Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 7 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Question 7
The chapter insists that for devotions to work, you need “a firm commitment” that “it would be our pig that would die”; what kinds of concrete rules or boundaries could embody that commitment without turning devotional life into mere legalism?
Another way to ask: What clear rules or limits could help someone keep devotions a real priority without turning it into empty rule-following?

Direct Answer Bercot’s point implies setting practical, pre-decided boundaries that protect the devotional hour when surprises come—choosing to cancel or postpone other activities instead. The transcript doesn’t give a list of rules, but it stresses a firm resolve and consistent priority rather than perfection or rigid formalism.

Support from Transcript:

  • The needed change is explicit: “I needed to make a firm commitment that when unexpected things happened, it would be our pig that would die. It wouldn’t be the Lord’s Pig.”
  • He shows what that looked like in his example: stopping the puzzle earlier—“we’re not going to be able to finish the puzzle tonight”—so God’s time remains.
  • He warns that without resolve, the devotional hour becomes “little more than an ideal… but rarely have time to do.”
  • He expects interruptions and therefore planning: calls, visits, work issues, family issues.
  • Anthony Blume’s counsel functions like a boundary: “Whatever happens, I will not budge.”
  • Blume also describes handling interruptions: say to disturbances, “I am here, but not for you.”
Discussion Follow-ups What simple boundary could you decide ahead of time (not in the moment) that would make it harder for “the Lord’s time” to be the flexible item?