We'd appreciate you allowing the use of cookies. They are anonymized while allowing us to see how the site is used.

Devotion.al

Tag: relationships

  • Bacon Obedience

    Deuteronomy 6:4–9, Deuteronomy 11:13–21, Numbers 15:37–41 (read online ⧉)

    According to some people, bacon deserves its own food group. There is a somewhat true adage, cook bacon and the men will come. Sad, but true. A mercifully short culinary path was bacon everything: bacon mints, bacon gum, bacon ice cream, bacon shaped bandages, bacon jelly beans. Pretty much the bacon theme was done. And some of it was just disgusting. In Israelite (and subsequent Jewish) culture/religion, pigs were unclean animals. They weren’t to be eaten. There is a lot of speculation as to why pigs were prohibited. One of the theories revolves around a particular parisite that was common in pigs (and is still an issue today to a far lesser degree). Another theory is that pigs are, effectively, scavengers. They eat pretty much anything. That has its own health issues. Scavengers and bottom feeders (think shellfish) were also prohibited food. A slightly off-the-beaten-path theory is that pigs are so easy to raise for food, that sheep (and other clean animals) were a physical manifestation of God’s blessings of the Israelites.

    The Shema Yisrael (this collection of today’s passages) isn’t about bacon or pork, or even food. It is about a relationship with God. The tassels (Numbers 15:27) were another physical manifestation of a person declaring their loyalty to God. By their food (or lack of particular kinds) and clothing, they displayed that they were in relationship and fellowship with God. We focus a lot on the “rules” in the Old Testament. Yet, the rules were never the point. The rules were actually the sign that the Israelites loved God more than other gods, cultures, nations, or tribes. They were to show that God was more important to them than anything or anyone else.

    The Christian world is a mixed bag when it comes to obeying the food laws of the Old Testament. Certain traditions hold to some of them. Some hold to a “Garden of Eden” level. Most of the Christian world, however, does not view the Old Testament dietary laws as binding. Of course, while perhaps not viewing them as binding, they look at them as guidelines and will try to follow them to some degree. So, no bacon for you.

    If you don’t like bacon, that’s easy for you. However, it isn’t about the bacon. It’s about the relationship. In the Christian circle, even among those the food adherents, that is the recognized reality. Even in the Roman Catholic church (often being accused about being more about law than grace) acknowledges and teaches that relationship is primary. It’s not as if rules and practices are bad, quite the contrary. It is the reason between the practices and rules that is important: love of God.

    1) How do rules affect and influence relationships between people?

    2) If, through prayer, God revealed that you had to never eat your favorite food again (even bacon), what would you do? Why? Would you struggle?

    3) Bacon can also provide an allegory to our spiritual life. Something that God forbade one, may have not forbidden another. How do you interact with people whose forbidden thing (alcohol, pot, smoking, pork, movies, etc.) is different than yours? What is your forbidding thing or things?

  • Relating Relationally

    Genesis 24:1–27, Ruth 2:1–16, 1 Corinthians 7:1–9, Hebrews 11:13–22 (read online ⧉)

    Arranged marriages are nothing new. Many arranged marriages were and are political, financial, or just friends “knowing” their children should be together. The story of Isaac and Rebekah doesn’t quite fall into those lines, but it is still an arranged marriage. Just like any marriage, there were ups and downs, good days and bad. From a generational and legacy standpoint, marriage was a core component. The servant in this story was the one who had to trust and rely on God for the journey to be a success, and to be able to go to his master (Abraham) with his task fulfilled.

    The story of Ruth is considered a success as she was faithful…and landed a husband. By landing a husband, she obtained personal security. She also obtained a legacy for her husband (and by extension, her deceased father-in-law) and her mother-in-law, Naomi. That he was honorable and rich didn’t hurt, of course. In a culture where women were not highly valued, this was a significant win for Ruth and Naomi. For the women, marriage was not just success, it was safety and identity. In the story, too, was trusting God. In this case, it was Ruth (the Moabite foreigner) who trusted and relied on God. Naomi (the Israelite) has lost her trust in God. God’s faithfulness to Ruth, however, did seem to have restored Naomi’s trust.

