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: identity

  • Relating Relationally

    Genesis 24:1–27, Ruth 2:1–16, 1 Corinthians 7:1–9, Hebrews 11:13–22 (read online ⧉)

    Arranged marriages are nothing new. Many arranged marriages were and are political, financial, or just friends “knowing” their children should be together. The story of Isaac and Rebekah doesn’t quite fall into those lines, but it is still an arranged marriage. Just like any marriage, there were ups and downs, good days and bad. From a generational and legacy standpoint, marriage was a core component. The servant in this story was the one who had to trust and rely on God for the journey to be a success, and to be able to go to his master (Abraham) with his task fulfilled.

    The story of Ruth is considered a success as she was faithful…and landed a husband. By landing a husband, she obtained personal security. She also obtained a legacy for her husband (and by extension, her deceased father-in-law) and her mother-in-law, Naomi. That he was honorable and rich didn’t hurt, of course. In a culture where women were not highly valued, this was a significant win for Ruth and Naomi. For the women, marriage was not just success, it was safety and identity. In the story, too, was trusting God. In this case, it was Ruth (the Moabite foreigner) who trusted and relied on God. Naomi (the Israelite) has lost her trust in God. God’s faithfulness to Ruth, however, did seem to have restored Naomi’s trust.

    In this day and age and culture, we have been spared (generally) the arranged marriages of old, though they still happen. Marriage has long been a mainstay and cultural and societal bedrock for generations, and not just in American or even Western culture, but in most cultures and ages. Yes, there are exceptions. They are few. Whether you view the current changes regarding marriage in the United States as good or bad, it has changed. There is an important reason to understand that, Americans deeply value marriage. That should give hope, but it should also make us cautious. When we raise marriage to such a high level (which we have), people quest and ache for it. Then they will pursue it. Then they will fail. This is not to say that we should not view marriage highly, but that our view of it should not be over that of widows, widowers, and singles. In fact, it is not unreasonable to conclude that much of the failure of marriages are not just unpreparedness, it is also suitableness.

    There often comes a judgemental tendency regarding this in Evangelical Christian circles. This is certainly not exclusive of Evangelical Christianity, as there is a religion that teaches (or at least use to) that a single man over the age of 25 to be a danger to society. Holding up relationships, especially romantic ones, as the panacea of all things is setting up relationships to not be able to bear the weight of expectations. Once relationships become gods, not only does God have no place, but relationships try to make up the lack of God by putting it all into the relationships.

    The other struggle is the one Paul is concerned about, and that is sexual morality. In other words, if you can’t handle your “needs”, then get married. Paul seems to put marriage as below singleness. Think about that for a moment. Paul, often elevated (rightfully) as a “doctor” of the Church, did not necessarily view marriage as anything more than a way to avoid sexual immorality. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for earthly marriage. On the other hand, Paul did say that Christ and the Church were Groom and Bride, so it’s not as if marriage wasn’t useful. Still, it wasn’t a ringing endorsement. Both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches developed monasteries and convents for those called to it. This was an elevation of singleness to the glory of God.

    Those who a single, widowed, or married are to love and value each other equally, not based upon marital status. All statuses have to rely on God for fulfillment, and none are completely fulfilling for anyone, at least not without God. It is trusting God, when we cannot see the path before us, and trusting God when our relational desires are not fulfilled. Relationships fill holes inside each and every one of us.

    1) How do you view people who are in a different relational status than you are? Why? How does that fit into being framily together?

    2) How do you incorporate into your everyday life (i.e., not just at church) those who are in a different relational state than you?

    3) How do Paul’s words (in this passage) feel to you regarding your relational status?

  • 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?

  • Same Change, Different Day

    Galatians 1:21–2:10 (read online ⧉)

    The church often states that the message from God has never changed. That’s not entirely accurate. God’s amazing grace was before all and in all. God’s expression of grace was certainly in multiple forms from Adam to Jacob’s (Israel’s) sons. Through Moses, the message changed from a family group to a nation (we often miss this change). The nation and Law was not something we see as grace, yet it took a nation of slaves and transformed them into God’s chosen people. From there grace transformed them into a powerful nation. From there grace kept their identity as God’s people intact, even when they abandoned God, and ended up in other nations. The message always changed. The Truth did not.

