Devotion.al

  • Were and Being Sent

    Luke 9:1–6, Luke 10:1–16, Luke 22:35–38

    This series of passages shows a progression of being sent out. The first passage is ‘ immediate 12 disciples being sent out. Their was to tell about the of God and to heal people. Pretty simple goals. Difficult mission. This seems to be the test run, for Jesus later sends out 72.

    These 72 are told that there are few workers. The 12 didn’t get that “pep-talk”. In both cases, they (whether 12 or 72) are to only preach to those who are open. Jesus tells them to “shake the off” if people are not receptive. In our day and where were seek to not offend, this can seem pretty harsh. Yet, often we are called to plant seeds and on so that we can plant more seeds. If you plant one seed, but just stay in one place to make sure it grows, everywhere else you could have gone remain unseeded.

    Even still, there is a balance. While they are directed to move from town to town, while they are in one town, they only stay in one place. This is a not-so-subtle reminder that humans play politics. The latest prophet (or one sent by that prophet) is the latest “star”. Imagine how far too many people would clamor to host them, creating strife in a community where the is being preached.

    However, the last “sending” has a much darker and starker tone. Now, they are to be fully prepared and even armed. As an aside, many commentators struggle with Jesus telling them to have swords while at the same time being the and (to many) a pacifist. That’s actually what makes this third sending so dark and stark. The reality of the world is that being means that you will be destroyed. Now, there is the pacifist route, the self-defense route, and the armed aggressor route. As we look back at history, there is no question that the armed aggressor “evangelism” is against the Kingdom of God. Where the balance between pacifism and self-defense is a discussion that is still going on to this day.

    Regardless, though, we know that the ways and the hows of sharing about the Kingdom of God are always changing. The message does (and must) remain the same, but how we it changes constantly. One of the most common phrases used is, “this is the way we’ve always done it.” While, at the same time, how groceries, tools, gas, cars, and many other things are purchased has massively changed. Modes of communication have expanded. The ability to see across the world in real-time is everywhere. Yet, we want to deliver the message the same way?

    1) Where have you been guilty of saying/thinking/feeling “that’s the way we’ve always done it?” What do you think the underlying emotions are?

    2) Tossing the old just for the new can be just as bad. How can the old inform the past, and how can the new transform the past?

    3) All too often we operate as if it is old versus new. How can we operate old and new?

  • Circumcised Relationship

    Genesis 17:1–14, Deuteronomy 10:14–22, Luke 1:59–80

    The ritual of circumcision existed before the people of Israel came into being (yes, Abraham was their forefather). This was a ritual the physically made the people of Israel different than those around them. It was (and is) the ceremony that “enters” a boy into the covenant. In the modern ceremony (which, in all likelihood, had similarities to the ceremony John went through), the parents respond with, “As this child has entered into the covenant, so may he enter into Torah, the wedding canopy, and good deeds.” This is also the time when the boy officially receives his Hebrew name.

    While we’re certain that John didn’t get married, he certainly learned (“entered”) the Torah and did “good” deeds. When we recognize the receiving of a name as part of this ceremony, we understand where the family is a bit confused regarding the name that John receives, which isn’t Hebrew. John’s name in and of itself indicates that John is set apart at the tender of 8 days (plus the whole angel visitation) to be different. The Brit Milah is a big family occasion. What a time to make waves!

    While obeying the (Jewish) Law is good, obeying the Law for the Law’s sake is not. As we talked about a few days ago, the Law was never the point. It was a with God. The event of Brit Milah was both the entering into the covenant and recognizing the One who created that community…God.

    Often we get sidetracked by the good things: , Bible reading, Groups, even prayer. As we “check-off” the list, we neglect a relationship with the One around whom all these revolve. The tasks overtake the relationship. That being said, there are far too many people who say, “I can God better (here) than at (church/life groups).” They might be correct…for a time. However, when we worship God in isolation, we become the only one who holds us accountable. Except in rare cases, that means the worship (let alone the relationship) fades away.

    When Moses talked about circumcising the , it wasn’t supposed to be a task to be “checked-off”, it was a relationship to be had.

    1) When we look at the tradition of circumcision, we can see the similarity with infant . What are the similarities? What are the differences? Why do those differences matter?

    2) At the circumcision, there are 3 aspects of life that are addressed. What are they? How do they echo the life?

    3) Age is no barrier to making waves; John’s parents were well advanced in years, and their son was 8 days old. What does this tell you about the age barriers in living the Christian life? What does this tell you about making a difference for God’s ?

  • By Their Sin, They Are Known

    Genesis 18:16–33, Luke 13:1–5

    The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is often used as an object lesson regarding the result of select sins. In today’s passage, we don’t address those sins, for they aren’t really the subject of today’s section in Genesis.

