Tag: Scriptures

Will You Follow

Matthew 8:5–13; Matthew 8:18–23; 1 Corinthians 12:12–28 (read online ⧉)

Amazingly…no, really…amazingly…people aren’t perfect.

Leaders are people. Therefore, leaders aren’t perfect.

Yet, when we look at our leaders, whether they are political, corporate, or church leaders, we often expect perfection. Political leaders are the most afflicted with this. It often takes only one mistake (or even just a difference in perspective) and a political leader’s career is over. Corporations are somewhat more resilient in that regard, yet with the increasing weight of social media and the 24-hour news cycle, even corporations are behaving in such a way.

While, mercifully, a lot more grace is shown in church circles, a leader’s failures can tank everything. This is not to say that criminal or unChristian behavior should be allowed, just that the Scriptures do have a way to deal with that.

The ultimate danger, though, becomes both fear of failure and fear to try something new. This is often lived out with the infamous phrase, “we’ve never done it that way before.”

There are several kinds of leaders out there. There are two big ones in the church. One of the big leader types is the manager/maintainer. This is the person that seeks to maintain the status quo. Often portrayed negatively, they are often the ones that keep people from going off the rails.

There are the visionary leaders. These are the people that break things, all for the right reasons (hopefully), but breaking hurts, because often it is things we’ve (unknowingly) setup as idols that get broken.

There are 3 other character traits, though, that deeply affect the culture of the church, leaders, and even of our lives. First is the follower. Most of us follow at least somewhat, and followers are for tomorrow. For now, let’s talk about rebels and mavericks. This was great insight provided by Larry Walkemeyer.

Often the church views the mavericks and the rebels as the same. On the surface, that may well be true. It certainly would seem to fit with the things they often break.

However, the rebel (such as the family leaders from yesterday’s readings) is in it to achieve something for themselves, almost always at a cost to others, and importantly will neither report nor submit to authority. For the church, whose Savior submitted unto death, a lack of submission is often a sign of spiritual immaturity.

The maverick, on the other hand, is there to achieve something, and it might even be gratifying. However, if the cost is others, then they are open to correction. Mavericks also, despite their independent and solo tendencies, will submit to authority. The church needs a lot more mavericks. However, mavericks, oddly enough, need to put themselves within a framework so that there are limits and responsibilities. However, as their spiritual maturity deepens, the limits are removed, and they can shake the world.

Lastly, though, is the part where there are two problems. Those in authority often like neither rebels (which is understandable) or mavericks. Thus they limit the catalyst for change. In addition, leaders also must be able to admit that they were wrong regularly and openly, and church culture doesn’t like that much, let alone the leaders. Thus the mavericks are turned into rebels by those who dislike challenge and/or change.

Church and Christian leadership starts with submission to Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and God the Father (not necessarily in that order). Without that submission, one of the biggest points is missed.

※Prayer※

Oh, God, you have called us to be humble, and we often fail at that. You call us to yield our will to yours, and we often fail at that. You love us despite our failings, and for that, we give you praise. As we walk through this life with our fellow Christians, help us to submit to you and to one another in love. Amen.

※Questions※

1) Have you ever seen a “rebel” leader? What was the context? What was the result?

2) Have you ever seen a “maverick” leader? What was the context? What was the result?

3) Why is perfection the enemy of leadership? How does that apply to our lives?

2020-06-11
3 is 1 and 1 is 3

Deuteronomy 6:4–5; Matthew 3:13–17; Matthew 28:16–20; 1 Peter 1:1–2 (read online ⧉)

This is one of those odd “Liturgical” Sundays in the Christian year. It set aside to specifically observe the creedal declaration of and faith in the Trinity. We have Sundays set aside for Advent, Lent, Christmas, Easter, Pentecost. These are event-based. It’s not that they don’t have doctrinal pieces in them; their beginning is based upon an event.

