Tag: relationship

Summary Path

Malachi 4:5–6; Matthew 17:10–13; John 1:19–28

Jesus said that John was Elijah. John said he wasn’t Elijah. Who was right?

The question is, who is Elijah? The other question is, who’s asking?

First of all, let’s talk about Malachi’s words. Malachi prophesied that Elijah would come back to Judah heralding a massive change. Malachi spoke to the Jews post-exile.

Despite the restoration of the temple, the people were overcome with despair and ennui. God didn’t meet their expectation of restoring everything to the way they perceived it having been before (even if its perfection was figurative). They were walking on the downward slope away from God, again.

Malachi didn’t let them off the hook. God was coming, in God’s timing. People would come to God, or they wouldn’t, but something momentous would happen. The Day of the Lord was often synonymous with the end of the world. It was also used to indicate a God-driven cataclysmic change.

Malachi’s words had transformed as the precursor to the Messiah. Elijah would come before the Messiah. This not a literal thing, as reincarnation was not part of Jewish thought. This “Elijah” would be “in the spirit of Elijah” meaning a prophet of God, but with a particular focus on restoring the relationship between the people and God.

So, why did John deny being Elijah? Probably because he didn’t see himself that way. The problem with being compared to a legendary figure is that you know you’re not the legendary figure. There was a lot of weight and expectation, and John probably didn’t want to bear that burden.

Also, as there was so much build-up regarding the Messiah, there was likely just as much build-up around Elijah, and much of it was probably wrong. Why would John want to be a part of that?

There is also the last part of it, which is who Elijah was really couldn’t be evaluated until the Messiah completed the return. John was dead before the fulfillment, and without himself seeing the fulfillment, he certainly would have questioned being “Elijah”.

Jesus, on the other hand, knew what was coming, and knew what had gone before. He had the perspective to be able to call John “Elijah”. In the spirit of Elijah, the Messiah (Jesus) did indeed reset the Day of the Lord. It was only through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus that John could fully be called “Elijah.”

Often, our own perspective of our lives is twisted and/or minimized, for we (like John) cannot really see what came before and what will come after. We do not know the hearts we’ve changed, the paths we’ve diverted. Only at the end will God let us see it all from an eternal perspective.

That we are faithful to God. That we pursue God. That we follow God. That we try to help others follow God. This is what God will let us see at the end. For now, we can only put one step in front of the other.

※Prayer※

Father God, help us to accept that we cannot see the eternal effect of our lives. Lord Jesus, help us to follow you that the eternal effect brings you glory. Holy Spirit, guard and strengthen our hearts for those times when we are discouraged because we don’t see that we’ve made a difference. Amen.

※Questions※

1) There are 2 kinds of eulogies. One that is written by the deceased for reading at the funeral, and the ones that are written in the hearts of others. Which one matters most? In what ways does the eulogy matter for both?

2) What concepts and feelings come to mind when you hear the phrase, “The Day of the Lord”? Why might that be?

2020-08-03
House Building

Psalm 127; Matthew 24:1–2; 1 Corinthians 3:1–11

Unless the Lord is in it, it will fail. This is a common adage heard in the church, and it is based on Psalm 127:1. Yet, the interpretation often is, if it is successful, God is in it. This spiritualizes (or over-spiritualizes) far too many things.

The sun also rises on evil and good. The rain falls on the righteous and unrighteous. (Matthew 5:45)

The vanity spoken of in Psalm 127:1 isn’t earthly success or failure necessarily. It’s about what it means for the Kingdom of God. Striving to be the CEO at the age of 25 (or even 65) is all well and good, but what’s the point?

Is God in Amazon, Alphabet (Google), Microsoft, IBM, Apple, etc.? Yes, insofar as God is everywhere. Are they blessed by God? Insofar as they are made by people made in the image of God, yes.

That isn’t the point, though. How do each of these affect one’s relationship with God? That is the question. Whether it was the temple or it is the United States of America, in the infinite eyes of God it all falls down.

We are all called to be coworkers and laborers in God’s fields. We are called to be builders, maintainers, repairers, and even remodelers of God’s buildings. People are God’s fields. People are God’s buildings.

