Devotion.al

Tag: money

  • From the Heart

    Colossians 3:12–17

    οἰκτιρμοῦ (oiktirmou) :: and concern with sensitivity and

    χρηστότητα (chrēstotēta) :: giving to or providing for a person as an of kindness

    ταπεινοφροσύνην (tapeinophrosynē) :: humble attitude and without arrogance

    πραΰτητα (prautēta) :: of attitude and behavior / not harsh with others

    μακροθυμίαν (makrothymian) :: emotional calm despite provocation or misfortune, and without complaint or irritation.

    So, why the Greek lesson? English misses so much. The one that triggered this particular Greek lesson is οἰκτιρμοῦ (oiktirmou). In the most used translations, this is only translated as compassion. A few translations (e.g., HCSB, ESV, and NASB) add heart in some form. This is an important qualifier.

    Compassion can be an act of obedience (with or without being a loving response). For many people, that is exactly what it is. Almsgiving (giving and/or aid to the poor) is common in a number of religions. It is, for example, 1 of the 5 pillars of Islam (called Zakat). In the , it is titled Compassionate Ministries (Church of the Nazarene organization). It is Blue Bucket Sundays at Generations Church. People give out of obligation, too. It’s not that obedience or obligation is bad, but what about the heart.

    Think of χρηστότητα (chrēstotēta). Giving to give is fine, sort of. If we were to give a poor the best birthday party for the youngest child or feed the family for the month (and, based on the bills of some birthday parties, that isn’t a stretch), which would we choose? Both are giving as kindness, but which has the potential for the greatest kindness.

    Why is this important? It’s about our lives with one another. Our lives with one another are to exemplify …and compassion of the heart.

    1)Taking the of the Greek, how do they each apply to your Christian walk, whether for yourself or for others?

    2) In Churches, compassion is often the mission of a ministry. That is not how we are called to live. How can you deepen the compassion in your Christian walk? How can you help others to deepen theirs?

  • Power of Service

    Mark 10:42–45, John 21:15–17, 1 Peter 4:7–11

    to control. That’s what Jesus is talking about in the passage in Mark. The Gentile “rulers” (though the same applied to many of the Pharisees and scribes, as well) lorded their power, influence, and wealth over others, and controlled them. When this passage is used, often we get “stuck” on our servant part, rather than seeing the underlying relational . Those with power, influence, and wealth are held at a distance (even by those with power, influence, and wealth themselves). Servants are close at hand. In a place of , servants are able to influence and nurture others. One really can’t say that about those with power, influence, and wealth.

    Service is strongly implied in Jesus’ words of the restoration of Peter: Feed (twice) and . Used twice, βόσκω (boskō) can mean feed, take to pasture, or take care of. Used only once, ποιμαίνω (poimainō) means shepherd, take care of, and guide. Feed appears to be more of the immediate concern, while shepherd is more along the line of long-term thriving. This is a great picture for pastors to concern themselves with. It is also the picture every one of us should be using as a lens to look at others with. We are called to “feed” their immediate need twice as much as their thriving. Many of us concern ourselves with the thriving, and neglect the immediate.

    Service isn’t an option. How you is your expression of service as worship. Peter passed along the call to serve, “…as good stewards of the varied of God.” That is an interesting concept. Often we talk about stewardship in regards to . Peter talks about being stewards of God’s grace. God’s grace is poured out on the just and unjust, just as it is poured out on the saved and unsaved. Just because there’s plenty, does not mean we are not responsible to steward it.

    1) Our culture claims to value servants. It doesn’t. The church seems to reflect the culture. How can we improve how we value the servants of the church? Who are the servants of the church? Who aren’t the servants of the church?

    2) Why do you think there is that 2-to-1 ratio between feeding and shepherding? How should that inform your ?

    3) How will you serve tomorrow? How will you serve today? How will you serve next month? Does the service always have to be the same?

  • Deep Water Religion

    Matthew 21:23–27, 1 Thessalonians 2:1–12

    Religious figureheads are often accused (too often, correctly) of seeking their own , whether by influence or . Even those with no Christian background see a problem with it. Truthfully, it is not just Christianity that has this struggle, not by far. As Christianity is the culturally “dominant” (though how dominant it truly has been is questionable), we generally see more of the Christian-flavored versions.

    What makes a religious figurehead true or false is a good question to have. The chief priests and elders weighed the cost of their answer. In their case, it was a matter of influence and . They chose what they thought was the safe (or unanswerable) . Yet, had a response for them. Their attempt to be safe did cost them, after all, though not for long.

    The ability of the American people to retain the collective antagonism toward religious figures was also played out in ‘s letter to the Thessalonians. Apparently there were some (likely outside of the Thessalonian Christian ) that were actively trying to discredit Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy. Somehow the mess at Philippi continued to (unjustly) follow them, which was being used to discredit them. They were being accused of being into evangelism and leadership for the money (or for free room and board). It is actually the flattering that has caused many churches and leaders to fall.

    When hardships come (which they do) flattering speech does not produce deeply rooted disciples. It actually can create a mob of people who feel betrayed and will go after those that “hurt” them. As Christians, it is our responsibility to move beyond the shallows of faith and move to deep waters. The deep waters are scary, yet if we well anchored in our faith, we will not go—nor be lead—astray.