    In this day and age and culture, we have been spared (generally) the arranged marriages of old, though they still happen. Marriage has long been a mainstay and cultural and societal bedrock for generations, and not just in American or even Western culture, but in most cultures and ages. Yes, there are exceptions. They are few. Whether you view the current changes regarding marriage in the United States as good or bad, it has changed. There is an important reason to understand that, Americans deeply value marriage. That should give hope, but it should also make us cautious. When we raise marriage to such a high level (which we have), people quest and ache for it. Then they will pursue it. Then they will fail. This is not to say that we should not view marriage highly, but that our view of it should not be over that of widows, widowers, and singles. In fact, it is not unreasonable to conclude that much of the failure of marriages are not just unpreparedness, it is also suitableness.

    There often comes a judgemental tendency regarding this in Evangelical Christian circles. This is certainly not exclusive of Evangelical Christianity, as there is a religion that teaches (or at least use to) that a single man over the age of 25 to be a danger to society. Holding up relationships, especially romantic ones, as the panacea of all things is setting up relationships to not be able to bear the weight of expectations. Once relationships become gods, not only does God have no place, but relationships try to make up the lack of God by putting it all into the relationships.

    The other struggle is the one Paul is concerned about, and that is sexual morality. In other words, if you can’t handle your “needs”, then get married. Paul seems to put marriage as below singleness. Think about that for a moment. Paul, often elevated (rightfully) as a “doctor” of the Church, did not necessarily view marriage as anything more than a way to avoid sexual immorality. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for earthly marriage. On the other hand, Paul did say that Christ and the Church were Groom and Bride, so it’s not as if marriage wasn’t useful. Still, it wasn’t a ringing endorsement. Both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches developed monasteries and convents for those called to it. This was an elevation of singleness to the glory of God.

    Those who a single, widowed, or married are to love and value each other equally, not based upon marital status. All statuses have to rely on God for fulfillment, and none are completely fulfilling for anyone, at least not without God. It is trusting God, when we cannot see the path before us, and trusting God when our relational desires are not fulfilled. Relationships fill holes inside each and every one of us.

    1) How do you view people who are in a different relational status than you are? Why? How does that fit into being framily together?

    2) How do you incorporate into your everyday life (i.e., not just at church) those who are in a different relational state than you?

    3) How do Paul’s words (in this passage) feel to you regarding your relational status?

  • You Can’t Make Me!

    Ephesians 5:19–6:9 (read online ⧉)

    This passage Ephesians, like many other books and verses of the Bible, has often been abused and misconstrued. Of course, the big one is the group of verses about wives. Often abused and misused. Men would use those verses as an attempt to control. They would conveniently disregard the whole husband as Christ who died for the church part. Which is really the important part. That Paul made that statement actually elevated women, as they were to be died for. Connect that to the cross and Paul really drives it home. That was ignored. Often men would use the wife verses for their control, but then disregard women as people of value. We’d call them hypocrites (yes, and misogynous).

    Though currently one of the big issues is misogyny (with reason), there are other verses that were also used to abuse and control people, and these were the verses regarding slaves. Now, those who used the slave verses were the “masters” or politicians who didn’t want to rock the boat. All disregarding the admonition to the “masters”. It just didn’t apply to them. The irony (sort of) is that women slave owners used the slave verse the same way their husbands used the wives verses. What a mess!

    The bible you read the passage from probably had a little header titled, “Wives and Husbands,” or some such above it. Just as an aside, please start disregarding those. They can be helpful. They can also be very misleading. For example, the verses about wives, husbands, children, parents, slaves, and masters are actually part of the section previous, which is why we started at Ephesians 5:19. Even starting at Ephesians 5:19 is sort of an issue, as it too divides, but hopefully not too much.

    When we start there, we start with hearts oriented toward God. The outpouring of that orientation is gratitude. From there it turns into mutual submission. That’s really it. All the rest of those verses? They were an expansion of an idea. There are certain people that take one concept, trying to use examples to showcase how it works. In Paul’s case, it didn’t happen that way. Part of this has carried on because of “useful” headings. The rest of it is because many times when people are confronted with being wrong, they double-down on whatever it is, even if it is misreading the Scriptures. We are all guilty of it at some point in our lives.

