Devotion.al

Tag: written

  • Asking Questions

    John 6:53–69, Colossians 2:6–10 (read online ⧉)

    We are all subject to the latest fads or the latest rumors or the latest news. Then there is the latest science news or latest health fad. It can overwhelm a person pretty quickly. The of the matter is that we are simple creatures who think they are complex. We also like to think more of ourselves than we ought.

    When Paul talks about philosophy and empty deceit, he’s talking about things that don’t . “Give life” means something in the “” world to many, but doesn’t mean much to those outside of it. This is where the real danger of philosophy and empty deceit come into play. Paul’s words were to those who believe that Jesus had come to redeem humanity, that Jesus was that one that brought life.

    Yet, at the same time, many in the were torn by the popular and new philosophies which drew them away from the apostolic teaching. We often don’t talk about the “schools” of thinking that were common with one or two leaders having (for a time) a pronounced impact on their cities. These people would use fancy language and (what seemed like) logic to pull people into their circles. Of course, as their circles expanded, so did their influence. Their goal was their gain, not (necessarily) the improvement of their followers. This is what makes it empty deceit. These impressive people draw people into their sphere of influence with the offer of a new life, but it all ends up being empty.

    By no means does this mean, as some have interpreted it, the philosophy is bad. In many respects, the vast deepening of Christian philosophy may indeed be what the church needs to reach the world and expand God’s Kingdom. Philosophy will often that need to be asked, yet many do not want to ask. That is one of the gifts that philosophy has for the church.

    The insight we have regarding philosophy and empty deceit comes from Peter, “Lord, to whom will we go? You have the words of eternal life.”

    1) How do (Simon) Peter’s words apply to philosophy? How do they apply to empty deceit?

    2) What is the difference between “” deceit and “empty” deceit? Why does it matter?

  • Speaking of Children

    Psalm 131, Matthew 18:1–9, Matthew 19:13–15 (read online ⧉)

    As adults, many of us look at the carefree nature of many kids and wish we had that now (especially if it was taken from us). Our general society has increasingly put barriers of protection around children, while at the same time put more burdens on them. It’s rather strange when you think about it. Then the prioritization of those burdens can also be unhealthy. Teenagers are limited to a certain number of hours (and a certain number of days per week) to work and earn a wage. On the other hand, if a teenager is playing a sport, they can spend as much (and often more) time supporting a sport than earning a wage. By and large, most of those children will not play sports professionally or even collegiately, yet there is a preference for certain play versus work. This is not to say sports dedication is necessarily bad, just that there seems to be a level of hypocrisy.

    Part of that is our understanding of children and childhood. We can see some of this very tension within the . Depending on how one defines weened, a weened child was anywhere from 2 to 4 years old. However, as the child aged, we start to see an odd tension. Around the of 13, a male went through the Bar Mitzvah and females the Bat Mitzvah. We see an allusion to this in Luke 2:41–52 (though was 12). At that point, a child became responsible in regards to the Law and theoretically had attained majority status. Yet, “men” were not counted in the Old Testament until they were 20. As Judaism (and the Law, and Israelite custom) are the ancestor of Christianity, these ages are important to consider when we look at the Scriptures when children are involved, as these are the background of the writers of both New and Old Testaments.

    From a Greek , a child is anyone prior to puberty (or that what the general use of the ). While the Greek was the language used to write Matthew, Jewish and thinking would still deeply affect the intent of and influence the writer.

    This is a very long way of saying, no one knows how old the child in question was, but likely it was up to 5 or 6. In other words, weened but not “there” yet insofar as being a teenager.

    When Jesus presents the child as a perspective example, it is likely that the perspective (if not the words) of Psalm 131 were in play, and would certainly fit a pre-adolescent person. The child, as defined by Psalm 131, does “…not get involved with things too great or too wondrous…” What could that mean? It could mean many things. However, if we look at (for example) the English language, some counts put its vocabulary at over 1 million words, but when the King James Bible was the estimate was 20-40 thousand. The reason this is brought up is that our language, just in words, is complicated, and only growing more so. We add words in an attempt to provide nuance. Not a particular surprise as written language does not succinctly communicate emotion, background, and overtone well.

