Devotion.al

Tag: name

  • Why of Baptism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Peace and Blessings

    Numbers 6:22–27, Luke 10:3–12, John 14:25–30, John 20:19–28 (read online ⧉)

    The Levitical or priestly has been a mainstay for the Jews and Christians for millennia. The pronouncement of blessing, protection, acknowledgment, , , and peace pretty much sums up what a with God should result in. What makes this tiny passage even more strange, yet intimate and comforting is that God states that this is God’s name. Perhaps not a name in the proper sense, but God’s name nonetheless. God’s name would then be Blessing Protecting Shining (i.e., “I see and acknowledge you”) Gracious Favoring Peace-Giving God.

    When , therefore, sends out the disciples, they are being sent out on his (God’s) behalf to bestow peace upon . So, think about this…they are to withdraw their peace from houses that do not respond. If peace is there…if God is there. If peace is not there…God is not there. There there is how peace is lived out. The disciples were to go to the first house that welcomed and accepted them. They were to go from house to house to get a better deal (certainly not the way our culture functions). Were they to do this, they would be contaminating God’s peace that they were sent with.

    This becomes even more apparent in Jesus’ bestowing of peace on his 11 disciples on his final night with them (Judas had left at this point of the evening). They were no longer just sent with his peace (as they were before), but now they were bearers of his peace. It sounds similar, granted, but it is different. Similar to baby birds, they went out (previously) and came back. However, now it was time to leave the nest, and they had to carry forth on their own.

    Yet, even on their own, Jesus still has to restore their peace, just as it is with us. They had just witnessed something horrible, evil, and unjust. Then they experience the unimaginable. Now they were, they felt, like without their . This time, peace is the tranquility in the . Only Jesus can it so deeply. Only when we embrace it do we receive it.

    1) What does it mean to embrace the peace of God? What might it mean to us and the way we live our lives to embrace the peace of God?

    2) Surrender is a significant part of God’s peace. What needs to be surrendered for God’s peace?

    3) What has to be surrendered for the world’s peace? What is the difference in surrendering to God and to the world for peace?

  • Receiving Peace

    Luke 12:49–53, Luke 14:31–35, Luke 19:32–38 (read online ⧉)

    has the title of , yet our first passage today from Luke certainly causes one to question that. Some scholars align this with the Jewish zealot party, which sought the overthrow of the Roman Empire in Israel by (primarily) violent methods. However, it is prefaced by fire. Again, it sounds strange, unless we recognize that this is a cleansing and purifying fire. The sad is that many will be confronted with Jesus’ words and make a decision that has the potential to destroy . This is the that Jesus brings. Some will follow Jesus, the will follow the world.

    The title of Prince of should probably be written more properly, the Prince (of the people who live by and call on and believe in the of the Lord) of Peace (knowing that the Creator of the Universe is overall). It’s a lot wordier, but it helps us understand the seeming conflict between Jesus’ title and the first words we read.

    Certainly, war would not be the function of the Prince of Peace, would it? Yet, here Jesus uses that analogy. It’s not because Jesus desires war, but because the people were surrounded by war and its legends, meaning that this was an effective way to to people. On the other hand, we could look at it as the weaker party (us) seeking peace with the stronger party (God), and, oddly enough, the negotiation and sealing of that agreement is through Jesus Christ.

    The reality is that the ultimate culmination of peace will not happen here. Peace is in Heaven. However, when we spend time meditating on God’s word about peace, and meditating on who Jesus is (the Prince of Peace), we receive God’s peace here on earth.

    1) What are your thoughts about flame being a purifying image? What concept, if any, in Christianity is symbolized by a flame? How do they work ?

    2) Does it bother you that Jesus uses war imagery to make a point? Why or why not?

    3) If the ultimate peace only happens in Heaven, why pursue it here on earth?

  • Peace is in Heaven

    Luke 12:49–53, Luke 14:31–35, Luke 19:32–38

    ‌Jesus has the title of , yet our first passage today from Luke certainly causes one to question that. Some scholars align this with the Jewish zealot party, which sought the overthrow of the Roman Empire in Israel by (primarily) violent methods. However, it is prefaced by . Again, it sounds strange, unless we recognize that this is a cleansing and purifying fire. The sad truth is that many will be confronted with Jesus’ words and make a decision that has the potential to destroy . This is the that Jesus brings. Some will follow Jesus, the will follow the world.

    ‌The title of Prince of Peace should probably be more properly, the Prince (of the people who live by and on and believe in the of the Lord) of Peace (knowing that the Creator of the Universe is over all). It’s a lot wordier, but it helps us understand the seeming conflict between Jesus’ title and these first words we read.

    ‌Certainly war would not be the function of the Prince of Peace, would it? Yet, here Jesus uses that analogy. It’s not because Jesus desires war, but because the people were surrounded by war and its legends, meaning that this was an effective way to to people. On the other hand, we could look at it as the weaker party (us) seeking peace with the stronger party (God), and, oddly enough, the negotiation and sealing of that agreement is through Jesus Christ.