    We Christians look at Jesus and the Gospel as the message that never changed. It is possibly more accurate to say that through Jesus and the Gospel that the message was expressed to its fullest. Yes, that is a nuance. However, that nuance is not small in any way, shape, or form. If it was small, Paul wouldn’t have gone to Jerusalem.

    Jesus’ first followers, and his core followers, were Jews. Everything was from a Jewish perspective. For them, therefore, this was a Jewish thing. It makes perfect sense that many would not be able to separate Jewish practices from their Messiah. Hence we ourselves need to be more grace-filled towards those we read about in the New Testament. Remember, they were learning just what all this meant. Paul was pretty sure what it all meant. He just had to convince others.

    This is a long preface to a new and old truth. Mode and method do not equal message. Not too long ago, we had church splits over worship music. Mostly, that’s over, though some still complain about one sort of music or the other. There is the comparisons between contemporary format (which all Generations Sunday services have) and “traditional” liturgical services. It seems so obvious to many now that these are merely different ways to still share the Gospel and gather together. Now there are digital churches. Then there are microexpression churches. This form of church caters to a specific interest group or demographic. Is it bad? In many respects, yes, for it continues the “one hour on Sunday is the most segregated hour of the week.” Granted, it is often no longer over race. It does reach people who would not otherwise be reached by “normal” church.

    The church has long needed to reinvent itself, perhaps not so much to reach new people (though that really does help), but to reinvigorate itself. The church seems to have entered a period of stagnation. Either the stagnation needs to be flushed out, or the church can suffocate. It seems harsh, yet in many respects that is exactly what Paul had to deal with. The church that was forming had to reinvent itself. It had to separate itself from the ways that kept in mired in the past. Once it broke free, the freeing message of the Gospel got wings.

    1) Why do people hold onto traditions? How do you know when a tradition is stagnate, and when it is life-giving?

    2) What “how church is done” thing do you hold onto? Why? How does it give you life?

    3) What is one “new” church thing that you enjoyed and/or found life-giving once you actually started doing it?

    Action: Take your “church thing” and explain not only what it is, but also how it builds up the church and fellow Christians.

  • Living in Surrender

    Luke 2:21–39, Ephesians 2:11–14, Philippians 2:5–11 (read online ⧉)

    The “rush” of a newborn child and all the angst that went along this particular child’s birth should have settled down a little. The day of Jesus’ circumcision was a day of fulfilled law and ritual. Instead, two prophetic messages happen. In many respects, this is the last gasp of the documented miraculous and supernatural until Jesus steps into his adult ministry. Just in case Mary and Joseph could possibly forget God’s call on their lives over the last few days, the events surrounding Jesus’ circumcision would have certainly recalled it.

    The significance surrounding circumcision cannot be ignored. The circumcision was established prior to Israel. For any Jew (descended from Israel) this was a physical tie to their entire history and the manifestation of God’s covenantal relationship. To have a prophetic statement—let alone two—tied to that would be engraved on their hearts and minds.

    Circumcision was a major barrier for both Jew and Gentile. Gentiles thought it was wrong, and Jews thought it was essential. This is why Paul focused on breaking the tie between circumcision and a relationship with God. Through Jesus, Gentiles are brought into relationship with God (this is an oversimplification, so don’t read too much into that), and the circumcision is no longer required. For Jews, circumcision transforms from an essential salvation component to cultural identity. Thus a barrier (appropriate for a time) was removed.

    There are lots of things Jews had to “surrender” to be in fellowship with Gentiles, just as Gentiles had to “surrender” things to be in fellowship with Jews. In both cases, they had to submit one identity to the authority of another. For both, that meant surrendering part of their core to another. When Paul speaks of Jesus emptying himself, Jesus surrendered his identity to become human. That takes real humility and obedience. That is our example.

    When we talk about personal identity, we too have much we need to surrender to Christ. It can be hard. We are very much tied to our identity, and much of our identity is what American and/or Christian culture holds up as that which is valuable.