    What do you think of God and Abraham in this story? God debated whether to tell Abraham about the impending judgment of Sodom. God chose to inform Abraham. The reasoning probably had a lot to do with Abraham having (Lot) in Sodom. What we should draw from this passage is that Abraham didn’t question the of God’s inquiry. In other words, Abraham knew bad stuff was happening in Sodom. Abraham did what the threshold was for enough people needed to prevent destruction. Abraham believed that there had to be one. Note that God didn’t push back on Abraham, either. Abraham was very humble in his approach but kept asking until he was satisfied.

    There is something else to take into consideration. The gods of the area were not known for their self-control. The gods were expected to destroy anything and everything of a village, let’s say if one person offended them. In that context, Abraham gives us a picture of God that is different from the other gods that Abraham would have been familiar with.

    This same motif comes into play when talks about those who died at the Tower of Siloam. There is not some mean-hearted god who waits for a person (or people) to and then destroy them. That is not God at all! For some who brought this up to Jesus there were those that felt that those Galileans were the worst of sinners (for various political reasons), so deserved what they got. Jesus’ point was that everyone needs to , not just some people.

    1) The litany about righteous men in Sodom (or the lack thereof) can be heard in our culture, our churches, our families. How many people does it take for a family, , or culture to be “okay” and not be condemned by those around it? How often have you condemned a group of people based on the behavior of one person?

    2) We often measure suffering. There are 2 basic measures. If the sufferer is , there is a comparison of suffering to being attacked by the Adversary. If the sufferer is not Christian, there is a comparison of suffering to their lack of repentance or the amount of sin in their . Have you done any of these comparisons? What makes either of these comparisons dangerous?

  • Freeing the Rules

    Psalm 119:153–168, Deuteronomy 6, Galatians 5:1–15

    Rules and regulations. We often don’t like them. At the same time, there are many who are calling for more and more rules and regulations. People want to control people’s thoughts and their expressions of their thoughts. People want to control ‘ behavior, but don’t want theirs controlled.

    When refers to the Law of the Jews (e.g., circumcision), there is a Jewish understanding that the Jews failed miserably to follow the Law perfectly. So, to do a better job of following the law that they couldn’t already follow, they added more laws.

    The whys of rules and regulations should often be more the focus than the actual rules and regulations. When Moses talks about the whys, it is contained within Deuteronomy 6:4–6. “Listen, Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your , with all your soul, and with all your . These words that I am you today are to be in your heart.”

    It’s not that breaking the rules wasn’t serious. It was. What was of primary importance was a with God.

    Note also what comes after that, teaching and guiding others into that same relationship.

    Then, and only then, do we get to the rules. Many Bibles have a heading before verse 10 to the effect of Remembering God Through Obedience. So, the rules aren’t about the rules, they’re about God. For Christians, the “rules” of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers are more like guidelines, good and healthy guidelines for , but guidelines. They are for a time and place and context, which isn’t ours.

    So, Christians create more rules. These rules are in many ways far worse than the rules of the Law. Many people use the “new” rules to condemn people to Hell, without knowing them. The rules are often used with and intimidation. That certainly isn’t the that Paul was talking about.

    1) When you think of rules, what are your feelings? How do you feel when someone else breaks the rule? How about when you break the rules?

    2) Why do you think the rules and remembering are tied ? How does that affect the way you feel about rules?

    3) We all set rules and expectations regarding the behavior of others. What do you do when someone violates them?

  • Faith and Tradition

    Psalm 40:1–16, John 7:21–24, Acts 15:1–21

    To this very day, churches (and thus the church) struggle with what exactly their faith means and its implications. Certain things appear to have been settled, but haven’t. Although, perhaps it is better to say that when push comes to shove people will finally get to the point where doctrine and orthodoxy are finally separated from .

    In many denominations and churches, tradition has been so wrapped into doctrine and orthodoxy that not following tradition is viewed as dangerous and even non-. As the Church of the Nazarene is rooted in the Wesleyan tradition, we view tradition as a key component to understanding our faith. At the same time, we (as Wesley) are “descendants” of the Reformation, which has as a motto, “Semper Reformanda,” always reforming. In other words, while certain essentials of the faith must be predominately left alone, everything else should be worthy of dispute and .

    If we re-read the passage from John and Acts in the of the above, we see tradition and Semper Reformanda at work. In the Book of John, heals on the Sabbath, violating tradition, yet reforming the practices to be more aligned with the of God.

    In the Book of Acts, traditionalists (honestly believing they are doing the right thing) try to get Gentiles (non-Jews) to take on the Jewish rite of circumcision. They get into a discussion with Paul and Barnabas, and it gets sent to committee. However, unlike our committees, a decision was made and shared. The message didn’t denigrate tradition, but it reformed it.