    In other words, we are making our language seemingly “great and wondrous”, and really making a mess of it. The Great Commandments (summarized: God; love ) is simple. We make it so complicated.

    1) Do you think complicated thinking is why Jesus presented a child as an example? Do you think it might be another reason?

    2) Why does complicated thinking make it hard to the Gospel about Jesus?

    3) What do you think of the 2 versions of adult presented above? Can you think of similar examples in our society? Why do you think these differences in “adult” are trying to achieve?

  • Receiving Peace

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

    has the title of , yet our first passage today from Luke certainly causes one to question that. Some scholars align this with the Jewish zealot party, which sought the overthrow of the Roman Empire in Israel by (primarily) violent methods. However, it is prefaced by fire. Again, it sounds strange, unless we recognize that this is a cleansing and purifying fire. The sad is that many will be confronted with Jesus’ words and make a decision that has the potential to destroy relationships. This is the that Jesus brings. Some will follow Jesus, the will follow the world.

    The title of Prince of should probably be more properly, the Prince (of the people who live by and on and believe in the name of the Lord) of Peace (knowing that the Creator of the Universe is overall). It’s a lot wordier, but it helps us understand the seeming conflict between Jesus’ title and the first words we read.

    Certainly, war would not be the function of the Prince of Peace, would it? Yet, here Jesus uses that analogy. It’s not because Jesus desires war, but because the people were surrounded by war and its legends, meaning that this was an effective way to to people. On the other hand, we could look at it as the weaker party (us) seeking peace with the stronger party (God), and, oddly enough, the negotiation and sealing of that agreement is through Jesus Christ.

    The reality is that the ultimate culmination of peace will not happen here. Peace is in Heaven. However, when we spend time meditating on God’s word about peace, and meditating on who Jesus is (the Prince of Peace), we receive God’s peace here on earth.

    1) What are your thoughts about flame being a purifying image? What concept, if any, in Christianity is symbolized by a flame? How do they work ?

    2) Does it bother you that Jesus uses war imagery to make a point? Why or why not?

    3) If the ultimate peace only happens in Heaven, why pursue it here on earth?

  • Peace is in Heaven

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

    ‌ has the title of , yet our first passage today from Luke certainly causes one to question that. Some scholars align this with the Jewish zealot party, which sought the overthrow of the Roman Empire in Israel by (primarily) violent methods. However, it is prefaced by . Again, it sounds strange, unless we recognize that this is a cleansing and purifying fire. The sad is that many will be confronted with Jesus’ words and make a decision that has the potential to destroy . This is the division that Jesus brings. Some will follow Jesus, the will follow the world.

    ‌The title of Prince of Peace should probably be written more properly, the Prince (of the people who live by and on and believe in the of the Lord) of Peace (knowing that the Creator of the Universe is over all). It’s a lot wordier, but it helps us understand the seeming conflict between Jesus’ title and these first words we read.

    ‌Certainly war would not be the function of the Prince of Peace, would it? Yet, here Jesus uses that analogy. It’s not because Jesus desires war, but because the people were surrounded by war and its legends, meaning that this was an effective way to speak to people. On the other hand, we could look at it as the weaker party (us) seeking peace with the stronger party (God), and, oddly enough, the negotiation and sealing of that agreement is through Jesus Christ.

    ‌The reality is that the ultimate culmination of peace will not happen here. Peace is in Heaven. However, when we spend time meditating on God’s about peace, and meditating on who Jesus is (the Prince of Peace), we receive God’s peace here on earth.

    1) What are your thoughts about being a purifying image? What concept, if any, in Christianity is symbolized by a flame? How do they work together?

    2) Does it bother you that Jesus uses war imagery to make a point? Why or why not?

    3) If the ultimate peace only happens in Heaven, why pursue it here on earth?

  • Obedience of Faith

    Nehemiah 9:26–38, John 5:19–29 (read online)

    We struggle with obedience. We struggle with rules.

    We often don’t like the rules created by , especially if we are to live by them.

    The reality is that rules do govern our lives. Sometimes the “rules” are not truly rules but are descriptions of reality. The laws of gravity, entropy, magnetism and so on follow this.

    Using the “law” can be deceptive as they are a description of behavior that is perceived that all things follow. Yet, in many respects, these are the only laws that everyone obeys. These laws of physics aren’t something we think about. They are just part of our lives.

