Advertise on podcast: Redemption Church KC Sermon Podcast

Cole left us with a powerful benediction today: 1. May we be a people who know the pearl when we find it. 2. May we be a people who stay put long enough to know and to be known by others. 3. May we be a people who give our lives away - especially to the poor. In lieu of 3 unique questions, please use the following questions and reflect on them relative to each of the points from the benediction. Take them one at a time, and if you’re with a group, share. Questions: • What does this mean? • What does it look like? - give practical and concrete examples where you can. • How would you describe where you’re at in relationship to this idea? To what extent are you someone who ? • Where do you what to be? • What might shift look like if you desire it?

1. Tim talked about the incredible defense mechanisms that we have - individually and societally - against change. “Change” as he said, “is painful, costly, and unsettling.” What comes up for you when you think about potential change? How would you describe your general orientation toward change? When you think about Tim’s statement that change is painful, costly, and unsettling? What comes to mind? How do you respond to that statement? What types of changes do you resist the most? What defense mechanisms can you identify, either in yourself or in our society, against change? What things have broken through your natural resistance to change? Which catalysts have driven you to the most significant changes? Do you see any patterns as you consider change in your own life so far? 2. Tim also said that “faith without depth cannot be sustained.” What is “Faith without depth?” What does it look like? What are its unique characteristics? What about faith with depth? What does that look like? What characterizes it? What has brought depth to your faith? What has gotten in the way of its depth? 3. As he approached the end of his sermon, Tim, summarizing key parts of the parable, said that a foundational requirement for the Kingdom of God is a desire to change. He also said that “to be a Christian is to constantly be making up your mind about whether or not to keep being a Christian.” What do you think about these two statements? Which draws your attention more? Why? What in your own experience speaks to these two ideas? In what was have you seen a willingness or desire to change pace the way for God’s Kingdom? Do you feel like you are constantly making up your mind about whether or not to be a Christian? Share about your own experience in whatever ways it does or does not resonate with that idea.

1. Tim framed the story of Zacchaeus through a lens that was probably new for many of us. How did the story you may have learned as a child differ from the one that you heard taught today? In what ways were the meaning and take-aways of the story changed by the new way of looking at it? What new insights or ideas were prompted by a this unfamiliar lens? With new information and framing, take some time to ponder and then share what this story is “about” for you at this moment. 2. Tim shared that, for the first thousand-ish years of the church, the interpretation of Zacchaeus he taught today was the standard. Somewhere along the way, the standard undersatnding of the story evolved (at least in some parts of the world church). Tim also intentionally prepared us to learn a significantly different way of understanding Zacchaeus and his encounter with Jesus. How does it feel to realize that what we sometimes think we know as an objective fact about the Bible might be, instead, just one way to understanding it? Tim shared the following quote from the midrash: “The torah has seventy faces; turn it around and around, for everything is in it.” What’s your initial response to this idea? What does it bring up for you? How do you feel about the idea that there might be many right or appropriate interpretations or understandings of a single Bible story? What if the same is true for all of the Bible? What surfaces for you as you consider that? Is there anything that feels like it should be “off limits” for this kind of consideration? Why or why not? 3. Tim highlighted several examples of times in which standard English translations might lead an English speaking reader into an understanding that is out of sync with the original Greek. Recalling other instances in which we’ve learned that this is a common challenge of translation in general, what does that mean when it comes to the way you relate to the Bible and its words as you understand them? Does it feel any resistenace to that reality? n the landscape of your faith, what does it mean that some of what you’ve been taught may be anchored in misleading word choice on the part of long-ago translators?