    Local churches (i.e., Generations Church) often have traditions that had a time and place, but that may no longer be the case. The tradition may be 50 years, 20 years, 5 years, or even 5 months old. Regardless, it should always be viewed as whether it is still effective in sharing the and discipling believers.

    1) is the big power of tradition. If we look at how Jesus lived, why should that concern us?

    2) Tradition is neither inherently good nor bad. How do you analyze the why of a tradition? If you don’t analyze a tradition, why not?

    3) Acts 15:2 shows that discussion (even if heated) is good and healthy when it comes to tradition and even theology. Where do you see that respect of discussion happening? Where do you think it needs to happen more?

  • The Greatest

    “I am the greatest,” said Muhammad Ali before his match with Sonny Liston. Michael Phelps is the greatest. Usain Bolt is the greatest. They can’t all be the greatest. Yet, Muhammad Ali was the greatest boxer, for a time. Michael Phelps remains the greatest Olympic swimmer, for the time being. Usain Bolt remains the greatest Olympic sprinter, for the time being. The New England Patriots remain the greatest football team, and Tom Brady the greatest NFL quarterback. For now. Wayne Gretzky’s nickname is, “the Great One.” Sports is easy. We could go with presidents, whether those who think they were (or are) the greatest or those who disputably were. We could even over the greatest country.
    But, why?
    ‘ chiding of his friends (and disciples) wasn’t just, “be nice and humble.” It was, “knock it off. Now!”
    Part of the lording over is the lifting of self over . Jesus turns that upside down. The greatest is the one with the of a servant. Jesus called on his friends (and us) to not define ourselves by the struggles of the world, society, or even our . We can look around ourselves and see that we often react to the power struggles between others and even within ourselves.
    This is why ‘s words are applicable to our lives. We often grasp for what we do not have. That, sadly, is part of the American “Dream”. Stuff, power, influence, wealth are all good things in small measures. Yet, we often strive for more to the detriment of ourselves and our . Is it all really it in the ?
    Jesus and Paul certainly didn’t think so.
    1) Where do you find yourself struggling for “more”?
    2) Where do you find yourself struggling against the power of others over you?
    3) How do Jesus’ and Paul’s words apply to your situation?

  • Dehardening Hearts

    Psalm 105:1–4, Deuteronomy 24:17–22, Acts 6:1–7

    “Solitary is not to be found there [inward]. “ solitaries” is a phrase no more consistent with the than holy adulterers. The Gospel of Christ knows of no religion, but social; no holiness, but social holiness. Faith working by is the length and breadth and depth and height of Christian perfection. This commandment have we from CHRIST, that he who loves GOD, love his brother also; and that we manifest our love by doing good unto all men, especially to them that are of the household of faith.”

    —John Wesley

    “…no holiness, but social holiness…” has been misused over the years, being equated with social justice. John Wesley was specifically speaking about what would now call private versus public faith. For John Wesley—and the church as a whole—found that Christians were more likely to be better Christians when living within the context of a discipleship and context. When our religion becomes private, we hide from ourselves and that which needs to be brought into the light. The path of holiness can only be walked in the and the light with others. There are 2 “gotchas” with this. The first is the whole discipleship and accountability piece. When the world looks at us and judges us, it’s because we’re doing a pretty poor job. The other is found in our passages in Deuteronomy and Acts.

    “…we manifest our love by doing good unto all men, especially to them that are of the household of faith.” Read that again. The orphans and widows, those left alone, are our responsibility to love and care for. Is there a “reasonable” limit? Maybe, though God’s grace poured out on the cross puts a lot of doubt on that. We could be Ebeneezer Scrooge and talk about our taxes, work programs, welfare, etc., but while that may be subsistence, it isn’t True . We think it is hard today, because “so many” people take advantage of the system. Yet, in John Wesley’s day, there were more disadvantaged, fewer programs, and a lot less money going to it.

    As we look at our fellow beings, we cannot allow ourselves to be deceived by those who use our hearts for their gain. This is the sad reality of politics (all parties) and the media (bad news sells). In fact, we are seeing fatigue of all sorts set in. This allows us to harden our hearts. All is never lost, however. As the world becomes fatigued, this is our opportunity to once again be the light that we are called to be. We are not called to make a big splash, nor are we all called to the same thing. We are all called to love each other.

    1) Have you found yourself becoming callous or even adversarial to others in the current political and social climate?

    2) Do you find that you identify more with a political party or social view more than Jesus? Are you allowing politics or culture to define what it means for you to follow Jesus?

