Yesterday was a busy day for me, with my coworker up & quitting out of nowhere the day before.
I did spend a little time reading some stuff here and there from Mark Driscoll and Tim Keller, really hammering home the reality of Hell (in conjunction with Rob Bell's book being released, I suspect)
I respect both those guys, but nothing tires me out more than dogmatic pissing matches. Except maybe the stairmill.
Yesterday I needed more...quiet time and renewing than foundation-building, I guess. :)
I didn't get a lot of today's scripture though I think I have a sense of what it's saying. Seems like Paul's perspective is a sort of duality to existence now and here on Earth and eternity. When he talks about being "unclothed" in the "tent" (which I take to mean, Earthly existence) versus being "clothed with our heavenly dwelling", I'm not sure if he means like, he's vulnerable (to sin? temptation?) while being here on Earth versus having no such concerns once he's in Heaven?
Or maybe he's just talking about like, the comfort of being in the place you're supposed to be (his real home, Heaven...) versus just the weary traveler's good-enough-getting-by-existence until he gets home.
Verse 10, my study bible says that even Christians will be audited for their good/evil deeds. So, I guess...try to keep the naughty list kinda short? I mean, if you're trying to spend your time focused on Christ and your mind and your spirit geared towards him; I'd imagine it'd be harder to sin regardless...
Anyways, I got like 16 lbs of pork shoulder to check on so... :)
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
side note...
I'm not a huge x-tian music fan, like some people.
I heard this Adele song last night on a TV show ("Make You Feel My Love") and instantly liked it. That rarely happens for me, songs usually take a few spins for me to get into.
Found on YouTube that Phil Keaggy performed it at a church? He introduced the song as a Dylan tune that sounded to him like a love letter from Jesus to us (turns out Dylan was, in fact, born-again in the 70's)
I can't hear it any other way now and, it chokes me up and gives me goosebumps in a way I can't remember any other song has, and certainly no other praise or hymn has. I think because, I generally don't think about Jesus so like, human...? Like, as a real, tangible person that speaks a non KJV-dialect...
Guess I might be a X-tian music fan...
I heard this Adele song last night on a TV show ("Make You Feel My Love") and instantly liked it. That rarely happens for me, songs usually take a few spins for me to get into.
Found on YouTube that Phil Keaggy performed it at a church? He introduced the song as a Dylan tune that sounded to him like a love letter from Jesus to us (turns out Dylan was, in fact, born-again in the 70's)
I can't hear it any other way now and, it chokes me up and gives me goosebumps in a way I can't remember any other song has, and certainly no other praise or hymn has. I think because, I generally don't think about Jesus so like, human...? Like, as a real, tangible person that speaks a non KJV-dialect...
Guess I might be a X-tian music fan...
Mark 10:32-34
Asked and answered: In a previous blog, I wondered if Jesus went to the cross knowing or not-knowing if God would raise him again.
The end of verse 34 states unequivocally that Jesus clearly knows that He'll be resurrected.
In verse 32, I'm not sure if they're still like, hung-over-amazed by the encounter with the rich young man, or if this is a totally new amazement and fear.
And also, Jesus foretells what will happen, but doesn't tell his disciples why? Maybe they already knew? Maybe, it just wasn't time for them to know?
Anyhow, today's devotional is only these two verses and I think that's because this is one of the bedrock understandings that a Christian needs to have at the foundation of his/her faith. There's always the risk of like, hearing something so often you tune it out...hope that doesn't/wont' happen to me.
The end of verse 34 states unequivocally that Jesus clearly knows that He'll be resurrected.
In verse 32, I'm not sure if they're still like, hung-over-amazed by the encounter with the rich young man, or if this is a totally new amazement and fear.
And also, Jesus foretells what will happen, but doesn't tell his disciples why? Maybe they already knew? Maybe, it just wasn't time for them to know?
Anyhow, today's devotional is only these two verses and I think that's because this is one of the bedrock understandings that a Christian needs to have at the foundation of his/her faith. There's always the risk of like, hearing something so often you tune it out...hope that doesn't/wont' happen to me.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Romans 6:15-23
What is it about sin?
We know it's bad for us, we don't want to do it but we keep falling back into it. Why does it have such a hold on us?
In MDG, we talked a bit about how common the problem of lust is, really not surprising given that our congregation has young men in their early 20's. I would be more surprised (and frankly a little weirded out) if our church was full of young men utterly disinterested by girls. Moreover I would say the scope is much, much larger, to wit;
1. Eastlake church recently hosted a debate with Ron Jeremy and
2. this article popped up on CNN.
Again, not trying to minimize things at all, but just that we, at UNL, aren't freaks for confronting the same demons as the rest of the male population.
I wasn't always interested in God. It basically took both of my parents dying, my job nearly being axed and the birth of 2 kids for me to really perk up. In my not-so-interested in God days, I've seen my share of porn, strip clubs, bars, etc.
If you read the links above, everything that Pastor Meeks and Ryan Buckingham sounds right to me. But on my own, I been thinking about why porn holds onto mens' minds the way it does and I have a theory. There's obviously a biological component to it. But on top of that, there is an aspect that lines up very much with a Christian understanding of sin.
