Leviticus: God's diet

Leviticus occasionally uses the phrase "food of your God." Perhaps it is only saying "food that is offered in sacrifice to God" and should simply be taken at face value. Yet, maybe there is another way of understanding it.

If the sacrifices given to God were considered his food, then shouldn't we raise the question about what we are sacrificing to him today? If food keeps us alive, then what am I doing to keep my God alive? I'm not implying that his existence depends upon me. I am implying that the relationship between us thrives or withers based upon my attentiveness. He can be alive or dead "to me" based upon my involvement in the relationship.

Do I offer a constant, reliable diet of sacrifice to my Father that nourishes the relationship? Do I provide a care and attention to the relationship by sacrificing important things like time and energy? Or does my God just get leftovers? When there is a spare moment or convenient time, I give a little of it to him. Is that enough for a healthy relationship to grow? If that is how I treat other relationships, what would happen to them?

Genesis: Little question, colossal conclusion

Ever get asked what seems to be a little question only to discover that it has a huge answer? Sort of like when your kid asks, "Where do babies come from?" Recently I was asked, "What do you think God did before the creation of the world?" Little did I realize the significance of the question at the moment.

You see, whatever God was doing pre-time is probably what he will be doing post-time. So once we are past the pretty descriptions of heaven, what will actually be happening for eternity? What are we being called to? I think the answer is "relationship within the trinity."

Jesus' prayer in John 17 seems so crucial to this concept. In it he affirms that he was sharing the glory and love of the trinity before creation (17:5, 24) and that he received blessings - work, words and the Name - from the Father. So before creation, the Trinity was sharing love, glory and gifts internally. That sharing spilled over into what we call creation and, more importantly, the creation of us. We are the product of a relational Trinity and follow Jesus back into that relationship.

The "so what" is that it demonstrates the core nature and identity of God to us. We are not called to serve the "unmovable mover" - a distant non-relational power - nor a tyrant seeking servants nor the "judge in the sky" who is watching for my next error to condemn me. We are made in the image of and called to return to a relationship. We function best in the here and now when we function in relationships. What we leave behind in legacy after death are relationships. What we cherish most are relationships. What Jesus established on earth was a community ("church" - followers in relationship).  Why? Because our core identity - the image of God from creation (Genesis 1:26-27) - is the image of a relationship. No wonder Jesus said the most important commandments are love God and love your neighbor.

And so that little question of "What do you think God did before the creation of the world?" is not such a little question after all. It only affects who I believe God is, why I was created, how I should live now and what to expect after death. Little question, colossal conclusion.

Acts 6:8-7:60; God-with-us

Stephen's story and words catch my attention in several ways. It is amazing how his story parallels that of Jesus; surely the way the story was told by Luke emphasized certain aspects that made that possible, i.e., false witnesses, speaking out against the Jewish leaders using Jewish history, forgiveness just before death, etc. I am also impressed by the frequency of mention of wisdom in the account; Biblically there is more interplay between wisdom and the Spirit than I used to think. I am also impressed by the side thought of Moses as the adopted child looking for his identity and then being forced into the desert with even more questions than he had before.

The conclusion of the sermon, however, is what has has always grabbed me. I would have preached on through the exile and return; Stephen cut off the story of the Jews at the building of the temple (900 years before Jesus). He jumped straight from the temple to resisting the Holy Spirit. I never understood that until I spent years in the Torah; now it makes more sense.

The message of the rescue from Egypt was that God wants to live with his people. That was provided for by the tabernacle and then the temple and then Jesus. It is a logical sequence once the primary point is understood. Stephen was focusing upon how God lives among us. The Jews totally understood step one and two but utterly rejected step three, i.e., the Incarnation of Jesus. Recounting history was not his point; recounting God-with-us was the point.

Very often we preach about living well, how to have a good family, ethics, etc. I think what we really need to be hearing is the same message that reaches back to the garden. God still wants to walk with us in the garden in the cool of the day. That message is powerful in any culture at any time. It is as valuable to the homeless as it is the rich; it is as significant to the Caucasian as it is the Asian. God still wants a relationship with his creation. Everything else falls out from that; it is the central point. If we lose it, we become a self-help association or country club. If we lose it, we lose the power of the gospel. If we lose it, we lose our identity -- just like Stephen's Jewish audience lost theirs and therefore became content to be the maintainers of the buildings where God used to live rather than the community where God now lives.

Acts 2:14-47; The Message

I've heard many messages throughout the years directed at evangelism. The sermons and classes range from "come be a part of our great community" to "get out of hell" to "this is the best life you can have now" to "health and wealth". It makes us sound so Walmart. "If you want it, we got it. We can meet every need and make this fun at the same time. You are a consumer and we have what you want."

Peter wasn't preaching any of those messages. His singular point was Jesus. This was the son of God that we crucified but that God exalted by resurrection. Respond to this man. Then God will forgive you of your mistakes and empower you to be different by placing his Spirit in you.

We can claim that we have adjusted the message to be a better cultural fit, but I think that is an excuse. Paul preached to both Jew and Gentile. His approach would vary but his core message never did.

