Getting the Point

On a few occasions, we have discussed in this column various methods of effective Bible study. We've talked about the value of reading in the literary context, understanding the cultural context, reading a passage multiple times, online study tools, marking up your Bible, looking for structure, and even creating the right environment in which to do your studying. There's one more that I find highly valuable. It's remarkably simple, but amazingly challenging.

The method is to write out one summary sentence that encapsulates the passage I'm studying. Sounds simple, doesn't it? Yeah.

The idea is to get one full, grammatically correct sentence that says what the passage says. It focuses on what the passage says, and covers the idea adequately. The sentence is not more broad than the passage, nor is it more narrow. The sentence cannot list all the details, but it does cover them in some way. Here's the hard part - the sentence is not to be a long, complex, regurgitation of the passage, with a dozen subclauses, hyphens, and semicolons. Rather, it is a straightforward, hopefully even elegant, encapsulation of the passage.

The passage being studied could be just a phrase, a paragraph, and entire chapter, or even an entire book. The method works no matter the size of the passage.

If you can do this adequately, then you understand the passage! If your sentence misses the mark, is too broad or too narrow, or has the wrong focus, then you don't fully understand the passage, yet. What a great study tool! The process of developing this one sentence forces you to really analyze what is being said until you "get it."

The best way to do this is to identify the subject and the complement. Uh oh, Middle School grammar terms! Very simply, the subject is what the passage is about. What is the thing that the passage is talking about? But, be as specific as the passage. For example, "God" is usually too broad - the passage is rarely talking about all of God. Usually it's talking about His love or His compassion or His faithfulness, etc.

For an example, let's look at James 2:14-17:


James 2:14 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? 17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.

What is the subject? Some might say "works." Others might say "faith," or even "faith and works." If you look carefully, you see that it is more about "faith" than "works," but even "faith" is too broad. It's not about the entire topic of faith. This passage is about "what kind of faith is a saving faith?" That's the subject being discussed. If we say this paragraph is about "works," then we won't understand what it's saying. If we say it's about "faith," then we're not specific enough, and won't fully understand the passage.

After you find the subject, find the complement. The complement is what is said about the subject. What does the passage have to say about the specific subject we identified? So, what does James 2:14-17 say about the kind of faith that is a saving faith? In this case, it's a little bit odd - what is said about the subject is what is not true about the subject.

The complement here is, "not a faith that is without works." That is what is said about the subject, "What kind of faith is a saving faith?" Answer? "Not a faith without works!" (The next paragraph answers the question in positive terms, but we learn in this paragraph something important that is not true about our subject, which is just as important to know!)

So, a summary sentence might look like this, The kind of faith that is a saving faith (subject) is not a faith that is without works (complement). That is what this paragraph is about - whatever kind of faith is a saving faith, we know here what kind of faith is not a saving faith. The sentence encapsulates all that the passage says, and nothing more. If you can create a summary sentence like that, you get what the passage is about (and what it is not about!).

Some people read James 2 and think it's about works, and then they get confused because it sounds like we can be saved by works. But ... they got they wrong subject to begin with, so of course they will draw confusing conclusions. The subject is about a type of faith that saves, and the what is said about it here says that faith without works is not a saving faith. Then, if we did the same exercise for the following paragraph, we would learn what kind of faith is a saving faith (a faith that has works). We are still saved by faith, but not every kind of faith is a saving faith. The faith that results in works is the kind of faith that saves.

Creating a summary sentence helps us to see this important truth, and to avoid the common error of thinking James teaches salvation by works.

Thank You for the Toys

This week, I got to speak for a few minutes about Thanksgiving with the students in our preschool, Grace Garden, and they taught me a thing or two about Thanksgiving right back.

I asked them, "What are some gifts that God has given us?" - fishing, of course, for things like family, food, homes, and so on. I knew one of the answers would be "toys!" And sure enough on both days, that was the very first answer. And on both occasions, I said, "What else besides toys?", and the response was "Toys!" After another "what else?" I got a list of specific toys. My fishing expedition was not yielding the species of fish I intended.

But later, after thinking about their answer and brewing on why kids are "so materialistic," I realized that they were exactly right. God is ultimately responsible for us having toys. He gives us the resources to be able to afford them. He gives us the families and friends who are kind enough to give them. He gave us safety to be able to enjoy them. And ... He gives us the toys.

If toys are a good thing, and they certainly can be, then they come from God, who is the giver of all good things (James 1:17), and we can be thankful to Him for them. In all my desire to be "spiritual" about the lesson, I overlooked the simple truth - so simple that children see it plainly.