We know Matthew 22:36-40, so we can probably figure that when we love other things the way we are supposed to love God instead of God, that's the quintessence of sin. Porn and strip clubs and other lustful endeavors sell a fantasy, they themselves will tell you so. When you're into them, you're indulging a fantasy that you're something special. You imagine it's you and that this desirable girl(s) (or guy(s), I suppose) needs and wants you because you just got that special something and something about you is just that fulfilling. Again, I hope I'm not taking this into like, a bad place, but the most intoxicating strip clubs aren't necessarily the ones with the prettiest girls. More often than not, they're the ones with the best saleswomen (who most convincingly sell you the fantasy.)
The subtext is we get to be God. We imagine that we're the ones being worshipped and adored. We love and cling to that fantasy that we're a virile tower of Awesome that is desirable and fulfilling to the woman (or women or men, whatever you perv. just kidding) who is so lucky as to worship before us. And, like a lot of other sin, when it's done, instead of being satisfied, we come back wanting even more. By looking for more, we're saying we want to be enslaved. We want to live in fantasyland.
In sexual sin, in addition to all of the terrible consequences that it wreaks on society and interpersonal relationships and in a man's view of women, it twists and warps a man's heart. We can't stop craving that illusion, even though we know it's an illusion, that we're the king on the throne.
I could be totally wrong, but at least for me, I think that it explains a lot. And, even knowing this, I still struggle. Sexually-charged imagery is everywhere and I have to remind myself, "It's not real. Indulging your imagination will take you to bad places that are hard to climb out of"
We know it's bad for us, we don't want to do it but we keep falling back into it. Why does it have such a hold on us?
In MDG, we talked a bit about how common the problem of lust is, really not surprising given that our congregation has young men in their early 20's. I would be more surprised (and frankly a little weirded out) if our church was full of young men utterly disinterested by girls. Moreover I would say the scope is much, much larger, to wit;
1. Eastlake church recently hosted a debate with Ron Jeremy and
2. this article popped up on CNN.
Again, not trying to minimize things at all, but just that we, at UNL, aren't freaks for confronting the same demons as the rest of the male population.
I wasn't always interested in God. It basically took both of my parents dying, my job nearly being axed and the birth of 2 kids for me to really perk up. In my not-so-interested in God days, I've seen my share of porn, strip clubs, bars, etc.
If you read the links above, everything that Pastor Meeks and Ryan Buckingham sounds right to me. But on my own, I been thinking about why porn holds onto mens' minds the way it does and I have a theory. There's obviously a biological component to it. But on top of that, there is an aspect that lines up very much with a Christian understanding of sin.
We know Matthew 22:36-40, so we can probably figure that when we love other things the way we are supposed to love God instead of God, that's the quintessence of sin. Porn and strip clubs and other lustful endeavors sell a fantasy, they themselves will tell you so. When you're into them, you're indulging a fantasy that you're something special. You imagine it's you and that this desirable girl(s) (or guy(s), I suppose) needs and wants you because you just got that special something and something about you is just that fulfilling. Again, I hope I'm not taking this into like, a bad place, but the most intoxicating strip clubs aren't necessarily the ones with the prettiest girls. More often than not, they're the ones with the best saleswomen (who most convincingly sell you the fantasy.)
The subtext is we get to be God. We imagine that we're the ones being worshipped and adored. We love and cling to that fantasy that we're a virile tower of Awesome that is desirable and fulfilling to the woman (or women or men, whatever you perv. just kidding) who is so lucky as to worship before us. And, like a lot of other sin, when it's done, instead of being satisfied, we come back wanting even more. By looking for more, we're saying we want to be enslaved. We want to live in fantasyland.
In sexual sin, in addition to all of the terrible consequences that it wreaks on society and interpersonal relationships and in a man's view of women, it twists and warps a man's heart. We can't stop craving that illusion, even though we know it's an illusion, that we're the king on the throne.
I could be totally wrong, but at least for me, I think that it explains a lot. And, even knowing this, I still struggle. Sexually-charged imagery is everywhere and I have to remind myself, "It's not real. Indulging your imagination will take you to bad places that are hard to climb out of"
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Mark 10:17-31
Some days, I really feel like the rich man; putting on a good show, doing all the right things on the list...but my heart still holds onto it's idols, money just being one of many.
But there it is, right there on the page. When push comes to shove and the time comes to do as you say you believe, what is the state of your heart? Can you expel the other false idols of your heart?
If God told me to sell everything, move the family to Kenya and spread the good news, could I?
Karen and I used to attend another church where the elders and pastors were all these amazing young folks who went to schools like Berkley and Harvard. They were doctors and MBA's and, here is the amazing part (to me): They started churches by just praying about it and then moving to cities all over the US (and other places too, like Uzbekistan) and taking whatever jobs in those cities to obey what God convicted them to do. The jobs, opportunities, their families: all of that was a distant secondary concern to obedience to God's word.
I was, and still am, so envious of those that have faith so strong.
But there it is, right there on the page. When push comes to shove and the time comes to do as you say you believe, what is the state of your heart? Can you expel the other false idols of your heart?
If God told me to sell everything, move the family to Kenya and spread the good news, could I?