The Kingdom of God is for people, not stuff or titles. People are to fill the Kingdom of God for only eternal souls can fill an eternal kingdom.

※Prayer※

Eternal God, help us to grasp even a little more of what it means to be part of your eternal kingdom, glory, and family. Amen.

※Questions※

1) How can we be both laborers/builders and fields/buildings? What does this tell you about God?

2) Why is it important to acknowledge that while all success is God allowed, all success is not God blessed?

2020-08-01
…Who’s There?

Matthew 7:7–12; Luke 13:22–30; Revelation 3:14–22

“Knock, Knock” jokes rank up there with “dad” jokes. Most of the time they are a play on words, and almost all the time they’re only cute (or funny) when a kid says them.

These passages with knocking in them are probably quite familiar to you. If not, hang around Christian circles, and they will show up.

The first passage is probably number two on the knocking list. It is filled with a great promise. However, some have misunderstood the promise, and that has caused a lot of pain.

When taken out of context, the passage sounds like God is some cosmic vending machine. You just put your prayer in and out comes whatever it is you want. Within those same circles, there is an added, God just wants you to be happy.

In context, though, the passage is about entering the Kingdom of God. It’s not about wealth or health. It’s about where your citizen is while on Earth, and where you will be after your time here is gone.

The second knocking passage is similar to the first, however, it adds a rejection clause. The implication is people trying to force their way “past” the gates. The implication in this passage is that just because you’re at the right place (let’s say, church) and saw God, that doesn’t mean your heart has submitted to God.

As Jesus continues, he goes so far as to poke at the Jewish pride of being the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Just because they were born in the right place of the right blood did not give them the right to enter the Kingdom of God.

The third of our knocking passages is probably the most famous of them all. It sounds so warm and fuzzy that Jesus is knocking on the door. However, when we have the warm fuzzy feelings, we should often double-check them.

The message isn’t Jesus come on in. The message is really a question, do you know Me? One generally does not open one’s doors strangers without some caution. One certainly doesn’t invite them in for dinner. The implication is that they don’t know or forgot Jesus!

Knocking is making one’s presence known to another. It can be a sound of warning. It can be a sound of greeting. What it is exactly depends on the relationship between those on the other sides of the door.

Knocking doesn’t stop at knocking. There is a choice that goes along with it: yelling, “go away”; opening the door grudgingly; opening the door gladly with a warm welcome; ignoring the knocker, and hope they go away; there are probably other responses, too.

Which door will Jesus walk through?

※Prayer※

Lord Jesus, there are many doors in this life. Help us to view them as opportunities to seek and see you, and to also bring others through those doors to you. Amen.

※Questions※

1) What feelings did/do each of today’s passages create in you? Why?

2) The first two passages are about the Kingdom of God. How does the third passage affect your understanding of the first two?

3) We all want to believe that we would warmly and gladly welcome Jesus if he knocks. How comfortable are you if he knocks right now? Now what?

2020-07-31
Who Wears Your Crown?

Matthew 5:13–16; Mark 9:43–50; Hebrews 2:1–18

In a recent Church Leaders Podcast, the host (Jason Daye) said something that should deeply concern all of us. It’s not what was said was false or wrong. It’s that what was said was true.

“…many people are quicker to share their political views—who they think is right, who they think is wrong—than they are to share their faith story; than they are to share the good news of Jesus Christ.”

Let that sink in…all the way to your gut…where it should feel like a brick of lead or a storm of nausea.

In much of our political “discourse” (that’s a generous description at this point), are we really any different than the so-called un-saved? Are we marching to the beat of a political ideology or groupthink that does not honor Jesus Christ first?

Currently, there is no single political party that fully represents (if that is even possible) the Kingdom of God. In the mainstream political parties, there are many practicing and devout Christians.

In those same political parties, there are too many (perhaps far more) that mouth so-called Christian words, but do not have a saving relationship with Jesus Christ.

It is time for the church to be militant. Militant is an old term that is related to the military but was used to traditionally mean vigorously active. That is the militancy we need. The church must not militant in so far as walking in lockstep with a political party or against one.

What this first requires is that we vigorously question every political view we have and put it to the Scriptures. This is hard. Often, we can take a verse out of context, and use it to bolster our view.

