Tag: baptism

Good Gone Bad

Mark 12:1–17; Matthew 10:5–7; Matthew 17:24–27

Within the context of Jesus’ earthly ministry, the primacy of the remnants of the Israelites cannot be denied. Jesus calls them the “lost sheep”. Their place is significant to God, for they are even called by God’s name (2 Chronicles 7:14).

The tragedy of it all is that while they are still children of God, Jesus identifies them as strangers (or foreigners) to God. We might use the word estranged.

Gentiles were truly foreigners to God, insofar as God did not choose them to bear the name of God. Due to choices and behaviors, it came to the point that the Jews were such, too.

What’s interesting is the Temple Tax. It was a tax from Exodus 30:11–16. Every man of the age of 20 or over was obliged to pay it annually. It was also called the “atonement” tax. It was used to take care of the tent of meeting (later the Temple). Its spiritual purpose was to remind the Israelites that their lives needed to be atoned for.

What is also interesting is the backdoor way Jesus was asked…using Peter. There is also the assumption that Jesus hadn’t paid it, or that they watched Jesus so closely that they knew he hadn’t yet paid it. Either presupposition leads to interesting conclusions. However, it is Jesus’ response about strangers and sons that should catch our attention.

Some commentators infer that Jesus paid the Temple Tax to fulfill all righteousness (tying language to the baptism of Jesus). Jesus, however, doesn’t seem to have that same understanding. He sounds more condescending (“just to not offend”), though it is more likely a battle that is not worth fighting, and it’s a simple barrier.

Jesus’ response might imply that the tax was out of date. In Exodus, the tax seems tied specifically to the Tent of Meeting. So, once the Tent of Meeting was done with (i.e., the Temple was built), the tax was done with.

This reminds me of the Maple Street Bridge in Spokane, WA. When it was built, there was a toll booth. The promise was that the booth would be removed when the bridge was paid for. It was. In comparison, other public toll bridges that I’m familiar with still have tolls, and those tolls are tossed into the public fund, not the bridge operating fund.

This is not to pick on them, but to show that we have similar examples in our lives. The tolls, no longer needed for their original purpose, are now moved to other “needs”. The same about the Temple Tax perhaps. The implication is pretty strong, though, as this ties into Jesus’ declaration about the Temple Courts being a den of robbers (Matthew 21:13).

※Prayer※

Jesus, cleanse us of anything we hold onto as good that has become bad in our lives. Amen.

2020-10-20
Salvation Balance

Matthew 16:13–17; Romans 10:6–14

In the US, individuality is all the rage, and it has been since at least 4 July 1776. Individuality is not a bad thing, automatically. While there are many aspects to our faith that are indeed communal (and must remain that way), there are others that are certainly individual.

The most significant aspect is our salvation. US Evangelistic Christendom created almost a creed out it, “Do you know Jesus Christ as your personal savior?” It certainly isn’t a bad question.

One of things it opposes, however, is a longer running tradition of the church with is infant and child baptism. Infant and child baptism generally falls under the rubric of collective salvation. This is not to say it is invalid, quite the contrary. It is just a perspective that is different. Sadly, though, it was definitely a tactic use to divide certain traditions (Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist) from others (Baptist, Pentecostal, and non-denominational).

However, once a person is able to discern right from wrong all traditions recognize that salvation has become individual. Whether by baptism or by confirmation, there is some recognition of the individual’s acceptance of Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

There is a danger, though, in regard to individual salvation. The danger is a mental one. Many people can get to the point of intellectual assent. Others can get to the point of emotional assent.

It is not to say that only having one means that you are not saved, for God works through all aspects of our personalities and can redeem them. It is to say that is only through both intellect and emotional that we “…may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the length and width, height and depth of God’s love, and to know Christ’s love that surpasses knowledge…” (Ephesians 3:18–19, CSB)

※Questions※

1) Is it easier for you to intellectually understand God, or emotionally? Why do you think that is? Where else in your life do you see that?

2) Why do you think intellect and heart are needed in our relationship with God?