There is an additional oddity, especially for people who call the Bible the Word of God…Trinity appears nowhere, at least not as an explicit term. That’s also what makes this Sunday interesting. A foundational theological basis for orthodox Christianity is not found explicitly in the Bible, yet is one of the key doctrines upon which orthodoxy is defined (i.e., Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses being non-Trinitarian believers).

One of the biggest things that the Trinity teaches us by its very example is that not everything can be explained by science or even a sound rationalization of the faith. The Trinity can only be believed (ultimately) by faith. The concept that God (the Father) is God, Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God, while, God (the Father) is neither Jesus nor the Holy Spirit, Jesus is neither the Holy Spirit nor God (the Father), and the Holy Spirit is not God (the Father) nor Jesus (An aside: even writing that sentence, which is a simplified excerpt of the Athanasian Creed, hurt my head a bit).

The beauty of the Trinity is that by the above (for example), we are automatically brought into the realm of knowing that we can not fully understand God. Which is good. When we think we fully understand God, we are in deep danger of having made our own god who is not God.

While the Trinity does not expressly as a word in the Scriptures, that does not mean it is not present. We need to start with the beginning, though. God is one. One of the biggest dangers with the Trinity is that the confusion that we are talking about 3 gods, rather than 1 God.

In the Gospels, Matthew has the 2 best almost explicit statements regarding the Trinity. With Jesus’ baptism, Jesus is baptized, “laid upon” by the Holy Spirit, and blessed (and proclaimed) by God (the Father). All 3 persons of the Trinity are present and noted as being present (rather than in other places where they can be assumed to be present).

In many respects, however, it is Jesus’ Commission of the Disciples (now Apostles) to baptize in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that there is an expression of the doctrine and persons of the Trinity (yet, still no word “Trinity”).

While this is so, there is something critically important in Peter’s letter. Peter all but declares the Trinity in his opening. There are several reasons this is important. First, it’s Peter. His place as one of Jesus’ core disciples, and his place as commissioned leader of the church (by Jesus) makes his words critically important to our understanding of the church.

Before the “doctrine” was declared, before the Athanasian Creed was written, before the understood writing of the Gospels, Peter brought the Trinity to the church.

In lieu of prayer or questions, and in honor of the tradition in more “liturgical” churches to speak it on Trinity Sunday, below is the Athanasian Creed.
※Athanasian Creed※

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic[1] Faith. Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance.

For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.

As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible.

So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord.

And yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity, to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion, to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords.

The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten.

The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. Likewise also the Holy Spirit is of the Father, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons, one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other, none is greater, or less than another; But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together, and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds, and Man, of the Substance of his Mother, born in the world; perfect God, and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting; equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead, and inferior to the Father, as touching his Manhood.

Who although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ; one; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God; one altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven; He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

2020-06-07
Humble Feasting

Mark 7:1–8; Mark 12:38–40; Luke 14:7–14 (read online ⧉)

To some degree, we all have a desire to be needed, acknowledged, valued, and heard. Often these are decried as pride. Yet, research (and life) consistently show that a child who is acknowledged, valued, and heard (and even needed to a degree) will grow up emotionally healthier than those who lack these things. Yet, if they are over-acknowledged, -valued, -heard, -needed (helicopter-parents, anyone?), they also grow up unhealthy emotionally. There is a balance.

One of the biggest indicators of a healthy measure of need, acknowledgment, value, and being heard is whether a person is satisfied at the cost of others or not. This isn’t a zero-sum game. It is quite possible to be valued and not devalue others.

When the Pharisees and scribes challenged Jesus’ disciples’ lack of washing, they were elevating their understanding of the Scriptures and traditions of the elders over God and the people. God had set the boundaries, but the elders put a bigger “fence” around the original Law in an attempt to “protect” the Law and the holiness of God as if either the Law or God needed it. The larger issue was that the fence was a huge burden to people, and wore down their hearts and souls. This was, in effect, bullying of the weak.