    By and large, all the legal laws we have, we don’t really think about, either, other than some of the driving ones.

    We don’t think, generally, about laws of incorporation, franchises, utilities, building codes, commerce, in fact, all sorts of things.

    Sometimes, we might have to deal with some of them, but not always. When we do we recognize it, it is as a societal hoop we jump through if we want to .

    What ties all of these rules and laws together is that there is no component in them. There might be some sort of different faith in regards to the underlying system (e.g., capitalism, democracy), but the laws themselves require no faith.

    Unless he obeys, a man cannot believe.
    — Dietrich Bonhoeffer

    The Israelites didn’t have enough faith to obey, apparently. Or was it something else. What is Dietrich Bonhoeffer getting at? It appears to be a catch-22. The Israelites didn’t have faith, because they didn’t believe, because they didn’t obey? Does faith have anything to do with belief? Time and time again, the Israelites did not obey.

    Disobedience became a way of , and so did unbelief. The ultimate consequence was being slaves in their own land, that they had been given by God. By the time came, while the Jews (the descendant of the Israelites) were oppressed, they weren’t (by in large) slaves. Their position within the Roman structure wasn’t freedom by our standards, granted. However, their religious leaders created new and enforced old laws that enslaved their hearts. What about obedience? And, that, is where we get to the rub of things.

    Jesus put his obedience out there in a way that was different than the religious leaders. Jesus could not do anything on his own. He bound himself to God the . This is the kind of obedience that Bonhoeffer is getting at. It’s not rules for rules’ sake (which is what the Jewish law had devolved to), but for the of God. Obedience for obedience’s sake, or to get something, is not Godly obedience. Godly obedience is doing as we are called to do by God because we were called to it by God.

    1)What do think when you think of obedience?

    2) Which is easier, obeying human laws, or God’s laws? Are you sure?

  • Seen In Heaven

    Job 19:23–27, 2 Corinthians 12:1–6, Revelation 4:1–11 (read online)

    John Wesley and George Whitfield were once total brothers in the and theology. Eventually, however, there were divisions, and the amicably went their separate ways on positive terms. Yet, people still assumed that there was something more serious.

    “One day, after Whitefield’s decease, John Wesley was timidly approached by one of the godly band of sisters who had been brought under his influences and who both Whitefield and himself:

    “‘ Dear Mr. Wesley, may I ask you a question?’
    “‘ Yes, of course, madam, by all means

    “‘ But, dear Mr. Wesley, I am very much afraid what the answer will be.’

    “‘ Well, madam, let me your question, and then you will know my reply.’

    “At last, after not a little hesitation, the inquirer tremblingly asked, ‘ Dear Mr. Wesley, do you expect to see dear Mr. Whitefield in heaven?’

    “A lengthy pause followed, after which John Wesley replied with great seriousness, ‘No, madam.’ “His inquirer at once exclaimed, ‘Ah, I was afraid you would say so.’

    “To which John Wesley added, with intense earnestness, ‘ Do not misunderstand me, madam; George Whitefield was so bright a star in the firmament of God’s , and will stand so near the throne, that one like me, who am less than the least, will never catch a glimpse of him.’”

    What will Heaven be like? There have been many books written and dreams shared. The corporeal reality is that dreams and visions are still a attempt to understand the divine reality. How can we embodied and finite (corporeal) creatures attempt to understand the infinite and divine. Old cartoons had the dead with wings, halos, and harps. Those that are musically inclined may indeed be playing harps in eternity, but if you know any drummers, you could see that as unlikely. Those that love to , preach, and teach will probably be out of a job. Maybe. Perhaps they will be the ones declaring, “, holy, holy.”

    Then there is the question of, “Will I see [someone] in Heaven?” Often we asked this question if we don’t know the salvation status of a person. Sometimes we wonder about ourselves. Take John Wesley. While he and Whitefield parted, he had such esteem for Whitefield (and so little for himself) that he believed that Whitefield would be so much closer to the throne of Heaven that Wesley would not see him due to the brightness of God’s glory. That person we are concerned for may indeed be in Heaven, but we may not know.

    1) For those reading this in a small group setting, let us agree that the answer to the following is spoken and shared in a safe space. What do you think Heaven will be like?