3) How might a person maintain balance between intellect and emotion? What practices do you have to do so?

※Prayer※

Jesus, to know you is to know God. May the knowledge of hearts be equal to the knowledge of our minds when it comes to relationship with you. Amen.

2020-10-16
Graveside Dancing

Psalm 30; Hosea 13:4–14

Yesterday was the birthday of my stepfather. He passed away years ago. For whatever reason, this year his birthday hit me kind of hard. He and I had our good moments. We had our bad moments. Just like any parent-child relationship. I was his only child.

At his burial, the priest spoke about his baptism sealing him to Jesus Christ. This was spoken pastorally to people grieving. However, scripturally it has some weaknesses. His life, and to my knowledge, and beliefs were not of Jesus Christ.

On his death bed, my wife shared the Good News of Jesus Christ. He was in a “non-responsive” state. Yet, she felt a physical response to the invitation to accept Jesus Christ as his Savior. Only in Heaven will I learn if the baptism was “sealing” as the priest said, or whether the physical response truly was an acceptance of Jesus. I can only hope and trust in God.

Why share the angst? “I cried to you for help, and you healed me.” In our pain and sorrow, God is there to “turn [our] lament in dancing”. Joy in Christ in the midst of the pains of life is the life we are called to.

In lament and pain, it is easy for our faith in God to be shaken, while at the same time relying more firmly on God will help us through the pain.

There are many kinds of loss. The verses of Hosea summarize loss. The people lost (walked away from) God. They had experienced blessing, then they lost it. The vision of loss sounds brutal. Think of it though from God’s anguished heart.

“…like a bear robbed of her cubs.” Have you seen a momma bear (or many human mothers) separated from their children, with the feeling that the kids are threatened? I’ve seen a recorded version of one and lived the other. Don’t be the one that separates momma from the cubs. Just don’t.

THAT’S GOD! Something is between momma (God) and the cubs (the children of God)! That is just not going to go well! It could be a kingdom that has the name Israel or Judah attached to it.

THAT is the concept of ransom and redemption. Death and Sheol are not going to be forgiven for taking away the Children of God. The exact mechanism (despite a whole lot of theologians arguing over it for centuries) is unknown. All we know is that heart of God wants to turn our lament into dancing and our sorrow into joy.

※Questions※

1) What’s do you think about dancing at the death of death?

2) As Christians, why does death still frighten us? If we truly believe that a fellow Christian is in Heaven, why do we grieve?

3) “Deathbed Conversions” will continue to decrease, as too many don’t know the basics of Jesus. How will you turn regular conversations into God conversations?

※Prayer※

Father, thank you for redeeming us from death through the death and resurrection of your Son. May the Holy Spirit guide our hearts to speak the words of Christ to the world. Amen.

2020-10-03
Disciple, Baptize, Teach

Matthew 28:16–20; 1 Corinthians 1:14–25

One of the measurements of a church’s growth is the annual number of baptisms. If we were to review the church’s (and, by this, generally all American churches), the percentage is not particularly great. It certainly does not meet the so-called New Testament numbers.

A lot has changed over the years. In certain traditions, infants are brought to be baptized into the life of the church. While the Church of the Nazarene generally dedicates infants, functionally it often ends up being the same.

Is baptism a good measurement? Yes…and no. Baptism does not a disciple make. It would be nice if it were that easy.

There is probably a reason why the order is disciple, baptize, teach. The two primary modern pathways are baptize/teach and teach/baptize. Discipleship seems to not be part of the primary paths.

Yes, the word disciple is used a lot. The actually living as a disciple seems to be lacking. But, you say, we have a discipleship class or book or…really, something that teaches.

The evidence of a lack of discipleship is all around us. Look at our culture. Look at our news. Look at our sports.

Paul’s words somewhat feed into that. He states that he was not sent to baptize, but to preach. Now we often immediately equate preach to teach (not just because it rhymes). Paul seems to separate that.

