Genesis 15:1-12,17-18

The Genesis passage follows the unmerited promise made in Genesis 12 to Abram. Yet not much has progressed to this section in the narrative. This lack of “progress” seemingly looms in the background of the initial dialogue. Who re-initiates this dialogue in the passage? What is the content of the promise? What is Abram’s concern? Which comes first, God’s promise or Abram’s belief? The passage is an important passage to speak concerning the nature of “belief.” We live in a culture that teaches us that “belief” is either a type of cognitive assent, or, in contrast, a completely irrational conviction. Discuss what “belief” is here. The passage has an “object” to “believe” – i.e., it is belief in the Lord. Is this “object of faith” important in what follows? Why? Why would the Lord reckon such faith to Abram as righteousness (justice)? Does righteousness (justice) arise independent of faith in the Lord, prior to faith in the Lord, or is it subsequent to faith? What is it about “believing in the Lord” that gives rise to justice? How does Abram manifest his “faith” at the end of the passage? How does God grant Abram assurance that his “faith” is not in vain?

Luke 13:22-35

It is interesting to move straight from the Genesis passage to the Lukan passage for here we meet Jesus, “the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matt 1:1), the One in whom God has shown ultimately God’s faithfulness to Abram/Abraham. It is interesting that the initial question is offered to Jesus, not by a hostile source like a Pharisee or scribe, but by a villager, a Jewish peasant. What is the nature of the question? How does Jesus both accept and refocus the question? In the context of the Abram passage, what is Jesus called? How does this make a difference in interpreting the “narrow door”? If one equates this “narrow door” with Jesus, what would “entering” it entail?

Why would people want to enter the kingdom without entering through the door? What is the door significant to the kingdom? What is it about the nature of the door that some will miss it who care deeply to participate in the kingdom, but some will participate it from throughout the world, itself a sign of the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham?

The Pharisees appear following this statement. Notice that they do not question Jesus but give him orders. How does this exemplify the story just told? Why would Herod want to kill Jesus? Why would Jesus be so seemingly unconcerned about Herod’s intent? When does Jesus “finish” his work? When is it that the Jerusalem will “see” Jesus? To which upcoming passage in the Gospel does this allude – when is it said, “Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord”?

Philippians 3:17-4:1

Promise; fulfillment in Christ; Paul know speaks here to those who have “entered the narrow gate,” who live as those gathered from throughout the world as the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham. Paul’s exhortation to imitation comes as he himself is imprisoned by the Romans, possibly facing execution. Why would this serve as a basis of Paul’s call to imitation? How does this relate to the cross of Christ and, previously, the “narrow door”?

What is wrong with those who “live as enemies of the cross of Christ”? What is the contrast that Paul is trying to highlight? What are the real underlying dynamics that Paul sees the congregation of the saints at Philippi (and with them, us) dwelling within? What is Paul’s hope? Why does this hope generate Paul’s love for fellow-believers and the exhortation to “stand firm”? What is necessary, a presupposed requirement, for the recipients to do this?

We live amidst a culture in which ironically, many have replaced the language of “faith” with the language of “relationship” both within Christianity and outside, where it quickly becomes language of “spirituality” that has no object outside the human beings “needs”. This has great implications for the life within a congregation. Pastorally, I obviously want to sustain the biblical language of faith, particularly faith in God through Christ by the power of the Spirit, a faith that necessarily works through love (and is reckoned by God as righteousness, justice) as the proper human response to God's promise, God's loving mercy and grace. Maybe we need to examine our commitments as part of our Lenten exercise. If I may try to push us to some self-examination on the basis of our readings.

We've rightfully rejected the gross individualism of much of our evangelical background. Yet, possibly, it seems to me, we've only gone part of the way to the Scriptural language and narrative in substituting a "community" over a "congregation that lives by faith in God's promise in Christ". Perhaps by so doing, we miss the "narrow door" in our attempts to live in the kingdom. I struggle with so-called “relational theologies” at many, many levels, not lease practically on how it shifts language of the biblical language “church” and “congregation” or “Israel, heirs of the promise to Abraham” to the more culturally appropriate, more abstract, therapeutic non-biblical language of “community”. Maybe it might be interesting to talk about how these passages call forth the life of “Israel” or “the church” or “a congregation” and how this might be different from connotations of “community” in the society in which we live. This might be difficult work, but very important to find ourselves within the biblical text as persons who embrace the cross, rather than live as enemies of it.

Have a wonderful Lenten gathering.