We'd appreciate you allowing the use of cookies. They are anonymized while allowing us to see how the site is used.

Devotion.al

Tag: assume

  • Child Identified

    Exodus 3:1–12, 1 John 2:28–29, 1 John 4:7 (read online ⧉)

    Moses was not a shining example of humanity. He was…human. He had a temper. He certainly had a confused identity. He was a child of the court of Egypt. How he fit (or didn’t ) into the courts of the Pharoahs is an unknown. A Pharoah’s daughter pulled him from the Nile, knowing he was a Hebrew. Then she gave him to a Hebrew to be a nurse. We don’t know anything that really occurred in his life from his assigning to a Hebrew nursemaid to the day he killed an Egyptian overseer. We can reasonably assume that Moses dealt with two identities, one as an adopted child of the Pharoahic court, and one the blood child of a Hebrew. Moses was, in many respects, destined to be forever confused and torn by his two identities. This is much the same with us. We have our human earthly identity, and we have our heavenly identity. We often become confused between them.

    John writes, “ Everyone who does what is right, has been born of him.” Most of us look at these words and ask, “What about me?” We see them in the light of our own weaknesses and failures. With that perspective, it’s hard for the words to bring us comfort. Knowing to whom John was writing (people he loved, cared for, and wanted the best for), we can be assured that it wasn’t his goal. Our identity in Jesus Christ is something far different than our identity on earth. It is to that identity that John writes. That identity has done what is right and has been born of him.

    When John speaks later about everyone born of God loves, we are again tied back to the one of whom we are born…Jesus Christ. So much of who we are is our identity. Some of our identity is nothing we can control (i.e., family of origin, birth nation, native tongue, etc.). Other things we can identify with. Hopefully, you have chosen—at this point—to identify as a Child of God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Holding onto and affirming this identity is what creates the space in our hearts and lives to be right and (Godly) loving.

    Moses, like us, had two identities, Hebrew and of Pharaoh. In many respects, both are earthly identities prone to failures and flaws. Yet, Moses did choose to be a Hebrew. Then he accepted (granted, somewhat grudgingly) the prophetic leadership of a people taking them from earthly nation to Godly nation. Moses made mistakes before and during the journey. The Hebrews made plenty of their own mistakes. Despite all of that, however, God still identified them as his chosen people.

    1) What do you see as your earthly identities? How do they coexist, and how do they conflict?

    2) While God calls us his children, why do we tend to undermine that identity by identifying with our failures, mistakes, and tendencies?

    3) Say out loud, “I am a loved child of God.” What was your emotional and physical reaction to that? Why do you think that is?

  • How To Win

    Matthew 19:16–21, Matthew 21:28–32, Luke 13:22–30

    What must I do to win? In many respects, that question is the underlying thought in all 3 of these Gospel stories. The admiration of the rich and leaders is no new thing. Often people look at others and wonder, how do I get where they are? Often this is confused with envy or greed, however, there is also the human desire to win. Over the years academics and sociologists, recognizing this, champion a change of language, especially in children’s sports, “everyone’s a winner!” What ended up happening, though, was this became an empty thing. What academics and sociologists may have recognized but didn’t communicate wasn’t that the “participation trophy” made the child a winner, it was the people around them, especially their family. A lot of the kids who play sports are not winners as far as a championship, but leadership, exercise, teamwork? That’s a different story.

    Think of an American football team. There are a number of teams who just are not good this year. Yet, most of the athletes get up and go to work, and come back to play the game, and they don’t dwell on the last game lost. They look at the game to come. No matter how bad the team may be, there is one rule in sports, never assume you’re going to win or lose. In some ways, athletes take the narrow road. For them, taking the narrow road is what matters.

    In each of these stories, it is not just what do I have to do to win, it is also what is the least I have to do to win. That is certainly the point of the third story. Jesus’ response is more along the lines of, “you’re asking the wrong question. It’s not what I do; it’s who I love.” We cannot earn our way to salvation. Salvation was already won. Our response cannot be what must I do to earn it. Nor can our response be, what can I avoid doing in response to it.

    1) What does it look like to win for you? How would you or another know you won?

    2) If you had to earn your salvation, how far would you go? At what point would you think, it’s not worth it?

