Devotion.al

Tag: worship

  • Same Change, Different Day

    Galatians 1:21–2:10 (read online ⧉)

    The often states that the message from God has never changed. That’s not entirely accurate. God’s amazing grace was before all and in all. God’s expression of grace was certainly in multiple forms from Adam to Jacob’s (Israel’s) sons. Through Moses, the message changed from a family group to a (we often miss this change). The nation and Law was not something we see as grace, yet it took a nation of slaves and transformed them into God’s chosen people. From there grace transformed them into a powerful nation. From there grace kept their as God’s people intact, even when they abandoned God, and ended up in other nations. The message always changed. The Truth did not.

    We Christians look at Jesus and the Gospel as the message that never changed. It is possibly more accurate to say that through Jesus and the Gospel that the message was expressed to its fullest. Yes, that is a nuance. However, that nuance is not small in any way, shape, or form. If it was small, wouldn’t have gone to Jerusalem.

    Jesus’ first followers, and his core followers, were Jews. Everything was from a Jewish . For them, therefore, this was a Jewish thing. It makes perfect sense that many would not be able to separate Jewish practices from their Messiah. Hence we ourselves need to be more grace-filled towards those we read about in the New Testament. Remember, they were learning just what all this meant. Paul was pretty sure what it all meant. He just had to convince .

    This is a long preface to a new and old truth. Mode and method do not equal message. Not too long ago, we had church splits over worship music. Mostly, that’s over, though some still complain about one sort of music or the other. There is the comparisons between contemporary format (which all Generations Sunday services have) and “traditional” liturgical services. It seems so obvious to many now that these are merely different ways to still share the Gospel and gather together. Now there are digital churches. Then there are microexpression churches. This form of church caters to a specific interest group or demographic. Is it bad? In many respects, yes, for it continues the “one hour on Sunday is the most segregated hour of the week.” Granted, it is often no longer over . It does reach people who would not otherwise be reached by “normal” church.

    The church has long needed to reinvent itself, perhaps not so much to reach new people (though that really does help), but to reinvigorate itself. The church seems to have entered a period of stagnation. Either the stagnation needs to be flushed out, or the church can suffocate. It seems harsh, yet in many respects that is exactly what Paul had to deal with. The church that was forming had to reinvent itself. It had to separate itself from the ways that kept in mired in the past. Once it broke free, the freeing message of the Gospel got wings.

    1) Why do people hold onto traditions? How do you know when a is stagnate, and when it is life-?

    2) What “how church is done” thing do you hold onto? Why? How does it you life?

    3) What is one “new” church thing that you enjoyed and/or found life-giving once you actually started doing it?

    Action: Take your “church thing” and explain not only what it is, but also how it builds up the church and fellow Christians.

  • Do You See What God Sees?

    Genesis 1:26–28, Genesis 4:1–2, Genesis 5:1–3, 2 Corinthians 3:16–18, James 1:22–25 (read online ⧉)

    When we are born we may, or may not, be an image of our parents. As we get older, the comparisons become easier, and especially as we tend toward the of our lives, we really resemble our parents. “Spitting image” was an old phrase used to indicate that there was an almost identical image of child to parent, or “could be twins” is another. How we look is very much part of our self-identification. Often we are dissatisfied with the genes we were given and how our lives have played into or against those genes.

    If you read the 3 vignettes is Genesis you might have recognized that something was missing in the second one. In the first story, humankind (Adam and Eve) is made in the image of God. In the third story, Seth is in the image of Adam. In the second story, there is no mention of image. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it. Cain and Able were not stated as being the image of Adam or Eve. They were in the image of God as all humankind was, but not their biological parents. Were we the parents, would we not have if “our” children were not in our image (barring adoption, of course)? Is there some deep theological meaning here? Probably not. Yet, it is something that should cause us to question what exactly is occurring here. We will probably never know.

    Image still remains important, as image does have an important place in all of the Scriptures. There were all the mentions of images of gods and creatures for worship, and how bad this was, and how it contributed to the Israelites walking away from God.

    takes image a new direction. Here he uses a mirror as the medium for us to see the of God inside each of us. Think of that! We can see the image of God inside of us! Yes, it is a figurative thing. At the same time, it should be a way of thinking about ourselves and seeing ourselves. We are often overly concerned about what we have done wrong, while not in the that we have in Christ. We ourselves try to put a barrier (the ) between ourselves and seeing the image of God in us.