Perhaps the real issue here is not so much what our ministers and our churches preach in order to gain members but rather what do I preach by my life? Does my life show that my primary concern is being just good enough to not be condemned to hell? Is the message I exude simply "I love my community"? (which sounds a lot like "I love my bank"). Or maybe "this is a really good life?" All of those are open to subjectivity; each can be debated. The life that states "I follow Jesus", however, is a life that preaches a relationship. It might include all the other messages but they are quite secondary to the message of life with God.

This Christianity thing is about a man, a person named Jesus. Everything else flows from that one point. Anything else as our primary message means that we are unfaithful to that man and it is no longer Christianity.

Joshua 15-17; Finish Strong

This is not exactly the most exciting section to read. If I were a personal descendant of one of these tribes, maybe it would be different. Honestly the only thing that stood out to me was the almost obedience, which is an oxymoran. Jerusalem was taken but the Jebusites continued to live. The same occurred in two other sections (16:10 & 17:12-13) where the Canaanites were not dislodged but eventually became slaves, or at best subjects. Israel did not complete the conquest with the same total obedience that it demonstrated earlier. Later, problems from the influence of intermarriages with the locals became a thorn in their flesh.

I wonder why they did not finish strong? Why did the Jews back off in the fulfillment of what God asked of them? Whether we feel comfortable with the concept of taking no prisoners or not, it is clear that Israel did not fully obey. That phrase -- fully obeyed-- that shows up over and over in the book is missing from these chapters.

Perhaps the deeper question is do I finish strong? I see a pattern in life of crisis leading to conviction leading to response that runs out of steam over time. After being embarrassed by a sin, my conviction leads me to seek change with all my heart; yet three months later the focus is lost and I fall back into old ways. I think the same can be said for the majority of us; yet it is not what we think when we speak of Moses, David and Jesus. These finished strong spiritually and stand out to us. They seem to have done it not by will-power or effort but out of a relationship with their Creator. They did not let that aspect of life lag and it fueled everything they did. Like an electronic device running out of battery, we slowly cease to function well; they, on the other hand, never unplugged.

I wish the conclusion was more complicated. I wish I could say that Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah and countless others were supermen or something. The sad and convicting truth is that they were not and I have no excuse. I become unplugged from God via negligence but they did not. The difference comes down to one choice, i.e., they obeyed the words of Jesus to "remain in me." One choice. One simple conviction. Everything else flows from that.

Mark 3:20-35; Seated and Listenting

The section begins and ends with family. In the middle it deals with those who are supposed to be the most informed and studied religious leaders of their day. All of them missed who Jesus was. Only the people seated at Jesus' feet are complimented; everyone else ends up on the outside of a relationship with him.

So where am I? What does it look like today to be seated at the feet of Jesus? It is easy to claim a "once and for all" relationship with him but then not act like family. Indeed I think that is what repulses most people about Christians, i.e., we claim a right and relationship with him but then act as if we want to change him rather than be changed by him. The Pharisees had the same attitude; it was easier to explain away Jesus than follow him. His physical family and the scholars could not bring themselves to sit at his feet.

It seems to boil down to submission. Those who humble themselves to sit and learn are accepted over those who have some other claim to Jesus. It makes me question my heart and my Christianity. Am I a Christian due to a one time act of faith or due to ongoing discipleship? Do I base my claim upon having come to know him at some point in time or upon daily submission to his guidance? Do I accept or resist the leading of his Spirit in my life? And how do I evaluate others? Do I believe a person is in the Jesus family due to a one time action or due to ongoing submission to him as the head of the family?

Philippians 3:1-11; Sharing Everything

I am egotistical enough that I like to read a passage and check off my own attributes. I like to read and say "yep, I do that" (even when the passage, like this one, is specifically talking about not depending upon one's own abilities, I still find myself responding the same way). Then Paul throws in "share in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death."

Since death is the end of us all, I can mentally defer, be it ever so passive, and say "yep, I'll do that." Yet this "share in his sufferings" is another thing.

I can handle living like Jesus, being a loving person, even changing life goals but to look forward to suffering is a stretch. Paul wanted to go through everything that Jesus did so that he could understand him in every way. So the real question here is not "do I want to share in the sufferings of Jesus" but "how much do I want to get to know him?" How close a relationship do I want to have with Jesus? How much do I value closeness with him?

I hate it when simple questions cut so deep.

Romans 5:1-11; What drives me?

It seems that we as humans are motivated by different things. Wealth drives industry and Wall Street. Power is a driving force in areas like government, personal relationships, sports, and others. In the west it seems that sexual gratification either drives people or linked to the wealth and power. Others are driven by anger, fear, altruism or who knows what. Yet it seems safe to say that each of us is responds to our world out of our driving force. For Paul, that force was hope.

Hope of reconciliation and hope of an ongoing relationship with God gives us reason to rejoice in the good times and reason to endure in the bad. When put on trial by Jews and Gentiles alike, Paul defended himself saying he was on trial because of the hope of Israel.

When others look at me, I wonder what they conclude about the driving force in my life? Is it obvious that hope in a relationship with God motivates me or am I so North American that I don't stand out from anyone driven by money, sex or power? Is there so much fear or so much of the American dream in me that hope is not even a consideration when others try to figure me out?