Acts 5; Fear

Fear seems to tie these stories together. Ananias and Sapphira did not fear God and paid dearly for it. The end result of their lives demonstrated that a healthy fear of God is a good thing. In fact, it is what all the people had after they heard the news about the couple. A healthy fear (respect, awe) seized everyone. It permitted the church to meet unmolested and elevated the respect given the apostles by the people.

The Jewish leaders, however, did not fear the uneducated apostles. They only feared the crowds and the loss of their prestige. It took an old sage among them to introduce the idea that perhaps the apostles were working for God. Even after that, the Sanhedrin still did not fear God in their hearts or they would not have beaten the apostles. Yet it was enough to convince their heads and win the freedom of the apostles.

So summing it all up, I think this means that without a healthy fear of God we tend to be selfish and fear people. With a healthy fear of God, we tend to be courageous and respected. Surely all of us want the latter more than the former but are we willing to change our view of God to get there? Are we willing to let God be the God of the Old Testament who punished people, wiped out nations and released death at times? Are we willing to let him be the God of Revelation from whom the four horsemen ride out? Honestly are we even willing to let Jesus be the guy who kicked over tables, drove people out of the temple, refused to heal a woman till she begged and condemned leaders? Are we willing to follow a Holy Spirit that killed Ananias and Sapphira? If not, I guess that means we end up on the side of the Sanhedrin.

Acts 4; Dilemma

"They could not decide how to punish them, because all the people were praising God for what had happened." That would be a comical line if it were not so true. . . and I don't mean for them. I can recall many times in life that I have sat in on meetings where church leaders were concerned about something good that was breaking out but that was not being done in a way that seemed orthodox. A new work in a part of the city that the church had not specifically planned, outreach that several youth started that had grown amazingly quickly or social justice work that the church never planned.

In this story, the Jewish leaders were trying to figure out how to stop a new act of God. In my story, church leaders have often been faced with the same dilemma. When we define church too narrowly, God seems to break out in other places. When we limit his activity to that which we have figured out and anticipate, he always comes up with surprises.

As I get older, I think I like surprises less and less. Yet, I really don't want to be that guy who is left behind when God does something new. I don't want to be part of the crowd that speaks out against something good. These poor Jewish leaders looked bad as they tried to figure out how to stop miracles occurring. I don't want to be that kind of leader. I think that means saying goodbye to the false security of having God figured out.

Acts 3; Listen

I am struck by two different things in this chapter. First, there is Peter's statement to the blind man. “Silver or gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you." How often do we think that change can only be made by those with big budgets? How often do we think in terms of "The silver and gold that I do have, I give you." The sad thing is that we then go on our merry way feeling as if we had done something outstanding. We miss transformation moments because we give people financial assistance rather than Jesus.

Second, Peter preached the words of Moses which basically said "listen to the Messiah or be cut off." Those words made me think of the many people who have never heard of the Messiah. They made me think about people I knew that have died without hearing them. They also made me consider the time we spend bickering over how to interpret some of those words. When its all said and done, perhaps the most important thing it made me think of was "am I still listening?"

I was raised with the mindset that God spoke and it was recorded. The revelation was concluded and now we refer back to those words. Yet I believe there is more. The timely words of a friend, the advice of a coworker, the recorded words of a wise author -- surely the words of God take shape in human voice. I imagine he speaks much more than I listen. In addition to the recorded word, he has a history of speaking through prophets, dreams, burning bushes, and even donkeys. Scripture rarely refers to a deficit in his communication; rather, it is the phrase "he who has ears to hear, let him hear" that seem to show up with frequency. So if he still speaks and Peter calls us to listen or be cut off, the question of the day is "Am I listening?" Are my ears attuned to his voice? Do I hear a phrase or receive a message and perceive who the real author is? Do I allow him outside of the book? Am I listening?

Acts 2:14-47; The Message

I've heard many messages throughout the years directed at evangelism. The sermons and classes range from "come be a part of our great community" to "get out of hell" to "this is the best life you can have now" to "health and wealth". It makes us sound so Walmart. "If you want it, we got it. We can meet every need and make this fun at the same time. You are a consumer and we have what you want."

Peter wasn't preaching any of those messages. His singular point was Jesus. This was the son of God that we crucified but that God exalted by resurrection. Respond to this man. Then God will forgive you of your mistakes and empower you to be different by placing his Spirit in you.

We can claim that we have adjusted the message to be a better cultural fit, but I think that is an excuse. Paul preached to both Jew and Gentile. His approach would vary but his core message never did.