Jesus’ perspective becomes more apparent later on when Jesus’ assault on the behavioral patterns towards widows, and toward others. Their expectations of how they were to be treated were over and above what they should be expecting, especially as their expectations would often happen to the detriment of others, especially those for whom they were supposed to care for. Their desires and expectations were certainly unhealthy for everyone, even themselves.

In the parable of the feast, Jesus notes that people will often rate themselves higher than they ought. It wasn’t just a matter of wealth or privilege, it was who was valued by their relationship with the host. It was, honestly, also who could do the most for the host. Which is why Jesus addressed that, too.

The reality is that we are all in places where we could overvalue ourselves, and place ourselves in our own harm’s way. There is also the chance that we do not value ourselves as highly as others (though we have to be careful about false humility, too).

In the conversations of today, whether we are talking about race, gender, equality (of varying sorts), politics, humility is where the conversation begins. None of us is the Savior. There is only one person in that role.

※Prayer [Cheryce Rampersad]※

Heavenly Father, I come before Your throne of grace and mercy to ask that You bring humility into my life. Allow me to not be filled with pride, jealousy, or boastful gestures toward those around me. Let my heart be filled with love, joy, peace, and happiness for my fellow men. [Amen]

※Questions※

1) Have you ever had the experience of publically being knocked down a peg or two? Was it justified? Does that matter? How did you feel?

2) Were you ever honored or valued publically beyond what you thought you deserved or expected? What was that like?

3) Why is it important to be humble (maybe even pray for humility) before having a deep or significant conversation with a person with whom you believe you disagree or have had different experiences than?

2020-06-06
Falling Down

Numbers 11:24–30; Joel 2:27–29; Acts 2:1–21 (read online ⧉)

Just in case you didn’t know, today is Pentecost. Some call it the “true” birth of the Church for the Holy Spirit fell upon the people of God, and has not left us yet. It is also called Whitsunday, of which part that is white (for purity) and the other is whit (Old English for wit, or wisdom).

It is not the case that Jesus left us bare. It is the case that Jesus left us with fire. The tongues of flame (whether in Numbers or Acts) were representative of the Holy Spirit and God’s word/speech being active. It is not coincidental that the tongues of flame seen on Pentecost were previously seen in Moses’ time.

Think of Moses’ words to Joshua in response to Joshua’s complaint that 2 elders who dishonored God and Moses spoke via the Holy Spirit, “If only all the LORD’s people were prophets and the LORD would place his Spirit on them!” This also goes hand-in-hand with Joel’s words, “I will pour out my Spirit on all humanity.”

In all likelihood, you have not seen some with tongues of fire over their heads. You may have witnessed—or been part of a tradition—where people spoke “in tongues”. Neither is required as evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a gift of God, and is God. Through the guidance (wisdom) of the Holy Spirit, we see the Scriptures for what they are…the Word of God.

This is not to say that the Holy Spirit was never present before, quite the contrary. What this means is that the presence of the Holy Spirit in the church is distinctly different than what is and was present outside of the church. Theologians still try to discern the whys and wherefores of the difference.

One of the biggest differences is that while the Holy Spirit was generally present (just as today), the Holy Spirit as expressed through prophets was unique to the calling of the prophets. The Pentecostal gift of the Holy Spirit was that all received the Holy Spirit expressly, not generally.

This does not mean that all are gifted with foretelling (often called prophesy) or Truth-telling (also called prophesy, or preaching). The Holy Spirit works in and through each person differently. Your gifting may be quite different than another’s, that does not invalidate either.

※ Prayer ※

Holy Spirit, we thank you for your ongoing gift of yourself to us. Help us to honor you, God the Father, and Jesus the Son, as we are the church, the bride of Christ, to the world. Amen.

※ Questions ※

1)How would you evaluate/discern whether someone was gifted by the Holy Spirit or by the natural talents they had? What is the difference?

2) Why is Moses’ story so important in the context of Pentecost? What about Joshua’s response?

3) Why do you think people thought the disciples of Jesus were drunk? What might their rationale be for how a drunk person would speak as if a native speaker of their own tongue(s)?