Certainly, toys (kids' toys or grown-up toys like electronics) can become idols, of course. But for the good that they can be, it is not materialistic or non-spiritual to thank God for these things, also. In fact, being thankful for them can help us keep them in perspective, so that they don't become idols.

During my last trip to Kenya, we spent an evening visiting the same family we visit every time we go - Reverend Kute Wellington and his wife Margaret. They live in a hut with no running water or electricity, so every time we go, as the evening wears on, we have trouble seeing one another in the enveloping darkness. Except this last time. The evening progressed, the darkness came, but we could still see one another! And then I realized - the Wellingtons had electricity, for the first time in their lives.

I mentioned how great it was to be able to see them, and "Momma Margaret" proceeded to thank God for electricity. She repeated that praise several times throughout the night. I've had electricity all my life, and I had never in all my years thanked God for it. I had never thanked God for running water. I had never thanked Him for hot water, until my first trip and having to shower daily without it!

My Kenyan hostess and the kids of Grace Garden have much to teach me (the "pastor" and the "missionary"!) about Thanksgiving. And I'm thankful for them for teaching me.

No Matter How You Voted (or Abstained)...

As I read the social media of my friends and acquaintances across the political spectrum, I see just about the full gamut of emotions about the elections this week. Some are elated (a few are even giddy) while others are angry, some are disappointed while others are pleased, some say, "I told you so!" and others say, "Mark my words!" I won't comment on which set of emotions people should have, but my observation is about the intensity with which they experience them - positive or negative.

The question I wrestled with was why am I experiencing these emotions with such intensity? What is it that's going on deep down inside of me that results in that intensity? What are the basic needs of my soul that are being met or unmet, which then manifests itself at the surface as a set of emotions? All our emotions are expressions of deep matters of the soul that bubble up to the outside. For example, a man may become very angry when insulted because deep in his soul, he is unsure of why he matters in this world, and the insult puts a hot poker on that sore spot. So, what is going on deep in my soul that eventually finds its way up as an emotion?

Whether our emotions are joyous or dejected, what is going on in the soul?

The intensity of the emotions either way tells me that we are expecting government to satisfy something our souls need. If someone is happy with the results, they think that one political way will meet that deep need. If someone is unhappy with the results, they thought that the other political way would have met that need. This is an oversimplification of a very complex human machine, but in my observation, this is a significant reality. I doubt there are few political purists out there whose response is merely relative to a political theory - I think most people are operating from the felt needs of their souls, even though we couch it in terms of political theory.

The only problem is that no human institution, no government, no business, no civic club, no school can satisfy what our souls need. To look to the government, or a political system, or a politician to bring us the real peace that we want, the real sense of "rightness," the sense that things are actually under control, is to look for something only God can give, but to look for it in a source other than God.

Our peace, our joy, our security will not be met, or dashed, by the election this week. Perhaps the intensity of our responses comes from a false expectation of the opposite, whether we responded with hope or despair.

No matter what kind of government, what kind of leadership, what kind of economy, or what kind of job market we have, our task is the same: Be absolutely committed to advancing the Kingdom of God in every situation. If the government is as we prefer, our task is to work for Kingdom purposes. If the government is not as we prefer, our task is to work for Kingdom purposes. God's Kingdom is not confined to a particular kind of government, and His Kingdom workers have their responsibilities already defined for them in every circumstance.

If you are experiencing strong emotions either way, examine your heart for what is really going on in your soul. What are the God-given needs you have that are to be filled only with God-provided means? Furthermore, take a breath and remember your calling - God's Kingdom.

Are you broken?

Are you broken?

Sallie has a relative who she cares about a great deal. She's known this relative since she was a little girl, and saw her on holidays, birthdays, and even just casual family gatherings. She loves her relative, but her relative will, on rare occasion, bark at Sallie some of the harshest, most hateful things - especially when Sallie says anything about Jesus or the church. At times, Sallie lashes back - only to deeply regret it. Now, before every holiday, Sallie begins to have gut-knotting anxiety about talking with her relative. In this relationship, Sallie is broken. Are you broken?

Sam has been told all his life two contradictory things: "You're going a good job!" and "You're not doing a good enough job!" Compliments from his parents were always followed by a comment about what mistakes were made. Try as he might, he could never get a perfect score at school - and when tests came, he would tense up and get a full letter grade worse than his own average. At work, he can't seem to finish a full project without some major mistake. Now, when Sam hears both "You're doing a good job" and "You're not doing a good enough job," he's the one saying it. In his self-image, Sam is broken. Are you broken?

