Devotion.al

Tag: assume

  • Everyday Morality

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

    Being 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 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 for all those who do not live out the 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 to God.” If our morality is suspect, then how could our 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 . 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 the 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 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 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 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—. There have been many theological arguments over what exactly is . When we “eat of the body” and “drink of the blood”, is it literal, spiritual, symbolic, mere ritual, a …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 ?

  • 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 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 , 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 .

    Often people will use petty, visual or emotional things to tear another person down. We see it daily in . 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 ‘ words regarding judging into this? Often we judge based on less 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 ( or excommunication, predominately). Judging is not comparing behavior to scripture, yet one has to be careful in making assumptions regarding the , 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 with others?

  • Inherting Legacy

    Genesis 47:18–26, Acts 4:34–5:11

    In the States, land has long represented freedom, self-reliance, , 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 . It also is a symbol of life. It can also represent 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 , 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 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 (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 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’ 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 , 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?