Why Christmas?

With things that are familiar and such a part of our lives that we do them on autopilot, it's a good mental exercise to take a minute and remind ourselves what it's all about, or else we get to taking it for granted. We just had our annual reminder of the things we have to be thankful for, and now it's almost the climax of the Christmas season; a much bigger deal in terms of the hoopla most Americans devote to various events of partying, shopping, eating and gifting. All the more reason we have to be careful not to forget why this holiday came about to begin with.

Jesus came into our world in exactly the way God knew He needed to come, to fit the need of a problem between God and the human race. And only the right solution would address the particular problem that, according to the Bible, separates mankind from the relationship with God He created them for.

If the problem was man’s ignorance of God, then we would have needed a Teacher. But people fail in many things they know they should do/shouldn’t do. Knowing may be important, but it doesn't trump unwillingness.

If the problem was man’s own inability to please God, then we would have needed a Helper. But people often fail to please others, but not because they can’t; more like because they would rather please themselves.

If the problem was man’s errors in offending God, then we would have needed an Expert. But the greatest expert can't make people learn from mistakes, and even promises and vows won't guarantee a person won't repeat the same mistake.

If the problem was man’s stubborn attitude toward God, then we would have needed a Counselor. But people can be told again and again about their misdeeds, and, despite insights and lightbulbs in the mind, many don't change.

If the problem was man’s rebellious nature toward God, then we would have needed a Ruler. But people disobey their human rulers all the time, and even crucified the King of heaven when He came.

The real problem is man’s sin against God’s Person, a simple choice to do what we want to do, rather than what He wants us to do. And we do it, not because we don't know better, not because we just can't seem to get it right, nor because we're weak and incompetent. We disobey God, in spite of what we put into our memory cells and recite when prompted. We choose to prefer our own way because of what's in our hearts, not because of the content of our minds or the culture of our society or the training of our families. Simply put, we do it because we think it will benefit us in some way, and that's more important to us than anything someone else, including God, tells us is good for us.

The problem is sin, and so we needed a Savior, One who is a great Teacher, our Helper in trouble, an Expert in righteousness, a Wonderful Counselor, and the Ruler of all. But unless He came to save us from the penalty and power and corruption of our sinful hearts, all the rest would have been insufficient to solve the real problem. So the angels said to the shepherds, "Today is born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord!" I hope He's your Savior at this Christmas season!

The "apple" bites back

Many people, including some who take the Bible seriously as the Word of God, regard the story of Adam and Eve's encounter with the Tree of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden to be a piece of allegory or mythology. Those who prefer the theory of evolution over the stories of Genesis put the whole Eden scenario into the same category as the Greek gods. Others who accept some of the Bible's history have a hard time seeing the incident at the tree, complete with a talking snake, as anything other than a figurative tale to explain how mankind got into the mess of this world, with death, disease and innumerable sorrows.

But, there are a number of reasons to consider the story of Eden as being exactly as presented by Moses, not the least of which is that Jesus and various inspired authors of Scripture regarded the events of Adam and Eve's fall into sin and death to be just as described in the Bible's opening chapters. That would seem reason enough for anyone who thinks of the Bible as more than a collection of religious tales and moral lessons, with no more claim to divine inspiration that the fables of Aesop. If the Bible is truly a cohesive Book, "God-breathed" and useful for equipping servants of the truth (2 Timothy 3:16), then we have to take seriously the unified voice of its many authors, who attest to the actual events of the Fall of Man.

But in addition to this, perhaps the most compelling reason, in view of what we know of our world and its persistent troubles, is that we would have no way to account for the universal presence of certain harmful, malevolent and destructive traits of the human personality, such as are found in humans of every nation, culture, language and stage of sophistication. From the most isolated tribe in the jungle to the denizens of urban concrete jungles, there has always been in human behavior a capacity for cruelty, violence and disregard for the welfare of others. Adam and Even went for the satisfaction of their desires with that "apple", but the apple bit back in a big way!

The fact that we often describe behavior that is particularly violent with the adjective "inhuman", is evidence that we also find in ourselves a nobler motive, a desire to lift ourselves above the merely animal behaviors of the wild creatures. But this too would be impossible to explain apart from the revelation that humans are not, as evolutionary doctrine would make us, a product of nothing more than "natural selection" and the genetic mutations of whatever happened to arise from the ooze of naturally occurring chemicals.

