he can drown and go to heaven, therefore the rest of the ship can just sink for all he cares. He knows that God has repeatedly told him he will go to Rome—so there is no doubt he will survive. Yet his concern is not for himself alone, but for the whole of the ship. A bloomin’ lot of lost people, pagans, and a few Romans that likely were involved in threatening to whip him back a year or two ago.

What is our concern? Oh, well, if things go real bad, there will be a Rapture and I’ll skip the ugly parts? Oh, well, let the North Korean nuclear weapons hit the West Coast, the Iranians hit the East Coast, and we’ll live happy in the middle? While I do not wish to debate either of those options (I think one more likely than the other), is our attitude in either Christ-like?

Now, there is appropriate wisdom in preparation. There is appropriate comfort in hope of the life to come. However, we ought not celebrate the death of the lost.

In all, while the ships are going down around us, keep your courage up. In due time, God will use you to draw others to Himself.

And that’s the point, really, isn’t it?

Nerd Note: It’s interesting to see the term Euro-quilo translated as “Northeaster” in the English text. This word is a hybrid word of Greek and Latin, with the Greek for East Wind and the Latin for North Wind (and the Aramaic loan word for “wide'”) jammed together. There seems to be little evidence, except for one location in Africa, that this word was commonly used in the written language of the day.

Yet it was apparently known among sailors. I take this as evidence of Luke’s presence in the situation. Had he been writing from a distance, he would have used more commonly known words for strong winds and storms. Instead, he used what the sailors called it. Why? Because that’s what imprinted somewhere between throwing the cargo overboard and falling to pieces on the rocks. This is a Euro-quilo. And I don’t ever want to see one again.

You’re a Looney! Acts 26

Paul remains on trial. It is fascinating that we think of Paul as a great missionary and church planter, but he spends almost as much time in the New Testament as a criminal defendant as he does anything else. You cannot quite claim to be copying Paul if you’re not spending as much time in prison as you are preaching.

Paul comes to his trial before Festus and Agrippa and presents his own testimony and his experience. This is not unlike his prior defenses: he explains how he is no threat to any legitimate Roman (or any other) government on this earth. He then goes on to express the Gospel.

He then gets the two responses that I think we can expect as Christians in this world:

1. The Festus Response: Festus looks at Paul and states that his “great learning is driving you mad.” (Acts 26:24) This is a response we should all expect. First of all, we should, as Christian people, have great learning. Ignorance does not glorify God, except, perhaps ignorance of experiencing evil. We should honor God with our minds by being learned.

This includes what the reputation of Christian institutions of higher learning should be. They should be a place of grace for behavior and growth, but a place of strong standards of education. A school or educational system that cannot produce real results is not appropriate. Claiming it’s “Christian” is no substitute.

Meanwhile, though, the other issue at hand is Festus’ response. He assumes Christian belief to be evidence of insanity on Paul’s part. If we are not occasionally called crazy, we are not encountering enough people in our Christian walk.

And we should respond by standing firm on the Gospel, not worry about justifying ourselves. Some people will always think we are loons.

2. The Agrippa Response: Agrippa is drawn to the Gospel. He just does not fully accept the idea. One can conjecture all day long what might have pulled Agrippa over the line into the Faith, but we know this, as best we can: there’s no evidence Agrippa ever became a Believer in Christ.

He does suggest that he could be persuaded to become a Christian. Yet he walks out, persuaded of Paul’s innocence, and walks away. Paul accomplished the first of his goals, but not the greater one.

Paul remains in custody, and will be sent off to Rome for his appeal to be heard. Agrippa goes back to ruling his kingdom, and life goes on.

The issue at hand is this: Paul remains faithful to witness, but with no results. What do we gather? That we should be the same: faithful. Even when there’s no visible result for it.

So, what do we do in response to this?

1. Recognize that we will never see 100% measurable effectiveness in Christian life. It’s just not going to happen.

2. Admit that we will not only be rejected, but we will also be mocked. This is unavoidable if we are faithful. We can either soften to hide it or we can just accept it and move forward.

Today’s Nerd Note: There is some question regarding Agrippa’s response: Is he asking a question or making a statement?

His sentence can be translated: “In a short time, you will persuade me to become a Christian” or “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?”

The simpler translation is the declarative sentence, but there are some reasons to use the question. The first is that Agrippa was, apparently, never persuaded to become a Christian. The second is that it appears unlikely that Agrippa would admit a religious leaning in a public forum. That would be odd for a king who had to watch his words a lot.