    Over this New Year, we will each be called to surrender pieces of our identity to Christ. It is not a one-time thing. As we continue to become more Christ-like (for that should be our goal), we will constantly be finding new things to surrender. Sometimes the things we need to surrender might not seem so obvious, especially within the context of Christian culture. For example, surrendering leadership or pride often seems obvious. On the other hand, taking on a leadership role and taking (Christian) pride in doing it (i.e., fulfilling the mission) is often not taken as surrendering one’s identity. If one has been in the background (and likes it that way), it actually is a form of surrender to become a leader.

    For almost 33 years (less the time we know of a 12-year-old Jesus at the temple), the big event for Mary and Joseph was the birth and circumcision of Jesus. Joseph was likely dead by the start of Jesus’ ministry. Mary, on the other hand, had to surrender part of her family to the world. Jesus was no longer only hers. He was something far more. After his death and resurrection, Jesus also was no longer just the Jews’. He was for the whole world. For Mary, Jesus’ siblings, and Jesus’ followers, this was also a needed surrender.

    1)Think about the last year. What has made you the most upset? What does that tell you about what you need to surrender to Jesus this year?

    2) When you think of your self-identification, what do you call yourself (i.e., political part, national identity, cultural identity, blood identity, etc.)? How do each of those contradict or work in harmony with the Christian walk?

    3) It can seem contradictory that surrender may involve picking up something. What might be something that you need to pick up this year? Why? How does it fit into walking with and following Jesus?

  • To Be Called

    Psalm 34, Isaiah 49:1-6, 1 Corinthians 4:1-16 (read online ⧉)

    What does it mean to be called? That is a question many people ask themselves at various points in their lives. When we were children, the question could be, “what do you want to be when you grow up?” Granted, in family businesses there could be an assumption of “call” which presents its own dangers. As we enter the teenage years, identity beings to become a focus (“Who am I?”). This will often take shape and be shaped by activities and friends. In the last decade, or so, we’ve seen a new trend, and that is “calling” children to more and more activities or to multiple seasonal versions of the same activity (often sports). Young teenagers are now being pushed to decide career paths while figuring out who they are, as certain decisions (such as the fantastic programs of Running Start, College in the Classroom, and AP courses) affect college decisions, and potentially financial-aid decisions, too. As the average lifespan increases, we are beginning to compress the childhoods that many of us treasured to resemble earlier eras. Also, as lifespans increase, career changes (not just jobs) are becoming increasingly common. That is one of the interesting pieces, as our jobs are increasingly less of our identity.

    Isaiah did not have a question of his identity to a great degree. Since he felt that he was called before he was born, it was likely that he followed seers or prophets or sages. He was probably often following priests and scribes, too. It was his identity. It was his calling. It certainly wasn’t an easy one. It might have given him resilience during his prophetic ministry, and it certainly isolated him from others. Paul describes himself as a “manager” of the mysteries of God. It is a strange calling, but it was his.

    Do not judge yourself, or your calling, by Isaiah, Paul, or any others in the Scriptures. Evaluate your call against them for insight and wisdom. Each person in the Scriptures was unique and uniquely called, just like you.

    N.T. Wright (former bishop now educator and researcher) recently said, “…I think a lot of people feel guilty that there are some things which maybe when they were called…they thought they would be doing. And they either didn’t seem to be very good at it or they didn’t get the opportunity to do it. And I really want to say that we all have our particular gifts. And we shouldn’t be ashamed of the fact that there are some gifts that we might have thought we were going to be given in ministry or whatever, which we don’t have…I think of extreme examples of people who served God with everything that they’ve got, in a very what looks like to most of us a very bleak and obscure way. I think of Alexander Cruden, who did the great concordance couple hundred years ago. And, and he was, we would today say he was really far out on a spectrum. He was quite an unbalanced individual. But he needed to be like that for the very odd job that God had for him, which was producing—by hand—a concordance which served the church amazingly well for a very long time. And I possess my grandfather’s copy of cretins, concordance, and it was a great help before all the modern computerized stuff can So I really want to say if somebody has an academic bent or a bent for lexicography, or… if somebody has the real pastoral ability to spend hours working with, say, Children in Need or at risk or families that are in trouble, …that’s fine. God needs those gifts.”