1. One of Tim's slides read, "Neighbor isn't a noun; it's a verb, an action: 'to neighbor.'" Spend a little time thinking about and articulating what it actually means to be a neighbor. How would you explain it? If it helps, get practical and consider examples of neighboring you've seen in your real life. Who has been an excellent neighbor to you? What have they done that makes you say so? What outcomes have been born of those people and their actions? What things have you done that demonstrate good neighboring? What impact have your own experiences of neighboring others had on you? On your community? 2. Tim pointed out that, when asked, the expert in the law couldn't even name the Samaritan as the person who was a good neighbor. Instead, he said something like "the one who showed mercy." He went on to say that this man was probably not a "bad person," but instead someone stuck in a cycle of exclusion and blame. Think about some of the people that you might consider especially in need of lessons in neighboring. It might be helpful to think not only of groups, but also of individuals if you can. Do you think that these people are "bad people"? Why or why not? Now consider them through the lens of "people stuck in a cycle of exclusion and blame." How easy or difficult is it to really, fully conceive of them that way? Why do you think that is? Where do you feel resistance to this lens? Now consider yourself. Think about ways in which you might wish you had been or could be better at neighboring. Do these moments in your life make you think of yourself as a bad person? Can you think of yourself as someone stuck in a cycle of exclusion and blame? Is that easier or more difficult than thinking of others that way? Why do you think that is? 3. Tim shared two quotes toward the end of his sermon: "People are hard to hate close-up." ... Brené Brown & "If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life, sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility." ... Henry Wadsworth Longfellow Think back to some of the people you thought of in question two as those who might be particularly un-neighborly. Or perhaps others who you might have a habit of despising. What do you know, if anything, of their sorrows and suffering? If you don't know anything, what might you be able to guess? Try to take a moment to form an authentic, dimensional vision of that/those person’s suffering in your mind. How do you feel considering these people in this light? What resistance do you feel to cultivating compassion for them? Are there places where you feel there should be limits to this kind of consideration? Why or why not? What is valuable about thinking about people in this way? Is it something you practice? Why or why not?

1. As Mandy taught that Luke’s story of the Gerasene demoniac is full of political and military language, she asked us to consider that this story might be more political commentary, along the lines of a satirical political cartoon, than we may realize. What’s it like for you to consider this story that way? What’s it like for you to think about any content of the Bible through this lens? If it brings up resistance for you, share about it. If there’s something about the idea that resonates or makes sense, share about that too. What, in your own personal experience of reading and studying the Bible, might quietly underlie and shape initial responses to this idea? 2. Mandy shared a quote from theologian Dr. Paul Hollenbach: “Demon possession [in the Bible] is often a reflection of class antagonisms rooted in economic exploitation, or a socially acceptable form of protest against, or escape from, oppression.” For many of us, this turns what we may have learned in the past about the idea of “demon possession” on its head. What does this framing stir up for you? What thoughts, questions, or emotions arise as you consider that there may be a different - and perhaps better contextualized - way to understand the Biblical stories about demon-possessed people? Regardless of how you’ve understood those stories about the possessed, spend a little time thinking about who in today’s context might be a rough equivalent of the Gerasene man in the Luke passage from today. Who would they be? What about them makes them possible candidates for this potential label? Assuming that demon possession isn't your go-to, what might be? And how do those conditions & circumstances (as you understand them) hold up within the framework presented by Dr. Hollenbach? 3. As she closed her sermon, Mandy summed up one of her themes with this simple sentence: “healing is so disruptive.” What do you think about that statement? On its face, is it something that feels more true than false? Or vice versa? Why? What examples do you have from your own personal or communal life of healing that has disrupted the status quo? In what ways is individual healing different from social healing? In what ways is it the same?

1. Tim started his sermon today, reminding us about Hegel’s ideas about the importance of the “other” in our ability to grow in self-consciousness. He also taught us that in first-century Jewish Palestine, the “other” was the Gentile. Who are your “others?” Which do you feel most resistant to moving closer to? Why? What insights might the nature of or patterns in your list be able to provide for you? 2. When he talked about the disciples’ response to the sleeping Jesus, Tim taught about the importance of cultivating the ability to recognize the presence of God. How does one go about doing that? How can you do that? What might you say to someone who asked you to teach them? Where and when have you found the most growth in cultivating your own ability to recognize the presence of God? When do you find it to be most challenging? 3. Toward the end of his sermon, Tim talked about the idea of the weightiness of some Christians. He used the metaphor of the moving sand dunes in Cape Cod to illustrate his point. He said that a person who can name accurately the anxiety all around us in our world without getting sucked into it, is someone with a weighty presence. He also shared a quote from Dallas Willard: “Instead of counting Christians, we should weigh them.” When you consider this concept, are there people who come quickly to your mind? Who are they or what do they have in common? Can you put other words to the nature of that weightiness in those specific individuals? What impact has that weight quality had on you as you have been in relationship with those people? What do you know or suspect about how those people came to be people of such a quality? What does it tell you about what you or others who desire to cultivate and mature in that quality might aim to pursue or avoid?

