Devotion.al

Tag: legacy

  • Pounding the Pavement

    Pounding the Pavement

    Luke 12:16–34

    We often use the words of out of context. When we do so, we often lose their original meaning. “Don’t worry about what you eat…or what you will wear” is often used to say don’t worry about “worldly” things, except…it isn’t.

    When we look at the rich man’s productive harvest, we get the greater idea of what Jesus is driving at. It isn’t wanting more or better; it is caring for one’s fellow. The successful harvest was going to be kept solely for him. He saw nothing wrong with not sharing the bounty.

    For many years, we have heard of trickle-down economics. It is real. It is true. It still isn’t God’s way. Communism (the Communism of Tolstoy, Mao, Lenin, Castro, Kim, or ) of force used to “level” the playing field by removing all incentive and initiative, and crushing it isn’t God’s way either. God’s way is somewhere in between.

    God’s way isn’t about what we can grasp, but what we . The treasures we are to store up are hearts. Not literally, that would be disgusting. We are talking—as you already knew, of course—about the “spiritual ” that is turned over to Jesus.

    The bumper sticker that reads, “(S)He who dies with the most toys wins,” is a lie. Toys, as such, are useless trinkets that rust and decay. Souls (or spiritual hearts) are forever. We only get to bring souls with us into Heaven.

    We are watching many of the rich (such as Bill Gates) begin to somewhat understand it, though they still miss the part. This has happened many times over the years. Andrew Carnegie left a fantastic of libraries all over the country, truly seeking to give “working class” children a better start than he got.

    This is not to disparage their actions. Quite the contrary. There are the secular (non-religious) acts of Jesus lived out. They should be celebrated and honored.

    They still don’t souls. Often the question in the capital (state or ) is, how much do we “spend” on a person? That can be welfare, grants, contracts, pensions, or well-deserved (and earned) veterans’ benefits. The government thinks in dollars per person.

    God thinks in person per dollars. Sort of. God doesn’t care about the dollars. God cares about the souls of those who earn, give, save, horde, or even burn dollars. John the Revelator saw streets of Gold in his . As an ounce of Gold approaches $2000, it’s still pavement in Heaven.

    God cares about ravens, birds, wildflowers, grass, and you. Gold is just to be walked on.

    ※Prayer※

    Jesus, you have given us humanity to walk with. May we seek their good and their entrance into Heaven as we follow your will. Amen.

  • Want

    Want

    Exodus 20:1–21; 1 Kings 3:16–28; 1 Corinthians 13:1–13

    The tale of envy and spite in the story relayed in 1 Kings is abominable to most of us. How could any person ever do that, even if it is not their child?

    Yet, there are far too many tragic stories of people treating their children—their —with something beyond contempt. The children don’t a “need”, or even worse, the death of the child meets the “need”.

    The amazing depravity of humanity is often overwhelming.

    In the story in 1 Kings, there is probably much more than the visible story. Why it was significant to the writer that the women were prostitutes was significant is a matter of conjecture. With something like that we can only guess what else might have been going on.

    One possibility is that the “wise men” didn’t want to deal with the “dirty” prostitutes on a case with no evidence or witnesses (like those who might have been present at the birth or circumcision). So, they handed it off to the new king to test him. This would be well within the norm even today when new figures come into , they are tested by ally and alike.

    To our ears, Solomon’s solution is over the top. Kill the child? However, some commentators believe that Solomon had discerned who the real mother was and was looking for a justifiable pretext of her son to her.

    The story also shines a light on one of the big issues: envy. There is a reason that this was on the list of Commandments. It can often be one of the most destructive emotions in human relationships.

    Envy drove a grieving woman to grasp for another’s baby and then be open to the child’s death instead of “losing”.  Envy drove a person to a child to hurt another person.

    Envy drives people to do things that are often not rational. Sometimes people will put themselves into so much debt so that they can be just like . Other times they will hurt themselves, as long as they can hurt others.

    No one is immune to the pull of envy. We often think envy is only for big things, but envy is even more dangerous regarding small things. It is easy to excuse or justify the envy of little things. However, once we succumb, envy gains momentum, and our hearts turn toward darkness, and away from .