Slipping on Appeal: Acts 25

Paul is on trial. He has been kept in prison, or at least detention, for over two years because he will not bribe the Roman Governor. His passion for truth and righteous behavior exceeds his passion for personal freedom—though doubtless given the opportunity for both, he would have taken them.

Now, Paul is standing trial again for the same things he didn’t do the first time. Think on that reality next time you are answering the same old worn-out attacks on the Faith: if you’re American, you are walking freedom between defenses. Paul has spent the time between Acts 24 and Acts 25 in prison. Simply for the convenience of corrupt governing authorities. That is surely far worse than spending two years fighting stupid IRS paperwork for a year.

(not that I am endorsing just laying down and surrendering to the IRS—just don’t make persecution out of inconvenience.)

As he goes through his trial, he presents why he is on trial. Clearly, he states, his trial is about his adherence to the Gospel. He makes some decisions here that are practical:

1. He refuses to offer the customary bribes. That shows his integrity: when we are faced with a corrupt system, going into the corruption is rarely a good idea. Now, the cross-cultural experts will claim there is a difference in bribes, kickbacks, and a little baksheesh, and there likely is. Here is the dividing line, to me, for a believer in Christ: if you attain justice due to wealth and your fellow believers do not have wealth, and therefore no justice, you should not participate.

2. He refuses to participate in silly shenanigans. The Jewish leaders want him shipped back to Jerusalem to stand trial. Paul recognizes that they will either ambush him on the way or overrun him on the location. After all, did we not meet Paul at a prior case of the Sanhedrin ignoring the Roman rule that they could not execute someone? Paul wisely keeps himself in the hands of a more secular authority. It costs him freedom to roam, but maintains his life and his ability to proclaim the Gospel. After all, it’s his defense: they want me dead because I believe Jesus is the Son of God, crucified, died, risen, and ascended!

3. He refuses to surrender his rights completely. Paul, as a Roman Citizen, has the right to appeal to Caesar. So he does. This keeps him in chains for some time longer, but that was his choice. The plan to dispose of this troublemaker Paul is tied up by his appeal at this point: had Festus and Agrippa set him free, the angry Pharisees would have had their shot at him.

Instead, they slip on his appeal. Paul goes to Rome and proclaims the Gospel. Paul writes letters to encourage churches and church leaders. Paul preaches on Malta. It goes on and on.

Why?

Because Paul kept his head and held his ground.

He held his integrity.

He held his defense.

He held his rights.

We need to do the same. Use all that we have for the sake of the Gospel: our integrity, our rights, our lives for Christ.

Cheap Christian Preachers! Acts 24

Today, let’s put a little compare and contrast together, shall we?

Let’s take the Apostle Paul and the semi-anonymous embarrassment to Christian ministry currently in the news here for writing on a receipt that since God gets 10%, the server was getting nothing. Now, a quick note: if you have not noticed, there are times when someone wants to make a point and will fake an event to get attention. That may be what happened here. Or the individual may be a self-proclaimed “pastor” of a not real church. We’ll take this one at face value for starters.

Now, back to going completely through the Bible: Acts 24 (link). Paul, still on trial. Honestly, from this point forward Acts is a mash-up between the Gospel Channel, CourTV, and Extreme Shipwrecks. Paul is on trial here, on trial there, and shipwrecked over yonder—and in the middle of it, he’s preaching the truth of Jesus Christ. Right now, he’s on trial in Caesarea Maritima (most likely that one. There’s lots of Caesareas back in the day.) His case has shifted over to the Roman Judicial System, which fortunately gives Paul certain rights.

Meanwhile, in 21st Century America, apparently a large group of people went out to eat, resulting in the automatic charge of an 18% service fee. (Admittedly, I don’t know if those fees are charged and then auto-paid as gratuity to servers or if the restaurant is skimming some of that. Nor do I like them—somewhat out of jealousy that no such thing went on when I was in tipped-service and somewhat out of aggravation in that, since myself, my wife, my sister, and many other friends have all worked as servers, non-snarly servers always get above that level from me.)

Moving forward, though, apparently the individual who got the receipt felt it better to put on it that “God gets 10%” and then to zero-out the service charge. The cheapskate then preceded to sign the receipt and include “Pastor” on the signature line.

I have a couple of problems with this without getting back to the text. First of all: I have one credit card that includes “Rev” on it, but I don’t even sign that one with the “Rev” title. I sign my name. If you have a relationship with me based on my profession and therefore choose to call me “Pastor Doug” or “Brother Doug” then that’s fine. If I ever finish all the school I intend, then in the academic world I would be “Dr. Hibbard.” The truth is, though, that if you want to call me by name, then do so. The only time I ever would insist on any title would be that academic one: if I get the Ph.D. and you are one of my students, you will have to call me Dr. in class.

