Devotion.al

Tag: respect

  • Smite Me or Hug Me

    2 Kings 17:34–41, Psalm 27 (read online ⧉)

    This passage in 2 Kings is a little odd. To make sense in English, is not used in a manner consistent with the Hebrew. In the opening (v34) and closing (v41) verses, fear is actually a descriptor (adjective) of the Israelites. In the of the verses, “fear” is something you out. Now, the trouble is that fear has many layers to it. Another way to think of this passage is, “The Israelites did not fear, , or God enough to solely obey God’s ways, disregarding the covenants made between God and their ancestors. Instead, Israelites feared the false gods of other nations and tribes that did not them mightily and definitively from slavery in the land of Egypt. They feared those gods and viewed them as being at least equal to God. While they feared God, they did not honor or respect God exclusively as they were called to do.” This is not a perfect translation. It isn’t even really a good one. It does help to better understand what is going one when fear was involved.

    Fearing God as the punishing master was never the point. While obedience was required, it was to be out of devotion, admiration, awe, and . This is one of those cultural pieces that often get lost for us, especially when using the fear. The other one is the perception of many believers that God is capricious and vicious. What is truly sad is that the gods of the surrounding nations were truly capricious and vicious. How God ended up being cast in that is a peculiarity of nature.

    We know that by this point that the descendants of Israel had walked away from God in their hearts if not solely in their actions. This is an important concept to understand as when we read Psalm 27 we get a completely different image of God. If one was truly afraid, why would one view God as a protector? In addition, the psalmist says that his heart will not be afraid. So, fearing (as in terror) God is not a solid image of God.

    Where does this come from? Sure, some of it comes from the Israelites. However, much of it comes from Christianity. There are many old (centuries) and new sermons that abused the concept of fearing (awe) God, turning it into something truly terrifying. You may be one of those who was terrified by sermons delivering a concept of an angry God who was looking for some reason to smite you.

    1) Why would fear and awe get confused? How do you differentiate them when it comes to God?

    2) Why is the concept of overly fearing other gods still relevant today?

  • 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 . 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 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 . 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 “ 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 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 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 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?

  • Burning Jealousy

    Genesis 37:3–11, 1 Samuel 16:1–13, 1 Samuel 17:12–29, Proverbs 14:30

    Unrighteous is very much a human feeling. Joseph’s brothers were, without question, jealous of Joseph. Their was—in many respects—the initiator of their jealousy, for he treated Joseph differently than them. He even had a special robe made for him. It is not unreasonable to look at the robe as a foreshadowing of the royal station that Joseph would get. It was completely inappropriate for the contest of being the 2nd youngest to be so elevated, yet he was.

    As the Proverb said, the brothers’ jealousy corrupted them down to their bones. Their brother was condemned to slavery (they thought). Yes, they didn’t kill them, but that doesn’t excuse the fact that it was their first thought. Then, in a capstone to their jealousy, they put blood on the “royal” coat and deceived their father. It was an act of respect in regard to their father’s place in their lives. Mostly, however, it was an act of cruelty. They were able to get back at their father, too.

    Unlike Joseph’s dreams, with Joseph sharing them, David’s anointing was external. The man and (last) judge of Israel, Samuel, anointed David. David really had nothing to do with it, other than obeying his father (Jesse) and submitting to the anointing. We can see later on, though, that the brothers weren’t responding well to their brother. Eliab, the de facto of David’s brothers, spoke poorly to David. We can see by David’s that this is not a new thing. Yes, in many respects this is the reality of siblings. On the other hand, the often highlight the important things, implying that Eliab’s jab was more than sibling rivalry.

    The jealousy that seeks to elevate oneself at the cost of another rots human “to the bone.” Jealousy is the sign of an unbalanced .

    1) Why is focusing on the jealousy within families so important? What lessons can we from it?

    2) Unrighteous jealousy usually involves taking from . When have you seen this? What have you done, if you could, to resolve the situation?

    3) Usually all parties involved in a jealousy situation are affected/harmed. Why do you think the jealous person will often work against their self?

  • Binding Ties

    1 Samuel 2:12–17, 1 Samuel 2:22–36, Matthew 10:16–23, Ephesians 6:10–20

    Who or what are the dark powers that talks about in Ephesians? Perhaps they are the members that oppose believers. Perhaps they are the family members the “dress up” in clothing and whose behavior is unrighteous.

    Eli’s sons Phinehas and Hophni are the second set of “pastor’s” kids in the Scriptures (the first were Aaron’s sons) who went off the deep . Their lack of for ‘ sacrifices was bad just on an interpersonal level. It was a form of bullying. Was there a penalty? Yes, but that doesn’t really improve the results. How many people were scarred toward the priesthood? How many became reluctant attendees because of their behavior? This can only be thought of through conjecture. Just based on human behavior, it seems likely that the behavior of Eli’s sons caused a ripple effect of unseen damage. For cultural, societal, and religious reasons people would still go, for the cost of not going could result in ostracization.

