Handling Truth

Psalm 110; Matthew 22:41–46; John 1:1–18 (read online ⧉)

John calls Jesus the Word. In his phrasing, it wasn’t just any word or words. Jesus was (is) the actual physical embodiment of God’s words. It’s…strange. It’s…incomprehensible. It’s…impossible. It’s…faith.

When Jesus speaks, we’re to listen. That can sometimes be hard. In fact, a lot of people throughout history have had a hard time listening to Jesus.

Today, we hear a lot of people say, “I like Jesus just fine, I just don’t like his followers.” There is some truth in that, as we followers are broken just like everyone else.

However, often that phrase (or a similar one) is used to shut down the conversation. Many Christians will try to stop the conversation there and try to defend themselves (and/or other Christians). Just like that, the conversation has changed.

This is not to say such people are purposely manipulating things for that. It’s just that when we are defending/protecting our deeper selves, we will do things we don’t think of ourselves capable of.

On the contrary, people such as the Pharisees were very methodical in their approach. They didn’t like Jesus’ followers. Of course, it seems their reasoning was either they (His followers) were being deceived, or because they (the Pharisees) weren’t the ones being followed. They went for Jesus to draw his followers away.

In this particular story, Jesus (the Word) was attacking or questioning the Word. Yes, we could say he was questioning the interpretation. In fact, that is a great point. However, there are Christians today who refute questions like Jesus’ because they challenge the Word.

This is not a small thing. People question the Scriptures (the human undertaking of the Word) to this day. In Jesus’ time, it was actually part of the rabbinical school of thought. Not only did they not think it was dishonorable, but the rhetorical questioning and answers were also part of how Jews understood the faith.

If Jesus felt comfortable questioning himself (yes, this is a stretch, but a fun one), then why do we freeze when the Word is questioned? When someone says, “I like Jesus, but…” Let’s agree that we like Jesus, too. Then let’s talk about Jesus. We establish common ground (we like Jesus). Then we can talk about Jesus.

This doesn’t mean, sadly, that the person is about to be saved. Not by a long shot. What it does mean is that we can learn about what they think is great about Jesus, and what they know about Jesus. The conversation may last years. Jesus and the Word can handle it.

※ Prayer ※
God, “Your word is a lamp for my feet, and a light on my path.” (Psalm 119:105) Thank you for giving it to me to learn your story and of your desire and love for me. Grant me the wisdom and courage to share your word with others, especially those who do not know you yet. Amen.

※ Questions ※
1) Do you think you have to defend God’s Word? Why or why not?
2) How do/would you defend all the translations that we have of the Bible?
3) What is your understanding of why we (the Church at large) consider the 66 books of the Bible as the True scriptures, and not others?

2020 05 20
It’s Pretty Simple

Psalm 138; Mark 1:14–16; John 16:5–11 (read online ⧉)

Some of you know just how simple our faith really is. On the other hand, within its simplicity is great complexity. The tension within that “entertains” theologians, and can drive the rest of us a little crazy.

Part of the complexity is not that our faith is truly complex, but that we understand ourselves and our fellow humanity. Humanity seeks to find the “gray” areas. We seek to get away with whatever we can.

Many of the arguments (or strongly-worded discussions and schisms) revolve around what “exactly” the Scriptures say. Often, sadly, some of the biggest struggles are over what the Bible doesn’t say. In the Church of the Nazarene, we say that the 66 Books of the Bible contain all that is necessary to understand salvation (gaining it is something different). Yes, that leaves it open to a lot of discussions. Many of those are good discussions; some of them aren’t so good. Yet, the “faith” remains simple.

Mark says Jesus proclaimed, “repent and believe…” That’s pretty simple.

John, on the other hand, begins to show that it isn’t quite so simple. The Counselor (the Holy Spirit) will come to convict. Of course, only after one is convicted (spiritually, not legally) can one repent. So quickly the simplicity is peeled away.