1. Tim started his sermon today, talking about two approaches to understanding what wholeness is and how peace can be established. Both revolve around the brokenness, struggle, failure, and negative aspects of life. The first aims to exclude and eliminate these parts of life in order to achieve wholeness and peace. The second involves embracing and reconciling oneself to these aspects of life. When talking about the brokenness, the struggle, the failure and the negative, Tim said these things are “hardcoded into creation for our benefit.” They, he said, help us to learn and change and grow. What are your responses to these ideas? What thoughts or feeling surface for you in response to the idea that these difficult things are hardcoded into creation for our benefit? What are your thoughts about the differences between the first and second approaches described above? What kind of experience do you have with each? What have your experiences taught you? Is there a difference between the approach that you mentally “better” and the approach you might default to in troubling times? What does that look like for you? 2. Tim talked about prophets as people who feel the falseness of the age and refuse to go along with it. He talked about three elements of the prophetic imagination: feeling the pain of the marginalized, criticizing injustice, and energizing toward a better future. Take a moment to consider people that you consider to act, at least at times, as prophets in our world today. What is it that prompts these people to come to your mind? What traits do they have? What actions do they take? Consider the paradigm of the prophetic imagination. In what ways are you participating in this way of being in the world? How does it feel to consider yourself as a participant in this type of activity? 3. As he closed his message, Tim talked about the way that we are still at church in exile and that the story told through the section of the Old Testament helps us know what to do: We still gather in small communities, read the scriptures, talk about faithfulness instead of success. We break bread together, and put our hope in the future where everyone belongs and knows the love of God. We don’t try to be perfect, and mostly we just struggle and fail. But we confess, we change and we grow, we forgive, and we reconcile. These things, Tim said, help keep us from becoming people who fall for the lie of empire. What are your thoughts about this? This list of things may seem to describe small actions, but what is the size of their impacts? What experience do you have with choosing these paths and how do they shape and form you, your experience of the world, and the world around you in which you do what you can to create and extend shalom? Do they feel like meaningful action? Why or why not?

1. In his sermon, Tim said “the royal consciousness is always blind to those for whom the system does not work.” Working under the assumption that the royal consciousness is alive and well in our society today, who is it that you think is most often not seen? To whom is our culture so often blind? Now consider this on a more personal level. Are there ways in which you or those you love personally have been unseen by the system? What have been the outcomes of that blindness? Which people for whom our systems do not work are you most often blind to who is it that you do not see? 2. Tim talked about the story arc from Egypt to exile. His slide said “the story began centuries earlier with the people of God, walking out of Egypt [ended with] the final remnant of her people walking back in… for the Jewish people, this is a wound that has never closed.” Then, he said that as we read this we are “just like a guest in someone else’s grief.” Many of us have been taught over the years to always see ourselves in the underdogs, the victims, and the oppressed in the Bible’s stories. Tim’s framing here challenges that orientation. How does it feel to think of yourself this way? Are you more naturally inclined to identify with the bereft people in this story or others like it? How easily can you see the story from the perspective of someone helping Israel to walk back into its ideological capture? Why do you think you’re inclined to approach it that way? Does reflecting on your orientation toward this type of story and the ongoing grief in the heart of the Jewish people present any opportunities for you to reconsider or challenge some of the ways you might tend to engage with the stories in the Bible? How so or why not? 3. As he closed his sermon, Tim brought us back to the wisdom Jeremiah shares about this time in Israel’s history. His counsel included encouragement to just keep going in the daily things of life and to be serious about good neighboring. What do you think about this wisdom and advice in the world as you see it today? What does it look like to take neighboring seriously? How do you cultivate it? How do you practice it?

1. In his sermon, Tim talked about the idea of going from A to B as a constant invitation in our culture. “A” is where you might be less than successful or satisfied and “B” is where you could be happy and content… finally satisfied. As Tim said, there is always something on offer that says it can get you to B. He also said that the conversion into whatever that might be is always an ideological conversion. Whether small or more all-encompassing, which programs for going from A to B have you bought into or participated in? Which are you participating in today? With each example, share whether it was something you inherited or were converted into. How have or do you see the ideological nature of your engagement with these “programs?” Is it easy or hard to look at through that lens? Why do you think that is? Pretty much, no one would sign up for something that offered an ideological capture or conversion. And many things that fit the paradigm Tim described would also not identify as a “Program.” what are some of the other terms or phrases that, at the end of the day, may end up as the same sort of thing (e.g., a lifestyle, a belief or value system, a club, etc)? 2. What are some of the critiques of our culture or our world or the people you encounter as you experience life that are most frequently on your mind? What about these topics makes them feel so important? In his sermon, Tim said, “Any critique that doesn’t implicate self is an ideological critique.” What does that mean? How does that apply to the critiques you thought about listed above? 3. Tim contrasted the ideological conversion discussed in the earlier question with something he called a true conversion where you go from “A” to also “A.” The starting place “A” is a good human and the resulting “A” is a flash of insight that, “I am not one with myself.” This, he said, was the foundation for new birth. He also shared a slide that said, “to practice resurrection means letting the stuff that leads to death die away so something new can be born again.” Reflect on your own experiences of ideological conversion and your experiences of or hopes for true conversion. What, in those narratives, needs to die away? What, as you consider your life today, might be a thing that leads to death of which you need to let go?