    1) Who are some people (not necessarily religious ones) that with flattering speech? Why do they do it? If they are successful in speaking that way, why do you think that is?

    2) In this day and age, business leaders and politicians seem more likely to greedy motives. What is the attraction to their many followers, do you think?

  • Pagan Response

    Ezekiel 27:1–36, Ezekiel 28:20–23, Luke 10:13–16

    To understand Jesus’ “woe” statements, one needs to understand history. While Tyre and Sidon were now (in Jesus’ time) prosperous cities, their pride, pagan behavior, and anti-Israel behavior had gotten them a lot of punishment. After Ezekiel’s , the cities weren’t washed clean, but wiped-off-the-map cleansed. Because of their geography, those locations would recover (and even retain their ), but the penalty received had been severe.

    In the time of Jesus, Tyre and Sidon were still very pagan, Las Vegas and New Orleans (during Mardi Gras) pagan. Devotion to gods or God was perfunctory at best. was the ruler. Yet…
    Jesus stated that those cities would have responded (positively) to the , while the so-called devoted of Judah were apathetic or antagonistic!

    We look at our culture and often sadly proclaim that if they could just see Jesus, they would convert. Or if they joined the , everything would be fine. Or (yes, foot-stomping ahead) if only and the Bible would be allowed in schools again…

    The Jews had prayer. They had the . They had “the church” (i.e., the and synagogues). It was all tightly integrated into their culture and their politics (more foot-stomping). Look where that got them! Chided and lectured by Jesus!

    1) Truly…are we all that different now than the Jews were then?

    2) Politicians—of all stripes—are rightly pulling and poking at our religious- and -strings. They see what we aren’t good at seeing…our inconsistency. They use it to bolster their kingdom. How can you the religious and faith truths from the political lies? How will you do that as each political group takes some, but not all, of the Christian ideology for political talking points?

    3) If the world is like Tyre and Sidon, and we are like the Chorazin and Bethsaida (the unrepentant Jewish cities), what do they (the world) see that we don’t about Jesus and the Kingdom of God?

  • Lamb Expectations

    Numbers 27:15–17, John 10:1–16, Luke 10:1–12

    Shepherds have long held a in the story of Israel. were part of Abraham’s, Isaac’s, and Jacob’s, and the 12 patriarchs’ lives. Moses, too, was a . Therefore, it is not a surprise that he talks about the people of Israel needing a shepherd. And, after being “bitten” by them numerous times, he probably thought they acted like sheep. Moses even goes and uses shepherding language (go and come back) to describe his successor.

    Goes and comes back terminology is used by , too, as he calls himself the shepherd. Jesus goes further and says that his sheep will know his , and run from the voice of a stranger. What’s really interesting is that John then makes an aside and calls it a figure of . As John was writing much later, one can safely that John saw many “running” away from Jesus, who had once proclaimed to follow Jesus. Thus he saw Jesus’ words more figural because the sheep sure didn’t seem to be listening.

    When taking all the sheep and shepherding imagery , it becomes a little more obvious that when Jesus sends out the 72, his expectations are not high. He calls them lambs. This means that they are innocent. In many respects, lambs are innocent even of what it means to be a sheep. The innocent lamb being sent out has no protection in the herd, meaning that the threat of wolves is even more significant. This lamb has no protection (money, food, clothing, weapon).

    The other part of being called lambs, especially in the of the shepherd, is that they are his little lambs of his little flock. Someday, they up to be big sheep. As big sheep, they will lead, guide, and teach the new lambs what it means to be sheep, and who the shepherd is, who the shepherd isn’t, all while the shepherd isn’t present.

    1) Who are the lambs in the church (don’t jump to just the easy answers!)?

    2) Who are the “big sheep” in the church (again, don’t jump to just the easy answers!)?

    3) How do you, we, the church teach who the shepherd is? Can you think of new ways? What about old ways no longer used?

  • Sheltering Wings

    Exodus 37:1–9, Ruth 2:10–3:9, Psalm 61, Luke 13:34–35

    The wings of God are an interesting image, and it is well considering. While God may not have literal wings, wings being part of the comprehension of God cannot and should not be ignored.

    The Ark of the was a reminder of God’s among the people of Israel. The lid of the Ark of the Covenant was called the Seat. Think about that. Beneath the seat were the stones of the Commandments, a container of mana, and (later) a blossoming branch. Mercy was the capstone of it all. Surrounding the Mercy Seat were wings. Were they God’s wings? No, but as they were directed by God to be there, they were indeed a manifestation of God’s will.

    In the story of Ruth, wings come up twice in actually a short time, and both have the same concept surrounding their appearance. In the first, Boaz declares that Ruth has placed herself underneath the wings of God as a refuge. As the story progresses, she then places herself under the wings of Boaz for refuge.

    Wings and refuge often go hand-in-hand in the . We see it yet again in Psalm 61 (and it is also in other Psalms). God has wings of refuge.