    James alludes to this in his words, talking about looking at ourselves then “forgetting” what we look like. It does appear that James is thinking more that people are deliberately forgetting what they look like. As we tie this into Paul’s words, when we do not operate in the that God is loving and merciful, we forget who we are in Christ, which goes right back to Paul’s example of putting a veil back on.

    The world doesn’t want us to think in the way Paul and James want us to think. The world wants us to forget who we are in Christ. The biggest issue, and the one we fall prey to, is that they try to tell us that we are not a child (or children) of God when we fail. This is Paul’s real message of to and for us. Not only are we the children of God, we are also becoming the children of God, and it is only by willingly and lovingly looking at the image of God in each of us (and each other) that we continually are transformed into the purified expression and image of God that is in us, and that God sees in us.

    1) Why do you think neither Cain nor Able were not noted as being in the image of a parent, while their brother was? There is no right or wrong answer that we know of, but it is a question to ponder.

    2) Why do you think people put a “veil” on? What do you think Paul is referring to in your ?

    3) Why is it important to remember that we are and are yet becoming children of God?

  • To Flourish

    Psalm 52, Colossians 1:3–14, 2 Peter 1:3–15 (read online ⧉)

    “But I am like a flourishing olive tree in the house of God…” Psalm 52:8 (CSB)

    Being and becoming a flourishing olive tree should be our goal. We, of course, are not trees. We are, however, treasured creations of God that God helps to nurture into Christ-like beings. There is that tension, though, about what God to us. The Wesleyan tradition holds that God does not force us, yet without the Spirit working in us, we are doomed to be the same. How it works is a . The theologians of many traditions (not just the Wesleyan) continue to robustly discuss this. This is not bad. It is often distracting though.

    The tree…

    …is in the house of God.
    …quests for water
    …strains against the wind, and grows stronger.
    …reaches for the sun.
    …produces fruit.

    It seems obvious what the house of God is. It’s church. Except that is an incomplete understanding. We often think of house as a building. בַּיִת [bayith /bah·yith/] is also used to describe household, home, family, within, descendants. What if instead of “flourishing in the house of God” we were to read it as “flourishing in the family of God?” If we were to do so, that would mean praying together, groups, , and other related activities that we do together are covered, as long as that draws us closer to God.

    Water is always life (especially from a wilderness and livestock point of view). With Jesus referring to himself as the Water of Life it takes on an important change, and it is one that we should take very seriously. Pursuing the Water of Life means that we follow Jesus, and do our best to cast off the world to become more like Jesus, and less like the world. Pursuing the Water (another title) would also cover reading the Scriptures and praying.

    The wind aspect is a little different. The wind is both the world trying to knock us down and the Holy Spirit. We couldn’t escape some tension here. That would be too easy. The storms (the wind) of the world seek to uproot us from the solid ground that is God. The Holy Spirit pushes and shapes us to be stronger so that we can stand firmer against the world.

    Reaching for the sun would seem to be automatically related to the , yet the sun provides warmth (like ) and nourishment (trees need the sun to breathe and produce energy). The sun and its attributes can be found in things like families and friends.

    Lastly, though, the tree produces fruit which can take many forms (the list is far too long).

    All of this falls under the huge umbrella of spiritual growth. The two passages from ‘s letter to the Colossians and the second letter Peter are deeply concerned about spiritual growth. Spiritual growth is not optional. In fact, to be a Christ-follower, we are (by definition) seeking to spiritually grow to be closer and closer to Christ. If you are not pursuing spiritual growth the question of being a Christ-followers rears its head.

    1) Looking at the list in Colossians 1:9–12 of spiritual growth, what pops out for you? Which area are you growing in? Which one are you weakest in?

    2) 2 Peter 1:5–7 is a list often used as a list of spiritual fruit. Where do you fall within the list? Do you think the list is exhaustive? Why do you think Peter ties the “fruit” together?

    3) How important do you view your spiritual growth? How about the spiritual growth of ? Why is that your view?

  • 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 . 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 of being in 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 perspective and it is the long-held view of Israelite and (now) Jewish thought.

    When we read ‘ words to his disciples, we can see (especially in the light 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 serve. Jesus served as teacher, example (for a 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 together. If we serve God, we follow God. Perhaps the next time you see servant or serve in the Scriptures, change it to follow or follower and see how your 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?

