Redemption Church KC Sermon Podcast

Redemption Church KC

Weekly sermons from Redemption Church in Olathe, KS.

  1. 4d ago

    Ordinary Time 14: Josiah

    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?

  2. Aug 23

    Ordinary Time 13: Hezekiah

    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?

  3. Aug 16

    Ordinary Time 12: Suffer the Grace

    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.

  4. Aug 9

    Ordinary Time 11: Divine Gifts

    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?

  5. Aug 2

    Ordinary Time 10: Fire from Heaven

    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?

  6. Jul 26

    Ordinary Time 09: A Kingdom Divided

    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?

Ratings & Reviews

5
out of 5
13 Ratings

About

Weekly sermons from Redemption Church in Olathe, KS.

You Might Also Like