2020-05-31
Opprobrium

Matthew 9:18–26; Mark 5:21–43; Luke 8:40–56 (read online ⧉)

People often use scripture to justify certain things, or at least state that whatever “this” is, it is nothing new. One of those is a thought that the woman in today’s Scriptures had been bleeding due to a botched abortion. This, of course, is conjecture. There are several other medical conditions which this could fall under, so making this kind of conjecture is often not helpful. This is especially the case when such conjecture takes away from the mystery that is already present in the Scripture.

Think about the other healings that Jesus performed. In the other healings, he was approached then would act. He was just on his way to heal someone else, and this women surreptitiously approaches him and just touches his clothes to be healed.

The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) have slightly different tellings of the story. Yet, the woman’s initiative to approach Jesus and touching his clothing to be healed is consistent. Both Mark and Luke talk about the crowds surrounding Jesus. This took courage for this woman.

The primary thought that this bleeding was similar to menstrual bleeding (hence the aforementioned piece about abortion). If that is so, while the woman would not have to declare “unclean” as a leper, should would be ceremonially unclean, and probably unwelcome, if anyone knew. She, probably some sort of outcast, would have to go among those who likely mocked and scorned her. If she was successful, for 12 years, to keep her condition secret, then she would have likely been overwhelmed by guilt and inadequacy.

In Mark and Luke, this story takes on another interesting twist. She approached; she touched; she was healed. There was no “action” by Jesus. This unique aspect should be one of those moments where we stop and wonder, what is different?

Anything is conjecture, as the Bible does not directly say anything. One possibility is that in this story we see God and Man. The Godly power left Jesus. Jesus the Man was surprised. Both aspects of Jesus were in full display. There is even this odd hint of the Water of Life being spent, which would then be refilled by God.

On the other hand, there is an echo of the time in Eden after Adam and Eve had eaten the Fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam and Eve had heard God walking in the Garden and hid because they were naked. God asked where they were. Adam and Eve revealed themselves in shame. Sounds somewhat like the woman who revealed herself.

There is also the beauty of trust that this woman has. It isn’t just trust of being healed, but when she reveals herself and tells her story, there is a vulnerability that requires an explicit trust in Jesus.

This woman has no name in the Scriptures (outlined here). Her cured affliction has been noted for history, but the shame of her condition is not tied to her name. Just as the shame that once weighed her down was gone, so was what needed healing. She left it behind. Her gift was that her legacy was not her condition. She moved forward in freedom.

※ Prayer ※

Lord, we thank you for taking our shame. Though we may still bear the scars and pain of it, the shame is gone. May this freedom that you have given us, not be misused or unused for your glory. Amen.

※ Questions ※

1) Why do you think each of the Gospel writers (especially Matthew), chose to tell the story the way they did? What do you think of the additional piece that Mark and Luke have?

2) What is your biggest takeaway regarding the woman of our story?

3) What do you think the response was of those who were acting on Jairus’ behalf?

2020-05-30
Handling Truth

Psalm 110; Matthew 22:41–46; John 1:1–18 (read online ⧉)

John calls Jesus the Word. In his phrasing, it wasn’t just any word or words. Jesus was (is) the actual physical embodiment of God’s words. It’s…strange. It’s…incomprehensible. It’s…impossible. It’s…faith.

When Jesus speaks, we’re to listen. That can sometimes be hard. In fact, a lot of people throughout history have had a hard time listening to Jesus.

Today, we hear a lot of people say, “I like Jesus just fine, I just don’t like his followers.” There is some truth in that, as we followers are broken just like everyone else.

However, often that phrase (or a similar one) is used to shut down the conversation. Many Christians will try to stop the conversation there and try to defend themselves (and/or other Christians). Just like that, the conversation has changed.

This is not to say such people are purposely manipulating things for that. It’s just that when we are defending/protecting our deeper selves, we will do things we don’t think of ourselves capable of.