    What kind of opposition was Jesus expecting? Families kicking out believers. Families turning in believers. Family gatherings devolving into religious arguments and divisions. Even Jesus’ own family was divided until at least after his .

    The dark powers really are the of humankind. Yes, there are dark supernatural powers and influences. Sadly, however, humanity has enough darkness inside itself that outside influence is often not required to make a mess of things. , envy, hatred are in many respect the true dark power of humanity. Along with pride, humanity will often do many things which appear to be contrary to the concept of humanity.

    Within families, the excesses often seem to be magnified. While we often think about the awkward family reunion, sometimes we find it in other “families”, whether they be fraternal orders, unions, clubs, church, Homeowners Associations, or whatever. There are always powers that work to the ties that bind us together.

    1) What have you experienced that tests the bonds of your relationships with others?

    2) Do you have a tendency to look at yourself or at others first when there is a problem?

    3) What is the strongest tendency you have that pushes others away from you? What is the strongest tendency you have that draws others to you?

  • Faithful Asking

    Genesis 18:17–33, Colossians 2:6–19

    There are two different amazing streams of thought in this vignette of Abraham and God. The first is Abraham’s audaciousness. That a person is free to God for clarification is beautiful. This shows us that when we are faithful toward and trustful of God, it’s okay to not understand, and to ask clarifying questions. There has long been an undercurrent in some traditions that any sort of questioning is wrong and even sinful. This is not the case.

    The other stream is God’s toward Abraham. God could have hidden things from Abraham and chose not to. God seems to think that while God is God, Abraham is an important piece and has a place in this story. It is almost as if God wants Abraham to have a place in the story for Abraham’s development.

    Questioning authority is fraught with perils. Abraham questioned THE authority. There is a place for it. It is important to understand the point of questioning in our : to understand, to clarify, to see our place in the big picture (to some degree).

    There are those who struggle with “question authority”. There is a reason why it is healthy. In his letter to the Colossians, is having to unwind rules and regulations. There are Jewish and Romans and local pagan customs that all need to be unwound from the Church. Paul alludes to questioning the religious authorities. His questions “disarmed” their control over “proper” God-honoring .

    What’s interesting here is that Paul is not just talking about food. He is also talking about ascetic (think monks) practices, worship practices, sacrificial practices. As a holiness denomination with its own “peculiarities”, the Church of the Nazarene is showing signs of growing out of the same tendencies that Paul opposed. It’s not to say that the holiness path is out of date or wrong, quite the contrary. It’s that the Church is re-learning the lessons that Jesus and Paul taught.

    What’s interesting here is that Paul is not just talking about food. He is also talking about ascetic (think monks) practices, worship practices, sacrificial practices. As a holiness denomination with its own “peculiarities”, the Church of the Nazarene is showing signs of growing out of the same tendencies that Paul opposed. It’s not to say that the holiness path is out of date or wrong, quite the contrary. It’s that the Church is re-learning the lessons that Jesus and Paul taught.

    The Church of the Nazarene has had people condemn others because their lifestyle did not meet their standards, just as those causing trouble in Colossi. Some of these practices have been held in a tighter embrace than those -oriented practices that are in the . No denomination has been spared. Both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox have long held the ascetics very high. Any good practice used to diminish others is no longer a good practice.

    1) Have you ever questioned someone’s maturity of faith because they don’t do a practice that you think is better?

    2) Have you ever questioned someone’s maturity of faith because they have a practice that you think is pointless or lifeless?

    3) When was the last time you looked at the Scriptures to add a new or revitalize an old practice for your spiritual growth?

  • Work Assignment

    Genesis 14:17–20, Hebrews 5:1–4, Acts 13:1–3

    The calling of God is mysterious. The Levitical line produced the priests, but who would be called was something different.

    The calling of pastors is equally mysterious (including to the pastors). How and why God calls certain people to be pastors and doesn’t other equally equipped (or equipable) and people remains a mystery.

    In many respects, King Melchizedek is emblematic of the issue. He just pops into scripture as a priest of God, and then is gone again. The first person titled priest is a mystery. That is really part of the whole point. That the calling of a person to more directly and intimately interact and act (in particularly limited ways) in the place of God can often be hard to fathom.

    The author of Hebrews does provide us a boundary, which is good. “No one takes this on himself…” One of the blessings of the current culture is that people aren’t pursuing ministry due to its cultural respect (yes, it’s a sad thing, too). In this culture people are making not just a financial , they are also making a cultural sacrifice. In the Middle Ages, for example, the younger or daughter would be sent into the church, providing the influence (some security about inheritance fights). The younger son didn’t often have a choice. That being said, many of them became great blessings to the church through their faithful service and guidance. While people angled to use the church (and their children) to and influence, many of them surrendered fully to God making a big difference. While those that were sent to the church may have been sent with deceptive or unrighteous purpose, the boundary that the author of the book of Hebrews made was still fulfilled.

