Devotion.al

Tag: normal

  • Otherly Holiness

    Psalm 22:23-31; Genesis 15:1-21; Romans 3:21-31 (read online ⧉)

    In Genesis, we read of the covenant God made with Abram. When we look at the blood and sacrifices from a modern , it is easy to be repulsed or disgusted by the concept. In Abram’s time, this was a normal way to seal a covenant.

    A covenant is a . When making a covenant such as this, there were two parties, the strong party and the weak party. If was often an agreement where the strong party would agree to defend and/or take care of the weak party, and the weak party would submit—both in authority and tribute (i.e., think taxes)—to the strong party.

    If we think of this logically, then, God would take the role of the strong party, and Abram would take the role of the weak party. However, in this instance God takes the place of both parties. Abram is more of a to the making of the treaty, rather than a party to it. How can God take the place of both roles? This is a foretelling of what is to come.

    For generations, God protected and watched over Abram’s descendants. Even when they wandered or ran away from God, God still was watching and caring.

    In Romans, writes: “…since all have sinned and fall short of the of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put as a of atonement by his blood…”

    This is where we can see the submitting party of the covenant. Jesus Christ’s perfect submission to God’s authority, and sacrifice of himself, fulfills the weak party’s role. It is, of course, just an analogy, yet there is a huge in this. God created the universe, yet because we are unable to save ourselves, or able to fulfill the entirety of God’s holiness, Jesus took our place, and the requirements of submission and tribute.

    We, like Abram, are often more witnesses to God’s holiness and fulfillment of his righteousness than actual participants of either. Yet, we are called to be .

    1) What do you think the responsibilities are of a witness? Are fulfilling them?

    2) When you think of God being both the strong and weak party, what comes to mind?

    3) How does it make you feel to understand that God took your place as the weak party?

  • Gospel Politics

    John 8:31–59, Acts 13:46–52 (read online ⧉)

    One of the biggest struggles we—as Christians in America—continue to face, and will face even more deeply, is the hardness of to the . This will include people who identify themselves as Christians. As it becomes harder to be a cultural Christian, the pressure to not be a Christian at all will continue to grow. Yes, it is sad. We became complacent and comfortable, which rarely produces a life- Gospel. We ought to really read the Gospel accounts, and even Acts and the Epistles where we are the Jews (including Pharisees and Sadducees) and the Judaizers.

    Currently, Jesus’ is growing most quickly in places where Christianity is often opposed or co-opted by the government (becoming a false Gospel and church in the process). People not part of “the West” are the Gentiles of which we read. We, “the West”, have become what we thought we overcame. You might immediately protest this. It’s not bad to protest this. However, as we look at how the church family has been split between 2 political parties, we can see that our understanding of following Jesus Christ has become twisted.

    Most politicians are practical with their . They will commit (or at least pretend) to what will get them votes. Theirs is not, by practice, a Gospel of . There are “planks” in both political parties that Christians should support. However, if it were an all-or-none supporting the entirety of a political party’s platform (and this would even include those outside the normal two), all Christians would probably—if they remained true to the teachings of Jesus Christ—have to stop voting. This isn’t solely an American thing either. This is the reality in most democracies/republics. No one political party will agree with all the teachings of Jesus. Yet, we have people focusing on political parties and politicians, and not on Jesus Christ.

    We are the Jews. We have become partners with the State. We have even gone so far as to demonize that call themselves Christians as if our own house is clean, as if we are God, being able to judge (more like condemn) the heart of another person.

    John tells us that the Jews, not being able to stand against Jesus, called him a Samaritan (in other words, he wasn’t a “real” Jew) and demon-possessed! Wow! What chuztpah! We are hearing that from Christians that person is not a “real” American, “real” Christian, “evil”, “deluded”, and so on. THE WORLD JUDGES US BY THE WORDS WE USE. Look at the words we are using against each other. These are the same tongues that sing, “blessed be the of the Lord!”

    As Western “civilization” walks and runs away from Christianity, there are still plenty of people waiting to hear the good news of Jesus Christ. Many of them are far away. Many of them are right next door.

    1) What ways can you think of to take the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the world? Look at each of those ways. Will the world actually listen to them? Why or why not?

    2) One of the tendencies of the Jewish leaders was to say, “come to us.” In what ways do modern Christians do the same? In what ways are modern Christians different?

    3) Politics is a very sore and volatile subject these days. How can we still use politics to share the and of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

  • Mocking Truth?

    Luke 23:32–43, 2 Peter 3:1–18 (read online ⧉)

    Humor can be cruel. Often it is aimed at an individual who is different than us. Sometimes cruel humor helps us avoid our own insecurities. Humor can be quite painful at times. However, it the cruelty that wraps itself in humor that becomes something completely different. It leads to diminishing of , not just for a laugh (though that can be quite painful), but for a lifetime. It also leads to blindness, especially blindness to .