Especially in the apologetic intellectual Christianity of today, preaching is often used as teaching. Paul calls his preaching foolishness. Paul’s foolishness wouldn’t seem to be the same as today’s preaching.

It might even mean that the wise, the teacher of the law, the debater of the age might very well be the church and its practices. This is not to tear down the church, but to examine it. This is meant to examine us.

Jesus, you commanded your disciples to make disciples. Help us to do our part. Amen.

1) What is discipleship? What does a disciple look like?

2) What is the difference between being a disciple and being taught?

3) Do you think Jesus meant the three (disciple, baptize, teach) in a particular order or to actually separate them? Or do you think Jesus had something else in mind? If so, what?

2020-08-27
Seashell Summer

Matthew 3:1–13; Mark 10:35–40; John 13:1–11; 1 Peter 3:18–22 (read online ⧉)

What is one thing you think of when it comes to Summer? How about a Summer trip or vacation? Today is the first day of Summer. Today is also National Seashell Day, in honor of trips to the ocean being the summer trip that many people take.

For those of us more familiar with coastal life, the sea may not represent the most interesting thing. For many, it is a place of recovery and peace. For others, it is a place of power and majesty (there really is nothing like a storm on the Pacific coast). For others still, it is a place of family and fun. Then for others, it represents the most dreaded time of all, concentrated time with family.

The seashell actually has a place in the Christian world, too. If you are familiar with Lutheran, Episcopal/Anglican, and Roman Catholic baptism traditions, it is not uncommon for the priest to pour water over an infant 3 times using a seashell invoking, “In the name of the Father (pour 1), and in the Son (pour 2), and in the Holy Spirit (pour 3).”

Where and how the seashell (in particular the Scallop seashell) was tied to baptism is tied to 2 men. The first would be St James the Greater who supposedly used the seashell to beg for alms on his pilgrimage, allowing even the poorest person to feel generous and able to give. How this exactly would have gotten tied to baptism is a mystery, so is unlikely.

The other likely avenue is St. Augustine, who had a vision of a boy trying to empty the sea with a seashell. After suggesting the boy why of this pointless activity, the boy retorted why are you trying to comprehend the entirety of the mystery of the Trinity. This as some greater weight, tying in water, pouring of water, and the Trinity. Still, someone would have had to make a huge leap.

There is another theory that John the Baptist used such to “aid” in baptism. However, one of our Jewish friends made a valid point that John would not have used an “unclean” (or non-Kosher) item to do such. Of the 3, the tie to Augustine makes the most sense.

However, there appear to be mosaics and frescos that predate Augustine that still have the seashell. Take your favorite theory and it’s fine. Just note that using a seashell for baptism is not mentioned in the Bible, so it is neither necessary nor forbidden.

The methods of performing baptism (immersion once, immersion thrice, pouring, drawing the cross, infant, child, confessing, adult) have long been an issue in the church. It is one well worth wrestling over for it is a command of Jesus. Yet, seashells are a weird non-sequitur, and there may be others you can think of. Such traditions and symbols can be valuable, but only if used and explained.

While denominations have been formed over methods and timing of baptism, none of them deny the significance of baptism. Wesleyans (such as the Church of the Nazarene, of which Generations is a part) believe that baptism is an outward sign (public profession) of inner faith. Other traditions hold that baptism is the act by which a person (particularly a child) is irrevocably sealed to the family of God. There are myriads of understandings.

What isn’t up for debate is whether one should be baptized. The symbolism of death and resurrection. The public profession of faith. The commandment of Jesus. All are part of the Christian journey and life.

One thing to leave you with. The tradition (inherited from the Jews) is baptism in “living” water. If you do make a trip to the sea or rivers, take some time with God and remember your baptism.

2020-06-20
3 is 1 and 1 is 3

Deuteronomy 6:4–5; Matthew 3:13–17; Matthew 28:16–20; 1 Peter 1:1–2 (read online ⧉)

This is one of those odd “Liturgical” Sundays in the Christian year. It set aside to specifically observe the creedal declaration of and faith in the Trinity. We have Sundays set aside for Advent, Lent, Christmas, Easter, Pentecost. These are event-based. It’s not that they don’t have doctrinal pieces in them; their beginning is based upon an event.