    3) Why do you think social holiness (e.g., Sunday service, Life Groups, ) is needed for us to love one another?

  • Struggling in Unity

    John 17:20–23, Philippians 1:27–28

    E Pluribus Unum.

    If you look at US currency, most (if not all) will have this saying. In Latin, it means “Out of many, one.” While the US might be the gathering place of people of many nations, it is the church that should be living out this saying more than any entity in Creation.

    prayed that we (all the church, in all the world, in all of time) would be one, just as he (Jesus) and the Father are one. This is one of those areas of mystery and for the people who make up the church. Our theology and teach us that God is One. Our theology and tradition also teach us that as One, God is still (at the same time) Father, Son, and . In purpose and intent, the Father, Son, and Holy are One. However, they are also separate (the great conundrum of the ), which should be kind of like us.

    United in intent and love, and at the same time. As we can see, it hasn’t worked so well in the United States. It certainly could be worse. It certainly could be better. Jesus doesn’t give us the excuse of, “it’s a republic.” We are to be united (a perfect single unit) so that the world knows that Jesus is the Messiah. This is not so the world knows we are Christians or good people, or we’re “saved”. is the testimony that Jesus is who he says he is.
    Paul takes unity and puts it as a symbol of trusting in the Gospel. In other words, Paul is saying, “you’re preaching it, but do you believe it?”

    The church in general and even Generations Community Church has a problem with unity. Unity is hard work. Unity is never about our-self, it is about all of us…together.

    Whether you struggle with being united with an “opposing” political party, a different skin color, a different language, a different nationality, a different sexuality (or lack thereof), we are called to be united. We have seen denominations start the long and painful road to separation. Church history is filled with splits. Even positives, like the Church of the Nazarene (which united different churches), are outweighed by splits.

    It may seem abrupt to tie this in, but evangelism as a practice is in decline. Evangelism, not sharing the . Yes, there is a huge difference. Evangelism is often a whip. Sharing the faith isn’t. Unity is the example the world needs. Unity shows the world who Jesus is. Unity shows the world we believe what we say.

    1) Have you ever left a church for a reason other than moving? If so, why?

    2) What are you doing in this church framily to build unity?

    3) One of the biggest struggles in unity is speaking in love. To whom do you need to speak truth?

    4) Often the biggest struggle in unity is hearing truth spoken in love. What truths have people shared that you did (and/or do) not listen to?

Devotion.al

Were and Being Sent

Luke 9:1–6, Luke 10:1–16, Luke 22:35–38

This series of passages shows a progression of being sent out. The first passage is ‘ immediate 12 disciples being sent out. Their was to tell about the and to heal people. Pretty simple goals. Difficult mission. This seems to be the test run, for Jesus later sends out 72.

These 72 are told that there are few workers. The 12 didn’t get that “pep-talk”. In both cases, they (whether 12 or 72) are to only preach to those who are open. Jesus tells them to “shake the dust off” if people are not receptive. In our day and where were seek to not offend, this can seem pretty harsh. Yet, often we are called to plant seeds and on so that we can plant more seeds. If you plant one seed, but just stay in one place to make sure it grows, everywhere else you could have gone remain unseeded.

Even still, there is a balance. While they are directed to move from town to town, while they are in one town, they only stay in one place. This is a not-so-subtle reminder that humans play . The latest prophet (or one sent by that prophet) is the latest “star”. Imagine how far too many people would clamor to host them, creating strife in a community where the of God is being preached.

However, the last “sending” has a much darker and starker tone. Now, they are to be fully prepared and even armed. As an aside, many commentators struggle with Jesus telling them to have swords while at the same time being the and (to many) a pacifist. That’s actually what makes this third sending so dark and stark. The reality of the world is that being means that you will be destroyed. Now, there is the pacifist route, the self-defense route, and the armed aggressor route. As we look back at history, there is no question that the armed aggressor “evangelism” is against the Kingdom of God. Where the balance between pacifism and self-defense is a discussion that is still going on to this day.

Regardless, though, we know that the ways and the hows of sharing about the Kingdom of God are always changing. The message does (and must) remain the same, but how we it changes constantly. One of the most common phrases used is, “this is the way we’ve always done it.” While, at the same time, how groceries, tools, gas, cars, and many other things are purchased has massively changed. Modes of communication have expanded. The ability to see across the world in real-time is everywhere. Yet, we want to deliver the message the same way?

1) Where have you been guilty of saying/thinking/feeling “that’s the way we’ve always done it?” What do you think the underlying emotions are?

2) Tossing the old just for the new can be just as bad. How can the old inform the past, and how can the new transform the past?

3) All too often we operate as if it is old versus new. How can we operate old and new?