Perhaps the real issue here is not so much what our ministers and our churches preach in order to gain members but rather what do I preach by my life? Does my life show that my primary concern is being just good enough to not be condemned to hell? Is the message I exude simply "I love my community"? (which sounds a lot like "I love my bank"). Or maybe "this is a really good life?" All of those are open to subjectivity; each can be debated. The life that states "I follow Jesus", however, is a life that preaches a relationship. It might include all the other messages but they are quite secondary to the message of life with God.

This Christianity thing is about a man, a person named Jesus. Everything else flows from that one point. Anything else as our primary message means that we are unfaithful to that man and it is no longer Christianity.

Acts 2:1-13; Good Question

People in the crowd asked "What does this mean?" Great question. Some did not ask a question at all; they simply drew a conclusion. It seemed obvious to them that the apostles were all drunk; the explanation came easily. But it came too easily. They could only see what they looked for. The truth came to those who asked questions.

It was an open question that allowed for answers outside of what they expected. It was a question that a child would raise as his eyes spread wide with the wonder of a new site. Most importantly, it was a question that would allow room for God to reveal something.

I believe that God is still very much at work in this world. I don't believe that he always works in the ways or people that I anticipate. My fear is that I often see new things and respond with old explanations. Instead of questions that invite God into my worldview, I give answers that lock him out. Answers are always much more comfortable and secure. Asking a question invites change, which can often be difficult. Yet, it was only those who asked questions that eventually saw the truth. So perhaps instead of focusing upon an answer to every problem in life, the real key is to have a question for every event in life.

Acts 1:12-26; Wait

Acts 1:3 says that Jesus appeared to the apostles over a period of forty days. Chapter 2 starts with the day of Pentecost. That leaves a gap of ten days in which 1:12-26 occurs. Ten days of prayer and discernment. Ten days of waiting -- just like Jesus told them to do in verse 4 ("wait for the gift").

We love life when things are happening; we hate waiting. As North Americans we are particulary bad about it. In this society, to wait is to lose time and opportunity. To wait is to be unproductive. Yet, if truth be told, perhaps the real reason that waiting is so hard is that to wait means to listen to my own thoughts. It is to hear what is really inside. In the busy times, there is no opportunity for reflection and change. We simply react with little thinking. In waiting there is no external activity, no crowds, no accolades; there is only the silent company of memories.

Before launching his church, Jesus had the apostles wait. He did not speak to them for ten days. They waited. Sat. Contemplated. Lingered. Questioned. Remembered. Surely their understanding of Jesus was crystalized in those quiet moments. Surely their understanding of who he was, who they were and what they were to do became starkly clear. Only after this would God use them.

Today we want to skip the waiting and the quiet. We believe that we are lazy people if we sit, contemplate and linger. Perhaps that is why our busyness never leads to the productivity we truly crave. Perhaps God is still hoping to launch some of his greatest works on earth but he needs his people to wait first. After all, a night alone on the mountain led to choosing the twelve, solitude in the garden led to the cross and waiting in the upper room led to Pentecost.

I wonder what waiting in my life might lead to?

Acts 1:1-11; Began

Luke starts out this book with a definite transition section. He says that his first volume was about what Jesus "began" to do and teach; then he quickly moves into the promise of the Holy Spirit. From word go this is going to be a continuation story in which the baton has been passed from Jesus to the Holy Spirit.

It is that little word "began" that amazes me. More often than not I think of the life of Jesus as a complete entity, something that was not just a beginning but was a beginning and end like all of our lives. Yet that is not the impression I get here. Luke did not write saying Jesus came and went; now we all look back to him. Rather he writes that Jesus only began. There is more to the story. He launched something that is greater than just his life. He seems to say, "don't look back; that was only the first act in the play."

Jesus' story was intimately tied with the work of the Holy Spirit in the early church. One was the ongoing story of the other. Yet, the same spirit continues working in us today. What a message, that we are now the ongoing story of Jesus. We are now the next act in the play. I am more than just one person in a billion who will soon pass away. No, my life is the ongoing story of the Messiah who broke into this world in a powerful way to advance the kingdom of God. Jesus only began the play but I get to advance the same play. He began; we continue.

(Walt Whitman: O ME! OF LIFE!)
O ME! O life!... of the questions of these recurring;
Of the endless trains of the faithless—of cities fill’d with the foolish;
Of myself forever reproaching myself, (for who more foolish than I, and who more
faithless?)
Of eyes that vainly crave the light—of the objects mean—of the struggle ever
renew’d;
Of the poor results of all—of the plodding and sordid crowds I see around me;
Of the empty and useless years of the rest—with the rest me intertwined;
The question, O me! so sad, recurring—What good amid these, O me, O life?

Answer.
That you are here—that life exists, and identity;
That the powerful play goes on, and you will contribute a verse.