    3) What does it look like to lose for you? How would you respond to losing?

  • No Face Value

    Genesis 20:1–18, 1 Samuel 16:7, Proverbs 21:2, Romans 1: 18–25

    When you look at someone, can you tell they are a Christian? If you can, there are a few reasons why: (1) Pride…yours for God knows and weighs the heart; (2) Their life and spirit show Jesus; (3) is there a 3rd one?

    In the Scriptures, we are cautioned to not assume that a person is right with God. Abraham made that mistake and almost caused a man to commit adultery who was innocent. Abraham assumed Abimelech did not fear God. Abraham may have been right when it came to the surface. However, Abimelech listened to God.

    As a tradition, Christians have taken affirmations of faith at face value, for the very reason that we do not know the heart. Paul does note in 1 Corinthians 12:3, that no one can say that Jesus is Lord without it being of the Holy Spirit. However, in Romans 10:9, Paul also says that we are only saved if we believe in our hearts. One is an outward statement, and the Holy Spirit goes before all. The other is an inward statement that can only be between a person and God.

    There is a lot of finger-pointing in the world, and some of it involves avowed Christians (i.e., people who say they are Christians and/or follow Jesus Christ) pointing at other avowed Christians, and accusing them of apostasy (i.e., false teaching and/or walking away from the faith) or not being Christian. If we take the Scriptures seriously, then accusing another of not being a Christian because they don’t agree with us on certain issues (especially non-salvation issues) is not in line with what the Scriptures say becomes a very dangerous road to walk.

    1) Have you ever accused (whether out loud or in your mind) another person of not being a Christian, when they state they are one?

    2) What are some good ways to engage other Christians regarding important topics on which we disagree?

    3) When should disagreements be brought up, and when should they be left alone?

  • Lamb Expectations

    Numbers 27:15–17, John 10:1–16, Luke 10:1–12

    Shepherds have long held a presence in the story of Israel. Sheep were part of Abraham’s, Isaac’s, and Jacob’s, and the 12 patriarchs’ lives. Moses, too, was a shepherd. Therefore, it is not a surprise that he talks about the people of Israel needing a shepherd. And, after being “bitten” by them numerous times, he probably thought they acted like sheep. Moses even goes and uses shepherding language (go and come back) to describe his successor.

    Goes and comes back terminology is used by Jesus, too, as he calls himself the shepherd. Jesus goes further and says that his sheep will know his voice, and run from the voice of a stranger. What’s really interesting is that John then makes an aside and calls it a figure of speech. As John was writing much later, one can safely assume that John saw many “running” away from Jesus, who had once proclaimed to follow Jesus. Thus he saw Jesus’ words more figural because the sheep sure didn’t seem to be listening.

    When taking all the sheep and shepherding imagery together, it becomes a little more obvious that when Jesus sends out the 72, his expectations are not high. He calls them lambs. This means that they are innocent. In many respects, lambs are innocent even of what it means to be a sheep. The innocent lamb being sent out has no protection in the herd, meaning that the threat of wolves is even more significant. This lamb has no protection (money, food, clothing, weapon).

    The other part of being called lambs, especially in the light of the shepherd, is that they are his little lambs of his little flock. Someday, they grow up to be big sheep. As big sheep, they will lead, guide, and teach the new lambs what it means to be sheep, and who the shepherd is, who the shepherd isn’t, all while the shepherd isn’t present.

    1) Who are the lambs in the church (don’t jump to just the easy answers!)?

    2) Who are the “big sheep” in the church (again, don’t jump to just the easy answers!)?

    3) How do you, we, the church teach who the shepherd is? Can you think of new ways? What about old ways no longer used?

  • Everyday Morality

    2 Peter 3:8–15, 2 Corinthians 5:16–21

    Being human is not particularly easy. Our ability to think abstractly is a great gift. It is also a curse. With the ability to think abstractly, we also have gained a “higher” form of thinking…morality. From the Old Testament to Greek and Roman philosophers to the New Testament to today, morality is a reality. Many times political rhetoric is framed within a moral argument. Some times business and legal arguments are framed in moral terms. There appears to be an unconscious acknowledgment (for those who don’t consciously acknowledge it) that morals are a sure underpinning of existence.

