Facing the Facts

The scriptures referred to are Acts 9:1-20 and John 21:1-19.

The leader of the A-Team repeatedly said, “I love it when a plan comes together.” As a preacher I love it when ideas and observations from what I have just been reading, watching and listening to during the week come together with the lectionary. It's like God has been dropping bread crumbs along the path leading me to some useful insight.

This week I have been reading a book by historian and religious studies scholar Jeffrey Burton Russell called Exposing Myths about Christianity: A Guide to Answering 145 Viral Lies and Legends. In his introduction he says, “Myths often arise from bias, which is different from point of view. A point of view is open to discussion on the basis of evidence. Bias, on the other hand, is a prejudice that filters out everything that doesn't fit a preformed conception.” Or as he summarizes the distinction later in the book: “point of view develops according to evidence; bias refuses to adjust to evidence.”

The other idea I got this week was from Phillip Cary's series of lectures on Luther from the Great Courses. In discussing the controversies between Luther and his enemies, Dr. Cary distinguishes between the desire for truth and the desire for certainty in being right. He points out that it is not destructive to think one's beliefs are true. That is the nature of believing something. The problem enters in when the desire to be right with absolute certainty is stronger than the desire for the truth. If you sincerely desire to know the truth, he says, you are glad when you discover that you are wrong about something so you can correct it. If you cannot tolerate uncertainty that you're right, you will reject anything that might force you to reconsider your position.

For instance, for millennia the biggest problem with surgery was keeping patients from getting infections afterwards. Imagine then, in the late 1800s, a doctor learns of the new germ theory and the importance of a surgeon washing his hands. He tries it and his patients' infection rates plummet. He is happy to learn he was wrong but that now he knows the truth. But another doctor, who is certain that he is right in what he learned as a medical student 4 decades ago, is more likely to become defensive and refuse to listen to these weird new ideas about invisible entities that cause infection. Both doctors want to be right. One is willing to change when he sees he isn't. His point of view has developed. The other is absolutely certain he is already right and will not change even when there is evidence that he is wrong. His bias prevents him from taking in or making good use of newly discovered facts. And that's bad for him and for his patients.

As the title character in Doctor Who once said, “The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views...which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.”

So how does all of this come together with our lectionary? In our passage from the book of Acts we read of Saul who not only thinks that the disciples of Jesus are wrong but that their ideas are so dangerous that they must be wiped out— not just the ideas but the disciples as well. Saul was one of those zealous Pharisees who thought that if every Jew obeyed the Torah perfectly for just one day, the Messiah would come, end the current evil age and usher in the Messianic age and the kingdom of God. So the followers of Jesus, by preaching that their dead rabbi was the Messiah and that he was alive again and that all one had to do was repent and put one's trust in him, were spreading a terrible and destructive heresy. Saul was certain he was right. The fact that hundreds said they had seen the risen Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:6) and that thousands believed them, even as far away as the Jewish community in Damascus, was not enough evidence for him that there may be something to this. Saul didn't want to investigate their claims. He wanted to eradicate them.

We all know what happens next: on the way to Damascus, Saul experiences a bright light, falls to the ground and is confronted by the risen Jesus. He is blind for 3 days, during which he fasts and prays. A disciple named Ananias is told in a vision to go to Saul, lay hands on him and heal him. When he does so, Saul regains his physical sight and more importantly, he sees Jesus in a new way. At the end of our passage we are told that Saul “began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, 'He is the Son of God.'”

His conversion to this new point of view sounds instantaneous. And, let's face it, if you thought a guy was dead but then met and talked to him, you'd change your mind. But Saul had 3 days where he was blind and occupied his time fasting and praying. The fasting could have been a sign of his repenting his former position. But I bet the praying was not one-sided. In his account of his conversion in his letter to the Galatians he says, “Now I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. For I did not receive it or learn it from any human source; instead I received it by a revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 1:11-12) It seems that during those 3 days of fasting and praying, he was undergoing a change of not only his heart but also of his mind. Everything he thought he knew about the Messiah and what he should be like and what he should do was being challenged by his encounter with Jesus. Saul knew the Hebrew Bible backwards and forwards. We are told that when the risen Jesus was with 2 disciples on the way to Emmaus, “beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things written about himself in all the scriptures.” (Luke 24:27) And it looks like he did the same thing with Saul over those 3 days.

So Saul, who sent by the high priest to arrest followers of Jesus, had now become a follower of Jesus. How was this news received by others? We are told “All who heard him were amazed.” (Acts 9:21) This certainly applied to the disciples in Damascus. Like Ananias, they were probably initially afraid of Saul. Was this some kind of trick? But we are told that Saul became “all the more empowered.” Which must mean he was making a greater and greater impact, ie, he was making more and more converts. The Jewish residents of Damascus were...well, the Greek word can mean “stirred up, confounded, bewildered, thrown into confusion.” They did not know how to react at first. Wasn't this guy supposed to be on our side? What's happening here?

As we said, Saul's change took everyone by surprise. Some looked at what happened to him and what he was now proclaiming and they switched their point of view. The Christians said, “He is truly one of us!” And some of the Jews in the synagogues said, “He must be right about Jesus being the Messiah and the Son of God!”

But remember how we said if people are biased, they get defensive rather than change their point of view in the light of new evidence? Some of his fellow Jews were not saying to themselves, “Is there something to what he says? Does it make sense? Does it fit with what the scriptures say?” No, rather than reconsider their stance, they decided on the age-old strategy of killing the messenger. And so Saul has to escape by having his fellow Christians lower him in a basket through a hole in the city walls at night.