    —prayer—

    Holy Spirit, guard our hearts against envy. If the shadow of envy had taken hold, we ask for your saving work to preserve your love in our hearts. Amen.

    —questions—

    1) What is the first “don’t” of love, according to ? Why do you think Paul mentioned that first?

    2) What was the strongest feeling of envy you’ve ever had? What happened?

    3) What is the “flip” side of envy? Or, how is one driven to envy? (hint: see Paul’s list)

  • Rescuers & Yachts

    Rescuers & Yachts

    Ezekiel 33:1–16; Matthew 14:22–34; Colossians 4:2–6 (read online ⧉)

    When sailing ships were still the primary transportation across the oceans, John was lost overboard during a . Before his friends (the crew) could him, they lost of him in the storm. By providence, there was another ship nearby that did see him and was able to rescue him. John was very grateful that the ship was nearby.

    Many days later, John was eating at a local pub, and started telling his story of his rescue. One of his listeners spoke up after John’s tale and said that he, too, had a similar tale. Will, for that was his name, started talking to John, and they became friends.

    More time passed. John and Will had gathered a number of people around them, and they formed a rescue society, whose purpose was to be the nearby boat to people in the storms.

    They saved many people over the years. Their society grew. They gathered more and more to share their camaraderie. Other people joined just to the tales of rescue. Then, as John, Will, and others got older, the warmth of the fire and camaraderie kept them indoors. Soon after, the gatherings became focused on boats. Their rescue society, over time, transformed from rescue society to yacht club.

    Some have said that the true legacy of yacht clubs is not the wealth, but the rescues they forgot about.

    “Making people fully functioning followers of Christ,” and “Encounter, Connect, Serve” are the 2 common phrases (or statements) at Generations Community . Then there is the “framily” (friends who are like ), too. Your church (if it isn’t Generations) may have similar mission statements or values. Something along these lines is quite common among American churches.

    It’s not that these are bad. They really should be second.

    We have been rescued. Have we forgotten? We are called to be the ones who help to rescue those who are lost at sea. All too often, however, we are comfortable at the yacht club.

    Framily is great. Encounter (-ing God), Connect (-ing with God and Others), Serve (the World) are good, too. Becoming fully functioning followers of Christ (sanctification) is great! However, if we only keep it to ourselves, is it really all that great?

    The world doesn’t need more people hiding behind their walls. The world needs the light of Jesus Christ.

    These few words cannot contain the responsibility that each of us must and should feel. This does not mean to be annoying or aggressive. It means be asking and praying for the right conversation to occur, and even many conversations over time. It means being -filled in our conversations with others, just as Jesus Christ poured grace over and into us.

    ‘s words tell to season our conversations with the salt that is Jesus Christ. Be the light.

  • Opprobrium

    Opprobrium

    Matthew 9:18–26; Mark 5:21–43; Luke 8:40–56 (read online ⧉)

    People often use scripture to justify certain things, or at least state that whatever “this” is, it is nothing new. One of those is a thought that the woman in today’s had been bleeding due to a botched abortion. This, of course, is conjecture. There are several other medical conditions which this could fall under, so making this kind of conjecture is often not helpful. This is especially the case when such conjecture takes away from the mystery that is already present in the Scripture.

    Think about the other healings that Jesus performed. In the other healings, he was approached then would act. He was just on his way to heal someone else, and this women surreptitiously approaches him and just touches his clothes to be healed.

    The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) have slightly different tellings of the story. Yet, the woman’s initiative to approach Jesus and touching his clothing to be healed is consistent. Both Mark and Luke talk about the crowds surrounding Jesus. This took courage for this woman.

    The primary thought that this bleeding was similar to menstrual bleeding (hence the aforementioned piece about abortion). If that is so, while the woman would not have to declare “unclean” as a leper, should would be ceremonially unclean, and probably unwelcome, if anyone knew. She, probably some sort of outcast, would have to go among those who likely mocked and scorned her. If she was successful, for 12 years, to keep her condition secret, then she would have likely been overwhelmed by guilt and inadequacy.

    In Mark and Luke, this story takes on another interesting twist. She approached; she touched; she was healed. There was no “action” by Jesus. This unique aspect should be one of those moments where we stop and wonder, what is different?