There is something odd about this. His 11 disciples (we’ll skip Judas Iscariot) would be saved at this point, would they not? Yet, Jesus implies that it is not quite the case; it is, and it isn’t. Or, perhaps, it is more of a “saved to the best of your understanding now” and “better saved later”.

Jesus died for us. There isn’t a question about that. The Holy Spirit convicts. Jesus doesn’t. So, we need the Holy Spirit. Still sort of simple, but we can see how quickly, just with Jesus’ words, that simple is not simplistic, and complexity hides the simpleness.

※ Prayer ※
God, help us to keep the simpleness of the faith in our hearts. At the same time, help us not be confused or overwhelmed by trying to understand you, our infinite Creator. Amen.

※ Questions ※
1) How do you know someone has been saved? What do you ask them?
2) Once you know they’re saved, do you talk about the mysteries of God? Why or why not?
3) If you had to choose between the faith being simple or the faith being complex, which would you choose? Why?
4) Do you think simple and complex are the right words? What other words might you use?

2020 05 19
God of Sight

Numbers 24:2–9; Matthew 6:19–24; Ephesians 1:15–20 (read online ⧉)

Eyes are fascinating organs (sounds odd, doesn’t it?). Our eyes, when functioning, can see things near and far. They see colors. They can even see heat waves (under certain conditions).

Other creatures have interesting eyes, too. Predators and prey have different eyes depending on need. Insects have compound eyes that are so different than ours (part of what makes them hard to swat) that see dozens if not hundreds of images.

Under even more special conditions, eyes see visions. Some cast them aside as a delusion. Some see them as nothing more than daydreams.
Today, we think we know all about it. However, the reality is that even in our fictional stories, we understand that there is a mystery in the eyes. As an old man once said, “Your eyes can deceive you. Don’t trust them.”

If you’ve taken any of a myriad of tests, or seen memes, you know that between your eyes and your brain, what can be done is amazing. Yet, we take so much of it for granted. As we get older, we lose certain aspects of our eyes. We can get glasses to get some of them. However, some lose their eyesight forever. Others never had eyesight, or lose their eyesight, they can still “see”, it’s just not the same.

In ages far past, the eyes were supposedly the “window to the soul”, or (as Jesus said) the lamp of the body. This is where concepts such as the “evil eye” came from. There is a touch of truth in the concept. When some have certain mental illnesses or are on certain medications, their eyes may display a lack of vitality. When we look at a person’s eyes, we draw far more conclusions than we are aware of. That doesn’t mean that we’re always right. It just means that we view the eyes as something more than just a pair of organs that allow us to see.

It’s not just Jesus’ words that guide us in this direction. Paul, too, talks about it in a strange way. In most modern English translations, it is “the eyes of the heart.” The King James Version actually translates it as “the eyes of your understanding.”

What does this mean? In a simple way, our eyes guide us to understanding. Actually, this isn’t that hard to understand in our day. We read. We watch. We write. All require, fundamentally, sight. Seeing is important, and how we see is even more important. By now, we aren’t just talking about the physical, but the mental and spiritual, as well.

Perhaps, “see” and “eyes” are the wrong human word. They are the words provided by scripture, so they are worth using and worth thinking about.

※ Prayer ※
Lord, give us your eyes to see your Creation as you want us to. Help us to see the world with your heart. Amen.

※ Questions ※
1) If you were to use something other than eyes as a symbol to use in the context of Paul’s words, what would you use? Why?
2) Sight and Sound are the 2 primary ways we express interacting with God. How would you use touch, taste, smell to discuss interacting with God?
3) How do you think eyes are “windows” or “lamp” for the soul?

2020 05 18
Worship This

Acts 17:22–31; 1 Peter 3:13–4:6 (read online ⧉)

Worship. We view this as a core function of what we are to do as Christians. We worship the one true God, who is mysteriously Three-in-One.

In some respects, and more practically, worship is acting in a reverential state toward something greater than the self. If analyzed a bit, one can recognize that worship (as just defined) is not solely the property of religion.

This is important to understand. Often, people who insist on their logic and scientific reasoning worship the concepts. When they do so, when confronted by something that cannot be explained by the logic and scientific reasoning they worship, they will state that they just don’t know enough.