    ‘ sad cry against and on behalf of Jerusalem (representing the past and present Israelites and Jews) shows a refusal to be underneath the wings of God, a refusal to be in the refuge of God. Jesus’ words of how a mother hen guards her chicks with her wings, how her wings are the chicks’ refuge from the world…they are nothing short of amazing.

    God wants to shelter us underneath his wings.

    1) Shelter and refuge are things we often seek in things, , and even people. How are you doing seeking shelter under God’s wings?

    2) What do you feel in your , knowing that God wants to gather YOU underneath his wings?

    3) Why would people NOT want to be under God’s refuge? How do you think that might affect how they view, feel, and interact with the world around them?

  • Deceptive Holiness

    1 Timothy 4:6–16, Colossians 2:1–23

    myth: usually a traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon.

    Myths are powerful. Often the struggle of myths is their competition with one another. Focusing on “…explain a practice, belief…”, we all know that there are plenty of practices and beliefs in church that people have. Many of these have been built up to such a point that the Gospel seems to lose to “the way things must be.” The Church of the Nazarene is no different (we’ll try to be careful walking on eggshells). The first Church of the Nazarene was “born” on the streets of Los Angeles’ Skid Row (or its equivalent). There was a huge problem with alcoholism and in general. So, one of the principles was no drinking, and it makes perfect sense. The Christian was held up as an example to live up to, and one of the ways to escape the path of destruction was to stop drinking. Having a religious and social “contract” created a place of restoration and health.

    However (you knew this was coming), the rationale became a litmus test for . If you consumed, sold, or make alcohol, you were obviously not holy. This sounds a little over the top, doesn’t it? Does that mean generations of Christians (including ‘s successor, Timothy) were not holy? Of course not! There is an argument (questioned by many) regarding the alcohol content difference between Biblical wine and today’s wine, but that really isn’t the issue. If we took things to the extreme, we would only be holy if we were monks or nuns (or the Protestant equivalent). That seems pretty silly, too.

    Let’s be clear. We can look around us and see alcohol (and many other things) are a significant problem. Alcohol (and those other things) can easily lead one away from family, church, and God. On the other hand, many of these things should not be presumed to do this. Do many of the troublesome things lead us away from Jesus? Absolutely! God is full of and , and still constantly calls us to him, and away from those things we find tempting.

    Alcohol is an easy one. What about the internet? The internet has enabled the destruction of many families and churches. There are many people addicted to the internet (or something on it). The church isn’t calling for the banishment of the internet (okay, there are probably local churches that are). In fact, the internet may be the greatest evangelism tool we’ve had since the printing press. Alcohol, the internet, food, money all have the potential to destroy humanity.

    With that being said, then, what are we to do? Holiness isn’t just personal. John Wesley noted that holiness is only truly found in social holiness. That means we are all to be holy to/with/for each other. The rules of holiness, just like the rules of the Jews, are shadows of things to come. We are called to walk with each other toward Jesus. We are to study together, pray together, weep together, praise together, worship together. We are called to live as . Rules are easier than holiness. Rules are a checkbox to complete. Sadly, often when we complete the checkboxes we think we’re done. Until we’ve gone through the of death, we are never done walking the road of holiness toward Jesus.

    1) Have you ever accused or thought of someone not being “holy” or the “Christian Life”? Why? Was it a “rule”, or was it Scriptural?

    2) Who are you walking with on the road of holiness? Are you actually talking to them about your holiness journey and theirs?

  • Faithful Servanthood

    Psalm 127, Matthew 25:14–30, Luke 22:35–38

    The question is often asked, “when you get to Heaven, what do you want to ?”

    The common answer is, “well done, good and .”

    It is a feel-good statement. Truthfully, we would all like to hear that from God.

    In the parable, the servants were given to build up the master’s coffers. The interesting part about the parable is that 2 servants did well, and 1 servant did (basically) nothing. The reality is that in investing, you lose money, too. That is part of the risk. A person who launches a small business is putting their money at risk to be successful, with no guarantees. In the parable, we don’t have a servant that tried and failed. There is either trying and succeeding, or there is nothing ().

    This seems significant. Though perhaps it is not. It could be argued that the 2 successful servants were blessed (Psalm 17:1) and the other servant just missed out. This is often the interpretation, as it is seen as applying to Israel for not up to its potential. In fact, burying the money was (culturally) from liability, for if buried money is stolen, there was no responsibility.

    In Matthew’s version of the parable (or a different contextual telling of the parable), Matthew used “faithful” to describe the servant, while Luke did not. For Matthew, this was a matter of . The master trusted the servant to do the right thing (with what the Master gave), and be successful with it.

    When it comes to real life, however, it is not so clear-cut. In his last hours with his disciples, alludes to the disciples being taken care of when sent out by him earlier in the ministry. Yet, now they are to be self-prepared (instead of being taken care of) and even armed (though the weapon-like nature of the sword is questionable).

    1) Why do you think there is such a difference between the servants in the parable and the disciples with Jesus?

    2) What is your to faithful in this context? What do you think it means? Do you think you are being faithful?

    3) If one takes the parable too literally, one can conclude that a person is an unfaithful servant if they fail. What do you think about that?