    Anything is conjecture, as the Bible does not directly say anything. One possibility is that in this story we see God and Man. The Godly left Jesus. Jesus the Man was surprised. Both aspects of Jesus were in full display. There is even this odd hint of the Water of being spent, which would then be refilled by God.

    On the other hand, there is an echo of the time in Eden after Adam and Eve had eaten the Fruit of the of Good and . Adam and Eve had heard God walking in the Garden and hid because they were naked. God asked where they were. Adam and Eve revealed themselves in shame. Sounds somewhat like the woman who revealed herself.

    There is also the beauty of that this woman has. It isn’t just trust of being healed, but when she reveals herself and tells her story, there is a vulnerability that requires an explicit trust in Jesus.

    This woman has no name in the Scriptures (outlined here). Her cured affliction has been noted for history, but the shame of her condition is not tied to her name. Just as the shame that once weighed her down was gone, so was what needed . She left it behind. Her gift was that her legacy was not her condition. She moved forward in freedom.

    ※ ※

    Lord, we thank you for taking our shame. Though we may still bear the scars and of it, the shame is gone. May this freedom that you have given us, not be misused or unused for your . Amen.

    ※ Questions ※

    1) Why do you think each of the Gospel writers (especially Matthew), chose to tell the story the way they did? What do you think of the additional piece that Mark and Luke have?

    2) What is your biggest takeaway regarding the woman of our story?

    3) What do you think the response was of those who were acting on Jairus’ behalf?

  • 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 standpoint, marriage was a core component. The servant in this story was the one who had to and rely on God for the journey to be a success, and to be able to go to his master (Abraham) with his task .

    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 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 circles. This is certainly not exclusive of Evangelical Christianity, as there is a that teaches (or at least use to) that a single man over the age of 25 to be a danger to society. Holding up , 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 of God.

    Those who a single, widowed, or married are to 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 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?

  • Let It Be

    Psalm 112:1–9, Colossians 3:12–17, James 3:13–18 (read online ⧉)

    Galatians 5:22–23 lists the following as fruits of the : love, , peace, forbearance, , goodness, , , self-control.

    2 Peter 1:5–7 lists the following characteristics to pursue: , goodness, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, mutual affection, love.

    1 Timothy 6:11 has its own list of characteristics: , godliness, faith, love, endurance, gentleness.

    Psalm 112 starts with praising of God, and then fearing God. How does this fit with the above? The same way as the spirits. Praising of God and (not punishing, but of awe) are foundational to testing the spirits. You cannot test without having an idea of the ideal. What is interesting is that the Psalmist goes on to that there will be a “natural” result of a . However, as we all know, there is always free will, and those that follow may not continue the legacy that they were handed.

    Colossians continues this with cloth, bear, forgive, let (peace), thanks, let (Christ’s message dwell), teach, admonish. The reason this passage of Colossians is important we continue thinking about testing the spirits is the concept of “let”. Far too often we try to do, and do not “let” God be God who dwells in us richly.
    James, too, has the concept of let. Granted, it is a let show, but that still means don’t make a show. Let what comes out of you be natural not forced. Let it be God coming from you, not be “fake it till you make it.”

    1) When it comes to “living” the Christian life, do you perceive it as natural to you, or is it “fake it till you make it?” Why do you feel that way?

    2) Why is “let” important for the Christian life? Do you tend toward the opposite?

    3) What is the danger of “letting” it being all that is part of your Christian walk?

  • What Promise?

    Psalm 146, Mark 13:14–27, Mark 13:32–33, Hebrews 11:13–22 (read online ⧉)

    The New Year is no longer new. By now many New Year’s Resolutions are broken. People have already surrendered to their loss. Often people telegraph or expect their loss, and behave as if they have already lost. By God’s grace, many of those who went before, especially those that are revered in some aspect, didn’t behave the same way.

    The Founding Fathers (of the States) were beings. They were marred by and imperfection…just like us. The system they developed, a hybrid of multiple governmental ways of thinking, was an experiment. The Founding Fathers had many fears about this system they created. Oddly enough, on both sides of the political spectrum is a growing belief that it has failed. That it failed (or hasn’t yet, or won’t, or…) is not the question or issue, nor has it ever been. The amazing thing is that it was tried at all. That a bunch of (granted) well-educated “aristocratic” men were able to motivate not as fortunate to take on the ruling empire of the world (at that time) is amazing. It actually means, a cynical point of view, means that nothing has changed. Still to take on the British Empire was insane. These same men feared that democracy would fail, no matter what fail-safes they put into the system. They did anyway. Were they going against the flow? Would failure be catastrophic? Yes to both. Again, they did it anyway.