    Sometimes we are blind to our gifts and/or our calling. Other times people will ask for our help and we realize that it isn’t our call, but something connected is. The question isn’t, “are you called?” The question is, “What are you doing with your calling?”

    1) Do you know what your calling is? If not, who are some mature Christians you know that could help you figure it out? If you do, how did you come to that conclusion?

    2) Do you think your calling has or will ever change?

  • 25 November 2019

    Zechariah 12:1–8, Revelation 18:1–10, Matthew 20:20–23, Luke 22:14–20 (read online ⧉)

    A cup is a common thing. You probably have a few in your cupboards. You might even have so many you have to get rid of one to fit another. You might have ones for special times (like china for Thanksgiving). You might have Christmas themed ones. You probably have ones that were given to you as a reminder or an advertisement. There is nothing special really special about cups. However, as we read the Scriptures, cups star in a number of places.
    Joseph used his cup (his very special one that only he had) to entrap his brothers. Pharoah and Nebuchadnezzar had their cupbearers. These cupbearers had authority within the courts of the leader. Cups, it seems, were not always so common.

    The prophet Zechariah has a vision of Judah being a cup. Nations would drink of this cup. The consumption part represents well the takeovers, wars, slavery, and exile. The nations around Judah (even their Semitic cousins in Samaria) really did a number on Judah. It’s not that Judah did the right things and was still on the losing end. Judah had continually made the wrong decisions. God wasn’t just going to restore his people once they yielded their hearts. God would use Judah as the source of retribution for all the nations that had (by their actions) treated Judah wrongly.

    This imagery is echoed in Revelation. This time, instead of the small underdog nation being the source of retribution, it would now be the leading city (symbolized as Babylon) that would be the source of its own destruction and the nations that followed it. This symbolic Babylon was completely lost in the depths of unGodly practices. The nations that idolized it or followed its practices would end up with the consequences of their choices.

    In Matthew, Jesus uses similar imagery to hint to James and John that the contents of Jesus’ cup will do the same to them as it will do to him. Of course, they did not yet understand what that meant. Is some ways, while Jesus did not “give” them the seats at his right or left hand, he still symbolically handed his identity to them when he said they would drink from his cup. They probably felt better about not getting their “seats”, at least until they realized the cup’s contents.

    This really comes to a culmination in the Cup of Salvation. The “blood” of the New Covenant shared by Jesus with his disciples and eventually with us. The cup is Christ’s. When we share the cup, we share in the name and identity of Jesus. We also identify ourselves with and by the New Covenant. We also identify ourselves by his death and the freedom we bought. Lastly, though, each of us may have something that needs to be sacrificed to live a life with and for Christ. We have chosen to drink from the cup and by so doing stated that we will accept what it brings.

    1)Do you have a favorite cup? Why is it your favorite? Without knowing the story of if, what could people learn about you from it?

    2) God’s grace and love are often found in “ordinary” things. In what other “ordinary” things do you find God’s grace and love?

    3) Why is it important to look for and see God’s grace and love in ordinary things?

  • Building Myths

    Luke 17:20–37, Acts 7:44–60, Revelation 21:14–27 (read online ⧉)

    Throughout the Old Testament, there are memorial stones. The names of springs have tale-telling names. Altars were built…lots of altars. Places provide identity. The Promised Land (Israel) was one of identity. That particular land was powerful enough in its name and history that there are still fights involving it among differing “tribes” and religions (and each’s myriad of sects).

    A place will often develop a mythos or multiple ones. Think of the United States. There is the American Exceptionalism mythos. There is the American Colonialism mythos. There is the American Slavery/Segregation mythos. There is the American Dream mythos. There are plenty more American mythoi that aren’t listed. Some are held as (or more) firmly than religious beliefs. Some are feared for what they might represent. Regardless, they all revolve around a place.