    While priests and pastors have a particular (maybe peculiar) call, all Christians have a call. Yours may not have been assigned. Sometimes the call can be within our work, our hobby, our friends, our neighborhood. In fact, in each of these places, we are “assigned” to work for the Kingdom. However, there are certain areas that God has more strongly called us to do the work.

    One of the biggest clues is how you are wired, and what activities you enjoy. How we are wired and what we enjoy makes our work for the kingdom more infectious and effective. There are limits, of course, to the activities. Not all activities are a .

    1) What activities are you most -filled doing?

    2) How can those activities be used at church, family, work, other social circles, to build the Kingdom?

    3) Roles we are assigned or fill aren’t necessarily joy-filled. How can you take the activities and apply them to your roles? Be creative.

  • Faith and Tradition

    Psalm 40:1–16, John 7:21–24, Acts 15:1–21

    To this very day, churches (and thus the church) struggle with what exactly their means and its implications. Certain things appear to have been settled, but others haven’t. Although, perhaps it is better to say that when push comes to shove people will finally get to the point where doctrine and orthodoxy are finally separated from tradition.

    In many denominations and churches, tradition has been so wrapped into doctrine and orthodoxy that not following tradition is viewed as dangerous and even non-Christian. As the Church of the Nazarene is rooted in the Wesleyan tradition, we view tradition as a key component to understanding our faith. At the same time, we (as Wesley) are “descendants” of the Reformation, which has as a motto, “Semper Reformanda,” always reforming. In other words, while certain essentials of the faith must be predominately left alone, everything else should be of dispute and .

    If we re-read the passage from John and Acts in the light of the above, we see tradition and Semper Reformanda at work. In the Book of John, heals on the Sabbath, violating tradition, yet reforming the practices to be more aligned with the of God.

    In the Book of Acts, traditionalists (honestly believing they are doing the right thing) try to get (non-Jews) to take on the Jewish rite of circumcision. They get into a discussion with and Barnabas, and it gets sent to committee. However, unlike our committees, a decision was made and shared. The message didn’t denigrate tradition, but it reformed it.

    Local churches (i.e., Generations Church) often have traditions that had a time and place, but that may no longer be the case. The tradition may be 50 years, 20 years, 5 years, or even 5 months old. Regardless, it should always be viewed as whether it is still effective in sharing the Gospel and discipling believers.

    1) Comfort is the big of tradition. If we look at how Jesus lived, why should that concern us?

    2) Tradition is neither inherently good nor bad. How do you analyze the why of a tradition? If you don’t analyze a tradition, why not?

    3) Acts 15:2 shows that discussion (even if heated) is good and healthy when it comes to tradition and even theology. Where do you see that of discussion happening? Where do you think it needs to happen more?

  • Dancing Fools

    Psalm 148, 2 Samuel 6:12–22, Matthew 6:1–8

    Do or do not before others?

    David danced in all his during a massive 10 mile parade, taking the Ark from Obed-edom’s land to Jerusalem. He was the king. There were many sacrifices happening. There were all the musicians, followers and soldiers that would have been a part of this. What a spectacle that must have been! We see that the Bible specifically says that David was dancing before the Lord.

    His first wife, Micah, watched the parade from the city. His disgraceful behavior (from her ) tainted her views of David, and forever destroyed their . There is a strong sense that she feels that a “royal” person (especially the king) should act more dignified before the people (and this would have political ramifications with any so-called nobility or courtiers). David’s response is classic. He’s okay being undignified before God, because the people will recognize his “poor” behavior for what it is…worship of God. It would seem he was right.

    Jesus, on the other hand, was dealing with something that superficially the same. The rich and powerful trumpeted their successes, power, wealth, and pretend generosity. The people got on board and praised them for it all. The differences are heart deep. The rich and powerful really didn’t care as much about God, as they did about the wagging of people. They cared about their power and influence, and what they could do with it. The people did what they did to survive culturally, socially, financially, and live. There was no love or toward the rich and powerful.

    Often the words of Jesus are spoken to chide people from taking false pride and putting it on display. As Jesus said, that is their reward, with the implication being that they get the reward in this , and there will be no reward for them in next. Yet, it is not bad to take pride in public actions. If Generations Church were to help a working mother put a down payment on a house of her own, yes, it would be good to be public about it, but not to brag on it, or expect a reward for it. Now, notice that this applies to the , not to the individual. That would be a different story, maybe. Taking this working mother story further, it would be dishonoring of the woman to brag on the story, for then it becomes more about Generations than the of a woman.

    1) How does one and parade in front of God, publically, without being seen as one seeking the adoration of people?

    2) While you may not seem rich and powerful, how do behave like those like Michal, and like those that Jesus spoke against?

    3) Would you be willing to dance like a crazy person (before God) down the middle of Main Street?