On the contrary, people such as the Pharisees were very methodical in their approach. They didn’t like Jesus’ followers. Of course, it seems their reasoning was either they (His followers) were being deceived, or because they (the Pharisees) weren’t the ones being followed. They went for Jesus to draw his followers away.

In this particular story, Jesus (the Word) was attacking or questioning the Word. Yes, we could say he was questioning the interpretation. In fact, that is a great point. However, there are Christians today who refute questions like Jesus’ because they challenge the Word.

This is not a small thing. People question the Scriptures (the human undertaking of the Word) to this day. In Jesus’ time, it was actually part of the rabbinical school of thought. Not only did they not think it was dishonorable, but the rhetorical questioning and answers were also part of how Jews understood the faith.

If Jesus felt comfortable questioning himself (yes, this is a stretch, but a fun one), then why do we freeze when the Word is questioned? When someone says, “I like Jesus, but…” Let’s agree that we like Jesus, too. Then let’s talk about Jesus. We establish common ground (we like Jesus). Then we can talk about Jesus.

This doesn’t mean, sadly, that the person is about to be saved. Not by a long shot. What it does mean is that we can learn about what they think is great about Jesus, and what they know about Jesus. The conversation may last years. Jesus and the Word can handle it.

※ Prayer ※
God, “Your word is a lamp for my feet, and a light on my path.” (Psalm 119:105) Thank you for giving it to me to learn your story and of your desire and love for me. Grant me the wisdom and courage to share your word with others, especially those who do not know you yet. Amen.

※ Questions ※
1) Do you think you have to defend God’s Word? Why or why not?
2) How do/would you defend all the translations that we have of the Bible?
3) What is your understanding of why we (the Church at large) consider the 66 books of the Bible as the True scriptures, and not others?

2020-05-20
It’s Pretty Simple

Psalm 138; Mark 1:14–16; John 16:5–11 (read online ⧉)

Some of you know just how simple our faith really is. On the other hand, within its simplicity is great complexity. The tension within that “entertains” theologians, and can drive the rest of us a little crazy.

Part of the complexity is not that our faith is truly complex, but that we understand ourselves and our fellow humanity. Humanity seeks to find the “gray” areas. We seek to get away with whatever we can.

Many of the arguments (or strongly-worded discussions and schisms) revolve around what “exactly” the Scriptures say. Often, sadly, some of the biggest struggles are over what the Bible doesn’t say. In the Church of the Nazarene, we say that the 66 Books of the Bible contain all that is necessary to understand salvation (gaining it is something different). Yes, that leaves it open to a lot of discussions. Many of those are good discussions; some of them aren’t so good. Yet, the “faith” remains simple.

Mark says Jesus proclaimed, “repent and believe…” That’s pretty simple.

John, on the other hand, begins to show that it isn’t quite so simple. The Counselor (the Holy Spirit) will come to convict. Of course, only after one is convicted (spiritually, not legally) can one repent. So quickly the simplicity is peeled away.

There is something odd about this. His 11 disciples (we’ll skip Judas Iscariot) would be saved at this point, would they not? Yet, Jesus implies that it is not quite the case; it is, and it isn’t. Or, perhaps, it is more of a “saved to the best of your understanding now” and “better saved later”.

Jesus died for us. There isn’t a question about that. The Holy Spirit convicts. Jesus doesn’t. So, we need the Holy Spirit. Still sort of simple, but we can see how quickly, just with Jesus’ words, that simple is not simplistic, and complexity hides the simpleness.

※ Prayer ※
God, help us to keep the simpleness of the faith in our hearts. At the same time, help us not be confused or overwhelmed by trying to understand you, our infinite Creator. Amen.

※ Questions ※
1) How do you know someone has been saved? What do you ask them?
2) Once you know they’re saved, do you talk about the mysteries of God? Why or why not?
3) If you had to choose between the faith being simple or the faith being complex, which would you choose? Why?
4) Do you think simple and complex are the right words? What other words might you use?

