Devotion.al

Tag: servant

  • Flawed and Honored Vessels

    Psalm 107:1–16; Exodus 15:22–27; Hebrews 3:1–6 (read online ⧉)

    Water is essential to survival. Not having water was a sentence. What made the waters of Marah too bitter to drink can only be guessed. It would have been horrible to be thirsty (3 days in the desert) and find the saving source of water undrinkable.

    They had just experienced God doing a miracle by saving them from the Egyptians. Yet, here they were, 3 days later, complaining. There is a reasonable question, “what shall we drink?” However, it seems that it didn’t start there. It started with complaining.Much of Moses’ journey with the Israelites seemed to involve the Israelites complaining. They complained against God. They complained against Aaron. They complained against Moses. As their cultural history developed, Moses (rightfully) was granted a position of significance. The developed a hearty respect for God’s rescuing prophet. The first generation complained. The succeeding generations honored.

    By the time of , Moses was just below God in some ways. Not that they worshipped Moses, but that he was used as the measuring rod of the of God. In Luke 16:29, we read, “they have Moses and the prophets….” Moses is raised above the other prophets, even above King David, a man after God’s own . The writer of Hebrews resets things, by raising up Jesus as the of God, not “just” a servant (as Moses was).

    The writer of Hebrews was incorporating Jewish understanding of God and faith (including Moses’ role) into a fuller understanding of who Jesus Christ should be to faithful Jews.As did regarding we being the dwelling of God, the writer of Hebrews says that Jesus Christ is building us into his house. The author of Hebrews equates us, amazingly, to Moses. Both (all) were houses built by God.

    1) Have you ever compared yourself to another, and said, “I could never be like that?”

    2) Have you ever heard someone another a lot and think, “how can I measure up to this?”

    3) What are your thoughts on being a house made by God, and being made just as you are, flaws and all?

  • 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 and rely on God for the journey to be a , and to be able to go to his master (Abraham) with his task .

    The story of Ruth is considered a success as she was …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 -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 . 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 , 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 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 and , 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?

  • Servant and Service

    Isaiah 44:21-23, Matthew 20:22–28, John 12:26 (read online ⧉)

    What is a ? That isn’t a small question. In fact, in our culture, it is a huge thing.

    The cultural implications are generally demeaning (Alfred notwithstanding). That probably has a lot to do with the cultural wound of slavery, when humans claimed ownership of others. In addition, servants were often the poor or undereducated or uneducated for whom being a servant was actually an improvement from their previous circumstances. We see much of this in waitstaff or clerks or other “service industry” people. Many young people work in so-called service industries and their parents have been guilty of saying, “so you’ll know why you want a better job.” It sounds harsh, doesn’t it? On the other hand, in other cultures, servants or service industries are not so demeaned. In some European countries, for example, tipping a waiter is an insult. They are professionals and should be treated as such.

    This is incredibly important as we read the verses from Isaiah. Jacob/Israel is God’s servant. This is not intended to be a demeaning title, but one that bestows great honor. Only the Israelites had the gift of being in relationship with God. In our culture, this “gets to be a servant” has serious overtones that damage the God-honoring view of serving God as . Our culture of individuality along with our history of service jobs and slavery looks at this as condescension and power, rather than what it is…a blessed arrangement. This is God’s and it is the long-held view of Israelite and (now) Jewish thought.

    When we read Jesus’ words to his disciples, we can see (especially in the of Isaiah’s words) just how shocking Jesus’ words actually were. Jesus was switching up the “rules”. Jesus (the Son of God) surrendered his divinity to . Jesus served as teacher, example (for a life that honored God), and sacrifice. In his words to his disciples, he noted the problem Gentiles had with servants (sounds familiar). It was a power issue. Servants—those that serve others—are not to be dismissed due to their role or position. In fact, it would seem that servants are to actually be honored.

    We get that to some degree. As part of our life, there are many who serve both as a calling and as an outpouring of worship (worship of God). John gives us some context that ties it all . If we serve God, we follow God. Perhaps the next time you see servant or serve in the , it to follow or follower and see how your heart responds.

    1) What is your initial to being a servant? Why? How do you think that response was formed?

    2) We often intellectually (i.e., unemotionally) assent or agree that God calls us to serve. Why, then, does the church lack servants? What can be done to change the culture?

    3) Have you ever been to a restaurant where the waitstaff were professionals? What was it like compared to places where the waitstaff are only in “starting” jobs?