There is an additional oddity, especially for people who call the Bible the Word of God…Trinity appears nowhere, at least not as an explicit term. That’s also what makes this Sunday interesting. A foundational theological basis for orthodox Christianity is not found explicitly in the Bible, yet is one of the key doctrines upon which orthodoxy is defined (i.e., Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses being non-Trinitarian believers).

One of the biggest things that the Trinity teaches us by its very example is that not everything can be explained by science or even a sound rationalization of the faith. The Trinity can only be believed (ultimately) by faith. The concept that God (the Father) is God, Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God, while, God (the Father) is neither Jesus nor the Holy Spirit, Jesus is neither the Holy Spirit nor God (the Father), and the Holy Spirit is not God (the Father) nor Jesus (An aside: even writing that sentence, which is a simplified excerpt of the Athanasian Creed, hurt my head a bit).

The beauty of the Trinity is that by the above (for example), we are automatically brought into the realm of knowing that we can not fully understand God. Which is good. When we think we fully understand God, we are in deep danger of having made our own god who is not God.

While the Trinity does not expressly as a word in the Scriptures, that does not mean it is not present. We need to start with the beginning, though. God is one. One of the biggest dangers with the Trinity is that the confusion that we are talking about 3 gods, rather than 1 God.

In the Gospels, Matthew has the 2 best almost explicit statements regarding the Trinity. With Jesus’ baptism, Jesus is baptized, “laid upon” by the Holy Spirit, and blessed (and proclaimed) by God (the Father). All 3 persons of the Trinity are present and noted as being present (rather than in other places where they can be assumed to be present).

In many respects, however, it is Jesus’ Commission of the Disciples (now Apostles) to baptize in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that there is an expression of the doctrine and persons of the Trinity (yet, still no word “Trinity”).

While this is so, there is something critically important in Peter’s letter. Peter all but declares the Trinity in his opening. There are several reasons this is important. First, it’s Peter. His place as one of Jesus’ core disciples, and his place as commissioned leader of the church (by Jesus) makes his words critically important to our understanding of the church.

Before the “doctrine” was declared, before the Athanasian Creed was written, before the understood writing of the Gospels, Peter brought the Trinity to the church.

In lieu of prayer or questions, and in honor of the tradition in more “liturgical” churches to speak it on Trinity Sunday, below is the Athanasian Creed.
※Athanasian Creed※

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic[1] Faith. Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance.

For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.

As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible.

So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord.

And yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity, to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion, to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords.

The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten.

The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. Likewise also the Holy Spirit is of the Father, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons, one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other, none is greater, or less than another; But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together, and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds, and Man, of the Substance of his Mother, born in the world; perfect God, and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting; equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead, and inferior to the Father, as touching his Manhood.

Who although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ; one; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God; one altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven; He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

2020-06-07
Long Trust

Psalm 25:1-10, Genesis 9:8–17, 1 Peter 3:18–22, Mark 1:9–15 (read online ⧉)

Trusting God, and placing your trust in God, is a major theme of Scripture. Trusting of God is not always obvious in what we read. Scripture doesn’t tell us much about the time between God’s call on Noah (build the ark), and the moment Noah stepped foot on the ark with the rain falling. Noah may not have been the only believer in God, but God had singled him out beyond all others. What does Noah get for being singled out? A 100-year building project.

Many people have a long term project sitting around. Sometimes it is a car sitting in the garage that has been worked on (or not) over the years, and perhaps even been moved when moving houses. It could be that project house that never quite finishes. Imagine Noah’s wife and this project. Her patience, along with Noah’s, must have been tried many times over the years with this building project. Noah’s trust in God would have had to carry him, and probably his entire family, through this building project.