But to walk around with “Pastor” on your sleeve? Really? When you demand the respect you think you deserve, you show you do not deserve it. Outside of structured discipline systems, like the military, you do not go around insisting on people being in awe of you. Inside a system like the military (or police, fire departments, etc…) the ranks and ratings are part of the necessary culture. A pastor, though, is a pastor and if you have to sign your credit card slips with it, you are thinking more highly of yourself than you ought. Then we could talk at length about whether or not 10% is either “going to God” or is even a New Covenant mandate. That’s another post.

Let us return to Caesarea, and then back to (wherever the above happened. I thought I saw Philadelphia, but I’m not sure). Paul is kept in prison, and Felix the Governor sends for him from time to time. Why?

Felix wants to see if Paul will slide him a bribe to get out. Paul never does so. How Luke knows this was Felix’s motivation is uncertain, but Luke was likely with the group that was taking care of Paul in those days, so he may have heard the gossip from the working folks in the system. Or he just knew that was how Roman justice worked: a little extra grease moved the wheels of justice a little faster.

Paul never pays that bribe. He holds to his integrity and will not besmirch the character and reputation of himself, his fellow believers, or his Savior Jesus Christ for an easier time in jail. He stays in prison rather than pay a bribe not to keep the money but to keep his integrity.

Contra our modern day image in ministry, thanks to cheapskates and charlatans that consider their work for God to be an opportunity for personal enrichment. The consideration that we would be enriched should never cross our minds. Yes, there is legitimacy in making sure we’ve got a can of spam and some loaf bread to not starve if possible, but the nonsense of pursuing personal enrichment has to stop.

The plain testimony of one of the first leaders in ministry among the pagan world shows us what our attitude should be: I will allow myself to be imprisoned rather than bring reproach upon the Name above All Names. I will stay in prison, even though I am having to pay for my food (true, often in Roman times), though I could get out rather than behave in an unrighteous manner.

Christian people: we have got to do better than this. We have got to demand better than this from our leaders. The world seeks to discredit the Church of the Living God enough, we cannot sit by and leave people in leadership roles that do nothing but help.

Today’s Nerd Note: There is a lot of good stuff in Acts 24. Read it. Look at Paul’s use of proper etiquette in his defense. Look at his submission to the system. No resorting to trite memes or simple tweet-bashes. He is clear, comes back to the Gospel, and takes the lumps that come from it.

Far better than suing those who opposed him for being too mean.

Injustice: Acts 23

Paul has been detained by the Romans and is currently being tried by the Sanhedrin. That is where we are in Acts 23 (link). What’s a Sanhedrin? If you took and mixed Congress and the Supreme Court, a little bit, and then added a twist of state religion, you would have something like the Sanhedrin. They were the primary deliberative body through which the Jews self-governed. The Romans did not have to accept the Sanhedrin---or even allow it, but giving the people a sense of self-determination kept the revolts at bay. Some of the time.

Odd how people will settle for the illusion of freedom.

Back to Paul: he stands, unjustly accused, before a group of people who do not have the proper authority to try him. Why? Because he’s a Roman citizen and they cannot execute any form of sentence upon him. Further, he has accepted the Christian faith, placing himself under the authority of Jesus as Lord and Messiah. Add to that the reality that he has done nothing wrong.

Yet he stands before them to make his defense. He opens with a line that should challenge us: “I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day.” (Acts 23:1).

Oh, the sermon material this is: a good conscience but not one informed by man, rather one before God! A man who has done all that he can, in every way he can, to honor God by his doings and not doings throughout all of his days. How would that change our lives if we would need that statement? Is that a statement you can make? That your conscience is good before God?

Leaving that aside, Paul speaks that sentence and the High Priest, Ananias, orders him struck on the mouth. Probably intended as an immediate punishment for what Ananias thought was untruth, it was nonetheless an injustice: whatever the law may allow, striking a prisoner without considering guilt is wrong.

And Paul speaks out about it. He calls it like it is, that God will strike Ananias and alludes to the preaching of Ezekiel and of Jesus Himself when he calls Ananias a white-washed wall. Paul is then informed that Ananias is the High Priest and Paul shifts from confronting Ananias’ behavior to stirring up the whole Council.

What do we make of the situation here?

1. Religious leaders need to watch their behavior. Consider that Paul states he “was not aware that (Ananias) was high priest.” Really? Not aware? It is one thing for someone to be unaware that you are a great and mighty whatever-you-are religious leader because you do not mention it. It is another matter for one to find your behavior completely unbecoming of who you claim to be.