  • Hope Together

    1 Chronicles 29:14–19, Psalm 31, Isaiah 2:1–5 (read online ⧉)

    It is pretty universal across humanity for people to question their value and their purpose. In the ancient world, the view of gods was often not particularly positive. Much of the activity was done to appease the wrathful gods and to “bribe” them enough to maybe get what was desired. The progressive understanding of the Israelites was that while God required sacrifice it was much more than that.

    David rarely seemed to view himself particularly highly (which have actually been a problem, at times). This gave David an interesting insofar as he knew that while God had him (and his family), he didn’t take it for granted. He was grateful and amazed. In addition, part of his history (and that of Israel) was one of constant strife with the nations around them, and often at the losing end.

    It was the non-losing end that remained the underlying story of the Israelites…hope. David understood that while Israel was often in trouble, often through its own misbehavior, with God’s selection of David and his family that there was indeed hope that the people would finally be unified. Through unification, perhaps the people of Israel would finally be strong enough to stand against the forces around them.

    Regardless, for David at least, it all relied on God. While David and his military might could protect the nation to some degree, it was only through God’s mighty hand and care that the nation, and its people, would thrive. In Psalm 31, David calls upon God’s . Foreshadowing a significant event in the of his descendant, David wrote, “…into your hand I entrust my spirit.” Hope and in God are what allows us to continue forward in when we cannot see in the dark.

    Isaiah’s vision shows us that even then God was looking forward to everyone worshiping God with each other. This would cross national, ethnic, language, and cultural barriers. This hope, of a world united in worship of God, is what we have to with those who don’t know God. Let us take the light of hope forward into our lives.
    1) Have you ever questioned your value or purpose? What do David’s words say to that?

    2) Why is entrusting yourself to God such an important perspective?

    3) There is more than just worship involved in Isaiah’s vision? What else is there?

    FD) What do you think David means by his spirit to God?

  • A Covenant Of Life and Peace

    Micah 5:1-5 ,Haggai 2:5–9, Malachi 2:4–7 (read online ⧉)

    One of the biggest problems with peace…is us. Peace often does not reside well in our souls. We bear the world’s concerns as if they were our own. It is not that we are not to care about the world, but only God is capable of caring for all the concerns of the world. Our “peace” on the other hand is usually pre-occupied with what we think we give us peace: whether it is food, clothing, riches, , things, “friends” or whatever else. Somehow having the burden for caring for all these things is supposed to give us peace.

    In Micah’s time, Israel perceives that the world is against it. It (as Micah says) is cutting itself in . It is an odd time for an origin . Yet, here we are with the promise that God’s proxy ruler (the Messiah) will come from Bethlehem. This Messiah will be a . The shepherd is a caretaker who loves the sheep. The shepherd will not control or direct by force, but by . This shepherd will be their peace. The language is peculiar. The shepherd will be their peace, not the shepherd will bring peace or enforce peace. Be peace.

    Be peace. God promised that Israel would have God, granted as long as they wanted God. As they wandered further and further away from God in their hearts, while still fulfilling the trappings of faithfulness, peace in their hearts and in their lands ceased. God wasn’t done with them though. Despite all the troubles they brought upon themselves in the world, God would provide peace.

    We can look at the archetypal Levi in Malachi to understand. Those who are called to God directly (Levites in Israelite culture, all Christians) received a of and peace. All that was required was reverence, which often seems to be sadly lost even among those who say they “” God. Out of the reverence words of Truth were to come, and turn those living in sin away from it.

    1) What is reverence?

    2) Do you think reverence and peace go ? Why or why not?

    3) Why do you think the shepherd being peace is important? What does that mean to you?

  • Right Words Right Choice

    2 Chronicles 18:12-22, Mark 15:1–15 (read online ⧉)

    Ahab was an interesting king. He set himself up against God and the prophets multiple times. His greatest prophetic adversary was Elijah. However, Elijah was by no means his only one. Micaiah was apparently well known to Ahab. As Ahab told Jehoshaphat that Micaiah never says anything good to him (Ahab), we can infer the Micaiah was known to visit Ahab, probably often to chastise him for continue to Baal (and encouraging the people too).

    Knowing that Ahab could behave in a weak fashion (see the story about Naboth’s vineyard), it is interesting to reflect on him bringing a known adversary to his court for consultation, especially in the presence of another king. This is not the behavior of a weak king. On top of it, Ahab is apparently smart enough to recognize that all his other “seers” are blowing hot air, for when Micaiah echoes their words, Ahab challenges that. He’s pretty certain that Micaiah is following the crowd and not his calling.