    Crucifixion was not uncommon in Jesus’ day. It was designed to be what it was…a murderous spectacle. Yet, there were certain things that were added on to it that were not : the purple robe, being hailed as “King of the Jews,” the crown of thorns. The soldiers mocked him. The Jewish leaders mocked him. The people mocked him. In the people’s defense, their fear of both the Roman soldiers and the Jewish leaders put them in a situation were likely many of them felt as if they had no choice but to join the mocking. However, just like many of us, this doesn’t particularly excuse it.

    By the time of Peter’s letter, the return of the Lord seemed that it would never happen. The people, therefore, were being mocked for their . In addition, because their expectation was “obviously” false, their way of life and their beliefs were also mocked.

    Peter seeks to remind them that God’s words never return void (Isaiah 55:11). By implication, he is pointing out that God’s promises have come true. By implication, he also points out that the Prophets often did not know the exact timing, just that God was moving. That was the same situation that the was experiencing. God was moving, it was just not the way and the when they were expecting.

    As Peter also felt the need to reinforce “the ” conveys some concern the people were diminishing the truth and/or the validity of the . Just like many of us are experiencing in this day and . We experience the scoffers and the doubters, who look at us and the Scriptures and shake their heads in of us. They pity us. As belief in the Truth of Christianity wanes, we approach the disbelief alive at the time of Peter (though there is a long way to go). It becomes progressively harder as the ratio of believer to non-believer changes amongst our families, friends, coworkers.

    1) How do you maintain your in the Word in the midst of all this disbelief?

    2) What other concerns do you think Peter had in this passage?

    3) Have you ever been mocked or scorned? How about for your faith?

  • Same Change, Different Day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Asking Questions

    John 6:53–69, Colossians 2:6–10 (read online ⧉)

    We are all subject to the latest fads or the latest rumors or the latest news. Then there is the latest science news or latest health fad. It can overwhelm a person pretty quickly. The of the matter is that we are simple creatures who think they are complex. We also like to think more of ourselves than we ought.

    When talks about philosophy and empty deceit, he’s talking about things that don’t . “Give life” means something in the “Christian” world to many, but doesn’t mean much to those outside of it. This is where the real danger of philosophy and empty deceit come into play. Paul’s words were written to those who believe that had come to redeem humanity, that Jesus was that one that brought life.

    Yet, at the same time, many in the church were torn by the popular and new philosophies which drew them away from the apostolic teaching. We often don’t talk about the “schools” of thinking that were common with one or two leaders having (for a time) a pronounced impact on their cities. These people would use fancy language and (what seemed like) logic to pull people into their circles. Of course, as their circles expanded, so did their influence. Their goal was their , not (necessarily) the improvement of their followers. This is what makes it empty deceit. These impressive people draw people into their sphere of influence with the offer of a new life, but it all ends up being empty.

    By no means does this mean, as some have interpreted it, the philosophy is bad. In many respects, the vast deepening of Christian philosophy may indeed be what the church needs to reach the world and expand God’s . Philosophy will often ask that need to be asked, yet many do not want to ask. That is one of the gifts that philosophy has for the church.

    The insight we have regarding philosophy and empty deceit comes from Peter, “Lord, to whom will we go? You have the words of life.”

    1) How do (Simon) Peter’s words apply to philosophy? How do they apply to empty deceit?

    2) What is the difference between “normal” deceit and “empty” deceit? Why does it matter?

  • The Aha Pilgrimage

    1 Kings 10:23–24, Isaiah 60:1–6, Micah 4:1–5, Matthew 2:1–12, Revelation 21:22–24 (read online ⧉)

    People approaching another country’s king with respect, almost as a pilgrimage, was not uncommon. We read the passages and often are lacking the context that kingdoms would often send delegations to a new , just to set a good basis for future relationships. They would travel long miles to do so. Sometimes it’s even questionable if it was “ it”. Part of it was to gather information, but much of it really was to build relations. When you didn’t know who would be your next enemy, it was wise to plant positive seeds of the as far as one could. The other part of this was also a showing of strength and wealth. If such-and-such a country could send this much and this person (usually a person of theoretical importance), then perhaps currying was smart.

    The Queen of Sheba visiting Solomon was a little outside the norm. According to the writer(s) of Kings, it seemed pretty natural, for the whole world wanted to talk to Solomon. While it was to send delegations, the author(s) of Kings seems to be emphasizing it, almost as if there was something far greater at work.

    The concept of people coming to Israel because of what God was doing was by no means new. And the writer(s) of Kings knew it. However, what was a “nice” thing, became an important piece of the prophetic narrative in regards to exile. Isaiah and Micah both indicate that the nations will come to Israel. It takes on a deeper role than just earthly kingdoms. The spiritual aspect was implicit in this vision. It was a calling of Israel to its role…a to the world.