They’re right. They don’t. What they also don’t recognize is that by this exact response, they are showing that they are just as religious as those they often pity or despise.

We all worship something. The oddness of Mars Hill was that everything was worshiped, or at least had a place to be worshiped. One could make the argument that in such a context, all religions were supposedly equal, but the reality was that no one had to make a decision.

As we look around ourselves, we need to be generous toward the religious beliefs of others. Often we only think in terms of self-identified religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.), and neglect those perspectives that proclaim no “worship” and yet worship is just as much a part of their lives as it is of ours. It’s just that they and we need to see it.

As we talk about what we believe with others, context matters. Paul was abrupt, but it was appropriate for the time and place. That isn’t always the case.

Peter notes that while we are to always be ready to defend our hope, at the same time we are called to be gentle and respectful. As we begin to see the layers of worship that we all have, it can become quite jarring to many to realize that they worship anything at all. They believed the didn’t.

On the other hand, some are quite willing to worship something that they perceive has no expectation of them, or has an expectation of them that is in line with their own desires. We are to be gentle and respectful always.

※ Prayer [BCP] ※
Lord Jesus Christ, you stretched out your arms of love on the hard wood of the cross that everyone might come within the reach of your saving embrace: So clothe us in your Spirit that we, reaching forth our hands in love, may bring those who do not know you to the knowledge and love of you; for the honor of your Name. Amen.

※ Questions ※
1) What is your understanding of worship? Can unbelievers worship?
2) Is there a difference between winning souls for Jesus and winning friends for Jesus?
3) When talking about “your” defense (1 Peter 3:15), why is it important to understand it is “your” defense and not the defense of others?

2020 05 17
Barrier Breaker

Luke 16:19–31; Acts 16:1–5; 1 Corinthians 9:16–23 (read online ⧉)

One of the more interesting things that is occurring in this event called COVID-19 and its physical distancing are the conversations that are going along with it. There are plenty of political and health conversations (neither necessarily with all the facts or research, and this comes from all corners). There are economic conversations. There are logistical conversations. There are, amazingly, religious conversations.

For some of us, we are watching religious conversations regarding topics that some people had been thinking about (for example, communion online) for a time, to an immediate need. There are those that were dismissive (at best) of having any sort of community online (and dismissing those who had it as shallow) who now are doing their best to understand what it means to actually do it.

Then, there are those who need to be theologically “correct” who have decided to do nothing. Taking a prophet’s words out of context, they kicked their sheep out to the wolves because they couldn’t feed them the “right” grass. Yes, that is more than a bit snarky.

However, this a different form of the conversation Jesus continually had and that Paul was having.

In Jesus’ story of the beggar Lazarus (not to be confused with the Lazarus who was brought back to life), Abraham points out to the rich man that the prophets and the laws were already there. He and his brothers either didn’t see them, ignored them (either of these two would fit in the context of Jesus’ story), or believe that they were rich thus they were righteous (a common belief then and now).

How does this apply? Well, the so-called righteous living was not be lived through the filter of the Law or the prophets. In other words, they confused results, riches, and power with being followers of God.

Paul, on the other hand, knew that he was dealing with the “blind”. He did an odd thing. He circumcised Timothy. As this was all part of the context of delivering the message from the Apostles about what Gentiles needed to do to be “right”, we understand that Paul did not impose this upon Timothy because Timothy needed it to be done to be righteous. Paul did it so that there would be one less barrier between Timothy (and Paul) and the Jews.

Paul’s mission was to share the Gospel. He understood that there would be barriers (mental, emotional, logical, theological) between him and others. He would do his best (without violating the Way of Jesus) to identify with them enough to remove barriers and build relationships.

Often, even usually, people want others to remove their barriers. However, the love of Jesus Christ should be goading us to remove our barriers so that the message of the Gospel is receivable by others. Whether it is online, in person, through music, through television, or some other medium we need to remove our barriers.