Karen and I used to attend another church where the elders and pastors were all these amazing young folks who went to schools like Berkley and Harvard. They were doctors and MBA's and, here is the amazing part (to me): They started churches by just praying about it and then moving to cities all over the US (and other places too, like Uzbekistan) and taking whatever jobs in those cities to obey what God convicted them to do. The jobs, opportunities, their families: all of that was a distant secondary concern to obedience to God's word.
I was, and still am, so envious of those that have faith so strong.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Acts 26: 12-19
Not gonna lie, at 1st glance I was a little bit bummed to see a passage we've read before in today's devotional.
But, flowing in today's stream of consciousness, I ended up in a different place than in January.
First, I wondered, does Paul's testimony here mirror any experience I've had? Jesus has never come down and like, overtly told me what to do. But do I ever find myself being pre-Paul Saul, persecuting or bashing Christians?
Maybe. I saw these guys and they disgusted me. Are they Christians? Do they actually follow the same Christ I try to follow?
Last night, Sam Cha mentioned a conversation w/ Pastor Ben, referencing "knowing them by their fruits", which I Bing-searched this AM and is Matthew 7:16, talking about false prophets. Those yutzes aren't claiming to be prophets, but if they're throwing crosses at the guy, well, they're definitely proclaiming something ...in the same, general zip code of Christ's neighborhood.
What are the fruits? I remembered a Tim Keller sermon mentioning fruits of the Spirit. Bing told me to see Galatians 5:22-23), said fruits are: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.
*So, I feel more assured now if my rebuke-a-Christian-reflex kicks in, recognizing whether or not it's justified: if someone's acting from a place that they proclaim to be from Christ, what type of fruit is that someone bearing? Is it one of the above? Because if it's not, the place you're coming from isn't Christ...
*In looking this up, I also found Matthew 7:1-6 about hypocrisy, which is a good warning that I need to always make sure that I'm coming from a place that is Spirit-rooted in origin. My rebuke should bear the very fruit I observe to be lacking. For instance with the guys above, I don't think it would be wrong to rebuke them. But it should not be to gloat in spiritual superiority. It should be to help them get back aligned with the Spirit.
But, flowing in today's stream of consciousness, I ended up in a different place than in January.
First, I wondered, does Paul's testimony here mirror any experience I've had? Jesus has never come down and like, overtly told me what to do. But do I ever find myself being pre-Paul Saul, persecuting or bashing Christians?
Maybe. I saw these guys and they disgusted me. Are they Christians? Do they actually follow the same Christ I try to follow?
Last night, Sam Cha mentioned a conversation w/ Pastor Ben, referencing "knowing them by their fruits", which I Bing-searched this AM and is Matthew 7:16, talking about false prophets. Those yutzes aren't claiming to be prophets, but if they're throwing crosses at the guy, well, they're definitely proclaiming something ...in the same, general zip code of Christ's neighborhood.
What are the fruits? I remembered a Tim Keller sermon mentioning fruits of the Spirit. Bing told me to see Galatians 5:22-23), said fruits are: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.
*So, I feel more assured now if my rebuke-a-Christian-reflex kicks in, recognizing whether or not it's justified: if someone's acting from a place that they proclaim to be from Christ, what type of fruit is that someone bearing? Is it one of the above? Because if it's not, the place you're coming from isn't Christ...
*In looking this up, I also found Matthew 7:1-6 about hypocrisy, which is a good warning that I need to always make sure that I'm coming from a place that is Spirit-rooted in origin. My rebuke should bear the very fruit I observe to be lacking. For instance with the guys above, I don't think it would be wrong to rebuke them. But it should not be to gloat in spiritual superiority. It should be to help them get back aligned with the Spirit.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
John 6:60-71
1. I've been trying to put together my testimony for MDG, and man I'm too verbose. I feel like everything is interlinked and required but if I touch on everything, it'll be like a 30 minute blabfest. And no one wants that...
2. Wasn't actively trying to prayer-walk this morning, but with the folks I always see where I eat my breakfast, I found something endearing about just about everyone. For the most part, they're people I don't normally have any conversation with. I think I felt a little bit of how God feels for those guys.
Anyways...
I felt like today's devotional sort of jumped in half-ways to a program already in progress. It starts off with the disciples saying, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" I imagine them scratching their heads and kinda just milling around looking at each other.
Eh, need to rewind to the actual the hard teaching part... So I jumped back and saw this:
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum
OK, I see how this could be hard.
If you're not really savvy to what Jesus is talking about, it sounds kinda...gross. Cannibalistic and...I dunno. A weird way to phrase things in church?
If you did know exactly what Jesus was talking about, if you had regarded him before as "a wise rabbi" well, now the line is unambiguously in the sand and it's not just about Jesus the teacher anymore. Do you believe he is divine? The One everyone's been waiting for? That's a much bigger leap.
Two other things that stuck out:
1. Verse 65: Is Jesus talking about God's Elect/predestination thing? Existential mobius strips give me nosebleeds.
2. Verse 70: John doesn't mince words when it comes to Judas. Not that he wasn't like, maybe the worst guy ever. But compared to the Matthew, Mark and Luke, John definitely has the most scathing characterizations of Judas.
2. Wasn't actively trying to prayer-walk this morning, but with the folks I always see where I eat my breakfast, I found something endearing about just about everyone. For the most part, they're people I don't normally have any conversation with. I think I felt a little bit of how God feels for those guys.