1. As Christina taught about this period in Israel & Judah’s history, she said, “Empires always demand absolute allegiance.” Where has your absolute allegiance been requested, required, or demanded? In what ways do or don’t those spaces line up with what you know of empire? To which of those spaces have you given some form of absolute allegiance? What has been the fruit of that allegiance in your life and the lives of others? 2. Considering your experience and understanding of the United States today, do you see it as an empire? Why or why not? How does it feel to examine and/or acknowledge the Empire-ness of the nation in which you live? If you do acknowledge the U.S. as an empire, what does that mean for how you make sense of your own lived experience, as part of the machine of Empire? In which ways might that frame help you make sense of your own life? In what ways does it challenge you? 3. In her sermon, Christina stated, “No empires last forever.” Given the chaos of our country right now, how do you feel about the idea of the eventual downfall of every empire, including the one in which you live? As she closed her sermon, Christina said, “God’s priority is God’s kingdom,” and then posed this question: “Are you standing in the way?” How do you respond to this question? What does it mean for God to prioritize God’s kingdom? What does it look like for someone to stand in the way? What does it look like for someone to get out of the way? What does it look like for someone to actively prioritize God’s kingdom too, especially living in the midst of Empire?

1. Cole talked about how the story of Naaman's healing struck him, and stuck with him. He said he experienced it as provocative and subversive. How did you experience the story, and how would you describe both the what story and it provoked in you? 2. Cale talked about how being in a position w/money or power or charisma puts us in positions where things revolve around, and that that dynamic starts to “bend” the way we relate to the people and world around us… and the way they relate to us. Reflect on your own experiences of this dynamic. What has that looked like? Don't forget to look for and consider situations in which you are the person being centered. How can we show up in the world, living un whatever privileged circumstances we may find ourselves in, and actively work against that "bending?" what does it look like to actively try to step outside of and subvert the transactional system un which we are so immersed? Try to come up with ideas and examples that are concrete enough to I be actionable. 3. Cole highlighted the fact that the stay 1 of Naaman’s healing is moved forward when - and only when - he listens to his servants. Who, in your life, might be the equivalent of Naaman’s servants? If you can, avoid the example of subordinate co-workers; presumably, most of us who are fortunate enough to work (let alone have work subordinates ) work in an environment in which listening to others is encouraged. Call suggested that one place we might be most likely to learn and receive grace from below is from the poor. He talked about “suffering the kindness” of those below us. He talked specifically about receiving kindness from sources we can’t control and the arrogance that makes that difficult. He said “can you hear it? Are you close enough?“ take a moment to sit with those two questions and meditate on what there might be for you in them. If you’re with a group, share what surfaces for you.

1. In his sermon today, Tim shared the following Heschel quote & slide: “Words create worlds.” - Heschel “Ideological capture isn’t falling for a lie so much as operating within a vocabulary that was never ours to begin with.” Consider this concept thoughtfully. What examples can you generate in which choice of words and language clearly shape or have the ability to shape our public story around the topic? How difficult or easy is it to come up with items for that list? Why do you think that is? 2. Another of Tim’s slides read, “This is a story in part about what happens when the people of God refuse to speak [and] just look the other way while vulnerable people are exploited.” He went on to say that, in our modern context, we are the Ahab in the story, saying “To one extent or another, we’ve all abdicated power over the wise use of the world by refusing to use our words.” We have, he said, “deferred to leaders who either don’t know any better simply [or] don’t care — about the wise use of creation.” (paraphrased) How easy or difficult is it for you to see yourself as the Ahab in the storyline? Allow yourself to sit with that idea for a moment. Let it expand beyond a simple intellectual idea to take up space in your body and in your emotions. What surfaces? What emotional responses feel most accessible and quick to arise? What other feelings and nuance exist underneath that top layer? Tim went on to say that our Ahab-like inaction reveals a basic lack of several things: 1) reverence for divine gifts 2) courage to speak truth to power 3) concern for our neighbors & 4) awareness of the cost of it all. Rather than responding defensively, try to engage with this idea curiously, and consider ways in which you fail to use your voice and words to advocate for proper care for divine gifts. Which of these 4 things would you most like to cultivate more of? How might you go about doing so? 3. Tim’s final slide read, “we’re at odds with our culture; we have a fundamental disagreement about life, power, and the use of the world. We have our own vocabulary, our own reason for being. Words make worlds, so we must use our words.” Which topics in context come to mind first for you? What pulled or prompted you internally? Where or in what context do you feel most silent when you might wish you could better use your voice? What do you feel stands in your way? What would or could it look like for you to use your voice and avoid the pattern Ahab followed in the context you identified?

