Creative Commons License Copyright © 2005-2007 Collin Park
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Notes for reading of June 26

Noble-minded? They were smart, too!

The apostle Paul visits three places in Acts 17: Thessalonica, Berea, and Athens. In Thessalonica there was a riot; in Athens there was scoffing. But between those was Berea:

Now the Bereans were more noble-minded than the Thessalonians, for they received the word with great eagerness, searching the scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

Acts 17.11

What does it mean, "noble-minded"? We could look at the text in the original language (Greek for the New Testament) and use a Greek-English dictionary to see. But according Dr. Sarah Sumner (author of the excellent Men and Women in the Church) it's a no-no to use a dictionary. OK, so we could use a concordance, a Bible cross-reference, to see how that same Greek word is used elsewhere in the Bible. Well, maybe we could, but for this passage we don't need to do that, because the context tells us what we need to know.

And whatever "noble-minded" means, I believe Luke is telling us that these were good guys. They are a good example to follow.

OK, here's the first clue: they were different from those in Thessalonica.

Why was there a riot in Thessalonica? Because the religious leaders felt threatened by the new movement's popularity. They were jealous; so they rounded up some bad characters from the marketplace, formed a mob and started a riot in the city. (Acts 17.5)

So that's one aspect of the Bereans' noble character: they were not slaves to politics or power or popularity.

Where the Thessalonians failed, I think, was in their unwillingness to admit they were wrong -- they misunderstood the Old Testament (they missed the point of salvation, for one thing). It was more important to the religious leaders in Thessalonica to hold on to power than to follow the truth. How about me? Am I willing to admit that I've been wrong about something, even if that would mean a loss of face, a loss of popularity or power?

Another clue comes from the word "for" -- for they received the word with great eagerness ; that is, they wanted to learn. How interested am I in knowing God better? How much time do I spend listening to, reading, studying, meditating on the things of God -- versus listening to, reading, studying, meditating on popular media, the false promises of our culture, home improvement ideas, investment advice, crossword puzzles (ouch!), or film and rock stars?

So, I just thought of this: I recently discovered that both our Kobe (Japan) church, Kobe Bible Fellowship and our current church, Menlo Park Presbyterian, make sermons available for free download. Seeing as someone gave me an iPod a few months ago, I could easily put sermons on it, and listen and meditate on them during my train commute.

Something else the text tells us about the Bereans is that they searched the scriptures daily. Their understanding of the world was informed by the Scriptures.

This is harder than it sounds. We all have experiences that shape our understanding of the world. So when the Bible reveals God as a father, it's well nigh impossible not to be influenced by the relationship I had with my human, earthly father -- whether good or bad.

And when we read a passage, we cannot help but be influenced by the teaching we've heard about it. If the teaching is good, this is a good thing. But if the teaching misses the point -- the way the rabbis missed the salvation that comes through faith in Jesus -- then teaching can stand between us and the truth of God.

The Bereans had it figured out, or figured out well enough. That's why I think these folks were so smart. I wonder if they prayed this? Open my eyes that I may behold wonderful things out of thy law. (Psalm 119.18)

Trapped!

This is a hypothetical story about a hypothetical boy, although some of the statements undoubtedly apply to someone somewhere.

When Joe was a young boy, his parents were preoccupied; they were both professors at the local university, devoted to their work and their students. Oh, they fed Joe and clothed him; they didn't beat him. But they were dutiful and that was about it, or so it seemed -- still seems -- to Joe.

One day, Joe hit a baseball through a neighbor's window. Or maybe he brought home a report card with -- horror of horrors -- a "B-" on it. Or he had a bicycle accident and scraped his knee.

His parents made some remark to the effect that "the trouble with you is you don't pay enough attention" or "you aren't careful enough" or "you're lazy" -- something like this. (If "Joe" were a girl, then some thoughtless remark about her appearance might have come out.)

Why were his parents just dutiful? Why didn't they give Joe the kind of love and affection and affirmation that every child hungers for? Was it because Joe wasn't paying enough attention, wasn't careful enough, was too lazy, fat, stupid, plain or ugly?

No no no no no! A thousand times no! That had nothing to do with it!

The parents were lukewarm, dutiful, etc. because they were, and are, sinners! They are broken, wounded, bent, imperfect. They have fallen and do fall short.

The other thing is that they are only human. They're limited. They aren't God.

But these ideas are painful for Joe, because they mean he has no chance of getting all he wants from them.

What Joe should do at this point, and maybe he actually could do if he has learned about God, is this: He should turn in faith to God -- because only God can fill that void in Joe's heart. Only God has the perfect love described in 1 Corinthians 13. (Parents, friends, lovers -- everyone else will let Joe down eventually, but God promises those who love him that he will never leave them or forsake them.)

But your average Joe doesn't do that; as a young child, his heart is full of folly (Proverbs 22:15). So he comes to this foolish conclusion instead, and clings to it for years: "I can love and affirmation from (parents, friends, lovers, etc.) if I can just _________________." The blank can be filled in with any of This kind of thinking is deadly because it just reinforces itself:
When something good happens, Joe looks for, and finds, some recent occasion when he paid more attention, or was especially clever, or spent some more time on his hair or whatever, and attributes his good fortune to his efforts. Conversely, when something bad happens, Joe looks for, and finds, some recent occasion when he was (or might have been) a little less attention, or was a little less careful, or spent a little less time on his hair or whatever. Naturally he attributes his bad fortune to his lack of diligence/care/effort.
And besides that, as long as Joe hangs on to this mindset, he can retain the illusion (or "the stubborn insistence") of being in control. Of having the power to get people around him to meet his needs.

It's that, the idea of using people (or God) to make him feel good about himself, that is so harmful to Joe. It colors all his relationships, including of course his relationship to God, because part of Joe is wondering "How can I get this person to give me what I want? How does this person think? How can I create in them a sense of obligation to love me, admire me, affirm me, defer to me, whatever?" So as much as Joe wants to love and bless people, as much as he wants to love and worship God, there's a part of him that also wants to use people and to use God.

Of course, Joe isn't unusual in this. We all love imperfectly and with mixed motives, because we all have unrepented folly in our background.

What can we do? Here's a 30-year plan, which I just made up: Actually I didn't just make that up; I've been doing it for a few years now. So far, it's three steps forward, two steps back.

If I come up with anything else, I'll let you know.

,