If you are going to claim the title, behave the title. Do not let someone be surprised to find out you were supposed to be God-honoring.

2. Sometimes, we do not respond like Jesus did. Compare the trial of Paul to the trial of Jesus and you see that Jesus said nothing, even when struck for not speaking. Paul, on the the other hand, opens his mouth and fires back. What should be normative for us?

Well, let’s consider this: Jesus came to live, preach, teach, heal, die for our sins and be resurrected. He knew the outcome of His trial because He willed the outcome. His death was necessary for our salvation. Paul? His death puts him into the presence of God but beyond that, it’s not necessary for anything. It stops his preaching and cancels his plans to go to Rome, Spain, and points beyond.

So Paul speaks up for himself. In doing so, he also speaks up for any others who are tried by the Sanhedrin. He speaks clearly that what they are doing is wrong. That is valuable for us: we need to take that same tack when we have the opportunity. Speak up and act out against injustice when we are aware of it. Admittedly, that’s often only when it comes calling at our door, but any starting point is better than never starting.

Why take Paul’s response and not Jesus’? Are we not to be like Christ and not like any man? Certainly, except for one detail:

Jesus already died for your sins. You are not dying to save anyone.

So use your voice and speak out.

Today’s Nerd Note: It is worth noting that Ananias is killed by the Jews who start the First Jewish Revolt against Rome in 66. He was, apparently, not exactly beloved by his own people and was actually pro-Rome.

Also of note is the ease in which Paul dodges this trial by stirring up the dissension between Pharisee and Sadducee. You could picture the same thing today: “I am on trial for being a Republican (or Democrat)” and you immediately divide the room. Enemies are not dealt with; problems are not solved; failures are not fixed. Why?

Because all we can think about are our own interests and those who wish to stir us up can do just that. Play to the dividing issue. We can keep this up as a nation or we can have a future. But within a decade of this event in Acts 23, the Jews were in open revolt and the Temple and much of the country was destroyed by the Roman Army in response. The deep factionalizing destroyed their nation.

What will it do to ours?

Watch Your Language! Acts 22

There are two divergent points in Acts 22 (link) that I think are worth your time. Here they are:

1. The first point is in Acts 22:2. Paul is standing in front of a hostile crowd. They are convinced he has violated their holiest places and mocked God as they understand God. It’s not a safe place to stand. Angry mob on one side, Roman soldiers on the other, and here is Paul in the middle.

Now, before we go forward, we need to go back a few verses to Acts 21:37-38. Paul asks the Roman commander permission to speak to the crowd. He speaks to the Roman in….Greek. Which surprises the Roman and gains Paul that permission. Paul then speaks to the crowd in….

The Hebrew dialect of Aramaic. The local, home language of the area. He speaks to them in the language they know and understand. In the language that no one would have bothered to learn just for fun.

That gets their attention. This shows that either: he is one of them or, at the least, he has cared enough to learn the language. We know he is one of them: traditionally brought-up Jew who has come to accept Jesus as Lord.

Either way, this matters: do not underestimate how being in your home culture empowers you to communicate. People know you, people understand you, and you understand them. This does not guarantee acceptance, but it’s a good start.

Learn the languages and customs where you are, and learn as many as you can for where you may be. You never know what you might need to know.

2. The second point is deep in the chapter: Acts 22:25-26. In the Roman Empire, the judicial system had certain methods. One was to flog you before you were interrogated. Why? Because pain brings truth, apparently, at least in the eyes of Roman Justice.

Aside: This concept did not go away with Rome. It persisted through the Medieval Era straightways into the Industrial Age. It is this type of nonsense that the US Constitution addresses when speaking of “Cruel and unusual punishment.” Not failing to allow sexual predators access to sexually explicit movies, as some allege. Nor even capital punishment. However, re-interpreting texts that have a plain, obvious, historic meaning to mean something entirely different is all the rage these days. Otherwise, why would anyone think the 2nd Amendment had to do with hunting?

Back on track: while you could whip some people before questioning them, you could not do this to a Roman Citizen. Roman Citizens were exempt from such things. Perhaps the assumption was that citizens were more honorable and therefore more prone to truth-telling. Perhaps, since the laws were written by the citizens, the laws were just more citizen-friendly. After all, the ones who make the laws tend to protect themselves more than others.

Either way, Paul was a Roman Citizen. He could not be flogged just for being arrested. Yet his captors, apparently, did not realize he was a citizen. He’s chained up and about to flogged when he asks the centurion: “Is this legal?”