Anyways...
I felt like today's devotional sort of jumped in half-ways to a program already in progress. It starts off with the disciples saying, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" I imagine them scratching their heads and kinda just milling around looking at each other.
Eh, need to rewind to the actual the hard teaching part... So I jumped back and saw this:
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum
OK, I see how this could be hard.
If you're not really savvy to what Jesus is talking about, it sounds kinda...gross. Cannibalistic and...I dunno. A weird way to phrase things in church?
If you did know exactly what Jesus was talking about, if you had regarded him before as "a wise rabbi" well, now the line is unambiguously in the sand and it's not just about Jesus the teacher anymore. Do you believe he is divine? The One everyone's been waiting for? That's a much bigger leap.
Two other things that stuck out:
1. Verse 65: Is Jesus talking about God's Elect/predestination thing? Existential mobius strips give me nosebleeds.
2. Verse 70: John doesn't mince words when it comes to Judas. Not that he wasn't like, maybe the worst guy ever. But compared to the Matthew, Mark and Luke, John definitely has the most scathing characterizations of Judas.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Galations 2:20
There is no Oliver. There is only The-Christbot-that-used-to-be-Oliver.
It's funnier when you hear it voiced by my inner-dialogue.
More seriously, faith has been a concept I've been trying to wrap my brain around lately.
To me, the 2b definition from Merriam-Webster's dictionary is actually the most meaningful connotation as applied to Christianity:
firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
The one above I think helps me understand it better, but there is a more Christian-specific one in 2a:
(1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
The one aspect of faith that I am more comfortable with is the idea that I can't prove that Jesus was who he said was, yet I believe it.
But there's another aspect, the practical application of faith, and that's the one that's more challenging for me. K & I have been listening over the last couple days to Tim Keller's sermon about Abram and he says that one aspect of following the call of God is the volitional; meaning doing what God calls you to do, without understanding where or why and you really don't know how it's going to end. If you understood the where's and why's and how things would end or turn out then, by definition, it's not faith. It's something else...
Abraham doesn't understand why he's called to Canaan, but he goes. He doesn't understand why God calls him to sacrifice Isaac, but he faithfully obeys.
How do I know God's calling? If He answers and the answer frightens me, will God strengthen my conviction if I ask for my cup to passeth from me, however trivial it is by comparison with His?
Here's a question of faith: Jesus knew that he would die on the cross and he knew why. Did he know that God would raise him up again?
On the other hand, maybe it's not always such a sensational act of faith like venturing into unknown lands or child sacrifice. Couldn't faith sometimes be manifested in more mundane callings?
Maybe calling isn't necessarily something that always works on a conscious level?
In Steve Jobs' Stanford excellent commencement speech, he talks about connecting the dots:
Again, you can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something — your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life.
He is describing faith. And, not saying that Steve Jobs was called by God to create Apple, but it's definitely an example of how faith can power us to fulfill promises we never dreamed possible, but made possible because we just did based on belief...
It's funnier when you hear it voiced by my inner-dialogue.
More seriously, faith has been a concept I've been trying to wrap my brain around lately.
To me, the 2b definition from Merriam-Webster's dictionary is actually the most meaningful connotation as applied to Christianity:
firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
The one above I think helps me understand it better, but there is a more Christian-specific one in 2a:
(1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
The one aspect of faith that I am more comfortable with is the idea that I can't prove that Jesus was who he said was, yet I believe it.
But there's another aspect, the practical application of faith, and that's the one that's more challenging for me. K & I have been listening over the last couple days to Tim Keller's sermon about Abram and he says that one aspect of following the call of God is the volitional; meaning doing what God calls you to do, without understanding where or why and you really don't know how it's going to end. If you understood the where's and why's and how things would end or turn out then, by definition, it's not faith. It's something else...
Abraham doesn't understand why he's called to Canaan, but he goes. He doesn't understand why God calls him to sacrifice Isaac, but he faithfully obeys.
How do I know God's calling? If He answers and the answer frightens me, will God strengthen my conviction if I ask for my cup to passeth from me, however trivial it is by comparison with His?
Here's a question of faith: Jesus knew that he would die on the cross and he knew why. Did he know that God would raise him up again?
On the other hand, maybe it's not always such a sensational act of faith like venturing into unknown lands or child sacrifice. Couldn't faith sometimes be manifested in more mundane callings?
Maybe calling isn't necessarily something that always works on a conscious level?
In Steve Jobs' Stanford excellent commencement speech, he talks about connecting the dots:
Again, you can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something — your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life.
He is describing faith. And, not saying that Steve Jobs was called by God to create Apple, but it's definitely an example of how faith can power us to fulfill promises we never dreamed possible, but made possible because we just did based on belief...
Monday, March 7, 2011
Romans 8:31-39
Verses 33 & 34 remind me of Martin Luther King's open letter from the Birmingham jail to a group of ministers who wrote him to basically rebuke him for his non-violent protests.
1. MLK's sitting in jail which, in itself, is a societal condemnation of his actions.
2. His fellow pastors are writing open letters, telling him that he is wrong.
3. I'm sure that there must've been people even within his own movement who were getting tired of the dogs and hoses and the police brutality.