For a long time, the church has been guilty of not using the Scriptures when talking about issues and applying them to a view. Instead, the church has been taking a view and using the Scriptures.

Jesus is King! Long live the King!

※Prayer※

King Jesus, constantly remind us that you are both True king and savior, and nothing and no one of this world could ever be either for us. Amen.

※Questions※

1) When was the last time (outside of your comfortable group) you shared about Jesus? How about politics?

2) When you hear statements condemning everyone of a political party, do you agree?

3) How can you and the church be the prophetic Christian voice to the world, rather than a political follower?

2020-07-15
If Not Them, Than Who?

Genesis 19:15–29; Isaiah 1:7–17; Matthew 11:16–24

Sodom and Gomorrah had long been on the example list. “Don’t do this, or you will be like Sodom and Gomorrah.”

Regardless of which sins you are convinced those two cities are guilty of (though Gomorrah can only be assumed), there is no question that the story of their end is dramatic, along with all that surrounded it.

There was something about these stories that stuck with a person. Whether it was God’s judgment, the portrayal of sexual sins, or the violation of hospitality.

It seems quite likely that Sodom and Gomorrah were often portrayed as unrepentant. It’s quite possible that additional (non-Scriptural) stories evolved around the two infamous cities.

This can be inferred from Isaiah’s words to the leaders of Jerusalem. While some of the sins of Jerusalem may indeed match the two cities, the broken relationship represented is the key feature.

The rulers had been so hard-hearted that all that was left was just shy of the barren and fire-scorched lands portrayed in Genesis. Now, God was bluntly calling them the worst of the worst.

There is a strong implication that had Sodom and Gomorrah sacrificed rightly, they might have actually been heart. Imagine the self-righteous hearts that heard that. They were even lower than Sodom and Gomorrah in God’s eyes.

That must have hurt their pride.

When Jesus speaks of Sodom and Gomorrah, again they are better than the “good” Jewish cities of Chorazin and Bethsaida!

There are a couple of things that should tell us. First, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah grieved God. From a human perspective, at least, they wouldn’t keep popping up if there wasn’t something else in God’s heart.

This also tells us that looking at someone as too far gone is not Scriptural. God is always there…waiting. As severe as Jesus’ words appear to be, they don’t close the door, just provide impetus to go through it.

※Prayer※

Lord, in our hearts there is a part that judges others, appointing them to hell. Help us, Lord, to cast out that part, and to fill it with your love. Amen.

※Questions※

1) What are the sins (there is a number) of Sodom and (assumed) Gomorrah? What are the sins (or what is the sin) that is really behind it?

2) What is the danger of focusing on the commonly assumed sins of Sodom and Gomorrah? What about the commonly assumed sins of those who do not declare themselves as Christians?

3) If God is open to the repentance of those “as bad” as Sodom and Gomorrah, and even those that are worse, who is outside of God’s works of grace?

2020-07-12
An Abomination

2 Kings 25:8–21; Matthew 24:1–22

The fall of the First Temple had far-reaching consequences. It was the end of the glory of Jerusalem. Granted, the Temple had long been stripped of its gold, yet the Temple was still central to Jerusalem

With the burning of the Temple, the cultural center was gone. The religious center was gone. Even though they were unfaithful the Temple was still the religious center; it was just used to honor other gods.

While the King’s palace was administratively important, and the homes were individually important, the loss of the temple was a loss of identity, even if they did not faithfully follow God. This is a conqueror mentality. Break down their identity, and build them a new one (military basic or boot camp has the same principle).

As the Jews came back, they established a God-honoring life. No, it didn’t last long. It did, for a time, re-form them around God in a good way. However, over time human power and authority threw their earthly weight around, and there were a lot of overthrowing and wars.

Eventually, the drama surrounding the Maccabean “revolt” and recovery of “right” worship in the Temple occurred. However, all the interplay amongst various Jewish actors and other parties (i.e., Romans, Syrians, etc.) eventually led to Roman rule.

Finally, Jesus predicts another fall, with the implication of it being more permanent (though that could easily be being read into it). When Jesus talks about the abomination of the desolation, there was one before the Maccabean “revolt”, and there was one after the death of Jesus.