    Mutual submission is hard. It’s always been hard. Oddly enough, it seems the world might actually be beginning to understand it, just not in a good or healthy way. Many people are obsessed with their “likes” on social media. Really that is a form of submission to others. Sadly, it’s been shown to be unhealthy. Yet, seeking approval of others is a form of submission.

    1) What does mutual submission look like in your important relationships?

    2) How would mutual submission work and look like in a church setting? How about a work setting?

    3) What would it look like if our politics operated from a point of mutual submission?

    Action: work on mutual submission in one key relationship

  • Posture of Power

    1 Corinthians 2:1–5, Ephesians 3:14–19 (read online ⧉)

    Power makes a difference. We all acknowledge that. Whether it is political power, military power, law enforcement power, boss power, parental power, and even spouse power. Power is a part of every relationship. Even in relationships of equality, power will always be there.

    Often people will use the power of others to throw their weight around. This would be the concept of name-dropping, whether it’s saying you “know” a person, or you “work” for a person, both mean that you are “dropping” hints at the power you are associated with.

    It is well within the norms of human behavior to use power to convince people to listen and believe. While we suppose the gentle art of persuasion isn’t about power, it actually is. Persuasion is built around people giving someone the power to change their minds. Yes, this is an oversimplification. It is far more complicated than that, yet, the underlying truth that power is involved even there remains.

    When Paul reminds the Corinthians of how he convinced them of the truth of the Gospel, he notes that he didn’t use rhetorical flourishes, great wit, or proof of his vast knowledge and/or intellect. He convinced them by his life. Often (but historically inaccurate), St. Francis is attributed with the following, “preach the Gospel at all times, use words if necessary.” While it is a great pithy statement, it’s a horrible practice. Yet, as Paul demonstrates, there is truth in it. Paul didn’t stop preaching and speaking the Gospel or not live it out, he was just humble. He was a deliberate partner in the work of the Holy Spirit, and did what Paul was to do, and left it to the Holy Spirit to do what the Holy Spirit would do.

    Paul often comes across as arrogant and demanding. However, perhaps we ought to see it as an earthly father who seeks the best for his children, even if they don’t like it. Paul’s posture of humility is portrayed to the Ephesians as an almost begging position for his spiritual children in Ephesus (and all the places he went). He wanted them to be filled with the power of God, not the power of humankind. Do you see what he’s really praying for? The power that he’s praying for on their behalf is the power to fully comprehend how much God loves them, then they would be filled completely with and for God.

    1) How often have you experienced people using earthly power in the guise (or disguise) of Holy power?

    2) Often people will use false humility to convince or control. How would you tell the difference between false and true humility?

    3) Why is learning and recognizing the use of power critical to the future of the church?

  • Who Will Follow?

    Exodus 24:13–18, 1 Kings 19:19–21, Luke 5:1–11, Ephesians 4:11–14 (read online ⧉)

    If you really think about it, there are very few true mentoring examples in the Scriptures. We are called to pass on the faith, but we often think about our children first. We might think of a co-worker or a friend.

    In the context of mentoring, however, we don’t think of it as much. In “formal” ministry (i.e., pastor and priests), there is a mentorship of sorts where experienced pastors are mentors of the newer ones. In the Church of the Nazarene, that relationship can take anywhere from 3–8 years. Mentoring relationships can be built. Yet, often they are more of a guidance counselor that you see once or twice a year (as in college), rather than a true mentor.

    If were to evaluate Moses on his mentoring results, Aaron (his brother) was not a particular success (though not a total failure). Joshua (the typical example) turned out okay, except that he (it would appear) did not learn a key lesson…who will come after. Elijah did a decent job mentoring Elisha, but Elisha did not pass on the “mantle” to someone else. So, yet again, the mentoring piece was lost.

    Both Moses and Elijah are great examples of what it is possible to do when following God’s plan (even when you make a mistake). They are even good examples for who follows. Yet, they were not great examples of having mentoring click for the mentees. The mentoring relationship did not continue. In today’s language, we might say there wasn’t a culture of mentorship.