David's got a sin habit that he thinks no one else knows about. At least, that's what he keeps telling himself. He's tried to stop - and has. Many times. For about a week. His record is just over two months. And then failure again and again. He's a Christian, and criticizes himself that a Christian shouldn't feel this powerless against sin. He's read everything, prayed constantly, and tried to change the situation. But there he is - a repeat offender. In righteousness, David is broken. Are you broken?

Mary has had to make decisions beyond her years ever since her father died when she was 6. Mom wasn't really much parental help after that - she had her own problems, some in bottle form. But Mary did a good job looking out for herself. She got herself ready for school every day, caught the bus, worked a part-time job, got a few scholarships to work her way through community college, then a good job, and even a Master's degree. She's in middle management at a bank, running her own life, taking care of her own house, relying on herself for her own relationships. But the relationships usually end up in disaster, her job is unfulfilling and her efforts often go unnoticed. Her house has lost so much value that she can't afford to move, but the prices in the neighborhood keep dropping. Mom is bitter at her, and she's just flat out tired of the rat race. In running her own life, Mary is broken. Are you broken?

Jesus says in Matthew 11: "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."

Jesus specializes in broken people. In fact, He doesn't work with anyone else. If you're broken, come to Him. And let someone who knows Him know that you're broken. They are broken, too.

Mini-megalomaniac-based Acceptance

Many of us have heard of the phrase "performance-based acceptance." Set in contrast to "unconditional acceptance," performance-based acceptance is the requirement that someone perform to a certain standard before you are willing to accept him or her. For example, a dad who doesn't truly accept his daughter unless she gets all A's on her report card, or a woman who doesn't accept a another as a friend unless she wears a certain grade of clothing. Certainly, there are more subtle (and more destructive) forms than these rather simplistic examples - such as a husband who won't love a woman unless she compares well to some impossible, airbrushed image.

Most of us know what it's like to be a victim of this. Sometimes, we're guilty of it. But there is a form of performance-based acceptance that I find even more poisonous. To coin a phrase, I'm calling it "mini-megalomaniac-based acceptance." A megalomaniac is a severe psychological disorder where someone has delusions of divinity in various forms. What I mean about "mini-megalomaniac-based acceptance" is a refusal by Person A to accept Person B unless Person B thinks like Person A does. More than just expecting the person to meet a standard of behavior or performance, it is more narrow, and more like a megalomaniac. My way of thinking is divinely right, and all who think differently are less acceptable.

We see it in our toxic political environment. Some people cannot be friends with others who think differently about politics. Some can't even have a civil discussion. It's a severe form of performance-based acceptance: you must think like the mini-megalomaniac Me before I will accept you.

We see it in marriages. A wife thinks about life in a different way than the husband, and he can't see how she could possibly think that way. He begins to accept her less and less, until he just doesn't accept her. All because she dared think unlike how he thinks. He can't see how another way of thinking is valid (or acceptable), and his opinion of her diminishes (less accepting). He creates an impossible standard, because we are wired to think in certain ways, and that rarely ever changes for anyone.

Imagine if God required us to think like He does before He's willing to accept us. Given that we can't think like He does, we immediately see the impossibility. And yet, we can apply the same impossible standard to others.

Grace is the reality that while we were still rebellious sinners against God, Christ died for us out of God's love for us (Rom 5:8). He accepts us - not in the since that He just waved His hand and we can all enter into heaven, but that He does not require us to perform or to think like He does before He's willing to love us completely and offer us salvation. Not even God in His true divinity displays any hint of megalomaniac-based acceptance.

Others think differently than you do. Does that disqualify them from your love? It doesn't disqualify us from His love. That is grace.

Retreating

This weekend is the annual Men's Retreat at Tall Oaks Conference Center. Our very special guest speaker is Pastor Bill Ross, who served as our interim pastor for almost two years (and serves as a personal mentor to me).

Years ago at a different church, my leaders and I instituted annual men's retreats (which they had not had for many years). We camped out, cooked on Coleman stoves, and had a great time discussing matters of faith and ministry. But it was at that retreat that I was able to encapsulate the value of men's retreats in just one sentence. It wasn't the material we studied. It wasn't that we had time away from the hustle and bustle. It wasn't the food (although the "Low Country Boil" and dutch oven Georgia peach cobbler were always a big hit). It was what one of the younger men said.

I asked him how he liked the retreat, and he said it was great! So, I asked him why (half-anticipating an answer that would boost my terrible ego). Rather, what he said was, "I didn't know the elders laughed." That was the most important takeaway for him. Of course, it was more than just learning the fact - it was getting to know the elders on a personal level.

I spent a lot of time with the elders, of course, and knew readily that they laughed a lot. But this very active member of the church did not. It was always business - church business - with the elders. It was never just about life and fun and joking around. All this man knew of the elders is that they were men who were serious about church business. At the retreat, he learned who they were as regular guys. That's the great value of men's retreats.