Some Christians and Jews believe that the “true” desolation was when the Dome of the Rock (as Muslim mosque) was built on the site. It could be a third or fourth desolation or none at all.

Regardless, after each desolation a significant change occurred. Historians and theologians may argue whether these changes were good or bad or just were.

The “hidden” reality is that the desolations were merely signs of a preexisting problem…an ineffective or nonexistent relationship with God. This might seem overreach, especially to modern ears and hearts. Yet, both the Old Testament and Jesus (at least for the two desolations of which they speak) tie that in.

If any subsequent “desolations” were that, we don’t have a revelation about that, but it seems to fit.

Perhaps we should also draw parallels between this temple history and the church. The church—especially in the US, yet also in early 20th Century Europe—has been comfortable for too long.

Familiarity, as the saying goes, breeds contempt. Contempt toward and in the church is running rampant. It’s not new. The tipping point is coming, it seems.

Yet familiarity can also breed safety, security, and love. These are not something the church and Christians are stereotyped as. Right or wrong, this is the reality of the church.

The abomination of the desolation is not (yet) the buildings. It is that the world does not know the church by its love.

※Prayer※

Lord, you have called us to be known by our love. Lord, help us love as you love. Amen.

※Questions※

1) Besides the snow one, what do you think of regarding “abominable”? How about “desolation”?

2) How else might an “abomination of the desolation” look today? Would it be country, state, church?

3) How do familiarity and comfort play out in our lives: family, professionally, community, church? What are the positive and negative results of familiarity?

2020-07-08
Intimate Purity of Heart

Leviticus 18:6–18; Jeremiah 13:1–11; Hosea 1:1–3; Hosea 3:1–5

Sexual purity has long been a staple of Christian culture, and with good reason. Even as the culture around Christianity has changed and some Christians’ perspectives have changed about what is sexual purity, sexual purity remains important.

While we could go down the road of what is sexual purity, and how it interacts with general and Christian culture, the why is significantly more important.

The Law of Leviticus has ties to Genesis. Noah became drunk and was naked. His son, Ham, mocked him. Shem and Japeth (Noah’s other sons) covered their father without looking at him (see Genesis 9:18–27).

Noah’s nakedness was shameful, culturally. What had happened was not good. We know that the intimacy and mystery of the parental bed and relationship were marred.

This flows into the concept of Leviticus, where the intimacy and mystery of sex were to be protected. What makes this even more striking is that this was set in the context of tents and shared spaces. While the mechanics (and perhaps occurrences) were known, the final curtain separated the act from others, maintaining mystery and intimacy.

This flows into the concept in Leviticus, where the intimacy and mystery of sex were to be protected. While the mechanics of sex (and even when it occurred) was known in the context of tents and shared spaces, the act was still private. Whether separation was by a physical curtain or something else, the mystery and intimacy of the act between husband and wife was maintained.

While “uncovering nakedness” is often translated as “having sexual intercourse with”, the focus on sex often blinds us to the nakedness shame that is intended. Yes, sex was undeniably part of it. The nakedness is as much a part of the intimacy and mystery.

In fact, focusing on the sex may actually be helping to demystify and depurify sex itself, as nakedness is (usually) a precursor. By raising nakedness to the level that scripture brings it would certainly raise sex, too.

The raising of nakedness to an appropriate level helps us to contextualize this weird passage in Jeremiah about buried underwear. Through our contemporary lens, we just see it as underwear (i.e., functional).

As the passage in Jeremiah shows, another’s underwear is uncovering their nakedness. No, this is not a statement on doing your own laundry. This is about God’s “nakedness” being revealed by Judah.

By uncovering God’s nakedness, Judah destroyed the intimacy and mystery of their special relationship with God. When we get to Hosea, it’s even more apparent at just how intimate God viewed his original relationship with Israel.

Jeremiah wrote to Judah (post-split of Israel) as their falling away was climaxing with exile. Hosea wrote to Samaria (i.e., the Northern Kingdom) who was running away from God almost at the very beginning of the split of Israel.

Samaria was quite far gone (and this was around a century before Jeremiah). God skipped the underwear and talked about promiscuity. Samaria was sleeping with whatever flavor of god it was that day.