    ‌The reality is that the ultimate culmination of peace will not happen here. Peace is in Heaven. However, when we spend time meditating on God’s word about peace, and meditating on who Jesus is (the Prince of Peace), we receive God’s peace here on earth.

    1) What are your thoughts about being a purifying image? What concept, if any, in Christianity is symbolized by a flame? How do they work together?

    2) Does it bother you that Jesus uses war imagery to make a point? Why or why not?

    3) If the ultimate peace only happens in Heaven, why pursue it here on earth?

  • 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 . 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, 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 . The “blood” of the New 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 we bought. Lastly, though, each of us may have something that needs to be sacrificed to live a with and for Christ. We have 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 and 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 ‘s grace and love in ordinary things?

  • 23 November 2019

    Jeremiah 22:18-30, 2 John 4–11 (read online ⧉)

    It is always a parent’s that something of them will be passed on and carried by their children, and even their grandchildren. If it is a company or wealth, people generally make detailed preparations to make sure that all goes as planned. There are wills, contracts, foundations, trusts and so on that exist to do this. Are they always successful? No. The same is, sadly, also the about . Sometimes the parents don’t have the tools or support. Sometimes the children don’t connect. Sometimes circumstances occur that drive the child (or the parents) away from the faith. Then the next generation falls, too.

    King Jehoiakim was the of Josiah. Josiah was a (to God) king. Johoiakim’s brother, Jehoahaz, was king 3 months before being deposed by Egypt. Jehoiakim’s original was Eliakim, meaning “God will establish.” The Pharaoh of Egypt renamed him to Jehoiakim, which means “Yahweh will establish.” Why does this matter? Josiah named his son in faith that he would carry on. He didn’t. Neither of these brothers did. Did Josiah mess up? Possibly. Were there lots of people pressuring the men to stray from God’s path? Most definitely. The Pharaoh probably renamed Eliakim/Jehoiakim as a matter of dishonor, dismissal, or a statement that their God established him (Pharaoh) as their ruler.

    Do we hold Josiah accountable for his sons? Biblical commentators nor pastors preaching on passing on the faith seem to. Yet, when a child or grandchild turns from the faith, we often feel and as if the parent is solely responsible for that choice, or mostly responsible for the choice. There are plenty of individuals in the Scriptures that are held up today as examples whose children walked away from the faith. Rarely do people recognize the disconnect.

    John’s letter to the “lady” is oddly phrased. Some commentators believe that John was referring to a house as the lady, but with the variables of singular and plural words, it is more likely that there are singular “you”’s and plural “you”’s that are intentional. Regardless, John celebrating that some (note, not all) of her children are following the faith reinforces that this is nothing new. Perhaps we are putting too much pressure on people to be “perfect” in passing on the faith. Should we all try hard? Yes! Should we still try when it seems impossible? Yes!

    Ultimately, though, we have to recognize our responsibility to do our best as we are able. We are not God. God calls them. They must choose to respond.

    1) Is there anyone you feel called to bring into fellowship with ?

    2) Why do you think they don’t know Jesus, or may not want to know Jesus?

    3) What the part in their to Jesus are you responsible for?

  • 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 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.

    made a radical statement regarding the . The Pharisees and many other Jewish groups were looking for something tangible, which mostly revolved around the (in some form) of an independent (and probably wealthy, secure, and powerful) Jewish , 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 come, while 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 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 , 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 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?

  • You…Priest…You

    Malachi 2:1–9, Colossians 3:5–17, 1 Peter 2:1–8 (read online)

    In a number of bibles (both translations and iterations), this passage in Malachi has the header of Warning to the Priests. You may have read that yourself. This passage is indeed to the Israelite priests, who fulfill the forms of , , supplication, and , but do not fulfill the heart of any of it. Tying the heart of worship to honoring God’s should give any of us pause. Look at what God is equating to the behavior of their hearts: animal poop and entrails. In other words, what’s coming out of them is crap. Pretty harsh.

    The problem that many Christians have reading this passage is, “this doesn’t apply to me.” Except if you read ‘s and Peter’s letters, the category of Israelite/Jewish Priest actually does apply to all of us. Paul’s letter removes the -based barriers between people. Peter removes the concept of non-priest. In other words, the warning of Malachi does apply to each of us.

    Now, we could say that the Law doesn’t apply to us. Okay. Yet, the “Law” of (love the Lord your God) would seem to wipe that argument out in context. While we use and have the titles of priest, pastor, reverend, minister, and while they have a certain place within the church, that does not spare us from the priesthood of all believers.

    Re-read Malachi. Replace “you” with “me”, and “your” with “my”. Take this personally.

    1) How have you violated what God calls on us to do/be according to the words in Malachi?

    2) Scripture is pretty down-to-earth. This passage in Malachi shows it (along with a little rephrasing). Why is it important that the are so down-to-earth? What happens when we over gentle the of God?

    3) Barriers are a common tactic. Why do you think it is important that Paul and Peter removed them? What barriers need to be removed in your , particularly with how you categorized and interact with other people?