    Jesus provided the better example. He took a few and taught them. He lived with them for 3 years. It was a life of mentorship. Through little vignettes in the New Testament, we see that Jesus would still guide them. He would release them, too. We often call them disciples (rightfully), however, the way we use it misses one of the deepest beauties of what Jesus did.

    There is a “training” method that follows this pattern: I teach, you watch; I teach, you help; you teach, I help; you teach, I watch. This pattern is often used to teach people to teach others. This is often used in very short term ways, often by leaving a person to teach a group after only 4 sessions, which is really more abandonment rather than teaching. This pattern does help to broaden our understanding, though, of mentorship. It’s not a one and done thing. As we learn new things, we often have to have a teacher walk us through this exact pattern. As we learn something more advanced, we follow it again. It is a lifestyle of training. And, as we are not Jesus, in either role we usually learn more ourselves.

    The equipping of the saints (i.e., Christians) is not a quickly done thing. It is done over time.

    1) Jesus took 3 years to mentor his disciples, why do we think we’d be any faster?

    2) Faster and faster is the way of the world. What are you doing to hurry up and slow down?

    3) Have you ever been mentored as Jesus mentored his disciples? Have you ever mentored someone as Jesus mentored his disciples?

  • 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 leader, 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 “worth 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 relationship 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 favor 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 normal 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 light to the world.

    When Jesus 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 nation 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 faith.

    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 Magi 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?

  • Back To The Dark

    2 Chronicles 24:17–22, Matthew 10:17–22, Acts 6:8–15, Acts 7:51–59 (read online ⧉)

    Yesterday was only Christmas and here we are back into the darkness of the world. How true to life that is. A baby is born and a family feels joy. In the midst of that joy, there are concerns about food, shelter, relationships. There can even be future concerns such as disease or college. While a new life begins, other lives continue. In some respects, it is dishonest to always talk about the baby, because everyone else is just as important. When we are talking about Jesus, things are a little different, but the reality is that Mary and Joseph still had their lives to deal with. For example, the whole reason they were in Bethlehem was to be registered. Once they were registered, the Roman government was going to tax them accordingly. Sounds great, doesn’t it? It does sound like real life. That doesn’t mean we have to enjoy the darkness, nor does it mean we have to accept it as inevitable. It is however reality.

    Joash had been a good king with a singularly great and God-honoring advisor, Chief Priest Jehoida. Despite Joash’s obedience and Jehoida’s piety, the followers of other gods jumped into an advisory role with Jehoida’s death. As with much of Scripture, we don’t have the entire story. There was likely family and politics in the midst of it. There was also some hopeful and blind optimism which lead to thinking that all would be well. It wasn’t. Who knows how quickly Judah fell back into apostasy: days, months, years. God sent prophets to guide the people (especially the king) back to the right road, but they all failed. That God sent Zechariah—who would have likely had a significant place in Joash’s life—as a prophet tells us how serious God was. Joash, for whatever reason, sealed his apostasy and the fate of Judah by stoning him at the temple of God. The act that was to be used upon those opposed to God was instead used by them against a man of God.

    Jesus knowing his future and knowing the past history of Judah wasn’t really predicting much. If Jesus’ disciples were faithful, they would be persecuted. When Jesus talks about the fracturing of the family perhaps he had in mind Jehoida, Joash, and Zechariah, who were (from our perspective) framily. At least, they should have been, and that is what the Scriptures guide us to concluding. The framily of king and prophet that should have been united, were divided and ultimately destroyed.

    Not too much later, Stephen was killed. As he was in his community, it is possible that some of those who stoned him had been Jewish friends or family. For what was he brought to trial? Performing signs and winning arguments. So, he was falsely accused of blasphemy. Why was he killed? Because he claimed to see Jesus sitting at the right hand of God. The right and wrong lines between Joash and Zechariah are much firmer and better defined than those between Stephen and his accusers. We know that the Jewish (especially at that time) understanding of what it meant to follow God was wrong. However, unlike Joash they were not advocating for a different God. It was an understanding of God that was the issue.