A few things happen, and one thing doesn’t. The flogging doesn’t happen. Paul is treated differently by his captors, and is in fact protected in a situation that most likely would have led to his death otherwise.

Why? Because he stood up for his legal rights, as ensconced in the law of the land that was above the rulers or their designated representatives. He insists on his right to not be flogged, insists on his rights as a citizen.

Paul. The same Paul that has taken many a beating. Even took a stoning. Here, not one lash hits his back.

There is a time and place when Christian believers have to take floggings and beatings, imprisonment and death, for the sake of their witness to the Gospel. Yet that is not always true: one can rightly stand firmly on their legal rights. Even insist on them.

That’s important: being a Christian does not mean one must be the doormat of everyone around you. There is a line between loving your enemies and being a doormat that you do not need to allow to be crossed. There is value in standing for your rights. In fact, Scripture speaks of surrendering our rights for the sake of Christian unity, not for the sake of peace with government.

Passivity is not always the mark of a person of God.

Nerd Note: Studying Scripture means studying history to understand the world in which the events occurred. Applying Scripture means studying current events to understand the world in which we must live.

You’re in Trouble Now: Acts 21

What can we say about Paul? If you are a believer but have never read Acts, you do not realize what kind of trouble Paul was capable of getting into. You should read the whole text and then come back to this point.

If you have read the whole book, though, let’s get into this from here: Acts 21 (link). Paul is making his way back to Jerusalem, and stops off at Miletus to meet with the elders of the Ephesian church. Then he travels on to Caesarea and meets with Phillip the Evangelist (Acts 8, see here) and Phillip’s four daughters who prophesied. While Paul is there, he also encounters a chap named Agabus comes in, picks up Paul’s belt, ties himself up with it, and says that the owner of the belt will be bound up just like that.

Now, go back through all the rough moments Paul has been through. He’s been stoned, flogged, locked up, threatened….but we have no textual moments that tell us he was ever warned that bad things were going to happen. Usually, he just went one place to the next.

Here he gets a warning that, if he goes to Jerusalem, he’s done. He’ll be imprisoned by the Jews and handed over to the Gentiles—which should be read as “Angry Romans.” Being handed over to Angry Romans works out about the same every time—not well for the handed-over one.

The question that bothers me here is: WHY?

Why get the warning? Why does God send Agabus to Paul? What is the purpose? The people around him start panicking, calling on him not to go to Jerusalem. It becomes a test point for Paul.

What will he do? Will he go on to Jerusalem? Will he decide to preach elsewhere?

Then he gets to Jerusalem. Immediately, is he arrested? No. Instead, he’s faced with a different challenge. One that was likely harder to swallow: he, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, is asked to help a few Jewish Believers go the Temple and fulfill their ceremonial vows. He is asked to do this because other believers are questioning Paul. Rather than defend himself, Paul is asked to do something he hasn’t done much of: Jewish ceremonial ritual.

That probably challenged him as much as the threats of oppression from the outside. Yet he persevered. The end-result? Arrest, hand over to the Romans, and the rest of the story of Acts.

We know the ultimate fate of Paul: he is beheaded with the sword by Rome sometime during the reign of Caesar Nero. We’re not entirely sure everywhere he goes between now and then, but we know that much. And there is not anything we can do about it for Paul, anyway.

What do we do about it for us?

First, we need to consider this: the warning signs echo for two millennia: the world and Christianity are incompatible. We will either follow Jesus or seek approval from other sources. At times, following Jesus will be approved culturally and will be to our benefit, but those times are separated widely by the divergence of the options.

Christian living by nature creates a separation from culture that does not honor God. It happens. How the competing culture responds varies based on how much of a threat the Christian view is held to be.

Second, then, we must consider how we shall respond. We have the warnings. We have Scripture that places before us the reality that some people will interfere with us religiously and some will use the power of the government against us for our beliefs.

What will you do when that comes to your door?

Now, on to the nerdish note:

Phillip has four virgin daughters who prophesy. Many modern Christian groups practice neither prophesy as it happened then nor women taking on the main teaching role in the churches. What should we do with this clear example of women as prophets?

1. Discard it as fable.

2. Punt it by saying that prophesy as then does not exist now, so there’s no point worrying what they did.

3. Argue semantics about these four only doing what their father allowed or did not do such things outside of them. Or that they did—given that there is only one mention, it’s hard to tell and not worth arguing.

4. Acknowledge that narrative moments must also be connected to plainly spoken propositional statements, and work to form a clear theology based on the testimony of all Scripture rather than excising one liners.