True, it is not every person on earth that acts out such natural passions that lead to violence and inhuman treatment of their fellows. And many act, for the most part, in ways that are gracious and generous to the well being of others. But that doesn't negate the fact that the tendency to act in gross selfishness is present, in those of great education and refinement as well as in those of humble and simple means and lives. When we see habits and lives marked by kindness and "good will to men," it is nonetheless in great distinction to the kind of "inhuman" deeds that our news channels report to us daily, and with increasing frequency.

What makes the difference then, if the capacity for cruelty and selfishness is indeed universal? Generically speaking, the belief that there is something greater than ourselves, a goal greater than our own well being, a reason for living that is larger than our small ambitions for self-improvement, each of these is capable of lifting men to a greater level of moral behavior in regard to their fellow men. So the committed Buddhist or the faithful Jew or the "peace-loving" Muslim may find reason in their philosophies for loving at least some of their neighbors.

But, for my money, all of these lack the power to overcome the universal nature of man's heart toward selfishness. When we choose actions that gratify our selfish nature, we put aside the noble convictions of mind in favor of the more pressing desires of the heart. And this is what separates the religions of Man from the redemption of Christ. Only He can change the heart and give men daily strength to walk by His Spirit, so as to put aside the desires of human nature. When that happens, humans are able to live up to the nobler aspirations of their hearts, which are there only because Man is created in the image of a noble, good and gracious God.

And that's what Christmas is about. God came personally into our sad world, with the intention of offering in the death of His Son a way out of the death and sorrow of Eden. Evolution has no credible explanation in its godless and random science for both aspects of man's nature, the dark and the light, the violent and the kind, the "inhuman" and the noble. Only the Bible yields that explanation, as well as the solution in God's own way of redemption, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. (John 1:29) Merry Christmas!

What kind of stimulation is needed?

One can get different views of the effects of the government's "stimulus " initiatives, depending on which party is spinning the evidence. Whether any new jobs have really been created, or existing jobs saved due wholly or in part to the infusion of cash into the economy is uncertain. The "cash for clunkers" program seemed to have some immediate effect among auto dealers, but it's not clear this effect will be broad-based throughout the marketplace.

But, at the very least, you could give our government some credit for trying to do something to "kick start" an economic recovery. Not all such ideas are effective, but sometimes a poor idea is better than none, since, at least, a poor idea can be tweaked; which is more than you can do with the absence of ideas.

But, as we see illustrated often in the Bible, an economic stimulus often works against the long-term and greater interests of humankind. The love of money, says Paul, is "a root of all kinds of evil." There are worse things that happen to people than a lack of money. A lack of love, a lack of compassion, a lack of sensitivity to the voice of God, all these are far worse than a cash shortfall. And, when God works to stimulate the heart toward greater spiritual and moral vigor, He seems to do so more often through a lack of certain things, than through a sudden abundance of the same.

More people, for example, have searched for spiritual harmony with God because of a lack of peace or joy, than because they have all the peace and joy their heart desires. Many have sought the Lord when their lives "hit bottom" in some respect, rather than when they felt they were "on top", enjoying the view. More have been open to the Gospel of Christ by feeling a hunger for meaning and satisfaction in life, than those who feel already full and in need of nothing (such as the Laodicean church of Revelation ch. 3).

The saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" pretty much applies to people's motivation for spiritual renewal. But God's stimulus package for a broken heart, a crushed spirit, an empty and unfulfilling life, is not to give things that would make most humans feel less need of Him. This is, I believe, the meaning behind Jesus's pithy statements like, "Blessed are the poor", "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst," and "Blessed are you when men persecute you." We are more likely to seek the Lord when we feel something missing from our lives, than when we add up our abundance and say, "Soul, you are well off."

Eternal health insurance

Who would have thought 20 years ago that the subject of health insurance could get such widespread national attention? Town hall meetings, TEA parties, Congressional debates, endless arguments on cable TV, just to name a few of the forums for airing our opinions on the questions of how best to insure everyone's health needs. It's amazing how many people can take such disparate views on a subject, each one being convinced he/she has taken the correct position.

Sounds a lot like the age-old debate over religious truth doesn't it? Some say there is no absolute truth (and they're absolutely certain of that), while some say all truths are equal and lead to the same place, while others claim only their truth is the right one.

