Devotion.al

Year: 2019

  • 23 November 2019

    Jeremiah 22:18-30, 2 John 4–11 (read online ⧉)

    It is always a parent’s that something of them will be passed on and carried by their children, and even their grandchildren. If it is a company or wealth, people generally make detailed preparations to make sure that all goes as planned. There are wills, contracts, foundations, trusts and so on that exist to do this. Are they always successful? No. The same is, sadly, also the truth about . Sometimes the parents don’t have the tools or support. Sometimes the children don’t connect. Sometimes circumstances occur that drive the child (or the parents) away from the faith. Then the next generation falls, too.

    King Jehoiakim was the of Josiah. Josiah was a (to God) king. Johoiakim’s brother, Jehoahaz, was king 3 months before being deposed by Egypt. Jehoiakim’s original was Eliakim, meaning “God will establish.” The Pharaoh of Egypt renamed him to Jehoiakim, which means “Yahweh will establish.” Why does this matter? Josiah named his son in faith that he would carry on. He didn’t. Neither of these brothers did. Did Josiah mess up? Possibly. Were there lots of people pressuring the men to stray from God’s path? Most definitely. The Pharaoh probably renamed Eliakim/Jehoiakim as a matter of dishonor, dismissal, or a statement that their God established him (Pharaoh) as their ruler.

    Do we hold Josiah accountable for his sons? Biblical commentators nor pastors preaching on passing on the faith seem to. Yet, when a child or grandchild turns from the faith, we often feel and as if the parent is solely responsible for that choice, or mostly responsible for the choice. There are plenty of individuals in the that are held up today as examples whose children walked away from the faith. Rarely do people recognize the disconnect.

    John’s letter to the “lady” is oddly phrased. Some commentators believe that John was referring to a house as the lady, but with the variables of singular and plural words, it is more likely that there are singular “you”’s and plural “you”’s that are intentional. Regardless, John celebrating that some (note, not all) of her children are following the faith reinforces that this is nothing new. Perhaps we are putting too much pressure on people to be “perfect” in passing on the faith. Should we all try hard? Yes! Should we still try when it seems impossible? Yes!

    Ultimately, though, we have to recognize our responsibility to do our best as we are able. We are not God. God calls them. They must choose to .

    1) Is there anyone you feel called to bring into fellowship with Jesus?

    2) Why do you think they don’t know Jesus, or may not want to know Jesus?

    3) What the part in their to Jesus are you responsible for?

  • Bridal Party

    Matthew 25:1–13 (read online ⧉)

    This is an odd parable. It makes some sense on the surface, but even then, not much. One of the surface tensions is that refers here to the of God. Jesus often refers to the Kingdom having already come, but here it is in the . Some scholars struggle with the tension of now and not yet, however, that tension is quite common in the New Testament, and it shouldn’t be any surprise here.
    Jesus immediately turns to a common tactic in such parables, dividing the subjects into wise and . This, of course, sets the stage for the unfolding of the parable. Sadly, antisemitic tendencies have often divided the foolish as Jews and the wise as Christians. That wasn’t Jesus’ intent based on the Scriptures. He’s usually a little more obvious, and the writers are usually quick to tell us when he’s talking about certain people when Jesus doesn’t say it. As we don’t have that, let’s agree to not read that into this.

    This really is straightforward, right? Be , for the Day of the Lord will be coming, and you don’t know when! That’s the point, it seems, of the story. However, (you knew this was coming, didn’t you?), we seem to be missing someone.

    We have the . It’s pretty safe, based on the Scriptures, that this could be considered Jesus himself. We have the wise and foolish virgins. Now, Jesus is not having multiple wives. That isn’t it at all. The allusion is to a bridal march, where the virgin (or young unmarried women) would escort the to the groom’s home, where the ceremony would be done, and things would become official. If it happened at night, as in the parable, the bride’s escorts (i.e., bridesmaids) would the way. So, have you guessed who is missing?

    The bride. We talk so much about the bridesmaids (granted, they are the “stars” of the story) that we forget about the bride. Even as we talk about who was foolish or wise and why we missed the bride! So, who is the bride? Well, if Jesus is the groom, then the is the bride.

    1) If the church is the bride, who are the wise and foolish bridesmaids (keeping in mind our agreement above)?

    2) If Jesus is the Groom and the Church is the Bride, where is the marriage ceremony held?

    3) If Jesus is the Groom and the Church is the Bride, who announces the approaching groom?