  • Power of Service

    Mark 10:42–45, John 21:15–17, 1 Peter 4:7–11

    to control. That’s what is talking about in the passage in Mark. The Gentile “rulers” (though the same applied to many of the Pharisees and scribes, as well) lorded their power, influence, and wealth over others, and controlled them. When this passage is used, often we get “stuck” on our part, rather than seeing the underlying relational truth. Those with power, influence, and wealth are held at a distance (even by those with power, influence, and wealth themselves). Servants are close at hand. In a place of trust, servants are able to influence and nurture others. One really can’t say that about those with power, influence, and wealth.

    Service is strongly implied in Jesus’ words of the of Peter: Feed (twice) and shepherd. Used twice, βόσκω (boskō) can mean feed, take to pasture, or take care of. Used only once, ποιμαίνω (poimainō) means shepherd, take care of, and guide. Feed appears to be more of the immediate concern, while shepherd is more along the line of long-term thriving. This is a great picture for pastors to concern themselves with. It is also the picture every one of us should be using as a lens to look at others with. We are called to “feed” their immediate need twice as much as their thriving. Many of us concern ourselves with the thriving, and neglect the immediate.

    Service isn’t an option. How you is your expression of service as . Peter passed along the to serve, “…as good stewards of the varied of God.” That is an interesting concept. Often we talk about stewardship in regards to money. Peter talks about being stewards of God’s grace. God’s grace is poured out on the just and unjust, just as it is poured out on the saved and unsaved. Just because there’s plenty, does not mean we are not responsible to steward it.

    1) Our culture claims to value servants. It doesn’t. The church seems to reflect the culture. How can we improve how we value the servants of the church? Who are the servants of the church? Who aren’t the servants of the church?

    2) Why do you think there is that 2-to-1 ratio between feeding and shepherding? How should that inform your life?

    3) How will you serve tomorrow? How will you serve today? How will you serve next month? Does the service always have to be the same?

  • Faithful Servanthood

    Psalm 127, Matthew 25:14–30, Luke 22:35–38

    The question is often asked, “when you get to Heaven, what do you want to ?”

    The common answer is, “well done, good and .”

    It is a feel-good statement. Truthfully, we would all like to hear that from God.

    In the parable, the servants were given money to build up the master’s coffers. The interesting part about the parable is that 2 servants did well, and 1 servant did (basically) nothing. The reality is that in investing, you lose money, too. That is part of the risk. A person who launches a small business is putting their money at risk to be successful, with no guarantees. In the parable, we don’t have a servant that tried and failed. There is either trying and succeeding, or there is nothing ().

    This seems significant. Though perhaps it is not. It could be argued that the 2 successful servants were blessed (Psalm 17:1) and the other servant just missed out. This is often the interpretation, as it is seen as applying to Israel for not up to its potential. In fact, burying the money was (culturally) from liability, for if buried money is stolen, there was no responsibility.

    In Matthew’s version of the parable (or a different contextual telling of the parable), Matthew used “faithful” to describe the servant, while Luke did not. For Matthew, this was a matter of . The master trusted the servant to do the right thing (with what the Master gave), and be successful with it.

    When it comes to real , however, it is not so clear-cut. In his last hours with his disciples, alludes to the disciples being taken care of when sent out by him earlier in the ministry. Yet, now they are to be self-prepared (instead of being taken care of) and even armed (though the weapon-like nature of the sword is questionable).

    1) Why do you think there is such a difference between the servants in the parable and the disciples with Jesus?

    2) What is your to faithful in this context? What do you think it means? Do you think you are being faithful?

    3) If one takes the parable too literally, one can conclude that a person is an unfaithful servant if they fail. What do you think about that?

  • Be Strange

    Joshua 7:3–15, 1 Thessalonians 4:1–12

    The pivotal in the book Dune at one point talks about having a “stamp of strangeness” put upon him. This stamp was definitely a different context, yet “stamp of strangeness” was and is exactly what God does to us when he calls us and we accept him.

    When the Israelites are finally about to enter the Promised Land, God calls on the Israelites to consecrate themselves. In other words, they were to emotionally, spiritually, and physically separate themselves for the work (taking, , and thriving) in the Promised Land. This means that Egypt was a closed door. This means that they were to be separate even from their “relatives” (i.e., the descendants of Esau, Jacob’s brother). They were to be strange.

    later tells the Thessalonians to be strange, too. In this passage, there is a cultural battle they are facing. In their larger culture, it wasn’t uncommon that a man had a wife (often a political or social marriage), a lover (intellectual and/or sexual), a concubine (generally an indentured servant or slave), and a prostitute. A man would be considered to have at least 3 of these, and potentially more (e.g., the number of concubines and prostitutes could vary). In some areas, this was encouraged. Heterosexual monogamy was strange. It doesn’t appear that there were specific issues that Paul was addressing, but an attitude and . Just like the Israelites, Christians were to be strange.