It is not their responsibility to move closer to us. It is our responsibility to move closer to them. How do we know this? God came down as a baby. The infinite became the finite. We could not remove the barriers between ourselves and God. Only God could.

※ Prayer ※
God, help us to set aside our ways for your ways. Help us set aside our desires for your desires. Help us to reach people with the Gospel who neither know nor believe they need it. Amen.

※ Questions ※
1) What is one thing that keeps you from “agreeing” or “getting along” with people from another political party? Why does that one thing matter to you? Why might that one thing matter to them differently?
2) One of Jesus’ lessons is that our religiosity can inhibit others from having a relationship with God. What might one religious thing of yours might that be?
3) Why is it so important to understand that we have the responsibility to approach others? What might that mean for our daily lives?

2020 05 16
Oath Busting

Genesis 13:1–18; Numbers 13:30–14:4; Numbers 14:36–45 (read online ⧉)

God had made a promise to Abraham. As God is the make of the promise, following yesterday’s devotion, it was an oath. Abraham’s descendants would flourish in the land that Abraham would walk.

At the time of Lot’s and Abraham’s separation, the land that Lot had chosen was the better land. The lesser, more difficult land was Abraham’s. Yet, it was on this lesser more difficult land that God would build a nation with God’s name on it.

After many years, Abraham’s descendants had finally arrived to “take” the land. The tribes that had flourished with the absence of Abraham’s descendants certainly weren’t going to be willing or eager to just hand the land over. As far as they, the current inhabitants, were concerned this was their gods’ land. The Israelites were nothing.

Even those technically related were just as harsh to the Israelites. Yet, there was an oath made by God. Perhaps the oath was no longer valid. Perhaps God broke the oath.

This is where it gets interesting for us, too. When God made the oath, there was no promise of easy living or being able to just get the land. The Israelites had to work for it, too.

This is also the case for us. God calls us to be his people. God made an oath to always be with us. That doesn’t mean it’s going to be easy. In fact, part of being with us was part of telling us that things would be hard.

The Israelites, just like us, weren’t going to have anything to do with this difficult stuff. They wanted the easy street. At one point, God tells the Israelites about when they will worship and sacrifice with produce they didn’t plant, with labor they didn’t spend. They had to value the fulfillment of God’s oath.

Instead, they decided that they were going to break the oath. It might sound a tad harsh. However, it wasn’t God that decided that the oath wouldn’t be fulfilled. They decided it.

So, God “accepted” their decision, and gave the consequences. And they decided to try to break that, too. Moses also makes a point to them, that is also for us. God wasn’t with them. They would fail. If only they hadn’t tried to break the oath (that wasn’t theirs to break) in the first place.

※ A Prayer of Billy Graham ※
…Father, we thank You for the promise and hope of [the future], and we look forward to it with expectancy and faith. This [we] ask in the name of our Lord and Savior, who by His death and resurrection has given us hope both for this world and the world to come. [Amen]

※ Questions ※
1) Have you ever had someone try to break the oath or promise of another person? What was the situation? How did it work out?
2) Why would a person try to break the oath or promise of another person?
3) What can the short-, medium-, and long-term consequences of promise- and oath-breaking?

2020 05 15
Is Swearing Bad?

Leviticus 5:4–6; Numbers 30:10–16; Deuteronomy 12:29–32; Judges 11:29–40; Matthew 5:37 (read online ⧉)

No, we’re not talking about bad language. We are talking about making and “taking” oaths.

All elected politicians take oaths regarding following the law and upholding the respective (state or US) constitution. Peace Officers, Military service people, doctors all swear oaths when formally taking the position of their training/office.

Oaths are not small. Oaths are not equal to promises. Oaths tend more toward the covenantal side of things. This means that there should be a depth to them of body, mind, and soul that is far more than just a promise. Some people do take promises to the oath standard, but most people do not.

Oaths will often also have a penalty that goes with breaking them. Promises generally do not (except for the diminishment of your “good” name). Also, oaths will usually invoke a greater power. In the United States and even in a number of “post”-Christian countries, that greater power is still God.