  • Right Words Right Choice

    2 Chronicles 18:12-22, Mark 15:1–15 (read online ⧉)

    Ahab was an interesting king. He set himself up against God and the prophets multiple times. His greatest adversary was Elijah. However, Elijah was by no means his only one. Micaiah was apparently well known to Ahab. As Ahab told Jehoshaphat that Micaiah never says anything good to him (Ahab), we can infer the Micaiah was known to visit Ahab, probably often to chastise him for continue to Baal (and encouraging the people too).

    Knowing that Ahab could behave in a weak fashion (see the story about Naboth’s vineyard), it is interesting to reflect on him bringing a known adversary to his court for consultation, especially in the of another king. This is not the behavior of a weak king. On top of it, Ahab is apparently smart enough to recognize that all his other “seers” are blowing hot air, for when Micaiah echoes their words, Ahab challenges that. He’s pretty certain that Micaiah is following the crowd and not his calling.

    Why Micaiah succumbed to echoing the is never answered, but there could be a number of . The likeliest answer of all was that Ahab wouldn’t to the , so why bother with it. People in power might ask people of influence or morals for advice (such as in this case). However, that can be merely a checkbox to show open-mindedness and , when in fact it is just a show. While Ahab took a risk calling in Micaiah, because he sought Jehoshaphat’s military aid, he probably felt that he needed to put on an appropriate show for the God-following Jehoshaphat.

    In ‘ time, Pilate was the theoretical ruler of Jerusalem. He was under and sent with the authority of the Roman Empire. Only by his command could death be imposed. As the Jewish religious leaders needed his approval, they set him up. In many respects, Pilate knew it. He knew that the real issue was that Jesus challenged the influence of the Sanhedrin. Pilate, though, needed the Sanhedrin to control the people without always having to resort to arms. He and the Sanhedrin played a political game of chess, and Pilate gave up. He actually had a winning hand but succumbed to the pressure of the crowd. The Sanhedrin knew the political pitfalls that Pilate had to walk and took advantage of them.

    Ahab and Pilate faced hard choices. For us, we don’t see them as too hard, but both were “political animals”. We see much the same today; people who cannot not be in . Every person has decisions to make. What matters is which direction each one of those steps leads.

    1) Have you ever had to make a political choice that did not feel like it was the correct (e.g., righteous, moral) choice? Why did you make the choice you did? What were the results politically and spiritually?

    2) For “political animals” (no disrespect intended), often the political game blinds them to good or wise decisions. Where do you see that occurring? Is it only that person or people?

    3) People’s wiring for decisions is often different than our own. We may even come to the same decision via a completely different route. How do we work with others whose thought processes (again, not the conclusions) are so different from our own?

  • Are You Blind?

    Matthew 23:16–22, Luke 18:31–43 (read
    online ⧉    )

    uses the concept of blindness as a teaching point. In the ancient world, blindness was a severe handicap. Over the years we have developed tools and practices to help blind people navigate a world of . This was not the way of things in Jesus’ day. All the blind were good for was consuming food, space, and getting alms. This is not to dismiss their value as beings, but in that age, there was little they could do. Today, with help, blind people can read. Blind people can operation manufacturing machines. The blinds can navigate the world, and the world works to help that. That wasn’t so.

    Jesus wasn’t being nice. He was being brutal. He was telling the world that the teachers that people looked up to were useless, at best. In Matthew, he implies that anyone that follows these teachers will not up anyplace good. However, they vaunted religious teachers aren’t the only blind ones. His disciples were often blind too. The prediction of his was “hidden” from them. In many ways, thought Jesus’ death wasn’t so much hidden as denied. Why would the disciples want to think about Jesus’ death? Have you ever had a “hilltop” experience? Imagine having them for 3 years. It is likely that it got to a point that they couldn’t see beyond that. Sadly, in at least Judas’ case when he did see beyond it, he likely felt betrayed and thus betrayed Jesus.

    That the future was hidden from them per the Scriptures, and then we immediately get to a story about a blind man receiving sight does not appear coincidental. In fact, according to Jesus the man’s had both saved him and led to his being able to see. In some ways, the 11 disciples that remained (after Judas’s and death) did not see either until they had faith. It’s not to say that they didn’t have faith in God, or even in Jesus, but that their faith matured and transformed so that they were able to look back and look and see God in .

    1) Have you ever lost any sense (taste, smell, sight, touch) for a time? What was it like? Did it have far-reaching effects?

    2) Blindness of the heart can lead anyone down a false path. What areas of blindness have you had to deal with? How did you deal with them?

    3) The world is often spiritually blind. If the world cannot see without faith, how do we get them to “see”?

  • Trust But Verify

    Luke 19:1–10, 1 John 4:10, Romans 8:22–28 (read online ⧉)

    You may or may not have heard that a famous person has publicly proclaimed that he has “found” Jesus Christ. Many Christians have not accepted this person’s conversion. It’s not as if this is a new thing. Not really. Over the years there have been many conversions that have been questioned. Many of them have been questioned because they were “death-bed” conversions.