    When the U.S. system was designed it really had no trust in princes nor did it really have trust in people. It’s odd, wouldn’t you say, to put the fate of your legacy in the hands of people you don’t really trust? Much of the angst of the current “feeling”* really boils down to putting our faith and trust in princes (and people) who haven’t really earned it. The ones that earned it are the ones we know, not usually someone on a website or a TV screen (though in this day and age that may no longer be so).

    While it is wise to not trust humankind without some serious testing and discernment, people still do it. We have to. We cannot survive being paranoid. However, during his prophetic statements, still advises people that there will be false messiahs and false prophets. Jesus advises that the will come with God the decides, and that is not for anyone else to know. Despite these words, men and women for ages have declared “special” knowledge of the end. People then feel betrayed when the end doesn’t come.

    Those that know the end date, or those who will give us or stuff or safety, we put a lot of trust in them. Then we become upset because they failed us. When it comes to politicians and leaders we really treat them like New Year’s Resolutions…something will go wrong. We have no real in them, yet we still feel disappointed. Yet, we should actually be relieved when they disappoint us. Whew! They’re human just like us. That is the point of the author of Hebrews, God is not human like us. God is far more. God is faithful. God fulfills his promises.

    1) What (s) of God do you hold onto?

    2) What promises of people do you hold onto?

    3) Why do you think we hold onto people’s promises, yet often turn away from God’s promises?

    Action: As you read the Scriptures this week, write down the verses that seem to be promises.

  • All the Saints

    Luke 20:27–40, Hebrews 11:32–12:2, Revelation 7:9–17

    Veneration of the Saints has a long history in the church. Due to misunderstandings (cultural, interpretive, arrogance, ignorance), it has often been a source of claims of heresy and . It has been abused and misshapen into disguised pagan worship. In addition, there is also the practice in other religions and traditions that have a form of ancestor worship. While there is no question that veneration of saints and even ancestors has been twisted into false teaching, this is one of those many cases of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

    This becomes significant as the stories of the saints and martyrs of the church are not (generally) part of Evangelical Protestant worship or practice. There are some minor exceptions. There was a popular song by Michael W. Smith about Cassie Bernall who was shot and killed because she would not deny to the shooters at the Columbine High School. There are some famous missionary stories such as End of the Spear about missionaries who died in the field, but whose murders later repented and turned to Christ. By and large, though, the concept of saints and martyrs is talked about in generalities.

    Martyrs, in many respects, are easier to talk about than saints (though many saints were martyrs). The “romantic” concept of dying for one’s , especially here where we are free and protected, pervades Western Christianity. It’s not romantic for those who go through persecution and martyrdom.

    Saints are harder. Part of this is the historical Protestant antagonism towards Roman Catholicism and the central place the Virgin Mary and the Saints have in Roman Catholic practice. Sadly, though, we (as Protestants) have lost 2 important things when it comes to how the saints fit into our practices.

    First, saints are a great example to follow. Just like us, they aren’t perfect. Just like us, they try to be like Jesus but often failed. We can all say (and probably do) we can’t measure up to Jesus but it’s harder to say that about saints (though we still try). Their lives are also worth reading about as they had struggles just like we do, and they provided some of the greatest reflections on God.

    Second, the of saints is far-reaching. Many saints weren’t “official” saints, but that Sunday School teacher that put the seed of Jesus in our . It could be that believer that just you where you were at. It could be a parent, grandparent, uncle, aunt, neighbor whose life drew you to Jesus. When we recognize the legacy of saints, we often about ourselves, and we see more of God in us due to all the streams of faith that pour into our lives. This gives us not just head , but heart knowledge, and a place to belong.

    1) What are your first thoughts when you think about saints? Why do you think that is?

    2) Who are some so-called “real” “church” saints you can think of? What were they famous for? What do you think their legacy is?

    3) Who are some “real-life” saints in your life? What made them that way? How did they you?