It is probably quite jarring to talk about God figuratively wearing underwear and having sex. That was God’s point. God viewed the relationship with Israel (and even the divided Judah and Samaria) as something as intimate as the naked and sexual relationship between husband and wife.

When intimacy with God is talked about, yes, it’s this intimate. This is why the purity of our hearts in regards to our relationship with God (and our spouse or potential spouse) is important to grasp.

※Prayer※

My One and Only God, guide my heart, soul, mind, and ways to diligently seek intimacy with you. Amen.

※Questions※

1) What is your concept of sex and intimacy? (this is probably not a group question)

2) How does the culture’s concept of intimacy shape your/ours/the church?

3) How does the culture’s transactional view of sex affect or impact the views of you or the church?

4) How do you think body-shaming is different from the shame of nakedness? How does body image fit into either/both?

2020-07-07
The Way of…

Romans 8:1–17; Ephesians 2:11–22

No condemnation. Those are powerful words. We just don’t live them out well. We condemn ourselves for our faults. We condemn others for theirs.

What does it mean to be set free? This is not a small question. We often immediately say, free from sin. While that is correct, it is also utterly weak, thin, and a completely insufficient understanding.

Sin is “merely” an aspect of who we are. It is a big one. It is still only an aspect.

When we read Paul’s flesh versus spirit, we stick to these 2 concepts as if they are what Paul is talking about. We take Classical (or “Greek”) thought of spirit (good) and flesh (evil), setting aside that God created the flesh. Is it corrupt? Yes. Is it evil? No.

Flesh, in and of itself, is not evil. In fact, were we to take that perspective, the rest of Paul’s writings would be pointless. When Paul speaks of flesh, he speaks of the “way of the flesh”. The “way of the flesh” and flesh (our bodies) are not inherently the same. Confusing these two continue to be an issue in the church.

The opposite of the “way of the flesh” is the “way of the Spirit”. That’s readily apparent from Paul’s words, yet still, the concept of the flesh being tied to our body rather than the sinful ways of the world creates its own issues.

There are many body image issues out there. Some of them are weight. Some of them are premature balding. There a myriad of issues. Now we have the rise of gender dysphoria. It would be easy to condemn this as the “way of the flesh”, while it is in truth a cry of the soul.

There was a time where people damaged their bodies (sometimes call flagellants) for the “mortification” of the flesh. This is not a healthy view of the body. Some have taken it (tongue-in-cheek) to the point of saying, “the body is evil; kill it with alcohol.” Even the “world of the flesh” took this view to some degree.

The true danger of this view is that it actually lessens the apparent danger of the “way of the flesh”. If it is “just” our bodies, then our new “spirit” bodies will be fine, the ones we get after we die. This still puts Paul’s words into a place he didn’t intend. What happens after is more a matter of faith and speculation. Paul is referring to the now.

The “way of the flesh” is summed up in not submitting to God’s law. The “way of the spirit” is to submit. This also was the danger of circumcision. This was a different mortification of the flesh, yet it provided the same illusion.

The reality is, as implied in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, the way of the spirit is a journey, not a destination. The way of the spirit goes the opposite direction of the way of the flesh. One goes toward God (and submission to God). The other goes away from God (and leads to rebellion to God).

※Prayer※

Jesus, you took on the flesh of Creation and into a new stage of relationship with us. Help us honor your gift, and live lives that bring you honor and glory. Amen.

※Questions※

1) What do you think of when you hear the word “flesh”? What is the difference when you hear “the way of the flesh”?

2) Why might confusing “flesh” and “way of the flesh” an issue? How might it affect our Christian walk?

2020-07-03
Animate Clay

Jeremiah 18:1–13

The story of Jeremiah visiting the potter’s house is probably quite familiar to you.

In many respects, it is an odd sort of comfort story. That is the way it is often used. We are in the hands of God. It sounds good, but that’s not really the point.

Like most of the prophets of whom we have record, Jeremiah wasn’t exactly delivering good news to the people of Israel. Much of his message was dark and about impending doom.

Like people today who hear impending doom and disregard the message so too were the people of Israel. They didn’t really want to hear the message. They didn’t really want to pay attention to the world-changing around them.