    Peter is not addressing the philosophical end of things, but the day-to-day practical. Morality underlies your very existence. When Peter uses the imagery of the Day of God as a thief in the night, it isn’t that of a criminal, but that of one who will not be announced. If your morality is aligned with God, all is well. Granted, Peter didn’t assume we all lived Godly morality at all times, for if that were the case, he wouldn’t have provided such a warning. In the warning, there is still hope for all those who do not live out the Christian life perfectly (i.e., everyone), “…make every effort…” How is that hopeful? Simple. The effort is the evidence of a heart turned toward God.

    This would be in contrast to those who live one way on Sunday, and another way the other 6 days of the week (especially, the “work” week). A number of years ago, there was a huge energy company. The board of this energy company would vote to suspend its bylaws and/or code of ethics, vote for something that violated it, then vote to resume the code of ethics. They called themselves ethical. They never “violated” their code of ethics, because they were “suspended” during the unethical votes. That is a small (disgusting and sad) example of not making every effort.

    The underlying reality of morality also directly affects the calling on our lives to be ambassadors for Christ. “Be reconciled to God.” If our morality is suspect, then how could our reconciliation be trusted. One of the first things a negotiator (especially true with police negotiators) is to build rapport with the other person. Then, and only then, do they begin to build trust. If one’s morality is in question, trust is hard (if not impossible) to build. If we, as Ambassadors, are seen as immoral (or amoral), then why would they trust us when we speak the grace of the Gospel?

    Make every effort to be reconciled to God, for then you are able to help others be reconciled to God.

    1) Morality and integrity are often used interchangeably. What is the difference? Why does it matter?

    2) Why is understanding the difference between human morality and God’s morality important? Why is understanding the difference between church morality and God’s morality important?

    3) When do you not make every effort to live life for God?

  • Nourishing

    Exodus 16:13–36, John 6:29–41

    Who’s On First? was a comedy routine honed and made famous by the comedy team of Abbot and Costello. It is a masterful—and frustrating—play on words.

    Mana ≈ What is it?

    How would you like your food—for 40 years, no less—to be named, “what is it?” Imagine teaching a child the language, and how confused the poor child would be when they asked, “what is it?” And the answer was, “exactly” or “yes”.

    “What is it?” was a daily food for 40 years. It behaved differently than normal food. 6 days a week it appeared, and on 1 of those days you gathered twice more than you did on the other five days, and it lasted for 2 days, even though that which was gathered on other days rotted. “What is it?” is both a great question and a great answer.

    “What is it” was the nourishment of God. It was a daily reminder that they were daily dependent upon God. There was no question that without God’s provision, the Israelites would have been in deep trouble. One would think that after 40 years, especially the children who were raised with it, would have an ingrained understanding and habit that God is the provider. It is reasonable to assume that these same people would not have been self-reliant, independent, or quick to turn away from God. One could make those assumptions. One would be wrong.

    “What is it” wasn’t just a question regarding the food, it was also a philosophical question. “What is it” defined the patterns of the Israelites. In so doing, it placed the Israelites in the context of God. “What is it” defined what it means to eat from the table of God.

    “What is it” also is fitting when it comes to the Bread of Heaven—Jesus. There have been many theological arguments over what exactly is Communion. When we “eat of the body” and “drink of the blood”, is it literal, spiritual, symbolic, mere ritual, a mystery…what is it?

    1) Does “what is it” drive you a little crazy? Do you need to have an answer?

    2) Why is it important to allow “what is it” with our walk with God?

    3) When we think of “manna”, we don’t think of “what is it”. What other little things are we missing when we read the Scriptures?

  • The Other Side of Work

    Psalm 33, Numbers 12, Luke 6:37–42

    The Bible doesn’t say what event or interaction incited Aaron and Miriam to openly oppose Moses. Whether the Cushite woman was Zipporah—who Moses married prior to Israel’s exodus from Egypt—or another woman (Jewish and Christian scholars are unclear) it didn’t really matter (to God, at least). Aaron and Miriam were looking for a cause to sow discord and take the mantle of leadership from Moses. Some scholars believe that by calling Moses humble leadership had been a long-simmering issue, and Moses had kept his mouth shut (publically, at least). The “sudden” interjection by God tells us that something had to happen. God saw that things were going awry.