2020-05-19
A Different Kind of Backsliding

Acts 10:30–47; Acts 15:5–12; Galatians 2:11–16 (read online ⧉)

Peter was called/sent to the first “real” Gentile converts, post-Resurrection. There is some fuzziness in this as we cannot assume that there were no other Gentile converts. The likelihood was that they, prior to Cornelius, were converts to Judaism first.

This is an important distinction, as there seemed to be no question of Cornelius’ devotion to God. However, the language and framing of the story draw the conclusion that Cornelius had not done a full conversion to Judaism.

In the earlier part of the story, Peter invited the servants of Cornelius (likely Gentiles themselves) inside for lodging, and one would presume food. Already, Peter seemed to have a clue about his earlier vision about clean versus unclean (Acts 10:1–29). He dared (against more rigid Jewish protocol) to provide shelter and food for Gentiles.

Later, as the church spreads, the conflicts between Jewish expectations and Gentile realities start to affect the unity of the church in doctrine, rule, and expectation. So, they had a meeting. Who knows how long the meeting really was. It does feel like it was abbreviated in the Scriptures.

Peter stood up and familiarized or reminded people of his story. While we (rightfully) call Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles, Peter was the first. As the “rock” of the church, Peter had a first among equal standing. His words carried weight. James, too, as one of the original Apostles also had significant weight.

With this as the groundwork, it would seem completely obvious that everything was resolved, and that the Law was finally set aside as a guide and a history, and not the road of salvation.

Except…apparently that was only for a time. The list of people Paul accuses of backsliding is interesting: Peter (the “first” Apostle to the Gentiles), James (the Apostle that gave a further argument in defense of Gentile requirements), Barnabas (partner in Gentile travels with Paul). There were also others that had backslid into the Law.

This is not a minor issue, hence Paul’s concern, and his willingness to put ink to paper to exclaim it. Reverting to the practices of the Law denied Jesus’ grace. It also separated Jew from Gentile, which was, it seems, Paul’s biggest issue.

The bloodline that separated Jew from Gentile was erased by the blood of Jesus. This division was unreasonable and opposed the Gospel. Paul did not just let it stand.

The truth is that it is easy for any of us to fall into old habits and thought patterns, especially those that were experienced during childhood or under the influence of personally significant people. It is not unexpected that Peter would revert to those tendencies, nor the others. Paul didn’t seem particularly surprised, just upset.

Apparently, this was resolved, yet this kind of thing is forever a shadow in the church.

※ Prayer ※
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, constantly guide us in all Truth. Shape and form us to be better conformed to your will. Amen.

※ Questions ※
1) What is an old religious habit that you keep fighting? Is it a “rule” or a way of thinking?
2) What do you think the original intent of the “rule” or way of thinking was?
3) What does the cast of characters tell us about ourselves and the church? What does it show how we are to correct or admonish one another?

2020-05-13
In the Meantime

Exodus 28:39–29:9; Exodus 32:1–21; Romans 5:1–11 (read online ⧉)

The pomp, display, mystery, pageantry (and politics) that surrounds the elevation of a cardinal (or, per rule, any Roman Catholic male) to the position of pope is pretty amazing and can be quite stirring. It should not be lost on anyone that there are “liturgical” steps that are followed for every pope.

The Old Testament is filled with many “liturgical” steps itself, particularly for the priests. Aaron was going to be anointed and appointed High Priest of the entire nation of Israel. His sons would also receive the same. For a people that escaped and left Egypt through the miraculous works of God, this should have been a sure personal coup for Aaron.

God was talking to Moses about this, in the meantime, Aaron was definitely acting as a high priest, just not of God. One could even see a foreshadow of the priests (High and other) during the time Jesus. No courage of conviction (or perhaps no real conviction) when confronted by the people.

Aaron’s place as Moses’ second (we always have to keep in mind that Aaron was the mouthpiece of Moses) couldn’t be ignored. The people are too impatient to wait (What’s waiting 40 days in comparison to 430 years?) and are quick to abandon their God and their leader.