    When was born, there was no great fanfare in the larger world. Sure, some shepherds saw and heard some angels, but they were only shepherds. The so-called wise and powerful of Israel certainly didn’t care for some poor child born during the census, especially since the child’s importance was only witnessed by some (dirty, disgusting, untrustworthy, worthless) shepherds. And, really, what does it matter that some crazy prophet and prophetess announced Jesus, or any of the crazy story about some old priest (Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist). The so-called wise and powerful received, just like in days of old, dignitaries from foreign places. It echoed the “glory days” of Solomon. They probably celebrated their seeming rising importance.

    Yet, these dignitaries weren’t looking for this particular court of man. Instead, they were looking for the “court” of the new king. The witness these dignitaries followed was a star! They didn’t receive a notice of a new king by messenger, they looked to a star! This is another piece of the story. The from and for whom the Messiah would come didn’t even notice. In many respects, this was the first case of reverse evangelism, where the ones that missionaries used to send people to, now send people back to restore the .

    1) When it comes to the word “epiphany”, who had it? The Israelites, the Romans, the foreigners?

    2) Epiphany is supposedly proof that Jesus calls non-Israelites (i.e., non-Jews) to him. Do you think the story of the shows that? Is so, how? If not, why not?

    3) If Christians are the Jews and powerful people in the story of Epiphany, who are the Magi? What might these Magi have to show us what it means to be followers of Jesus?

  • Childless Futurism

    Genesis 18:1–11, Luke 1:5–25, Luke 1:36–56 (read online ⧉)

    We are now in a time where having children is no longer an assumed item on the checkboxes of . As people, especially women, become more educated the birth rate drops. The practical reality is that because women are educated they too can provide for the in ways other than housework and childbearing. This is a cultural (actually across many cultures) reality. It does not mean it should be, only that it is. As women are increasingly joining the workforce, having children becomes less of a priority (for both husband and wife), for careers prominence.

    There is something else that is occurring, and that is the rise of anti-natalists. These are people who believe that having children is immoral, because of ecological reasons or because of the normal condition of suffering. In many respects, they have a point. What’s interesting is that this is not an abortion thing, so the pro-live versus abortion debate doesn’t really have a place (generally) with anti-natalists.

    These reasons, along with advances in medical science, start to affect how we look at the stories of Sarah and Elizabeth. In our age, either there is no excuse to not have children (other than ), or there is no good reason to have children.

    This is not to disparage anyone’s choices, but to help peel back the layers of yet another thing that the world no longer understands: the of a woman who had lost to have children, but now God would her with one.
    Mary’s visit to Elizabeth ties the messenger and the message together. God has come! God is here! While it is called Mary’s Magnificat, how could Elizabeth have not worshiped and rejoiced with Mary in this wonderful redemptive movement of God. Through old and barren Elizabeth’s pregnancy to Mary’s impossible -made pregnancy, God was doing something new! REJOICE!

    1) Why is tied to joy? How are they different?

    2) If you were to decide to not have children, what is another way you might express or show an example of that kind of joy?

    3) Whose joy was better/greater, Elizabeth’s or Mary’s? Why?

  • Valuing the Heart

    Psalm 6, Mark 5:24–34, Luke 7:36–50 (read online ⧉)

    We greatly our doctors and nurses who nurse ourselves and our loved ones to health. However, what we do today is different than it used to be. Science and medicine have provided us information that is beyond ancient . Even we untrained people have a far greater knowledge of than was available to the person many years ago. Thus when the scriptures ask for healing, and when healing occurs it is a miracle. This is not to diminish the healing received then or now. However, there is something here in Scripture that is only recently coming into mainstream thinking….

    The woman who touched ‘ cloak was both desperate and had . An interesting combination to say the least. Suffering from an injury/illness for 12 years and bankrupt because of it. We’ve heard stories of or known people who may have not suffered as long but certainly lost everything. Healing was great. Peace was needed too with all that she had gone through.

    Then there was the woman who poured perfume on and washed Jesus’ feet. Obviously infamous among the “clean” and “appropriate” people, she was probably a societal outcast in some form or another. Her entire was not likely to be a gentle one. She needed peace.

    Neither woman, at the point we them, are doing well in life. Based on context, we can reasonably say that they were the downtrodden of the downtrodden, and they were women. All of this piled together in that time meant that even being healed or being defended by Jesus would not necessarily make their lives easier.

    What Jesus did is justify their existence. He saw them for what they were…children of God. He valued them. By valuing them, and publically doing so no less, he gave them an opportunity to have something they may have never had, or hadn’t had in a very long time…peace.

    Our medicine and science are great. We are doing so well on the “mechanical” side of healing. We aren’t, however, doing as well in healing hearts. In cases of severe health issues, just being healed is only the beginning. There are some forms of emotional trauma that go along with that. Those that have suffered need peace.

    1) The “mechanical” nature of medicine resembles other “mechanical” areas of our society. Why do we avoid dealing with emotions? What does it mean to you that Jesus brings peace in those situations?

    2) Societal healing is painful. Currently, there are a lot of scabs being peeled off and oozing sores finally being treated. Thinking of the above stories, what does that tell us about how Jesus would today?

    3) Christians regularly pray for physical healing. Why? What do we miss when we pray for physical healing alone?