rejecting the God by rejecting his messangers

Acts 7:1-53

This passage contains a long discourse by Stephen in defense of the false charges brought against him by the synagogue of the Freemen. The specific charges were that Stephen had spoken against the temple, against Moses and, therefore, against God. Since yesterday, I've learned that the Synagogue of the Freemen was made up of former slaves and therefore Jews who were likely Greek speaking, like Stephen was. I think that they were so intense in their opposition to Stephen because they recognized Stephen as a threat to their synagogue. He was a Greek speaking Jewish follower of Christ who understood the concerns and mindset of the other Greek speaking Jews, and spoke with power and conviction, making it likely that he would attract others to discipleship of Christ.
Stephen's defense is on two fronts: the first is that the nation of Israel is who should stand accused of rejecting God because they have a history of rejecting God's messengers. This trend has continued right up to the rejection of God's son Jesus. The second defense is that the Jews have relied too much on the temple. Stephen makes it obvious from his review of Jewish history that God has been at work outside of the temple as well. In fact, for a significant portion of Israel's history, there was no place of worship and, for another significant portion of Israel's history, the place of worship was portable. The Jewish people are guilty of confining God to a building.
There are two obvious applications to me:
1) How am I rejecting God's message, and therefore God? Just yesterday I did the first draft of our volunteer staff covenant which included a section on the Authourity of Scripture. If I believe Scripture to be God's word (2 Timothy 3:16) and, therefore, to hold authourity over every area of my life, then I must not just read, study and memorize it. I must obey it. Am I obeying the message of God?
Also, is it possible that God is speaking to me through other people? I must be very careful and listen prayerfully and thoughtfully to the counsel/advice/confrontation of other people for it is possible that God is using them to speak to me. I must not be so proud as to think I have it all figured out. I don't want my historical pattern to be the same as the nation of Israel: "you always resist the Holy Spirit... you who received the law... and did not keep it" (v. 51-53).
2) How am I confining God? This keeps coming up for me. I obviously don't confine God to a building. In fact, I fight against church buildings being called "the house of the Lord" for Scripture makes it clear that both the individual follower of Christ (1 Corinthians 6:19) and the community of Christ followers (Ephesians 2:21-22) is the dwelling place of the Spirit. However, I am sure that I confine God in my caucasian western briercrest conservative evangelical box (whew! That's a lot of descripters. The problem is I'm sure there's more restrictions that I'm unaware of). Again, I am totally dependent on the wisdom of the Spirit to make it clear to me what is the work of God. I do not want to restrict God in ways that he does not restrict himself. I do not want to define God in ways that he should not be defined. I pray that I would be more open to the work and voice of God in all its manifold diversity and glory.

false accusations?

Acts 6:8-15

This passage is all about how God works through those who are available to him. There is a direct parallel between being full of God's grace and power and being full of the Holy Spirit. Stephen, being in complete submission to the Spirit and full of God's grace was able to perform great wonders among the people. This caused some opposition from a certain sector of Jews. I'm not sure why this particular synagogue was so anti-Stephen. I'm sure it's significant that these were Jews from other regions who had re-settled in Jerusalem but I'm not sure why. Whatever the significance, they were able to stir up enough trouble the Stephen was eventually brought to the Sanhedrin. Just like they did to Jesus, they drummed up false charges against him.
The specific charges were that Stephen was threatening the destruction of the temple and the customs and religious rituals that had started in the time of Moses. Luke makes it clear that these charges are false - that Stephen had never blasphemed the temple or the law. However, I think they had a case. They recognized that if Jesus was truly the the only way to the Father, then following the teaching of Jesus would mean the end of their religion. There would not be a need for the temple and the religious customs and rituals.
I am a lover of structure and tradition. I need to be careful or I will find myself on the same side of the Pharisees and religious leaders of Jesus' day and the day of the early church. I need to evaluate every area of my life, including this blog, to determine what has just become religious ritual and structure and what is truly giving me life. I need to make sure that I do not impose my structures on others. I need to recognize that there is no temple, except for the individual follower of Jesus and the community of followers, and there is no required ritual except loving God with all I am and have and loving my neighbour as my self. Yes, there are things that are helpful and useful in my (and your) spiritual development but I must remember that the end goal is not the completion of the spiritual discipline but knowing Jesus. This is hard for a a lover of structure and tradition.

corrupt heart = corrupt actions

Matthew 15:10-20

The key words in this passage are: mouth, defile, plant, blind. This section is the continuation of the dispute that started by the Pharisees asking Jesus why his disciples did not wash their hands before eating. This had nothing to do with hygiene and everything to do with religious ritual. In fact, the extremely pious would wash their hands after each course of the meal. Jesus' main point is that it is not eating with unclean hands that defiles a person but what comes out through words or actions is an indication of the corruption that is in a person's heart.
So lately I've noticed that I've been swearing a lot - mostly in private and mostly under my breath but it's been coming out. Now I know that I should do some behaviour modification in that I should stop swearing. Jesus would agree that I should stop swearing but I think he would point to something deeper than the words coming out of my mouth. This passage tells me that the words coming out of my mouth are an indication of the condition of my heart. So, I need to ask myself, what is going on inside of me that would cause the increase in swearing? In the meantime, I need to exercise some discipline and gain control of my tongue but I also need to realize that my tongue speaks from the overflow of my heart.
The point, I think, is that none of us can change our own hearts. Jesus is making it clear that observing religious ritual is not enough. It doesn't deal with the heart issue. Self-discipline is very good but it is not enough because it doesn't deal with the heart issue. The question that the disciples should be asking Jesus at this point is: if we can't change our heart by observing the religious rituals or by self-discipline, how can we change our hearts? Jesus' reply would probably be something like: "You can't. That's why I am here because only God (Father, Son and Spirit) can change your heart." Prone to wander, Lord I feel it. Prone to leave the God I love. Here's my heart, O, take and seal it...