    As only Miriam received the penalty, we could assume that she was the instigator. One could argue, though, that if Aaron was no longer clean, who would intercede for him. Moses? There is another lesson. Miriam was put outside the camp. The camp waited for her. After she was determined clean, she was brought back into the community.

    Often people will use petty, visual or emotional things to tear another person down. We see it daily in politics. If, for example, the wife of Moses in question was Zipporah, God called Moses after he married her. That should have been an indicator. If there was some other question, then it should have been more specific. Cushites weren’t a banned people. A phrase that we would be familiar with is “a red herring” or “a straw man”.

    While the case against Aaron and Miriam would seem to be rather strong, why tie Jesus’ words regarding judging into this? Often we judge others based on less knowledge and more feeling. We are often told to trust our gut when avoiding things or situations. However, we are still bound to test ourselves to make sure we are not judging others. Judging is a hard word that is often misused. Judging is specific regarding making critical analysis and condemning the person to the penalty (death or excommunication, predominately). Judging is not comparing behavior to scripture, yet one has to be careful in making assumptions regarding the heart, for that is God’s domain.

    1) Have you ever experienced a situation like Moses? What do you think were the motivators in that situation?

    2) In your own words, how would you define discernment and judgment?

    3) Why is understanding discernment and judgment essential to having a fully functional Very Good Life with others?

  • Inherting Legacy

    Genesis 47:18–26, Acts 4:34–5:11

    In the United States, land has long represented freedom, self-reliance, hope, and self-determination (on one hand), slavery, clearances, eviction, theft, and deceit (on the other hand. How can such divergent perspectives be? Well, for many Native Americans the initial immigration of Europeans may have not been a disaster, but what occurred especially after the Civil War (or the War Between the States) was often cruel and morally questionable (at best). For those trying to escape the crowded East Coast and the memories of the recent war and slavery, it was something to seek.

    Even today land is essential. While in the United States the land and the buildings (for example) are part of the value, in places like Japan, the land is the only thing that matter (for cultural reasons). Land has long been a symbol of power. It also is a symbol of life. It can also represent family roots.

    When the people of Egypt sell their land and themselves to Pharoah, they are surrendering their lives and that which allowed them to live. They had surrendered their future, their children’s future, and even their grandchildren’s future. In all likelihood, they sold themselves into bonded servitude to pay off the debt they took on to survive. It isn’t clear how long this servitude was to last. Theoretically, it was until the debt was paid off, however, as both the land and the people were sold, we can assume that it would take a while to pay off the debt. How the land would have been purchased back is something else. It would have been a process and a slow one. One’s only hope would be the dim one that one’s children would be free of the debt.

    With all the comes to mind in these situations, how people viewed themselves, their (lack of) freedom, or their hope (if any), is anyone’s guess. We can conclude that in desperate times that people surrendered their freedom and the one thing (land) that would allow them to continue to be free.

    Land is still pretty important. As we watch property values skyrocket, we are all very much aware of it. As more people move in, rural areas that were once affordable are no longer so. If someone were to just sell their property and give it to the framily (i.e., the church friends and family of Generations Community Church), we would all be grateful, but we would also be a bit confused. If that same person were to sell that property and only give the proceeds to those in need in the church, we would be a bit more understanding, but it would be unusual. This is not a moral judgment, but a recognition of just how strange the First Century Church was. It broke all the traditions.

    Tie this back to culture. The land was the family’s legacy and inheritance. Selling it was done only in desperation. Yet, here we are talking about exactly that. While Barnabas is called out in Acts (yes, Ananias and Sapphira are too), the implication is not that Barnabas’ act was unique, but it does imply that it was a significant sale. One of the differences that we can infer (easily) is that Barnabas did it to take care of his church family, while Ananias and Sapphira did it for acclaim. Both land sales took care of the church family, but the hearts of the sales were completely different.

    1) What relationship, reflections, and feelings do you have in regards to owning land (not necessarily buildings)?

    2) How desperate would you be to sell yourself, your property, and your foreseeable future to someone? How desperate must the Egyptians have been?

    3) What does Barnabas’ action tell you about who he viewed as family? What does that tell you about the First Century Church?