That whole thunder on a mountain, pillar of smoke by day, pillar of fire by night, annihilation of the world’s biggest army,…meh, too much time. And then, eventually, there was a new nation, a bunch of prophets, exile, return,…and silence for another 400 years.

Another 400 year period of silence, then John the Baptist showed up. The time of silence was over. Jesus, the Son of God, walked on the Earth…

…in the meantime, people lived. People died. People sinned, and sinned, and sinned. Jesus died.

It was “finished” on the cross that day. Jesus Christ died for people who were sinning right up to that very moment, and Jesus Christ died for all those who sinned afterward.
Aaron’s call had very little to do with Aaron, and everything to do with God. Jesus’ death on the cross had little to do with us, and everything to do with God.

That last sentence probably jarred you a bit. We are taught (and the Scriptures state, such as this passage in Romans) that God died for our sins. Yet, in many respects, God died to be true to God’s self…self-sacrificing love for others. In other words, while our sins were the trigger, God’s very nature was the reason.

Prayer

O God, whose Son Jesus is the good shepherd of your people; Grant that when we hear his voice we may know him who calls us each by name, and follow where he leads; who, with you and the Holy Spirit, lives and reigns, one God, for ever and ever. Amen. [BCP]

Questions

1) In the case of Aaron and us, God is doing something great for us, while we are often doing something against God. What does that tell us about God and ourselves?

2) Why is it critical to understand that Jesus Christ died for all sins through all time?

3) How does Romans 5:1 relate to Aaron’s consecration?

2020-05-06
Holy Night

29 April 2020 Devotional

Genesis 1:1–19; Genesis 22:17–18; Psalm 134 (read online ⧉)

I try to settle, but I just pass through
A rain dog, gypsy
A wandering Jew
All those homes were not ours
Then I slept one night
In Abraham’s field
And dreamt there was no moon
The night he died
Counting stars
from The Orphan by the Newsboys

One of the interesting conflicts in the Scriptures is the human tendency to fear the dark (because of bad people and wild animals). Yet, on the other hand, God did not make the dark to be bad. God called it good.

We want to conquer the darkness. As our cities become fuller (or at least were pre-COVID), the “light pollution” was significant. If Abraham was, for example, a homeless person in Seattle, there would be very few stars to count. It wouldn’t be much of a promise.

If you’ve had any experience away from cities, you’ll understand the magnificence of God’s night sky as created. If you’ve been someplace really remote on a moonless night (i.e., “new moon”), it is even more spectacular.

As the “church” aged, the simplicity of day=good and night=bad developed into a theology that worship happened in the day, especially in the morning to go with the day or morning star (the sun being a symbol of Jesus). Modern churches did develop night worship to a degree, but it has been far and away diminished in comparison to daytime worship.

The psalmist’s very short homage to the night workers at the House of God brings to point the many people behind the scenes of churches, schools, hospitals, and many institutions that do not get the recognition for they are behind the scenes. The night workers at the House of God were not any less important than the ones assigned in the day. It was just that they were not as visible. Did they get the accolades? Probably not. Did they fulfill their calling? Yes. Without them, worship couldn’t happen during the day. The night was just as essential to daytime worship as those who were there during the day.

There is one thing that the night can bring us that day often doesn’t…stillness. Under the night sky, there is often a greater willingness to just sit (or lay down) and stare at the jewels that God placed in the heavens. In that place of stillness and of sparkling jewels, God can speak in that still small voice…and we might actually hear.

Prayer

Father God, through the Word, Jesus, you made the moon and the stars, and all the heavenly bodies. Help us to recognize your glory and love in them. May your Holy Spirit guide us today to stop and just gaze in wonder at what you have made. Amen.

Questions

1) What do you think of when gazing at the stars? What is the strongest memory you have of the night sky?

2) Who are some of the people behind the scenes that you can think of, that glorify God by their humble and hidden service?

3) We often call on people to be humble. On the other hand, there is often this desire to have a superstar leader who is charismatic and often needs some lessons in humility. How do we get to this point?

2020-04-29