God. The “special” ingredient of an oath.

Oaths (or swearing, the right kind) are not a bad thing. Rash (or emotional or reactive) oaths, however, are. As the first passage indicates, there is a kind of guilt associated with a rash oath, and that is whether it is to do good or to do bad. That, in and of itself, should indicate the weight God holds for oaths.

While Numbers makes a wife’s or daughter’s oath the responsibility of the husband/father, it is still an oath. Part of it is a cultural assumption that the man would indeed ultimately bear the responsibility of the oath anyway. The wife and daughter are of his household, and thus his responsibility.

Even how the man is supposed to deal with their oaths is important. He has to be quick and discerning about voiding them or owning them. He is responsible. He would also likely make the oathmaker bear some responsibility, too. The point is that oaths are not to be taken lightly.

Jephthah provides the stunning example of why rash oaths are a really bad idea. The prologue to Jephthah’s story is the passage in Deuteronomy about sacrificing children, and that God really hates it. Think about those who would run out of the city to greet the victorious Jephthah…it would probably be someone from his family.

Jephthah made an oath. His daughter paid the price for his oath. This was not a God-honoring oath, nor a God-honoring sacrifice. That Jephthah was a judge for Israel makes this tale even that much more tragic, and even less God-honoring.

When Jesus says to say yes or no, he is referring to a practice whereby oaths were binding based upon what they were sworn on. Money won. Forget the sacrificial offering. Forget the altar (that made the money sacred). It was the money.

It’s not that Jesus says there is no space for oaths, it’s that the space for oaths is much smaller than it used to be. Invoking God really should be between you and God, and not a third party.

There is also another small lesson, and it is good to keep when we are all in a state (pandemic and stay-at-home) where emotional responses are likely to result in rash oaths. This is a time when many people will turn deeply to God (and we celebrate it). In so doing, however, they often become (positively) overwhelmed and make rash oaths.

Many of these rash oaths are made to God. God wants faith– and trust-filled oaths. Rash oaths might be faith- and trust-filled at the moment. It is over time that the extent of faith and trust is tested. These are the oaths that God values.

※ Prayer ※
Gracious God, may the words of our mouths and hearts bring honor and glory to you. May these poor words of ours warm your heart as we follow the path you guide us. Amen.

※ Questions ※
1) Have you ever sworn an oath? Why? What was it’s result/consequence?
2) How would you define the difference between promise, oath, and covenant?
3) What is the most rash decision you have made? What was the result?

2020 05 14
A Different Kind of Backsliding

Acts 10:30–47; Acts 15:5–12; Galatians 2:11–16 (read online ⧉)

Peter was called/sent to the first “real” Gentile converts, post-Resurrection. There is some fuzziness in this as we cannot assume that there were no other Gentile converts. The likelihood was that they, prior to Cornelius, were converts to Judaism first.

This is an important distinction, as there seemed to be no question of Cornelius’ devotion to God. However, the language and framing of the story draw the conclusion that Cornelius had not done a full conversion to Judaism.

In the earlier part of the story, Peter invited the servants of Cornelius (likely Gentiles themselves) inside for lodging, and one would presume food. Already, Peter seemed to have a clue about his earlier vision about clean versus unclean (Acts 10:1–29). He dared (against more rigid Jewish protocol) to provide shelter and food for Gentiles.

Later, as the church spreads, the conflicts between Jewish expectations and Gentile realities start to affect the unity of the church in doctrine, rule, and expectation. So, they had a meeting. Who knows how long the meeting really was. It does feel like it was abbreviated in the Scriptures.

Peter stood up and familiarized or reminded people of his story. While we (rightfully) call Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles, Peter was the first. As the “rock” of the church, Peter had a first among equal standing. His words carried weight. James, too, as one of the original Apostles also had significant weight.

With this as the groundwork, it would seem completely obvious that everything was resolved, and that the Law was finally set aside as a guide and a history, and not the road of salvation.