Peter talks about the patience of God during the 100 years of building and the time during the flood. Yet it isn’t just God’s patience, but Noah’s trust as well. Noah’s trust lasted a long time. Peter’s point is that when we are baptized, we are trusting that through putting our faith in Jesus, we will be Heaven with him one day, and that he saves us not just at that point in time, but continually. Jesus himself shows his trust in God as the story in Mark shows. After his baptism, Jesus trusts God in the desert by relying on God for sustenance.

1) If we look at these 3 people—Noah, Peter, Jesus—in the bible, we can question our trust. Do we trust God as much as they did?

2) When have you found yourself not trusting God? What were you putting your trust in at that time?

3) Have you ever experienced a time that you trusted God, and were called crazy or immature for trusting God?

2020-03-01
Anointed, Ordained, and Consecrated

Exodus 28:39–43, 1 Peter 2:4–5, 1 Corinthians 12:27–30, Revelation 5:9–10 (read online ⧉)

In the Protestant tradition, of which we are a part*, there has long been a stance about the Priesthood of All Believers. The primary principle is that Jesus is the ultimate and eternal priest, so there is no longer a need for a mediator between humanity and God. In theology and on paper it sounds great, but in general, we don’t seem to do well with it. There are some Christian traditions that have managed it through the years, but they are few and far between.

Most of this has to do with the human need for organization and administration. Contrary to many people’s thinking, that isn’t a bad thing. If you were to read the Creation account in Genesis, you would see an organized and hierarchal pattern (and that isn’t just humanity’s place).

Despite a long-standing tradition of the Priesthood of All Believers in almost all Protestant traditions (yes, there is an exception), theologically and organizationally we don’t believe or function wholly that way. We read in 1 Corinthians that organizational roles were essentially spiritualized, so we certainly are not outside of the Scriptures.

Without question, there is a tension, and it is a tension well worth thinking on. We call on pastors to teach and guide us. The role of elder in our church is more part of a decision-making body than spiritual leadership (Note: this is observation, not a commentary. They do hard work.). These aren’t the only roles in the church. Each of us has a role to play. The big issue is when we pawn our role onto another since they have a “role” and we don’t. Except we do.

There is a lot of creative liberty in the following, yet sometimes it’s necessary to breakdown our thought processes.
Moses is the “true” mediator in this story, yet he will leave (die) and the practice will remain.

Step 1: Anoint
We generally practice this in times of healing. However, if we look at it in more general terms, baptism could be a form of anointing. Yes, it’s different. On the other hand, it too is a physical sign of something that a person is participating in and allowing. You have been baptized (if not, talk to someone about that) into the family of God.

Step 2: Ordain
This is a little trickier, as we have a certain traditional understanding of “ordain”. In Hebrew, מָלֵא (maleʾ, malaʾ /maw·lay/) is more often translated as fill or fulfill. Sounds a bit like the Holy Spirit filling up the disciples on Pentecost, and what is supposed to be inside every person who claims Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

Step 3: Consecrate
This is the easiest, as it means set apart. Sounds similar to the list in 1 Corinthians. We each have been set apart for our role to fulfill the Great Commission as a member of the body of Christ, the Church.

1) Everyone has a role in the Priesthood of All Believers. What is yours? If you believe you don’t have one, seek the guidance of other believers, friends, and family. Everyone has a role, and spectator isn’t one of them.

2) People often believe they have no place to belong (whether at home, church, work, school, etc.). When we fulfill our roles, we often find our place to belong. Why do people, then, seem to want to put their role onto others?

3) Why might it be important to think of yourself as anointed, ordained, and consecrated?

*as Generations Community Church, part of the Church of the Nazarene

2020-01-15
Why of Baptism

John 1:19–28, John 3:22–28, Acts 19:1–7 (read online ⧉)

Baptism holds a central place in the Christian church from its very beginning. The only other act that is of equal or perhaps greater importance is the Eucharist (i.e., Communion). Today, it is the ceremony/event by which people are welcomed into the church universal. Over the generations, when and how it is performed changes. The underlying truth of it, however, has not changed.

