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: legacy

  • 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 storm. Before his friends (the crew) could rescue him, they lost sight 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 save 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 hear 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 mission statements) at Generations Community church. Then there is the “framily” (friends who are like family), 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 grace-filled in our conversations with others, just as Jesus Christ poured grace over and into us.

    Paul’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 Scriptures 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 power 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 Life 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 Knowledge of Good and Evil. 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 trust 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 healing. She left it behind. Her gift was that her legacy was not her condition. She moved forward in freedom.

    ※ Prayer ※

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

  • 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 spirit: love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.

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

    1 Timothy 6:11 has its own list of characteristics: righteousness, 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 testing the spirits. Praising of God and fear (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 legacy. 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 United States) were human beings. They were marred by sin 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 others 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, Jesus still advises people that there will be false messiahs and false prophets. Jesus advises that the end will come with God the Father 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 power 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 hope 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 promise(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 idol worship. 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 Jesus 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 faith, 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 legacy of saints is far-reaching. Many saints weren’t “official” saints, but that Sunday School teacher that put the seed of Jesus in our heart. It could be that believer that just loved 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 learn 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 knowledge, 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 change you?

  • Inherting Legacy

    Genesis 47:18–26, Acts 4:34–5:11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Holy Tuesday

    Psalm 89:19–37, Isaiah 52:13–53:3, John 12:20-43

    Imagine all the rumors you were hearing about Jesus, who had dared to ride into Jerusalem as a king. There were Greeks that were ever looking for Jesus. For some that just proved Jesus was not really the Messiah or a righteous man. To others, it added something else to the mystery that was this Jesus. Many years later, some people took the Gentile (e.g., the Greeks) interest in Jesus as a symbol that now it was time because even non-Jews were now interested in the Messiah. The way John approached it, however, the Greek interest does seem to be some sort of trigger. In general terms, Jesus talks about death and how that leads to new life. That new life would not be just for one, but for many. Jesus then says words that prefigure the words in the Garden of Gethsemane regarding the coming cross.

    That God speaks from the clouds in response to Jesus, as Jesus noted, was not for his sake, but for the sake of the people around him. This would have included his disciples. The cross was both torture and humiliation, plus death. From a Jewish or even Roman perspective, there is no way that there was any glory—or could possibly any glory—with the cross. It was inconceivable.

    In response, his listeners quote Psalm 89 to Jesus regarding the eternal Messiah. Are they asking for scriptural proof, or are they looking for the scriptural veto? Jesus gives a quick encouragement about staying in the light and then disappears. The Light of the World disappeared. Another action that prefigured an event (the tomb) that was to come. John quotes Isaiah to then show the hardness of heart of the people who surrounded Jesus. As much as we can carry the light into the world, we should. We just need to keep in mind that we are not Jesus. People who could put their hand out and touch Jesus did not believe in him and even many of those that did chose this life over the promise.

    1) Every day we often have to choose between the promise and this life. In what areas of your life are you struggling with this?

    2) Many times we can shake our heads at those who could see Jesus, but still denied him. We think ourselves unable to do that. However, do you really see the image of God in everyone you meet?

    3) Why is Jesus’ parable of the wheat important? What does it tell you about your legacy?

  • Being and Becoming the Bridge

    Isaiah 30:18–26, Isaiah 61:10–11, 1 Corinthians 3:5–11, 1 Corinthians 11:23–26

    We are the bridge between the past and the future, with one foot in the past and one foot in the future.

    The past of glory was gone, a faded memory. Perhaps to some it was just an old tale that was from the crazy aunt. David and Solomon? Sure. Whatever you say, Auntie.

    Into hearts that resided in darkness, Isaiah spoke light and life. People who felt oppressed were promised the freedom of planting crops and harvesting them on their own behalf, not under the rule of foreigners. Not only that, Isaiah told them that they would turn their backs on their treasured idols. They were being told that the little gods that had protected them would be thrown away. That’s crazy!

    Isaiah later talks about the earth and garden producing as they should, because God has provided salvation and blessed them. Not their idols. The promise of God’s blossoming righteousness in the hearts of people who had abandoned their God who had chosen them to bear his name.

    Death to life. During this series of devotions, we haven’t spoken much on Lent, but with this last devotion for the Legacy series it seems appropriate. Lent comes from Old English and German, meaning spring. Spring comes at the end of Winter (the land almost “dead”, but waiting to come alive). Just like the Jews, who were in their “Winter”, so are we before our salvation.

    Paul and Apollos worked on ground that wasn’t yet “alive”. Yet, they planted the faith and watered it. Eventually, new growth in dead ground came alive and blossomed. While others were fighting over who they followed (Paul, Apollos, or others), these coworkers in Christ looked ahead to see a crop that God empowered them to see, even if they did not see it now.

    Our bridge from death to life and from past to future is the legacy of our faith. Paul proclaims it best, “…as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” The past and future. While we remember and honor the past, we must look to the future of ourselves, our family, our church, our faith, and the world.

    1) What do you think the future of this church should look like? What can you do to help that vision come to pass?

    2) Often, we are blinded to our vision of the future, and thus tear down the future visions of others. What can you and we do to embrace the visions of others for the future?

    3) Paul’s concluding statement covers both past and future. How can Paul’s conclusion empower and educate your vision and how to make it come to pass?

  • Long Roads Together

    Genesis 22:1–18, Isaiah 45:11–17, Matthew 4:1–11

    Genesis has many passages in it that Christians, Jews, and non-believers stumble over. Often it is our own pride, and sometimes it is us looking back upon those “backward and ignorant” people, with all our knowledge and obviously “better” culture. This passage in Genesis (22:1–18) is often one of the hard ones, as God calls upon Abraham to sacrifice his only son of his wife Sarah. This appears problematic as God later condemns such human sacrifice. It is to result in the death penalty. Yet, God still calls for it. The easy answer is that God was “just” testing Abraham. God already knew that a ram would be provided. If so, to us it is a cruel test. To Abraham and the cultures around him, it was still cruel, but it was part of god worship (note, not God worship). We also have to understand that Isaac was the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham regarding descendants. God requested that Abraham kill the very legacy (so it seemed) that God had promised.

    The harder answer, but perhaps more Christian answer is that Abraham was foreshadowing God the Father. God made a request of Abraham, the God the Father would completely fulfill generations later. God would sacrifice the Son for all of humanity. God’s only Son. The Son, part of the Trinity, would be born as man, so that mankind would become the legacy intended if sin had not come. As Isaiah speaks from God, righteousness stirred up. The holy city (a place of relationship with God) rebuilt. The exiles (those separated from God) set free, but not by money or exchange of goods. Then Isaiah says that Israel will be saved by God. The only true savior is God. With God being the savior, salvation is eternal. God becomes incarnate. God is with us (Emmanuel).

    Even as God with us, Jesus walks our road. The temptations that Jesus faced in the desert are common to mankind (survival, security, pride/power). Since Jesus walked with us and Jesus is God, humanity and God became united in a way that Abraham could never have imagined, and Isaiah couldn’t fully comprehend. Even we really cannot fully comprehend it, and we (through the church) have had a long time to figure it out.

    1) During his temptations, Jesus says, “Man must not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God,” quoted Deuteronomy 8:3. If Jesus is the word (John 1:1–3), and Jesus is the bread, how does that cause you to rethink Jesus’ answer?

    2) God called on Abraham to sacrifice his legacy. How can God call on us to sacrifice our legacy for an even greater legacy?

    3) How can we discern when God is asking us to sacrifice our legacy, versus calling on us to sacrifice our pride?