    This difference of understanding applies to us today. The Western church is going through a series of upheavals. Sadly, the world watches and laughs. These upheavals are necessary, though. The church needs to discover (in some cases) and rediscover (in other ones) what it means to be a Christian in a non-Christian world. Much of these upheavals will allow us to understand ourselves better. The reason this is critical for the church is that we will be returning to the times of persecution in the Western world. No, we are not quite there, but it will come. The church needs to be ready, and a lot of being ready will require the shedding of a lot of ancient weight. It also will probably require us to pick-up ancient ways long discarded. Lastly, it will require us to learn a new language with which to share the Gospel. The message doesn’t change, just the method and the language.

    1) Do you think Joseph and Mary were concerned the day after Jesus’ birth, or were they still enjoying the moment? Why?

    2) Today’s passages are actually historical church decision (i.e., the lectionary). Why do you think the observation of Stephen’s martyrdom follows Christmas Day?

    3) Family and framily squabbles and fights are usually the ones that hurt the most. Why is that? How does impact the Gospel?

  • Receiving Peace

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

    Jesus has the title of Prince of Peace, 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 truth is that many will be confronted with Jesus’ words and make a decision that has the potential to destroy relationships. This is the division that Jesus brings. Some will follow Jesus, the rest will follow the world.

    The title of Prince of Peace should probably be written more properly, the Prince (of the people who live by and call on and believe in the name 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 speak 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 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?

  • Peace is in Heaven

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

    ‌Jesus has the title of Prince of Peace, 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 truth is that many will be confronted with Jesus’ words and make a decision that has the potential to destroy relationships. This is the division that Jesus brings. Some will follow Jesus, the rest will follow the world.

    ‌The title of Prince of Peace should probably be written more properly, the Prince (of the people who live by and call on and believe in the name 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 speak 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 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?

  • Broken Family; Broken Community

    Genesis 38:1–30, Deuteronomy 25:5–10, Ruth 4:1–10, Mark 12:18–27

    Migration has long been the story of humankind. People would move from place to place. The United States mythos includes a strong migratory component, from the theorized migration of First Nations peoples over the Bearing Land Bridge to the European migration to the Western Expansion, along with 2 Gold Rushes and the huge population shifts with the Great Depression and World War II. This creates a strong cultural influence on family dynamics and in the wider society. The Census Bureau estimates that from 2013-2017, 41.5% of the US population did not live in the same state (or country for foreign-born) as they were born in. How can this not impact our relationships with people, family, and place?

    Until the last 70 years, or so, when people moved from a different country to the US or even state-to-state, the family ties were broken or became perfunctory rather than profound. If you are one of those that have remained in the same state you were born in, it is still likely that your parents, or grandparents came from. Advances in transportation have allowed for some restoration of these familial ties, but this is more likely for middle- and upper-class people. With the advent of more and more connective technologies, there is greater potential to maintain these connections. It is too soon to tell if that will actually happen, though based on current evidence it doesn’t look likely.

    What does all of this have to do with our passages? They show a huge difference between ancient cultures and our own. That is part of the problem. In the first 3 passages from the Old Testament, the significance of the “kinsman redeemer” (an epithet we get from the book of Ruth) is lost in today’s culture. Put your siblings or your children into these stories as either kinsman redeemer or needing such, and gauge your responses. Most people have a negative response to it. We generally don’t get it. Many centuries later, this is still a question, as we can see with Sadducees’ question of Jesus.

    Connections. Community. Obligation. Sense of place. This should help us understand why we have such a problem with ekklēsia (ἐκκλησία). This Greek word is often translated as “church”. It originally meant a public gathering. Through the resilience of God’s Word, church as a gathered community became the dominant definition. Community.

    In many respects, the church became more of the ekklēsia during the Westward Expansion, as it was the only common gathering place. However, as transportation “improved” and the suburbs became a reality, community began to fade. Now, in the Pacific Northwest, even the ekklēsia isn’t really a community. In many churches, and some say ours, many people do not feel that they are part of the community. For some, the ekklēsia is a fancy word for an hour-long meeting on Sunday, that doesn’t really feed into the other 6 days of the week.

    1. What do you do to build community? To build community, do you think you should look to yourself, first? Or do you need to look to others?
    2. If you were to describe your ideal church community, what words would you use? If you were to describe your ideal community where you live, what words would you use? How are the words and intent both the same and different?