But, MLK stood his ground and knew exactly why he was justified. He drew historical and Biblical precedence from Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego as well as negative examples in the "legality" of Hitler in WW2 Germany.
The section of the letter about the white moderate also reminds me of a recent verse I heard, Revelations 3:15:
So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth
Off the cuff thoughts on Verses 35-39:
1. Verse 35 resonates with an understanding that's been popping up a lot lately for me; that faith doesn't make hardship disappear, it galvanizes us to endure hardship.
2. Verse 38 is a sort of, reassurance that God's love for us is steadfast. Kind of crazy that from God's end, nothing is able to break his love for us. But from our end, we are super-prone to putting up idols and distractions and diversions in place of him.
1. MLK's sitting in jail which, in itself, is a societal condemnation of his actions.
2. His fellow pastors are writing open letters, telling him that he is wrong.
3. I'm sure that there must've been people even within his own movement who were getting tired of the dogs and hoses and the police brutality.
But, MLK stood his ground and knew exactly why he was justified. He drew historical and Biblical precedence from Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego as well as negative examples in the "legality" of Hitler in WW2 Germany.
The section of the letter about the white moderate also reminds me of a recent verse I heard, Revelations 3:15:
So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth
Off the cuff thoughts on Verses 35-39:
1. Verse 35 resonates with an understanding that's been popping up a lot lately for me; that faith doesn't make hardship disappear, it galvanizes us to endure hardship.
2. Verse 38 is a sort of, reassurance that God's love for us is steadfast. Kind of crazy that from God's end, nothing is able to break his love for us. But from our end, we are super-prone to putting up idols and distractions and diversions in place of him.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
2 Corinthians 6:1-13
The BibleGateway commentaries point to Paul asking the Corinthians to open their hearts to him as he has to them. I've heard something like this dynamic discussed once before when Dr Choung visited and asked us to support & encourage Pastor Ben. He emphasized that a pastor needs to keep minstering from "his overflow" and continually be rejuvenated and replenished.
It's our way of "taking care" of our shepherd.
This past Saturday while Karen took Elliott skiing, I took Colby inner-tubing at Snoqualmie. I went down the hills with him, since he's a small guy and would be scared to go down by himself. On one run, my weight was displaced to one side and I felt myself tipping the tube over. So I let go and fell off while the tube slid off. Still in the inner tube, Colby, with a scared and confused look, watched me as he continued to glide down the rest of the hill. I got back up and hooked our tube back onto the tow rope and we rode the way back up the hill. Partways up, he stood up and hugged onto me. I laughed and asked him why. He said, "I hold you, so you don't fall down!"
For little moments like that, I feel like I can deal with any amount of bed-wetting, tantrums, etc. I hope all pastors (including my own highly-valued shepherd, PB) get renewed by their own little moments.
It's our way of "taking care" of our shepherd.
This past Saturday while Karen took Elliott skiing, I took Colby inner-tubing at Snoqualmie. I went down the hills with him, since he's a small guy and would be scared to go down by himself. On one run, my weight was displaced to one side and I felt myself tipping the tube over. So I let go and fell off while the tube slid off. Still in the inner tube, Colby, with a scared and confused look, watched me as he continued to glide down the rest of the hill. I got back up and hooked our tube back onto the tow rope and we rode the way back up the hill. Partways up, he stood up and hugged onto me. I laughed and asked him why. He said, "I hold you, so you don't fall down!"
For little moments like that, I feel like I can deal with any amount of bed-wetting, tantrums, etc. I hope all pastors (including my own highly-valued shepherd, PB) get renewed by their own little moments.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Acts 20:17-38
Today's passage converges with a few other things I've seen and been reading.
Jungi posted this video of a Francis Chan sermon
Then, I watched this video of Mark Driscoll and Joshua Harris interviewing Reverend Chan on his post-Cornerstone plans.
I've also started reading The Scandalous Gospel of Jesus, by Peter Gomes.
It's weird, I can almost "feel" my perception of the gospel shifting.
I can't really get down everything that I'm trying to concurrently process, but some thoughts:
1. What Pastor Chan is doing really doesn't seem that strange or off-the-beaten path when you think of Paul. Why don't more people do things like what he's doing?
2. Probably because the gospel is a wildly, up-ending and subversive revolution. There's something very strange to me that the modern day church has become a bulwark of the status quo.
3. There's nothing intrinsically good or bad about money. Or sex for that matter. What's bad is when man's perception of things tied to money (including themselves) warps.
4. Paul called it even back then. The church inevitably becomes infected by people preaching a sleepy, complacent, diluted, no-wave-making-parts only gospel.
Tired, I gotta come back to this later...
Jungi posted this video of a Francis Chan sermon
Then, I watched this video of Mark Driscoll and Joshua Harris interviewing Reverend Chan on his post-Cornerstone plans.
I've also started reading The Scandalous Gospel of Jesus, by Peter Gomes.
It's weird, I can almost "feel" my perception of the gospel shifting.
I can't really get down everything that I'm trying to concurrently process, but some thoughts:
1. What Pastor Chan is doing really doesn't seem that strange or off-the-beaten path when you think of Paul. Why don't more people do things like what he's doing?