The greatest deceit and greatest cruelty of the false prophets were that they told the people what they wanted to hear, not what they needed to hear. They became a “drug” of a sort, dulling the senses to both the Israelite relationship to God and the significant changes (world-conquering kinds) around.

These false prophets fed the desires of false hearts. They told lies that because they were God’s people, nothing bad would happen. They told lies that God really doesn’t care that they worship pagan gods.

They believed because they wanted to. God tried a different method.

When God talks about treating Israel as a potter treats clay, it is an ultimate question. What is the purpose of Israel in regards to God?

God’s purpose was not to make Israel equal to clay, but to point out that God is…God. God was and is capable of doing so. God is Creator. God is capable of destroying Creation.

God doesn’t. God won’t. Some would say, dangerously, that God can’t because to do so would mean that God denies God’s own love (self-giving and -sacrificing love).

When God brings Jeremiah to the potter’s house, it is not to say that God can and will, but that God can and doesn’t want to.

What was going on around Israel would eventually cause Israel to fall. Israel was spared, for the moment, due to God’s saving hand. Israel could make a different choice.

We know their choice. Our choice is before us.

※Prayer※

Holy Spirit, may our hearts, minds, spirit and habits be open to your molding work of us. Amen.

※Questions※

1) Do you tend toward the complete potter (destroy/reshape/mold/control) thinking, or more toward the “could, but won’t” understanding of God? What shaped that thinking of yours?

2) Clay does not reach it’s final form (pottery) until it is fired in the kiln. How might the fire of the kiln provide insight into the Holy Spirit?

3) If (big if) the potter were to destroy his craftwork, how might the pottery be reused to make something beautiful? How might (big might) this provide insight into God

2020-07-01
Pour

Matthew 25:14–30; Luke 19:12–27 (read online ⧉)

If you’re like most people in the US, you have a retirement account. If you’ve retired, the stock market swings may not affect you very much, except for secondary investments. If you are not retired or have other significant investments in the stock market, your stock funds—your financial future and security—might seem pretty shaky.

If you’ve been taught to treat the stock market with a “long game”, then the current volatility isn’t too concerning. If you haven’t been taught that, you’re watching the stock market with acid indigestion when it falls and elation when it rises.

We really do understand the concept of investing when it comes to money. We don’t do so well investing in people.

Over the last few decades, as the focus on schooling increases (along with its costs), mentoring is talked about a lot, and done very little. There seems to be an expectation that people will now self-educate. There is good in that, as true education (versus regurgitation) requires self-direction. The problem that then arises is a lack of community and loyalty.

In Luke’s version of the minas (i.e., talents), the nobleman who left his servants behind expected self-direction. In this version of this tale, 10 servants are each given a mina (for a total of 10 minas). We only hear about the super-successful servant, the quite-successful servant, and the vocally ungrateful one. The prologue to the tale indicates that the vocal servant probably voiced the feelings of them all. He was just the only one who said anything.

What about the other 7 servants? Did any fail and declare bankruptcy? Did some only earn 1 or 2 minas? Did some at least put it in the bank and gain interest?

The joy and difficulties of parables and illustrative stories such as these are that we can miss differences. Most of us read into this Lukan version what we read in Matthew. We see the 3 and miss the 10. The differences in these 2 versions mirror similar tales in our days. Magazines, blogs, TV shows will focus on the super- and quite-successful entrepreneurs and leaders. They rarely pay attention to the burying type but are vicious wolves when they do.

Except for election season, the remaining 7 are ignored. Leaders will all too often focus on the 3, and not the 7. They will pour 80% of their effort (even its nothing more than taking credit) into the 2, get 800% back, evaluate themselves as successful, and cast-off the 1. The 7? Only God knows. Their potential has been completely squandered.

This is not to say that everyone is capable of pouring into 10 people and making them all successful. However, the reality is that while the nobleman got something from 2, what does this tell us about his leadership for the other 8?

※Prayer※

All-Seeing God, help us to see those you have put before us to lead and mentor. Help us be humble to ask for the guidance and wisdom of others. Amen.

※Questions※

1) Which of the 10 servants (in Luke’s story) are you?

2) Who are you pouring into, leading, and mentoring?

3) Is mentoring and leading a role, or is it a relationship? Why would the difference matter?

2020-06-24