    Due to human frailty, we often don’t want to be strange. We want to be normal. We want to fit it. While it is important to have non-Christian friends and acquaintances, it is due to the expectation of being strange that means we (as Christians) must have Christians in our most intimate (non-sexual) where we are held accountable and hold others accountable.

    When we read Paul’s words today, they are strange yet again. The world is heading toward (and arguably is) a society of relationships that are not in line with God’s creation (especially sexually). One can point to a huge number of issues (and it’s not one or two) that are not only opposed to created intent but are also being found to inhibit or damage real relationships with people. Paul addresses that, too, when he talks about behaviors damaging others in the , and they don’t have to be participants to be damaged.

    All believers are called to be progressively sanctified. In other words, part of our Christian journey to be continually shaped by the Holy into the image of Christ in partnership with fellow maturing believers. The “stamp of strangeness” grows stronger, and becomes a cross to bear in the world of the transforming nature of God.

    1) What are you actively doing to place yourself in an authentic accountable ? If nothing, what is holding you back?

    2) The world speaks and trumpets individuality. However, the world only celebrates “safe” individuality. What makes “Christian” individuality dangerous? Is there really such a thing is a Christian apart from the body of Christ?

    3) Thinking to the separation aspect, what is a place in your life that you need more separation from the world?

  • Boundaries of Service

    Numbers 32:16–22, Matthew 3:13–17, John 13:1–17, 2 Corinthians 5:14–17

    Service takes many forms. We are often tied into our mind’s understanding of service, and thus become blind to what service can look like. In the case of Reubenites and Gadites, their service took place in the form of aiding their fellow Israelites to secure the Promised Land. The Reubenites and Gadites would have to that their families and livestock would be safe while they were away. There was no guarantee that they would nor when. We would not normally view this as service, but it is, for they put their own interests (and the concern’s for their families) beneath the needs of .

    Often the biggest issue to service is not the task, but ourselves. We put ourselves before others. This is not to say that we need to be floor mats. Nor does this mean that we must where we do not feel called. The issue is when we are called and we choose not to because it is not convenient. Or we choose to not respond because it must be someone else’s responsibility. Or we choose to not respond because we might fail.

    Sometimes we think we aren’t serving because it is the “right” thing to do. When convinced John the Baptist to baptize him, it wasn’t that Jesus needed to be baptized for his , but to show others what the right way to begin is. He could have been the prideful type, saying that it was below his station (even though he would have been correct). He could have commanded John the Baptist, but instead requested that it be “allowed” which gave John the Baptist a say and also recognized his calling as the last Old Testament prophet.

    When we come to the washing of the feet at the Last Supper, we say Jesus made himself a servant (which he was). However, he was leading foremost by example. As the “host” of the dinner, he made sure that his “guests” were cared for. However, when Peter went further than appropriate (“wash all of me”), Jesus did draw a line. Yet, often we say, “Jesus did this,” and fail to follow that with, “and so should I.”

    reminds us of this , when he writes, “…those who live should no longer live for themselves…” We are all guilty of for ourselves. It is not to say that there are no healthy boundaries. It is just that what we often call “healthy” boundaries are not Jesus boundaries. The “healthy” boundaries of the world are for the selfish, sinful, fallen, unredeemed person, not of “…the one who died for them and was raised.”

    1) Whose boundaries are you using to define your service, the world’s or Jesus’?

    2) Do you continually pray how you may better serve “…the one who died for [you] and was raised?”

    3) What is one new way that you can serve this week?

  • Family Issues Galore

    Genesis 29:21–30:24, Genesis 35:16–20

    Jacob’s (as we read yesterday) were already a mess. His Uncle Laban did not help relational stability by setting up his own daughters to have discord in their marriage.

    The consequence is that sister wives fought over their husband. They also used their -women as bargaining chips. From our , what occurred with Jacob’s wives, their servants, and the resultant sons is crazy. We can reasonably condemn Jacob for allowing this. At the same time, sons were the “greatest” wealth. He would do what was necessary to make sure of that. However, his is deeply in question.

    1) What do you think the relationships between the brothers would have been like? How would the relationships between the four mothers impacted the brothers’ relationships between each other and their parents?

    2) Blended families bring in the traumas of more than 2 families, and often create more trauma on top of it. What can the do to help in that? Do you know blended families? How do you related to them?

    3) Our modern concept of the “nuclear” family would seem to be in sharp contract to Jacob’s family. What are both positive and negative lessons we can from these families?