2. Probably because the gospel is a wildly, up-ending and subversive revolution. There's something very strange to me that the modern day church has become a bulwark of the status quo.
3. There's nothing intrinsically good or bad about money. Or sex for that matter. What's bad is when man's perception of things tied to money (including themselves) warps.
4. Paul called it even back then. The church inevitably becomes infected by people preaching a sleepy, complacent, diluted, no-wave-making-parts only gospel.
Tired, I gotta come back to this later...
Friday, March 4, 2011
Acts 20:7-16
Man, what a devotional to start off the newly-upped high-stakes accountability game.
I say this a lot, but I truly don't get today's passage. Rather, I don't get what I'm supposed to be learning/understanding.
To recap:
Paul talks to people.
Boy falls out of window and dies.
Nevermind, he's not dead.
Paul keeps talking.
Paul goes to some other places, but not Ephesus.
Re. the boy, truthfully, part of me feels like, "What did you expect, sitting in a window 3 stories off the ground? And where were your parents?"
The commentaries on BibleGateway say that the boy straight-up died and Paul resurrected him. Maybe it reads differently in Greek, but I didn't really get that. It's not always easy to tell if someone who might be dead, is dead.
Isn't Luke a doctor though? Yeah, but from what I gather, he's recording these events based off of oral traditions; he wasn't necessarily there himself. If he was there, it'd be weird b/c everyone would've probably had a, "We need a doctor!"-moment and looked at Luke and Luke would've been like, "I can't right now, I gotta make sure I write down what happens here..."
Paul definitely seemed like a busy guy, going from city to city on what sounds like a pretty tight schedule. I think I should probably read the entire chapter, just to get a sense of the events that lead up to this and generally what is going on.
I'll be very interested to see today's devotional e-mail. I have no insights at all into this passage...
I say this a lot, but I truly don't get today's passage. Rather, I don't get what I'm supposed to be learning/understanding.
To recap:
Paul talks to people.
Boy falls out of window and dies.
Nevermind, he's not dead.
Paul keeps talking.
Paul goes to some other places, but not Ephesus.
Re. the boy, truthfully, part of me feels like, "What did you expect, sitting in a window 3 stories off the ground? And where were your parents?"
The commentaries on BibleGateway say that the boy straight-up died and Paul resurrected him. Maybe it reads differently in Greek, but I didn't really get that. It's not always easy to tell if someone who might be dead, is dead.
Isn't Luke a doctor though? Yeah, but from what I gather, he's recording these events based off of oral traditions; he wasn't necessarily there himself. If he was there, it'd be weird b/c everyone would've probably had a, "We need a doctor!"-moment and looked at Luke and Luke would've been like, "I can't right now, I gotta make sure I write down what happens here..."
Paul definitely seemed like a busy guy, going from city to city on what sounds like a pretty tight schedule. I think I should probably read the entire chapter, just to get a sense of the events that lead up to this and generally what is going on.
I'll be very interested to see today's devotional e-mail. I have no insights at all into this passage...
Thursday, March 3, 2011
John 21:15-19
On my own reading, I couldn't make heads or tails out of this passage. I read some commentary on BibleGateway.com and I think that helped a bit. Specifically;
1. In Greek, there were differences in the word for "love" in the 1st two times Jesus asks Peter, and the last time.
2. The commentary points out that he refers to him as "Simon" not "Peter"; almost sort of leading him in a Socratic way to take up the discipleship identity Jesus has prepared him for.
3. Unlike the parables, this passage doesn't pack as much self-contained context. There are questions formed and delivered in in a way that hearken specifically to Peter's denial.
And just in general, aspects of the entire chapter seem strange.
How come they don't recognize Jesus?
Why does Peter jump out of the boat? Seems like something that has nothing to do with anything.
Some people question why they were fishing in the first place, but that's not as much of a non-sequitur to me. The guy was a fisherman to begin with and, if you're hungry and that's what you know how to do, who's not gonna fish to fill their tummy?
As a general kind of comment, Peter is kind of a fascinating character. Kind of headstrong, brash, well-meaning, but maybe a little more naive than the rest? I think I like him...
1. In Greek, there were differences in the word for "love" in the 1st two times Jesus asks Peter, and the last time.
2. The commentary points out that he refers to him as "Simon" not "Peter"; almost sort of leading him in a Socratic way to take up the discipleship identity Jesus has prepared him for.
3. Unlike the parables, this passage doesn't pack as much self-contained context. There are questions formed and delivered in in a way that hearken specifically to Peter's denial.
And just in general, aspects of the entire chapter seem strange.
How come they don't recognize Jesus?
Why does Peter jump out of the boat? Seems like something that has nothing to do with anything.
Some people question why they were fishing in the first place, but that's not as much of a non-sequitur to me. The guy was a fisherman to begin with and, if you're hungry and that's what you know how to do, who's not gonna fish to fill their tummy?
As a general kind of comment, Peter is kind of a fascinating character. Kind of headstrong, brash, well-meaning, but maybe a little more naive than the rest? I think I like him...
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
John 21-1-14
I thought a lot about yesterday's devotional scripture.
Very cool how some of the questions from yesterday's devotional dovetail into today's devotional.
One of the questions I had from yesterday's devotional was this idea of how do we approach God with things that are hurting us or on our minds, without treating him like a wish-machine.