When he came to Jerusalem the disciples there were also afraid of Saul, unsure that he really was a follower of Jesus. A disciple named Barnabas stepped up and vouched for Saul, telling what happened in Damascus. Thereafter we are told that Saul “moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord.” (Acts 9:28)

Changing your mind is a key part of being a Christian. It is literally what the Greek word for “repent” means. Yes, we are to hold fast to the faith but to think that you know everything about God is arrogant. The essentials of the faith are straightforward: it is Jesus—who he is, what he has done for us and what he is doing in us, and what our response should be. Of him and his promises we can be certain. There are other important but not absolutely essential things that we believe and do that are not likely to change. But over 2000 years some beliefs and practices arose in the churches in response to historical events. And they may have been seen as necessary at the time. Some may still be helpful; others are not. But we must not let them stand in the way of bringing people to Jesus, because he is essential.

One such traditional barrier we will hear about in a few weeks, which was the question of whether Jesus was the savior of the Jews alone or of the Gentiles as well. As it turns out, Jesus makes Saul, this tradition-bound zealous Jewish rabbi, an apostle to the Gentiles. And eventually he writes, “You are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female—for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:26-28) But to accept this, the apostles and the earliest Christians, all Jews, had to change their point of view on something considered essential to Judaism: circumcision. They also had to decide that it was not essential that Gentile Christians keep kosher.

Among Gentile Christians, there were other controversies, like whether they had to become vegetarians because the only butcher shops in town were attached to pagan temples and sold meat that was previously offered to idols. Some Christians had no problem eating such meat because there is only one God and the idols weren't real gods. Others could not in good conscience go along with this. Saul said to follow your conscience but be willing to forgo what bothers your sibling in Christ if it threatens to destroy their faith in Jesus. (1 Corinthians 8) The self-sacrificial love we see in Jesus is our model for behaving toward others.

And in Jesus we see a way that we should be willing to change our point of view. Peter denied Jesus right when Christ was on trial for his life. Luke even tells us that Jesus turned and looked at Peter after his third denial. (Luke 22:61) Judas betrayed Jesus but Peter was there at his trial and didn't stand up for Jesus. He actually disowned him—3 times. How would most leaders have regarded someone who did that to them?

In our passage from John, we read that after eating breakfast together on the shores of Galilee, the risen Jesus asks Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” Notice Jesus doesn't use the nickname he gave him: Petros in Greek, Cephas in Aramaic, both of which means Rock. Because the fisherman had shifted like sand when he should have stood firm. That says to me that Jesus' question is not rhetorical. He is saying, “Do you really love me above everyone and everything else?”

Peter says, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” And Jesus doesn't come back with, “Well, it sure didn't look like that when you denied even knowing who I was when my life was in the balance!” Instead he just says, “Feed my lambs.”

Again Jesus asked him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” And again Peter says, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” What's interesting is that the first two times he asks, Jesus is using the Greek verb agapao, meaning the kind of love with which God loves us. Peter replies using the verb phileo, meaning the love of a good friend. It may be that, having rashly promised he would be willing to go to prison and death rather than deny Jesus, Peter is being more humble about himself. (Luke 22:33) He's saying, “I love you, Lord, but I now know my weakness.” Jesus simply says, “Tend my sheep.”

The third time Jesus switches to Peter's preferred verb. “Simon, son of John, do you love me like a friend?” And Peter feels hurt by being asked a third time. I don't think he realized just then that Jesus was in essence allowing him to take back those 3 denials. Peter says, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” And Jesus says, “Feed my sheep.” Peter is reinstated as a friend and disciple and apostle of Jesus.

So here we see Jesus showing us how to change our point of view on someone we would likely be biased against: a person who had let us down. Had we been Jesus, we would have written Peter off. We would most likely say,“You let me down when I could have really used your support. You are outta here!” We would not have let the evidence of Peter's remorse and renewed loyalty sway us. But the real Jesus forgives and restores Peter, the penitent sinner. The real Jesus gives him, and us, another chance.

Jesus also tells Peter that he would one day have to make good on his promise to go to prison and to death for Jesus. But this time Peter would not chicken out. As we saw in last week's passage from Acts, when the very same high priest who condemned Jesus at his trial rebukes Peter for not shutting up about it, Peter says, “We must obey God rather than any human authority.” (Acts 5:29) He proclaims the risen Jesus as savior and pretty much dares the high priest to do something about it. Jesus was right about Peter.

We all believe we are right. But if we want to actually be right, we have to be willing to admit we may be wrong about certain things and about certain people. We cannot let our biases get in the way of considering new data and maybe updating our point of view. We are not to be gullible, nor should we abandon the essentials, but neither are we to double down on our preformed opinions because we don't like what the facts are revealing to us. After all, that same high priest knew that Jesus was no longer in the tomb, and that the same men who had been cowering behind doors were now proclaiming Jesus' resurrection to his face. Later on he'd know that Saul, whom he had sent to arrest Christians in Damascus, was now saying he too had seen the risen Jesus and that he was in fact the Messiah and Son of God. But the high priest wasn't going to change his mind. He was certain he was right, regardless of what the facts said.

On the other hand, the once equally certain Saul, who shared his name with the first king of Israel, eventually changed it to Paul, which means “little.” I think it was his personal reminder not to be too puffed up or too big to face the facts or to change his mind about what our gracious and loving God is willing to do to save sinners like him.