    It’s not so much that these conversions are questioned, for conversions should be questioned, but it was the attitude that often goes along with it. The assumption that such-and-such a person’s conversion could not possibly be real, or that it is questionable should raise our internal flags. Who are we to determine that?

    Let’s take the tale of Zacchaeus. In it we see Zacchaeus to return what of his gains were ill-gotten. Jesus says has come. Great! If we were to look at the tale of Zacchaeus with the same amount of skepticism as we look at death-bed or famous people conversions, well, we wouldn’t just “see it” with Zacchaeus. The guy has been a thief (say many today about taxes) and colludes with the government (which people don’t trust). How could such a person’s conversion ever be trusted?

    Yet, one of the first responses to questioning Zacchaeus’ conversion is, but the Bible says so! Well, it tells that Jesus said salvation came but were you there to see that Zacchaeus actually did what he told Jesus? Really, what about all those other people that you know about that said it’s all for Jesus, but didn’t change?

    Sounds really cynical, doesn’t it? Jesus said salvation came. One would think God would know, as only God knows the heart. Yet, people are as cynical (or even more so) today about conversions. Sadly, we’ve had plenty of examples of false conversions. We have plenty of examples of Christians doing appalling things. Why so cynical? We know humanity for we see it in ourselves.

    So, what are we to do? We do have a pretty simple way to evaluation conversions…the fruit. There are the fruits of the (, , peace, patience, , goodness, , gentleness, self-control). There is also the fruit of . Are there people being discipled by the converted? The fruit of discipleship and the fruit of the spirit, however, can be a long time coming.

    1) How would “trust but verify” work in this situation? Does this concept help or hurt?

    2) Many of those we would fathers and mothers of the questioned their own salvation. Why do we think we would know somebody else’s conversion?

    3) What are the ways that we can encourage recent conversions and help to maintain them?

  • Stand Alone

    Lamentations 1:1–2, Matthew 5:13–16, Ephesians 6:10–17 (read online ⧉)

    One of the biggest traps in currently is the “going it alone mentality.” This is not just a US phenomenon. We are seeing this all over the world. At the same time, there is this competing feeling that we really are all in this and that we can only get it done together (whatever it is). Is it truly just pride? Is there something else going on?

    In Lamentations, Jerusalem stands empty on her hill. Her people are gone. Her purpose for being has been removed. Her leaders in their pride point at Jerusalem and said here sits the house of God. Pride was expressed and take in inappropriate ways. It was just a city. It was just a hill. Really, it was just a people. What made it the jewel it was? Nothing. It was a who. God made Jerusalem and its people into a jewel…his jewel. It sparkled, and the people became deceived by the sparkle as if that was the point.

    When talked about the city on the hill, he was pointing out that the reason you could see it from far away was that people made it so you could. But why? Again, it was pride. The problem that goes along with it is that when we take pride in the appearance we lose the reason why. Politicians starting calling the US the city on the hill, appearing to align with thinking. However, what they really ended doing was aligning with human thinking. US pride (with all of our recent presidents), even when dressed in , was still pride. Jesus when talking about the city on the hill he intended us to connect it to God, and that we should be sharing and “shining” God. The hill was an allegory, it wasn’t the point.

    We Christians need to be especially discerning in this upcoming election (not that we aren’t called to be discerning every time). We can see the powers of principalities and this world setting up their standards to fight. The enemies (whether recognized or not) of God are present in all political parties at this point, none are free of this. How many of us will navigate this is anyone’s guess. If you already have your answer, then perhaps you are tied to a worldly more than to God. It can be said that sometimes those we need the greatest protection from our those who pretend they are our friends.

    1) Why do people often look to politicians and/or leaders before looking to God?

    2) What the first few words you would use to describe politicians? What are the first few words you would use to describe God? What are the differences you see?

    3) If Christians truly in God, why are we so quick to (or fight) with one another about those we don’t trust, the politicians?

  • Season’s Traditions

    Mark 7:1–13, Galatians 1:13–17, 2 Thessalonians 3:3–15 (read online ⧉)

    We are rapidly coming (or for some already entered) into some of the heaviest time of tradition in the calendar year. For many, it starts with October observations. For , it starts with Thanksgiving. For others still, there is Christmas. The list of and non-Christian observations is pretty long. A “high-altitude list”: Yom Kippur, All Hallow’s Eve, , All Saints’ Day, All Souls’ Day, Day of the Dead, Reformation Day, Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, sometimes Ramadan, and many others. Oh, then New Year’s.