John’s “Baptism of Repentance” was in the spirit of what was already occurring. Baptism (in different forms) was performed after a vow was completed or could be seen in ritual cleansing that the Jews practiced. The general practice and theology of the larger Christian church (of which Generations Community Church, and its denomination the Church of the Nazarene, is a part) is that we baptize once. This baptism is a sign of a repentant heart and that the person seeks to join (and does so by being baptized) the Body of Christ. The transformation from cleansing and repentance (John the Baptist’s baptism and Jewish practice) to re-birth and a new family was probably unexpected. We cannot forget we know “the end of the story,” meaning we cannot put our understanding on those that came before.

The interesting thing is that what John’s baptism meant was even in question when he was alive. Apparently, there was an argument over John’s baptism and purification (probably related to the vows and ritual cleansing already mentioned). John wasn’t worried about any of that. His concern was making way for the Messiah. His disciples were the ones having a (perhaps pointless) argument with a fellow Jew. Even as we look at this part of the story in wonder, how baptism works (and doesn’t) and changes people (and doesn’t) is still a point of contention for some. Like many things of God, we wonder (and develop complicated theology) about how it works. The point is that it works because God said so.

It does make it more curious as we get to Paul and the people of Ephesus. Somehow the story and redemption of Christ made it to them, but not then entirety. How the baptism that Paul performed (granted, in the name of Jesus) differed from the so-called “John’s baptism” is another mystery. Many great answers could be given. However, it is the result of this baptism that can cause a little heartburn in many of today’s Christians, and that is the gifts of the Holy Spirit that manifested (tongues and prophesying). There are certain traditions that state that a baptism is only valid if some sort of manifestation occurs. If so, that means there are many baptisms that are invalid (which is their point).

The true evidence of baptism is the act itself. If a person is willing to publicly confess that Jesus is their Lord and Savior, saving them from their sin and that Jesus is the Son of God, who with the Father and the Holy Spirit as God, then the church confesses that this baptism is true.

The one thing that perhaps the church at large has lost is the remembrance of baptism. Something that is pivotal in the life of a believer (even if, perhaps especially, it happened as an infant). While a person may only be baptized once, we are all called to remember ours.

1) Who “created” baptism? Why is that important?

2) Do you do anything to remember your baptism? Why or why not?

3) When you have witnessed a baptism of another, which one was the most powerful to you? Why?

2020-01-11
Synaxis of John the Baptist

John 1:24-34, John 3:27–30 (read online ⧉)

John the Baptist is one of those interesting characters of Scripture. He wore camel hair and ate locust-honey “cakes”. He called everyone to repent. People came from miles around to see him, and many were baptized by him. He was definitely a famous person.

Was it the show, or were there really seeking and repentant hearts? The answer is yes. For many, it was the show. For others it what a form of seeking that was different than the weight of the Law that many carried.
What about John, though?

He was drawing crowds. He could have been something more than just a guy in the wilderness. Yet, he chose the Jordan river as the home of his ministry. He chose the untamed wilderness to call people to repentance. It wasn’t like he couldn’t have done something more. Yet, as his disciples questioned (basically) why he didn’t “stand up” to Jesus for taking “his” followers away, we see the heart of John. It wasn’t for himself. It was for God.

It was for Jesus! It’s so easy for us to look back and say that obviously John did that for Jesus. Yet, we look around us at famous people (politicians, company executives, entertainers, even pastors), and when push really came to shove would they dump it all for Jesus? We’d think it would be easy for pastors. They are human, too. Success is attractive, and pastors want to be successful, too.

John’s humility, though, was significant. Israel’s redemption was indeed the goal. His ministry was a stepping stone, and even Jesus noted that John’s ministry of repentant baptism was necessary to fulfill all righteousness.

1) Where have you been successful in life? If you are in a place of success now, how sure would you be to drop it all if Jesus were to call on you to do that?

2) How was John’s ministry not successful? How was John’s ministry successful?

3) What is the difference between worldy success and Godly success (if there is any)? If they are different, how do you define success for yourself, family members, or the church?

2020-01-07