The Royal We: Acts 20

Moving forward into Acts 20 (link), I want to comment on something we haven’t seen since Acts 16, but is integral to the story. More than that, it’s integral to our understanding of the growth of Christianity.

What is it?

The use of “we” in the narration. Our tradition and scholarship points to Luke as the author of Acts, and so we gather this: when Acts refers to the events occurring with “We” that tells us that Luke is present in the situation.

Some of Acts is simply history, recorded under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and likely based in eyewitness account and personal recollection. Those segments are as valuable as the others, because that “inspiration of the Holy Spirit” phrase means something: there is no one part of the Bible that is better than another part. Some might be easier to apply, but none are superior to others.

Some of Acts, though, is the recollections of a person who was right there, in the midst of the action. Luke is in the middle of things. He was there when Eutychus died in the middle of church. He was there when Paul raised Eutychus and then finished his sermon. And keep in mind: Luke is a physician—if Paul had to raise Eutychus, that means Eutychus was all the way dead: no medical help would help, or Luke could have handled it.

Luke was there at the painful farewell to the Ephesians. Luke was there to know what Paul had faced. He was there, and knew the heart and soul of both the preacher and the people. He was there, and heard Paul’s warning that men would arise and try to mislead the church. Perhaps this was part of Luke’s reason for writing.

We can take this away from the situation, though:

Christianity does not call for passive observers but active participants.

Now, you may come alongside and watch us, but at some point, a person must either join in or reject the life that is believing that Jesus is the Son of God and King of Kings. As the Spirit and power of God move you to that point, you are certainly welcome to observe. Please understand, however, that you are observing through dirty glass and mis-aimed mirrors: none of us quite reflect properly the truth, and so you need to look broadly and also look to the source.

You will, eventually, be in or out, but for now, watch as you will. I’m not really after you on this one.

Who am I after?

The person that thinks Christianity is about sitting in a pew, or a movie theater seat, or their recliner, and watching. There is no place for that. Scripture knows nothing of an uninvolved Believer in God. Not even of one whose main job is to record what happens: there is no evidence that any author of any portion of Scripture was not involved in the events that they recorded.

(Within reason, of course, since Moses records several thousand years and was only involved about 120 of them, and the authors of the Books of the Kings were likely not involved in every century they recorded. Still, they were a part of what happened when they were alive.)

You do not get to sit back and just watch it happen.

Not and call yourself a Christian. There is an active pursuit of obedience that is necessary.

So get out there and make certain that the record of the Kingdom of God can be written by you in the First Person Plural. If you aren’t part of “we” then you are missing the point.

Nerd Note:

Actually, preacher note: Don’t preach people to death unless you know you can raise them from the dead: Eutychus.

Calling Your Bluff in the Buff: Acts 19

Paul and company have traveled onward. (What, you thought that if I didn’t blog it, it didn’t happen? Right…words can hurt, but reality is whatever it is, whether you say it or not.)

They have traveled, whilst Apollos is in Corinth doing some teaching, over to Ephesus. Paul preaches and people come to faith in Christ. It’s a truly beautiful situation. For the first time, it seems that Paul is going to preach without the Judaizers causing problems or even without causing too much controversy with the Jews themselves. (Remember, the Judaizers were the ones who thought that being a good Christian required one to first live according to Jewish law.) He does end up leaving the synagogue and teaching in a Gentile school room, but that was going to happen: eventually, the Jews that did not want the Gospel would not want the Gentiles.

Side note: a drive for “racial purity” is completely inconsistent with the Gospel: if you have the Gospel, you want all people that God has created to hear it and you are willing to fellowship throughout life with all who are your fellow Believers. No lines, no segregation. If you want a Sunday meeting or a life only for those just like you, you don’t want the Gospel. Even if you put “Church” on the building.

This chapter then gives us a couple of contrasting stories about the power of God. First, we get the picture that God is working through Paul to heal people and anoint people with the Holy Spirit. Even a handkerchief that Paul had touched carried the power of God to people and evil spirits went out from them.

By contrast, there were the seven sons of Sceva the Priest. These seven were going about, commanding evil spirits to leave people. They even called on the name of Jesus when they did so. Except when they did this, the evil spirit called their bluff and beat them out into the buff.

It just did not work without the seven sons having their own faith in Christ.