Except…apparently that was only for a time. The list of people Paul accuses of backsliding is interesting: Peter (the “first” Apostle to the Gentiles), James (the Apostle that gave a further argument in defense of Gentile requirements), Barnabas (partner in Gentile travels with Paul). There were also others that had backslid into the Law.

This is not a minor issue, hence Paul’s concern, and his willingness to put ink to paper to exclaim it. Reverting to the practices of the Law denied Jesus’ grace. It also separated Jew from Gentile, which was, it seems, Paul’s biggest issue.

The bloodline that separated Jew from Gentile was erased by the blood of Jesus. This division was unreasonable and opposed the Gospel. Paul did not just let it stand.

The truth is that it is easy for any of us to fall into old habits and thought patterns, especially those that were experienced during childhood or under the influence of personally significant people. It is not unexpected that Peter would revert to those tendencies, nor the others. Paul didn’t seem particularly surprised, just upset.

Apparently, this was resolved, yet this kind of thing is forever a shadow in the church.

※ Prayer ※
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, constantly guide us in all Truth. Shape and form us to be better conformed to your will. Amen.

※ Questions ※
1) What is an old religious habit that you keep fighting? Is it a “rule” or a way of thinking?
2) What do you think the original intent of the “rule” or way of thinking was?
3) What does the cast of characters tell us about ourselves and the church? What does it show how we are to correct or admonish one another?

2020 05 13

Handling Truth

Psalm 110; Matthew 22:41–46; John 1:1–18 (read online ⧉)

John calls Jesus the Word. In his phrasing, it wasn’t just any word or words. Jesus was (is) the actual physical embodiment of God’s words. It’s…strange. It’s…incomprehensible. It’s…impossible. It’s…faith.

When Jesus speaks, we’re to listen. That can sometimes be hard. In fact, a lot of people throughout history have had a hard time listening to Jesus.

Today, we hear a lot of people say, “I like Jesus just fine, I just don’t like his followers.” There is some truth in that, as we followers are broken just like everyone else.

However, often that phrase (or a similar one) is used to shut down the conversation. Many Christians will try to stop the conversation there and try to defend themselves (and/or other Christians). Just like that, the conversation has changed.

This is not to say such people are purposely manipulating things for that. It’s just that when we are defending/protecting our deeper selves, we will do things we don’t think of ourselves capable of.

On the contrary, people such as the Pharisees were very methodical in their approach. They didn’t like Jesus’ followers. Of course, it seems their reasoning was either they (His followers) were being deceived, or because they (the Pharisees) weren’t the ones being followed. They went for Jesus to draw his followers away.

In this particular story, Jesus (the Word) was attacking or questioning the Word. Yes, we could say he was questioning the interpretation. In fact, that is a great point. However, there are Christians today who refute questions like Jesus’ because they challenge the Word.

This is not a small thing. People question the Scriptures (the human undertaking of the Word) to this day. In Jesus’ time, it was actually part of the rabbinical school of thought. Not only did they not think it was dishonorable, but the rhetorical questioning and answers were also part of how Jews understood the faith.

If Jesus felt comfortable questioning himself (yes, this is a stretch, but a fun one), then why do we freeze when the Word is questioned? When someone says, “I like Jesus, but…” Let’s agree that we like Jesus, too. Then let’s talk about Jesus. We establish common ground (we like Jesus). Then we can talk about Jesus.

This doesn’t mean, sadly, that the person is about to be saved. Not by a long shot. What it does mean is that we can learn about what they think is great about Jesus, and what they know about Jesus. The conversation may last years. Jesus and the Word can handle it.

※ Prayer ※
God, “Your word is a lamp for my feet, and a light on my path.” (Psalm 119:105) Thank you for giving it to me to learn your story and of your desire and love for me. Grant me the wisdom and courage to share your word with others, especially those who do not know you yet. Amen.

※ Questions ※
1) Do you think you have to defend God’s Word? Why or why not?
2) How do/would you defend all the translations that we have of the Bible?
3) What is your understanding of why we (the Church at large) consider the 66 books of the Bible as the True scriptures, and not others?