    2) Why do we concern ourselves for what comes after this ? How do you to those who don’t “known” what will be in the afterlife? How do you respond to those who believe there is nothing after this life?

  • Work to Death or for Life

    Acts 6:1–7, James 2:14–26

    In his book, With Unveiled Faces, Kieth Drury writes, “Serious Christians get into lifesaving boats and go to sea to people in need, refusing to in our warm lighthouses waiting for the shipwrecked to wash up on shore.”
    As we talk this week about connecting with God through the work of our hands, one of the biggest ways the church has done this is through serving the poor. Sadly, there has come a time where serving the poor has become business dressed in the clothes of . This does not excuse Christians from serving the poor, but it does require greater discernment than it has in the past.

    Does this mean that everyone is called to directly the poor? No. That’s why there were certain people tasked with doing it, as shown in Acts. However, the “greater” church was behind them both in moral support, but also with the resources necessary.

    One of the big (and valid, to a point) arguments against the church helping those outside of “the church” is that “charity starts at home.” This was actually by Charles Dickens. There is a great amount of truth in that statement, and it should be the case within the Christian . However, “start” is the operative . It must start at home, for that is where the groundwork is laid. It is groundwork. It is foundational. Yet, just like for a home, a foundation is only the beginning.

    Martin Luther struggled with the book of James, in particular this passage. Luther struggled with the concept of works as faith. James’ words were too similar to earning one’s way to Heaven, one of the issues that was at the root of his separation from the Roman Catholic church. James’ point was not that works would earn , but works were the evidence of faith and grace poured out.

    1) Many Christians have been taught to avoid “works ”. What are they? What is the difference between that and “faith and grace” poured out?

    2) Why are actions so important in regards to our faith?

    3) Why do we struggle so much with ?

  • Worship Heart-Fully

    2 Kings 23:4–20, Ezekiel 42:13‭-‬14

    King Josiah had a mess to clean up. Over the years, his kingly predecessors and the priestly predecessors had put a lot of stuff that didn’t belong in the . A lot of it was pieces for worshipping gods instead of worshipping God.

    If you really want to be overwhelmed, number the items, and then realize that the list was summarized (e.g., all the high places from Geba to Beer-sheba). It is not an exhaustive list! There was more that didn’t get listed! How far the people had fallen!

    King Josiah went so far as to desecrate graves so as to totally desecrate all the high places dedicated to other gods. Yet, the underlying story is how the religious leaders had added thing after thing to the temple, and the things they added had nothing to do with worshipping God. All the additions were to worship anything other than God.

    It might seem odd to go from this cleansing to a simple statement about proper priestly behavior in the post-exile temple (our passage in Ezekiel). However, there is something that needs to be addressed. Often, in our zeal (much of this inherited by Puritan thinking) to have a “pure” temple, we “” things because of their association with what we think is contaminated worship.

    Take the clothing of the priests mentioned in Ezekiel. The priests are supposed to wear special clothes that are only to be used during their priestly duties in the temple. If you didn’t catch this, in modern terms, that is seen in Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, some Anglican/Episcopal, some Lutheran, and some Presbyterian churches. The priests/pastors in these traditions will often wear special clothes that are only worn in the . They don’t, for example, wear them to the supermarket.

    Yet, we American “Evangelicals” have inherited a Puritan thought process that opposes such clothing, because the Roman Catholics and Anglicans (the Puritan primary opposition) wore them.

    We have two opposite mindsets presented here, which is something we as Christians and as a church need to think through, not just accept everybody else’s thoughts. “Right” worship has been a long-term issue in the church, from to extemporaneous , no music to A Capella to hymns to contemporary music. It is good and reasonable to ponder what “right” worship looks like. We just have to be careful that we don’t throw out (or bring in) good and/or biblical just because. And we have to be careful not to condemn practices that do just because.

    1) Where do you think you see non-God honoring practices entering worship? What makes it not God-honoring? Is your stance Biblical (find it) or is it cultural?

    2) Where do think more God-honoring practices could be introduced? Why do you think they are not being done? How do they build up the body of believers?

    3) Will adding prescribed and described practices in the Bible necessarily help worship? How do you balance so-called Biblical practices with cultural practices? Are you able to perceive the difference?