Now, we could take the wrong lesson from this, and many have. Here are the wrong lessons:

1. Prayer hankies, blessed by preachers, to heal you. Seriously, folks, that’s nonsense. Especially since it’s usually connected to a request for money. There is nothing in the text here that indicates Paul came up with this idea—it appears that it just happened, people realized it, and praised God for it.
2. The extended nonsense: the Greek word for handkerchief and for apron can relate to towels/headbands related to sweat. And so it’s the perspiration of the Apostle that’s helpful, so we should all collect some preacher sweat. Please, please: do not send those people your life savings. If a minister won’t pray for you just because you ask for it, find a different one.
3. The “At least make sure the demons know your name” debacle: the evil spirit admits to having “heard of” Paul, and so we should make sure the demons know our names. Christian, your job has absolutely nothing to do with demons. It has everything to do with glorifying God. Demons might get in the way and have to be dealt with by the power of God, but if your plan includes seeking anything from the demonic, it is wrong. End of story.

We need to actually look at the text and get past these. The text actually gives us a enough to grasp what is happening in this situation.

And it is not about: Hankies, sweat bottles, or even Paul.

It is about the power of the God, shown through His Holy Spirit, and expressed in worship of the Lord Jesus Christ. Look again: there is a continuity of expressions regarding “the evil spirit” throughout Acts 19:11-16. That “The” is important in Greek, and it’s important in English. We’re dealing with the same problem, probably the same person and people: the Sons of Sceva, not being Believers, cannot do anything about the evil when they are in front of it. Paul, with the aid of other Believers, does not even need to be present.

The power is in God and is mediated through His people. Not through those who can cite the right rites. Only through those whose hearts are God’s in the first place.

What happens next?

The best thing for church growth: FEAR. Fear of people? No. Only injustice and unrighteous need fear the church. It is the fear of God that all people must have.

Because when that happens, Acts 19:20 hits, and the Word grows and prevails. People abandon their prior sinful practices, even at great cost, and stand publicly with Christ.

Then, of course, the riot comes. Why? Because so many people abandon idolatry that the idol-makers find themselves made idle. There is much here as well, as the crowd in Ephesus insists on the supporting the worship of the gods they make. Amazing how people do that—I had a pastor who often said that we either accept being made in God’s image or we attempt to make a god in our image.

On to us, though, as there is precious little left to be done for ancient Ephesus:

What is your trust in, when you face the evil things that afflict this world? More specifically, when those things afflict you?

I am not talking about finding a demon in every sneeze, nor should you hear me applaud the “never-go-to-the-doctor-just-pray” mentality. That we should pray and seek the aid of those God has gifted should be a “duh” thought for us.

Also, though, how do you handle the challenges that afflict you spiritually? Do you run to the old rituals? To the current “flavor of the month?”

Put your hope and trust in the Living God. Let the rest of the tricks slide away…

Today’s Nerd Note: The post is already long, so here’s a short one: Acts 19:35-36 give us an important learning text in our doctrine of Scripture. Even though I believe that every word of Scripture is infallible, that the Bible is truth without any mixture of error, the text can accurately record inaccurate (or outright lies) spoken by an individual. For example, Acts 19:35-36 should not be taken as Biblical proof that the Diana Statute legend is true. The textual recording here is accurate in this: that’s what the town clerk said. Not that the town clerk was right, just that this is what he said.

None of My Business: Acts 18

Christianity keeps spreading throughout the Roman Empire. In the process, it begins to separate from the Judaism that it originated from. This leads to a great deal of tension between the two groups of people, especially as people leave one for the other.

Meanwhile, life in Rome goes on. The Empire goes about its business, the usual business of Empires: conquest, trade, taxation, commerce, and circuses. Empires are about those items and seldom are truly concerned with religious matters. Historically speaking, religion has been co-opted by governments for their own ends, but rarely has that been good for any religious group.

Paul, meanwhile, is not focused on imperial matters. He is focused, instead, on the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In the pursuit of the passion, he’s gone from place to place, and now he finds himself in Corinth. Starting off, he splits time between making tents and preaching, but once his team of Silas and Timothy arrive, he focuses his whole effort on the preaching work.

Interstitial nerd note: there is something here to be gathered regarding vocational ministry. Paul sets two examples here: 1 is that when necessary and helpful, he worked with his hands to provide; 2 is that when necessary and helpful, he worked solely at the spread and teaching of the Gospel and others handled the provision. Both the “never pay a preacher” and the “pay a full-time preacher” arguments can be found in Paul’s behavior in Corinth. Meaning? That one must do what is necessary based on the situation.

Eventually, the spread of the Gospel throughout both the Jewish and Gentile communities of Corinth leads to rioting. Alongside the riot, the Roman Proconsul is asked to mediate the religious dispute. He, showing some political acumen, backs out of the argument. His statement: this nonsense has nothing to do with me, my laws, and my responsibilities. Solve it yourselves.