There's some interesting ideas (maybe answers) that come out of today's devotional.
1. He already knows. In the 1st few verses, it doesn't seem like the disciples know Jesus is who He is, but Jesus is the one to prod them about not catching fish. They didn't have to ask Him, they didn't even know at that point to ask him: He already knew! Then, He went on to provide what they needed.
2. It's not stupid or ulterior-motived, to not-bring God the "small" or everyday stuff. It doesn't get any more everyday than, "I don't want to starve"
3. Sometimes, he could be working even as we speak, and we just don't know it. Now, the disciples did figure it out after the fact, but while Jesus was changing things for them, they didn't know what was happening. Just that some guy told them to try something different.
So what's the point? Why ask if he already knows? Maybe just to have the dialogue. Maybe God just wants us to set the time aside and spend it with Him. Even if He knows whats best, and even if sometimes what we want isn't what we need, maybe He just is happy when we make the time to share our (sometimes silly, sometimes legit) worries, thoughts and our lives.
That makes sense to me. I don't talk to or hang out with my friends/family only because they need something from me or I need something from them (advice, something else, whatever). We spend time together and share one anothers' concerns, fears, joys, everything b/c... that's what it is to have a connection with someone. Some times (a lot of times) I do have a different opinion about things we talk about. Mostly I just appreciate the trust we have in being able to share them. At the end of the day, it's what God wants and, sometimes unbeknownst to even ourselves, it's what we want.
In other words, it seems like it's more important that we invite God/Jesus into a regular relationship, and less important (though still obviously important) what we spend it doing.
I think the high-potential for ulterior motives is what celebrities and powerful people are wary of; that when they start to have to look at every single person and question the motives for the interaction, it's poisonous and exhausting.
My thinking yesterday was processing God too much through the Deity, Lord, Savior facets at the expense of the personal Father, Friend, Bridegroom facets.
It's weird, I'm sure I've heard all of this before...Was I sleeping during that sermon? (J/K PB! :-) )
Another sort of corollary to the 3 ideas above, I read an essay by the recently passed Harvard chaplain:
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/rtd-opinion/2010/sep/12/ed-gomes12-ar-499733/
4. As Christians, our lives are not easier. In many respects, life is harder. But, hardship is reason for, if not celebration, at least remembrance and reverence! It's under those circumstances that we most search for Him. Reverend Gomes says it better than I can:
When the Jewish people celebrate the Days of Awe, beginning their new year and atoning for their sins, they always remember two things. First, they remember the troubles and the tribulations through which they have passed, and they recite the history of those sorrows and troubles. They remind themselves and one another, and everybody else, of how they have been formed and forged through the experience of trial and tribulation.
The second thing they remember is how the Lord delivered them out of those troubles and helped them to endure and bear and eventually overcome them. They remind themselves of it over and over again.
...
The history of the Jews in the world is not a history of escape from trouble; would that it were, but it is not. It is the record of endurance through tribulation, an endurance that would have been impossible without God.
Very cool how some of the questions from yesterday's devotional dovetail into today's devotional.
One of the questions I had from yesterday's devotional was this idea of how do we approach God with things that are hurting us or on our minds, without treating him like a wish-machine.
There's some interesting ideas (maybe answers) that come out of today's devotional.
1. He already knows. In the 1st few verses, it doesn't seem like the disciples know Jesus is who He is, but Jesus is the one to prod them about not catching fish. They didn't have to ask Him, they didn't even know at that point to ask him: He already knew! Then, He went on to provide what they needed.
2. It's not stupid or ulterior-motived, to not-bring God the "small" or everyday stuff. It doesn't get any more everyday than, "I don't want to starve"
3. Sometimes, he could be working even as we speak, and we just don't know it. Now, the disciples did figure it out after the fact, but while Jesus was changing things for them, they didn't know what was happening. Just that some guy told them to try something different.
So what's the point? Why ask if he already knows? Maybe just to have the dialogue. Maybe God just wants us to set the time aside and spend it with Him. Even if He knows whats best, and even if sometimes what we want isn't what we need, maybe He just is happy when we make the time to share our (sometimes silly, sometimes legit) worries, thoughts and our lives.
That makes sense to me. I don't talk to or hang out with my friends/family only because they need something from me or I need something from them (advice, something else, whatever). We spend time together and share one anothers' concerns, fears, joys, everything b/c... that's what it is to have a connection with someone. Some times (a lot of times) I do have a different opinion about things we talk about. Mostly I just appreciate the trust we have in being able to share them. At the end of the day, it's what God wants and, sometimes unbeknownst to even ourselves, it's what we want.
In other words, it seems like it's more important that we invite God/Jesus into a regular relationship, and less important (though still obviously important) what we spend it doing.
I think the high-potential for ulterior motives is what celebrities and powerful people are wary of; that when they start to have to look at every single person and question the motives for the interaction, it's poisonous and exhausting.
My thinking yesterday was processing God too much through the Deity, Lord, Savior facets at the expense of the personal Father, Friend, Bridegroom facets.