    Jesus made a radical statement regarding the Kingdom of God. The Pharisees and many other Jewish groups were looking for something tangible, which mostly revolved around the restoration (in some form) of an independent (and probably wealthy, secure, and powerful) Jewish nation, with some sort of Davidic monarchy. Jesus basically told them that they are looking in the wrong place.

    Some scholars interpret this as Jesus stating he was the Kingdom come, while others look at it more along the lines of the kingdom being withing the people. We Christians often call this being the church.

    Stephen, who was martyred, reminded those that were about to stone him that God does not truly live in buildings built by human hands. The building, it seems, is more for us than God. The passage in Revelation says there will be no temple. Think of that. There will be no temple, no church, no chapel, no alter. It will not be needed.

    We need to be honest with ourselves. We may say things such as, “the church is its people,” or “the people are the church.” However, when it comes right down to it, we gravitate toward needing a place. That place could be a park, a house, a (gasp) bar, a school, a cafeteria. We think this as obvious, now, but it wasn’t that long ago (truly) that people opposed holding a church service in a school. When the house church movement was reignited in the US over a decade ago, “established” churches said that house church wasn’t real church.

    The next “you can’t have church there,” argument is here. It’s actually almost past now, though people still hold onto it. It’s not possible, it is said, to have church over the internet, for the internet isn’t “real”. Even die-hard netizens often use IRL (in real life), so it seems even for them there is a struggle. As virtual reality goes mainstream, the concept of the internet as a rectangular screen will disappear. So, what are we to do? How will we treat those who don’t sit in our pews, but worship with us from 1000 miles away? Are they not the church? They don’t have a connection with us? Even those who, for various reasons, have moved or are moving away, but this is still their church home? Does someone stop being your family just because you only see them on Facebook, and haven’t seen them in years?

    1) When we talk about church and place, what are the important things to consider?

    2) What makes “place” more or less real to you? How do you deal with people who have a different idea of place?

    3) What makes a place (such as a church) more “real” than the internet which is a gathering of people at a whole bunch of places? Is that a “real” difference, or is it what we are used to?

  • Pride Versus Repentance

    1 Kings 8:44–53, Zechariah 1:1–17, Acts 3:13–26

    That Solomon included this request for the Israelites who would be in exile while inaugurating the newly built temple should not be overlooked. It is significant. With so much foreshadowing of the Israelites going into exile, one would think that the Israelites would have figured it out. The great leader, Moses, foreshadowed it. Yet, rebellion (of a number of sorts), confusion, and hardened hearts meant that they were headed to exile eventually.

    When the exile did come, at least, God made it clear that exile wasn’t the end. All they had to do was say, “sorry.” Yes, it’s a little more complicated than that. On the other hand, it is still that simple. God remains true to God’s holiness and justice. There isn’t a free pass for the Israelites out of exile. The way to get back isn’t too onerous, for those who are not too full of pride.

    Even after all of that, pride was still an issue. Peter challenged the pride of the Jews, who built so much of their identity on their bloodline. Peter used that pride against them, really to make a point. They were so sure of themselves and their leaders that they killed the person they were waiting for.

    Peter makes it clear though…repent. Yes, it’s that easy.

    1) What do you take pride in? Has it ever interfered with your Christian life?

    2) Do you take pride in certain parts of your faith (denomination, stance on an issue, etc.)? How could that interfere with your relationship and your following Jesus?

  • Church of Destruction

    Galatians 2:17–21, Ephesians 2:1–10

    There has been a lot of talk in some circles about the increasing percentage of the U.S. population that calls themselves, “nones.” This is used to define categorize people as those having no definitive religious identity. This “none” categorization is awful. It covers a huge range of people.

    The panic, in some circles, is that as the percentage of “nones” increases, the number of self-identified “Christians” decreases. What makes the “none” categorization and the conclusion that follows awful is that there is zero nuance. There are people who are Jesus followers (and are saved) that do not identify as Christian. Not that they deny Jesus, but they deny American Christianity. That is an important concept. There is also plenty of Americans who identify as Christian…because they are Americans.