Well, the rioting occurs, the synagogue leader gets beat up by his own people, and Paul goes on with this business. The verse in Acts 18 (link) that I would key on for this? Acts 18:17, where the text records that Gallio, the proconsul, was “not concerned about any of these things.”

We need to keep this in mind: the world does not care one bit about the internal religious arguments of the church. End of story.

There may be feigned interest, but really what the world sees in a religious squabble is a reason to avoid religious people altogether. Certainly we do not need to expect the outside world to fix our problems—we should fix those ourselves. No one else will actually care, much as Gallio does not.

Now, what do we do with this?

1. Of all the lessons in Acts about the church, one keeps repeating. It’s here as well: the business of the church is its own, and the world will at best be indifferent. Normally, it’s hostile.

2. Be certain we grab hold of help from the right angles. Every where you look, it appears that someone wants to tell the church what to do: the media. Celebrities. Wannabe no-good bloggers that spend all day trying to write a blog post. Methodists want to fix Baptists and Baptists, Presbyterians. The world wants to fix the Anglican Communion by pulling it left and others want to pull it right.

We want to be certain our help comes from the right place: the Word of God and those committed to that Word.

3. Avoid dragging our petty fights into public. Now, to be clear, if criminal activity is found, then take it to the legal authorities. (In a situation were the laws are clearly ungodly, that’s a different story—if the situation is clear.) However, if you are upset about which hymn you sang last week, do you really need to bicker that out over dinner in public? Not bloomin’ likely, mate.

Of course, the blog world becomes a gray zone on this one. Blogs and discussion groups allow people to connect that never encounter each other in public. That connection then leads to discovering petty issues that aren’t petty when they are a pattern of behavior—but neither are they private. Taking a personal beef to a blog is not always the best route, but it is sometimes the only one.

4. Finally, do not count on the world’s help when you are right. Stay focused on doing what is right, and let the rest come as it may.

Today’s Nerd Note: We meet Apollos here. Good chap, Apollos, in Acts 18:24-28. Evidence that learning and passion are good starting points, and that clarity of instruction is the crucial ending point.

Do you remember what happened? Me neither. Acts 17

Paul and Silas continue on their missionary journey. Acts 17 (link) has some of the most oft-preached portions of the missionary journeys:

1. That Paul had a “custom” of going to the synagogue is used to encourage customary church attendance.

2. The Bereans “diligent search” of the Scriptures to check on Paul’s message is a valued reminder not to trust the messenger alone, but to use the text to evaluate the message.

3. The time in Athens is used to justify the study of pagan literature and as an example of preaching the Gospel in completely untouched situations.

All of these are well and good. There may be some scrutiny that should be brought to bear on our interpretations of those passages, whether or not we are really seeing what is intended there. However, in general, there’s a lot of material out there about these, so we’re not going to spend much time here.

Instead, let’s go just one sentence in: “Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia.”

Quick, name all that you know about the churches in Amphipolis and Apollonia. Got it? That did not take long, did it?

We do not know anything about church expansion in Amphipolis. We do not even know if there was a church planted in Apollonia. We know, basically, nothing. It’s possible that Paul and Silas just passed through, did nothing but spend the night. Whatever occurred, it is lost to our understanding of the New Testament.

How does this matter to us?

Speaking as one who sometimes thinks nothing he does will be remembered, it matters like this:

Not everything that happens is recorded and remembered. Sometimes, it just happens.

I think the life of an innkeeper or stable boy, perhaps a server at dinner, was impacted by the coming through of Paul and Silas. There was an interaction, a moment, and it was not important enough to be recorded. Perhaps a church was started, but being so close to Thessalonica and Philippi it never got its own letter. Maybe it was just an “ordinary” church with normal problems, and so it just kind of…existed. Reached some of their neighbors. Had a few fights. Got over them, and went on…

Or the important truth runs the other direction: a tired and hungry Paul and Silas find an inn, where an innkeeper rewarms the dinner she had already served. Space is made on the couch, for the inn is full. The missionary party is fed, rested, and sallies forth the next day, onward to spread the Gospel. Illnesses due to exposure are avoided, irritability due to hunger is reduced, and the message remains the focus.

The truth is that many of us will go through life and, if we had a TARDIS to jump ahead and read the history books, find that little to nothing of what we did will be recorded for history.

We need to be okay with that. Life is about making the most of the opportunities put in front of us, not about making a name for ourselves.

Besides, that makes us that much more mysterious for future generations…