    Why Micaiah succumbed to echoing the is never answered, but there could be a number of . The likeliest answer of all was that Ahab wouldn’t respond to the , so why bother with it. People in might people of influence or morals for advice (such as in this case). However, that can be merely a checkbox to show open-mindedness and , when in fact it is just a show. While Ahab took a risk calling in Micaiah, because he sought Jehoshaphat’s military aid, he probably felt that he needed to put on an appropriate show for the God-following Jehoshaphat.

    In ‘ time, Pilate was the theoretical ruler of Jerusalem. He was under and sent with the authority of the Roman Empire. Only by his command could be imposed. As the Jewish religious leaders needed his approval, they set him up. In many respects, Pilate knew it. He knew that the real issue was that Jesus challenged the influence of the Sanhedrin. Pilate, though, needed the Sanhedrin to control the people without always having to resort to arms. He and the Sanhedrin played a political game of chess, and Pilate gave up. He actually had a winning hand but succumbed to the pressure of the crowd. The Sanhedrin knew the political pitfalls that Pilate had to walk and took advantage of them.

    Ahab and Pilate faced hard choices. For us, we don’t see them as too hard, but both were “political animals”. We see much the same today; people who cannot not be in . Every person has decisions to make. What matters is which direction each one of those steps leads.

    1) Have you ever had to make a political choice that did not feel like it was the correct (e.g., righteous, moral) choice? Why did you make the choice you did? What were the results politically and spiritually?

    2) For “political animals” (no disrespect intended), often the political game blinds them to good or wise decisions. Where do you see that occurring? Is it only that person or people?

    3) People’s wiring for decisions is often different than our own. We may even come to the same decision via a completely different route. How do we work with others whose thought processes (again, not the conclusions) are so different from our own?

  • Building Myths

    Luke 17:20–37, Acts 7:44–60, Revelation 21:14–27 (read online ⧉)

    Throughout the Old Testament, there are memorial stones. The names of springs have tale-telling names. Altars were built…lots of altars. Places provide . The Promised Land (Israel) was one of identity. That particular land was powerful enough in its and history that there are still fights involving it among differing “tribes” and religions (and each’s myriad of sects).

    A place will often develop a mythos or multiple ones. Think of the States. There is the American Exceptionalism mythos. There is the American Colonialism mythos. There is the American Slavery/Segregation mythos. There is the American Dream mythos. There are plenty more American mythoi that aren’t listed. Some are held as (or more) firmly than religious beliefs. Some are feared for what they might represent. Regardless, they all revolve around a place.

    Jesus made a radical statement regarding the of God. The Pharisees and many other Jewish groups were looking for something tangible, which mostly revolved around the (in some form) of an independent (and probably wealthy, secure, and powerful) Jewish nation, with some sort of Davidic monarchy. Jesus basically told them that they are looking in the wrong place.

    Some scholars interpret this as Jesus stating he was the Kingdom come, while others look at it more along the lines of the kingdom being withing the people. We Christians often this being the .

    Stephen, who was martyred, reminded those that were about to stone him that God does not truly live in buildings built by hands. The building, it seems, is more for us than God. The passage in Revelation says there will be no . Think of that. There will be no temple, no church, no chapel, no alter. It will not be needed.

    We need to be honest with ourselves. We may say things such as, “the church is its people,” or “the people are the church.” However, when it comes right down to it, we gravitate toward needing a place. That place could be a park, a house, a (gasp) bar, a school, a cafeteria. We think this as obvious, now, but it wasn’t that long ago (truly) that people opposed holding a church service in a school. When the house church movement was reignited in the US over a decade ago, “established” churches said that house church wasn’t real church.

    The next “you can’t have church there,” argument is here. It’s actually almost past now, though people still hold onto it. It’s not possible, it is said, to have church over the internet, for the internet isn’t “real”. Even die-hard netizens often use IRL (in real ), so it seems even for them there is a struggle. As virtual reality goes mainstream, the concept of the internet as a rectangular screen will disappear. So, what are we to do? How will we treat those who don’t sit in our pews, but worship with us from 1000 miles away? Are they not the church? They don’t have a connection with us? Even those who, for various reasons, have moved or are moving away, but this is still their church home? Does someone stop being your family just because you only see them on Facebook, and haven’t seen them in years?

    1) When we talk about church and place, what are the important things to consider?

    2) What makes “place” more or less real to you? How do you deal with people who have a different idea of place?

    3) What makes a place (such as a church) more “real” than the internet which is a gathering of people at a whole bunch of places? Is that a “real” difference, or is it what we are used to?