    Among the nones are another group, “spiritual, but not religious.” There is some similarity to the “non-Christian” Jesus followers. However, by being more general in regards to “spiritual”, there is less defining, and that is part of the problem.

    The Common English Bible has an interesting translation of Ephesians 2:2…”You used to live like people of this world. You followed the rule of a destructive spiritual power. This is the spirit of disobedience to God’s will that is now at work in persons whose lives are characterized by disobedience.” (Ephesians 2:2, CEB)

    The interesting characterization is that of following a destructive spirit. Before we start pointing at the world (which definitely has its share of issues), we need to start recognizing the destructive spirit(s) in our churches. There are so many lines that people are drawing within our churches that are separating us. Think of politics. In the current atmosphere, even the most die-hard political person takes a deep breath when someone else (especially of unknown persuasion) mentions politics, and that’s just Democrat and Republican. What happens when we actually start talking about the issues? And, this is in our churches! Then we have cultural issues, too, and many of those are more deeply and tragically ingrained than politics.

    1. What issues/concerns keep you from connecting with others in the church? Why?
    2. The CEB’s “destructive spirit” sets a different tone than the often implied evil or demonic spirit. Why is that an important perspective shift? How does that open the discussion? What is the danger in only calling it a destructive spirit?
    3. Any “spirit” that does not bring glory to God and build up Christ’s bride can be dangerous. Can thing of some “church” spirit that might fall into that realm?

  • Living Beyond

    Matthew 16:24–28, Romans 14:7–9, 2 Corinthians 5:14–15

    “Die to self.” This phrase is often spoken in Christian circles. When it is fully unpacked, it isn’t a bad phrase. However, it is rarely unpacked and instead just left hanging.

    The first, and primary, place in Scripture used to justify this phrase is found in today’s passage in Matthew. Here Jesus speaks about denying oneself. How do we get from denying to dying? That’s a really good question. It would seem that since Jesus is using the cross people automatically tie denying to dying. What if, however, Jesus isn’t talking about death but disgrace? The cross was a place of humiliating death. Despite our cultural appropriation of the cross, in Scripture, the cross is a symbol of death, betrayal (specifically toward the government), and disgrace (you were hung up naked). In fact, it wasn’t death that was the primary issue of the cross, but the disgrace. If we take that perspective, picking up one’s cross was tying disgrace to denial of self. That does put an interesting twist on it, doesn’t it?

    Paul provides a framework in Romans and in 2 Corinthians. It sounds similar, but it is different. Not living for oneself, but living for Jesus and others.

    A healthy part of a parent/child relationship is that the parent forgoes certain things so that their children can flourish. This does not mean that the parents are to “forget” themselves, for if they do they will hamper or even endanger their children. Not that there are not times, but as a general rule this is the case. Another way to think of it is the oxygen masks on airplanes. You may have gone through the “training”. The crew tells you to take care of yourself (aimed at parents) prior to taking care of your children. It is not because people want the children to suffer, but that the parents will make better judgments (oxygen does that) when masked, and are better capable of taking their children after taking care of themselves.

    The reason “die to self” is dangerous is that it implies (or one can readily infer) that one’s very self/identity/awareness is to die. This absolutely is not the case. We are not clones. Denying oneself is very different. In the concept of progressive sanctification (growing in God’s grace and holiness), God started and continues to do good work in each of us. We don’t cease being ourselves, but gradually and continually become a better version of ourselves, coming closer and closer to what we would have been had the world (and us) not fallen into sin.

    The last, maybe most important, reason that “die to self” should cease being used is that it misses the point. We are really to live beyond ourselves. That is what we are called to do. In a cultural climate that is showing increasing amounts of nihilism (especially in the younger generations), the way we speak of a transformative life with Christ shouldn’t use the image of death. Death is all around us. Many (regardless of political affiliation) call our current culture a culture of death (for different reasons, granted). Let’s not be part of the culture. Let us shine the light of LIFE with Christ.

    1) What are ways you can share about LIFE with Jesus to others?

    2) In what aspect of your life are you not living for others? Why? Are you sure?

    3) How will you change how you talk about living for something greater than yourself?