    Sometimes observing one of these out of sequence (i.e., starting Christmas decorating and music on November 1st) creates a little bit of tension. This is actually a good thing. One of the problems that Jesus was confronting was how traditions had become disconnected from intent. Sometimes the tradition, such as washing 7 times, is a minor issue. Other times, such as when “dedicating” one’s wealth to the (corban) rather than taking care of one’s family, tradition becomes a problem.

    For many centuries, the “mainstream” has had a church year. The church year begins with the 1st Sunday of . Advent ends with Christmas. Christmas (the “season”) ends with (The visit of the Magi). Then we have some Ordinary (i.e., numbered weeks) time. Then , Holy Week, Good Friday, Easter, the Easter season, which ends in with Pentecost. Anyway, each of these is intended to provide some Christian and spiritual formation, which is why much of the church has maintained it. The more Evangelical molded church has begun adopting some of these “seasonal” periods. This is a good thing, for these are good traditions…as long as they are not disconnected from the why.

    Traditions do not have to be bad. In fact, we they are not. Yet, the tension of introducing, maintaining, and even abandoning traditions needs to always be there so that we don’t lose touch with the why.

    Paul notes that he was heavily invested in traditions. All of his traditions were an attempt to honor God, but God was often lost among the rules. Yet, that does not mean all the traditions were bad. In fact, many of the traditions (and rules) us guidance as to how to appropriately walk with God and others. Many of these traditions also teach us theology and about what God has revealed to us about God.

    As you begin your seasonal traditions (even the food choices for Thanksgiving), give some deeper thoughts as to the “whys” of your traditions. You may discover something far deeper than you expected.

    1) How do you keep the “whys” of your traditions alive?

    2) What are important aspects of traditions for and to you?

    3) Is it unreasonable to seek God in all our traditions?

  • Building Myths

    Luke 17:20–37, Acts 7:44–60, Revelation 21:14–27 (read online ⧉)

    Throughout the Old Testament, there are memorial stones. The names of springs have tale-telling names. Altars were built…lots of altars. Places provide . The Promised Land (Israel) was one of identity. That particular land was powerful enough in its name and history that there are still fights involving it among differing “tribes” and religions (and each’s myriad of sects).

    A place will often develop a mythos or multiple ones. Think of the States. There is the American Exceptionalism mythos. There is the American Colonialism mythos. There is the American Slavery/Segregation mythos. There is the American Dream mythos. There are plenty more American mythoi that aren’t listed. Some are held as (or more) firmly than religious beliefs. Some are feared for what they might represent. Regardless, they all revolve around a place.

    made a radical statement regarding the of God. The Pharisees and many other Jewish groups were looking for something tangible, which mostly revolved around the restoration (in some form) of an independent (and probably wealthy, secure, and powerful) Jewish nation, with some sort of Davidic monarchy. Jesus basically told them that they are looking in the wrong place.

    Some scholars interpret this as Jesus stating he was the Kingdom come, while others look at it more along the lines of the kingdom being withing the people. We Christians often this being the .

    Stephen, who was martyred, reminded those that were about to stone him that God does not truly live in buildings built by human hands. The building, it seems, is more for us than God. The passage in Revelation says there will be no temple. Think of that. There will be no temple, no church, no chapel, no alter. It will not be needed.

    We need to be honest with ourselves. We may say things such as, “the church is its people,” or “the people are the church.” However, when it comes right down to it, we gravitate toward needing a place. That place could be a park, a house, a (gasp) bar, a school, a cafeteria. We think this as obvious, now, but it wasn’t that long ago (truly) that people opposed holding a church service in a school. When the house church movement was reignited in the US over a decade ago, “established” churches said that house church wasn’t real church.

    The next “you can’t have church there,” argument is here. It’s actually almost past now, though people still hold onto it. It’s not possible, it is said, to have church over the , for the internet isn’t “real”. Even die-hard netizens often use IRL (in real life), so it seems even for them there is a struggle. As virtual reality goes mainstream, the concept of the internet as a rectangular screen will disappear. So, what are we to do? How will we treat those who don’t in our pews, but with us from 1000 miles away? Are they not the church? They don’t have a connection with us? Even those who, for various reasons, have moved or are moving away, but this is still their church home? Does someone stop being your just because you only see them on Facebook, and haven’t seen them in years?

    1) When we talk about church and place, what are the important things to consider?

    2) What makes “place” more or less real to you? How do you deal with people who have a different idea of place?

    3) What makes a place (such as a church) more “real” than the internet which is a gathering of people at a whole bunch of places? Is that a “real” difference, or is it what we are used to?