acts of righteousness

Matthew 6:1

Jesus ties "acts of righteousness" to rewards in heaven. The key phrase is not "in front of others" but "to be seen by them." Jesus is not saying that we need to make sure that no one every sees us do an act of righteousness but that our motive is to please God and not to be seen or applauded by others. Too many people have interpretted this to mean that they should never pray in public, that no one should ever know how much they give to charity (although they are most happy to record it on their income tax form), that no one should ever see them perform an "act of righteousness." We need to understand this in the context of the audience to whom Jesus is talking. The would have understood that Jesus was pointing to over the top religious displays. This becomes clear when we get to the passagea about giving: don't announce it with trumpets, don't offer your whole tithe in pennies so that it makes a nice, long clanging sound as it enters the collection box. It is about motive, not about whether or not someone sees us. In fact, I think there is a time to do our "acts of righteousness in public" if it would disciple someone in the spiritual disciplines. If our youth and children never see us practice our faith, how will they every understand how important it is? However, our motive must never be about gaining praise for ourselves but bringing praise to God.
This ties into the previous chapter in that Jesus is again attacking the religiousity of the Jewish system. In the previous chapter, Jesus made it clear that keeping the Law was about the heart and spirit of the Law and not just a strict understanding of the letter of the Law. In this chapter, Jesus makes it clear that it is not enough just to practice religion in order to be seen as religious by others but to pursue God in such a way that we will be rewarded by God and not by other humans.
In essence, this is Jesus' thesis statement for the next section of his sermon. In my translation, acts of righteousness has quotations around it. I wonder if Jesus is being a bit sarcastic here. I wonder if he is saying, "You think your religious acts indicate your righteousness. They don't. True righteousness is... (he explains that in the previous chapter and the rest of this one)." I know that there are times when I go to church or serve the poor or pray or give as an "act of righteousness." I don't even think the motive of pleasing God is the right one. It means that I think that I can somehow earn God's favour by my religious acts. This is the mark of every religion. I think my motive for going to church should be to celebrate a relationship with God that means I don't have to go to church to please him. I think my motive for reading the Bible is to get to know the God who tells me I don't have to read the Bible to please him. I think my motive for doing anything should be love for my Father and my Saviour. The only act of righteousness that pleased God was Jesus. Only as I put myself in him and let him put himself in me will I be pleasing to God.

we are the house of God

Ephesians 2:19-22

Paul uses two word pictures here: first, citizenship and adoption. Paul says (connecting to the previous paragraph) that because Jesus has provided with access to God (even though we were aliens and foreigners) we can have citizenship in the kingdom of God. However, we are not just second class citizens - we are equal to the Jewish Christians in that we are both adopted into the kings household.
Then Paul switches word pictures - perhaps using a big of a play on words, he now compares us to bricks or stones in the house of God that have been built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles (interesting how he equates the two offices - in the OT the prophets were pretty important and in the NT the apostles are at least as important). Of course, the whole house of God is built up on Jesus.
There are a couple of things that I find interesting. The first is that the Body of Christ becomes the temple of God. This is further evidence that Jesus came to abolish religion - we don't need a religious ceremony or preists to gain access to God, we can have access to God on our own through Jesus. This is pretty radical stuff and most of us have a hard time grasping that. I think that even though Christianity was built on the premise that we don't need that stuff, we quickly rebuild the systems and the rituals and make them hoops we have to jump through to access God. I understand how this works (because I love structures and liturgy and rules): we do something and we encounter God in that moment and we immediately think that it is the structure we just used that allowed us to encounter God and because we want to encounter God again we go back that structure until the structure itself becomes what we focus on.
This must be very frustrating to God. I can remember preaching a sermon at our o2 service about how we are the temple of God - that God does not reside in buildings but in the Body of Christ. I finish, get off the stage and walk to the back. One of our young adults gets up to make some announcements while wearing a cap. One of the members leans over to me and whispers, "Can you tell that guy to take his hat off in the house of the Lord?" AARRGGHH! Weren't you listening to anything I said? This building is not God's house - we are!
Anyways... the second thing that sticks out is that we make this temple thing very individualistic but I think it is corporate. Yes, I believe that God dwells in me as an individual by his Spirit and that my body is a temple of the Lord but in this passage I think that Paul is addressing the church. We are the temple of God. Actually, to be precise, we are becoming the temple of God according to Paul. I think that Paul's reminding us that there are still stones to be added and that I still need to mature before the temple will be complete.
God, help me to not focus on structures, rules and liturgies. Remind me that access to you is simply by grace. Remind me, as well, that the temple is not complete and that there are others that need to be added to this holy dwelling.