1. What do you think about the retelling as reframing of the story of Elijah that Tim shared in today’s sermon? How did it impact you? What were some of the things that stuck out to you or stirred your curiosity and imagination? What’s your sense of what it means for this story’s reframing, rooted in Jewish scholarship, to be so different than the way the story is told and understood in most Christian contexts? What are the possible outcomes of one understanding being embraced over the other? 2. Elijah spearheads a dramatic event at which the power of God decisively puts to shame Baal’s priests and their acclaim of Baal. He acts with great faith and devotion to God. As soon as his faith is vindicated, he turns around and immediately commits a great act of violence against his opponents. What does God’s response to Elijah tell us about God? Which part of it resonates for you or catches your attention? Have you had experiences in which your faith felt justified or validated? How did you respond to those moments? What did they teach you about God? If you’ve ever erred in your response to God’s faithfulness, what did you see in God’s response to you? 3. A reading of Elijah’s story, informed by Jewish scholarship, clearly frames Elijah’s violence as mistaken and out of sync with the spirit of God. Tim taught that, even one of the stories of Jesus visiting Samaria centuries later reinforces God’s rebuke of Elijah’s actions that day. One of Tim’s slides read, “the kingdom comes not through violence, but through gentleness; not through one leader’s zeal, but through an [alternative] faithful community.” Think about parallels and places in our world today in which we face dramatic injustice at the hands of empire. What does this story teach us about a faithful response to that injustice? How do we show up and engage as something akin to whisper in which Elijah experienced God’s presence while still remaining active and effective in our faithfulness and love?

1. As part of Tim’s sermon today, he talked about Walter Brueggemann’s concept of the royal consciousness — an ideological capture that comes from prosperity. He named three features of it. First: numbness. Brueggemann said that when a person or community achieves a certain level of comfort — with all their basic needs met — something starts to happen to their imagination. Gradually, they start to focus on what’s next (& then next after that, and next after that, and next after that, etc). And then slowly, the suffering of those at the bottom becomes tough to really see and to feel. Tim said, “The cries of the exploited are still there — they’re just harder to hear over the ambient noise of the all-out pursuit of what’s next.” Injustice requires a certain level of numbness in order to persist. It’s not a byproduct of the system; it’s a feature. Because, if those at the top could actually feel what those at the bottom feel, the pyramid that is the ideology would never hold. What do you think about this idea? Do you think that if “those at the top” could really hear and feel what those at the bottom experience, the system would fall apart? why or why not? When you consider this idea, do you identify more with those at the top or with those at the bottom? Why? To what extent can you see yourself in this idea of someone who is numb to the suffering of those at the bottom? 2. The second feature of the royal consciousness is static religion. Tim said that when the disruptive presence of God — the prophetic — becomes a force that’s used to legitimize the status quo rather than calling the powerful to account, you’re seeing this concept play out. In this paradigm, religion defends the status quo. Injustice ends up with the full weight of religious conviction behind it, and the powerful are justified by religion. Tim pointed out that this Type of religion doesn’t require bad intentions or a lack of sincere devotion, only a certain level of comfort. Where can you see your own experience in this idea of static religion — are you tempted to be drawn into this way of thinking, or is it something you’ve been a part of in the past? How hard is it to find the ways you might participate in this form of ideological capture? How uncomfortable does it feel to look for them? How important is the idea of a God who challenges the powerful important to your concept of God? How much do you think it impacts and influences the way you live out your faith day to day? 3. The final feature of Royal consciousness is oppressive social order. A important piece in this concept is that royal consciousness’ oppression doesn’t say, “hey, I’m an ideology” — instead, it presents itself as the facts of life. It says, “this is how the world is — it’s always been that way, it always will be.” How does this message or idea resonate for you right now, in the midst of the climate we live in these days — politically, socially, in terms of justice, both local and global and everywhere in between? As you look at all of these three features together, particularly within the framework of prosperity as their origin, what surfaces for you? If you can see yourself that way, how does it feel to examine yourself as one of the prosperous people in the paradigm? Do you feel moved to any specific kind of response? What might it look like to respond with action as prophetic resistance?

Ordinary Time 08: David and His Contradictions