Not just that people get to know the elders in particular, but that they get to know each other outside of church business - just getting to know each other as men. That particular church, as well as Grace and many others, had lots of good fellowship ... in pockets, but not necessarily across the board. The men's retreat is about the best chance throughout the year to get to know the men of the church, especially those you don't get to spend much time with otherwise.

I'm looking forward to Bill's talks - we will learn a lot. I'm looking forward to the times of prayer, the activities, and peeling away from the hustle and bustle. But mainly, I'm looking forward to finding out each guy's individual laugh.

A Simple Reading Guide

If you're reading this ... well ... you can read. You know how letters fit together, how punctuation generally works, and what English words mean. You can read. Which also means that you can read the Bible and comprehend much of what it says. Even though intense study of the Bible is rich enough to warrant a legion of men and women to dedicate their careers to the discipline, the plain truth of the Bible is easily understood by anyone who can read. The basic message of the Bible is obvious enough, not hidden behind cryptic clues that only the secret few can decipher.

If this is true, why then do we have so many controversies over what the Bible says?

A short weekly article is never going to be able to resolve this great dilemma, but there are two driving principles: First, if we so determine, we can manipulate the text to say whatever we want it to. Second, even though we know how to read, we don't necessarily know how to read the Bible well.

Let me provide a few helpful practices, even though a short article cannot do justice to a mature discipline. My hope is that we can at least see the kinds of things we need to consider when reading the Bible well.

1. There and Then. What did the author intend to say to the original readers of the book? What the text means is what the author intended it to mean, not "what I got out of it." So, what did the author intend? He was writing to a particular group of people in a particular context of life, living in a particular culture. Perhaps there was a specific occasion or reason for writing that particular book. Every passage of Scripture means one thing. Whether a small passage or a large passage, there is one intended meaning. Before we ever thing about how the Word applies to our lives in our contexts in our culture, we've got to spend a little time understanding what the author intended. Some of this we can do just by observing the text carefully, and some of it we can do just through our accumulation of biblical knowledge over the years. Sometimes, we need to consult other resources, such as Bible dictionaries and commentaries. As you can see, this discipline can be taken to far greater depths than most of us are prepared for, but don't despair - most of the time, we can get a pretty good feel for what the author intended without earning an advanced degree!
   
2. Everywhere and Forever. The second discipline, which can only come after we've worked on the first, is to ask what the eternal truth is behind what the author meant. For example, when Moses writes about "gleaning the fields" in Leviticus, the first discipline tells us we need understand what this particular farming practice was to understand what Moses intended to say to his original readers. But, most people today don't farm for a living, so does that mean that this passage doesn't mean anything for us? Of course not! The eternal principle behind the gleaning practice was to sacrificially provide for the poor in a way that allows them to work (if they can) in order to labor for their food. That's an eternal truth! It's a very particular kind of compassion. The second discipline is to discover what eternal truths are being expressed by what the author intended to say to the original readers. Sometimes, the contextual meaning is the same as the eternal truth ("don't lie"). Sometimes, the eternal truth is bigger than the specific idea expressed by the author to his original readers.
   
3. Here and Now. The third discipline is one we typically jump straight to, ignoring the first two. More often than not, if we skip the first two disciplines, we will be very inaccurate with the third. This discipline is to discover how the eternal truth applies to our context in our culture in our situations. For example, how can we who do not farm for a living specifically employ the gleaning principle today? (Or the bigger question, how does a modern Christian look at Old Testament laws in general?) Scripture means one thing, but it may have many different applications for our lives. The passage in Leviticus means one thing - exercise a particular kind of compassion. How we do that in our lives could take many different flavors, but still retain the eternal truth (that was originally expressed in a particular context). This is not "what it means to me," but "how this can be lived out in my life?" 

We must exercise the first two disciplines, first. If we skip them, then we could end up with nonsense, such as "God is telling me that my job is like a field, and I need to plow my job carefully by studying hard and working late hours, but not to harvest the 'corners' of my job by making sure I don't report all my hours." That's no where near what we should gain from Leviticus, but we can get there easily if we neglect the first two disciplines.

There are far more disciplines and techniques that I advocate to help us understand what we read in the Bible (for example, reading a passage no fewer than three times). These three, however, work together to show a sequence of thought we should go through every time we read. Sometimes, we can go through all three pretty quickly, but other times, it may take a fair bit of effort.

Resources: There are plenty of good books on reading the Bible well, but two that I recommend are: How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, and Playing with Fire. Click on the titles to see more information about each.