Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Why Didn't God Just...?

On Saturday morning, I was facilitating a conversation into Acts 14. Specifically, our Bible study was addressing the story of Paul and Barnabas being mistaken for incarnate Hermes and Zeus, respectively. The folks of Lystra watch Paul heal somebody, then offer sacrifices to him, saying, "The gods have come down in human form!"

At this point, I would have said "We are not gods come down in human form, but let me tell you about the God who did come down in human form..." Theological commentaries even addressed the incarnation in this story, and on a meta level, I believe the narrative is written in such a way to make the reader think about the incarnation. However, Paul goes in a different way. He never even addresses Jesus by name. He talks about the Creator as good and the one who brings seasons and joy. It seemed like such a simple place to go.

And yet, it is where the Lystran people were. They worshiped the Greek gods as the arbitrary and morally questionable keepers of the seasons, even though polytheistic worship was out of vogue in the Roman Empire. Paul addressed them where they were.

I led a class on addressing faith and science a month ago. In this class, I received this question: "Why would God give scientifically inaccurate information in the Bible?" The earth is not built on pillars, it is not flat, etc. And to many, the notion that there would be scientifically inaccurate information in the Bible is tantamount to God lying. Then God would not be God.

Or is there another way? Perhaps God truly does speak to us as we are. In Lystra, Paul knew that the prime concern of the people was to keep the cycles of fertility and harvest going. In Genesis/Proverbs/Job/Psalms, God seems more interested in talking about who created and for what purpose than the mechanics of creation (in a modern scientific sense). In this, the very act of revelation is an act of grace- God speaking to us in a way we can understand, in language which makes sense.

Now here's the tricky part. I think we are meant to emulate this behavior. So often, discipleship is reduced to the efficient transfer of information. This model of discipleship is often void of relationship, void of patience and can be done with a large stack of books and no other mentor. Jesus called people into relationship, transmitted information in inefficient stories and parables without a lesson plan, and sent them out to do ministry before they were ready. If God listens and understands before speaking, perhaps discipleship is far more about the relationship and the time than it is about the information being transmitted.

Somehow, a model of discipleship that listens first, loves first, and speaks second seems both more human and more divine.

No comments:

Post a Comment