It's weird, I'm sure I've heard all of this before...Was I sleeping during that sermon? (J/K PB! :-) )
Another sort of corollary to the 3 ideas above, I read an essay by the recently passed Harvard chaplain:
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/rtd-opinion/2010/sep/12/ed-gomes12-ar-499733/
4. As Christians, our lives are not easier. In many respects, life is harder. But, hardship is reason for, if not celebration, at least remembrance and reverence! It's under those circumstances that we most search for Him. Reverend Gomes says it better than I can:
When the Jewish people celebrate the Days of Awe, beginning their new year and atoning for their sins, they always remember two things. First, they remember the troubles and the tribulations through which they have passed, and they recite the history of those sorrows and troubles. They remind themselves and one another, and everybody else, of how they have been formed and forged through the experience of trial and tribulation.
The second thing they remember is how the Lord delivered them out of those troubles and helped them to endure and bear and eventually overcome them. They remind themselves of it over and over again.
...
The history of the Jews in the world is not a history of escape from trouble; would that it were, but it is not. It is the record of endurance through tribulation, an endurance that would have been impossible without God.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Luke 18:35-43
Hello devotional blog, how are you? Long time no see, I'm sure all of my 0 readers have been waiting with bated breath for my next entry. Honestly, I have no excuse. 1 week after Ben talked about us reaching a sort of fatigue point in the MDG, I admit that it hit me. But I'm hoping I can catch up to, and climb back onto the wagon. :)
This devotional comes coincidentally after having an interesting conversation with friends and reading an interesting article.
The article: John Dominic Crossan asserts that Jesus was a regular guy who did heal and was revolutionary, but didn't actually raise from the dead.
The conversation: A friend and I were discussing a family member who always prays, for long stretches of time, in tongues.
And for me, this has been, and continues to be, a struggle in my faith: Acceptance of miracles, gifts and the supernatural.
Like John Crossan, I do believe that Jesus healed this man. I don't believe in tongues.
Unlike John Crossan, I do believe Jesus was who He said He was, and was resurrected. But I'm highly skeptical of miracles or healing performed by people today.
I can't really articulate why.
Maybe it's because I'm more comfortable with my faith in abstract and long-time ago, but not as comfortable with supernatural stuff happening here and now.
Maybe it's because there's no shortage of delusional dingbats, and it's easier for my brain to group everything not-mundane into the fraud/delusion bucket. Think: Jesus's face in toast, End of Days prophecies, those God-The-Mother nuts...
Maybe it's a protection-mechanism, from not wanting to be fooled/swindled and not wanting to be one of "those guys"
But where does that leave "my Jesus?" Is He safe/accessible as the doer of His miracles b/c He and His miracles are all in the past and not present with or in me?
Faith is complicated for me. I do believe in some things I can't prove, but only to a point and that point isn't very well-defined in my mind.
Another aspect of today's devotional that's a little murky for me; We never want to box God into what we think He'll do for us. We don't want to treat him like our wish-making slot machine. Why then, is it OK for the blind guy to ask Jesus for sight? I mean, OK...it's not the same thing as like, wishing for a Ferrari.
I get that; but as an example, I have out-of-work friends. I want to ask God to help them find new jobs, but is that putting God in a box? Shouldn't I be asking him to do what He knows to be best for those friends?
And if so, shouldn't the blind man have cried out, "Jesus! Do what You think is right!" instead of "Lord, let me see again."
Q's, Q's...
This devotional comes coincidentally after having an interesting conversation with friends and reading an interesting article.
The article: John Dominic Crossan asserts that Jesus was a regular guy who did heal and was revolutionary, but didn't actually raise from the dead.
The conversation: A friend and I were discussing a family member who always prays, for long stretches of time, in tongues.
And for me, this has been, and continues to be, a struggle in my faith: Acceptance of miracles, gifts and the supernatural.
Like John Crossan, I do believe that Jesus healed this man. I don't believe in tongues.
Unlike John Crossan, I do believe Jesus was who He said He was, and was resurrected. But I'm highly skeptical of miracles or healing performed by people today.
I can't really articulate why.
Maybe it's because I'm more comfortable with my faith in abstract and long-time ago, but not as comfortable with supernatural stuff happening here and now.
Maybe it's because there's no shortage of delusional dingbats, and it's easier for my brain to group everything not-mundane into the fraud/delusion bucket. Think: Jesus's face in toast, End of Days prophecies, those God-The-Mother nuts...
Maybe it's a protection-mechanism, from not wanting to be fooled/swindled and not wanting to be one of "those guys"
But where does that leave "my Jesus?" Is He safe/accessible as the doer of His miracles b/c He and His miracles are all in the past and not present with or in me?
Faith is complicated for me. I do believe in some things I can't prove, but only to a point and that point isn't very well-defined in my mind.
Another aspect of today's devotional that's a little murky for me; We never want to box God into what we think He'll do for us. We don't want to treat him like our wish-making slot machine. Why then, is it OK for the blind guy to ask Jesus for sight? I mean, OK...it's not the same thing as like, wishing for a Ferrari.
I get that; but as an example, I have out-of-work friends. I want to ask God to help them find new jobs, but is that putting God in a box? Shouldn't I be asking him to do what He knows to be best for those friends?
And if so, shouldn't the blind man have cried out, "Jesus! Do what You think is right!" instead of "Lord, let me see again."
Q's, Q's...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)