Of course, in the area of "eternal health insurance", I don't think anyone would want their government to be making the key decisions, not even those who favor the "public option" in health insurance. And certainly we wouldn't want to leave to our legislators the responsibility of deciding which eternal plan fits best.

Fortunately, the Author of life has already passed a Law of eternal welfare, though in a most un-democratic way. God is the ultimate Autocrat (the power resides solely in Himself) when it comes to declaring how spiritually sick mankind may be healed. No debate, no pundits' opinions, no stumping to get everyone on board, just a simple declaration: All have sinned, all may be saved through faith in the Lamb of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Not Blue Cross, but Calvary's Cross is what we need.

Anyone interested in their eternal health needs to think very seriously before they take any other "policy", or before they decide "I'm fine, I'm sure I won't need coverage." Whatever are the implications for the current health care debate, the implications for eternal health are far greater, and worthy of at least as much interest as people are giving to what's going on in Washington.

Maybe it's safer to be a dog.

We get used to hearing stories these days about the animal rights crowd at PETA, the "People for Ethical Treatment of Animals", as they go to great lengths to protect animals of all sorts against "unethical" treatment. But normally we think of the Humane Society as more within bounds that the rest of us non-PETA types can agree with.

That opinion may change for some, after reading in today's Omaha news about a man being ticketed for animal cruelty, after the Humane Society followed up on a veternarian's concerns about the man taking his sick dog home, rather than paying for the animal to be treated or turning it over to the HS folks, who would have euthanized the dog.

According to the World-Herald reporter, "The Humane Society and Omaha police, acting on the veterinarian's concerns that Palmer might kill his own dog, went to his home Sept. 8 with a warrant, used a battering ram on the door and dug up the dog's body in the backyard." After determining through testing that the animal was not killed, but rather died of its "treatable" disease, the owner was issued the citation.

One wonders what the HS would do about farmers and other rural people, who in times past (maybe not really past) used their own form of "euthanizing" on a terminally sick or otherwise unwanted animal, in the form of a bullet that sent Rover packing to doggie heaven. To be clear, I have been grieved as any dog lover would be, to have taken two of them at different times to a vet or the Humane Society for their departure from this world. And now I see that it was a good thing for me that I didn't leave them at home on "dog hospice", thus running the risk of an unwelcome visit from the authorities.

I sympathize with those who would want us to have laws to protect dogs from cruelty, but why does it seem that many of the same folks who stick up for the "rights" of animals are also in the same political vein with those who deny such rights to an unborn child. I don't see anyone following a pregnant woman home to make sure she doesn't abort her child. No, that's her choice, says the group of people eager to defend a woman's right to choose.

It looks like it's safer to be a dog than a fetus. At least then you have people in governmental authority ready to fight for your well-being. This dog owner didn't have a "choice" over his own animal, while a woman can legally do whatever she wants with a human being inside her womb. What a world we live in!

What would you do if you were God?

Obviously, asking people to pretend they're God, and then imagine what they might do with the various problems of this world and its people, is a nonsensical proposition, because no one really knows the mind of God enough to make an intelligent answer. But some might venture to say what they would like to do if they were the One to call the shots

For example, someone might say, "I'd get rid of all the bad people"; which, according to the Bible, would have totally cleaned out the place by now (including the speaker), since we read "there are none good, not even one." Or another might suggest, "I'd get rid of all sickness and war and poverty." But that too would be problematic, since all those bad things and more are the result of mankind's sinful condition, which, as already stated, includes us all.

So, what's a God to do? If He just took us all back to Eden where everything was perfect, besides hearing a lot of complaining because there's not a McDonald's in sight or a mall or cars and all the rest, He would have to do something with the human race, since we're at heart just like the ones who got expelled the first time around.

If He permanently altered our nature to make it impossible to disobey Him, we'd end up like the rest of the animal world, with no independent will and mind to do our own thing. We maybe wouldn't know the difference once the change was made, but He would know, and the whole purpose for making mankind in His image, to have a true relationship on the spiritual level, would be lost.

But if He just made us promise to be good this time, and then we showed we couldn't do any better than Adam and Eve, we would either be right back where we are now, or God would have to suspend the whole rules thing, and just let us be. And that would be far worse, if you can imagine a world where there are no laws, and hence no justice to enforce those laws, no barriers on human behavior to hold back unchecked human nature... well, that sounds a lot more like Hell than Heaven to me.

We may not be able to fully understand why God chose to let His image-bearing creations disobey Him and totally mess up a world He pronounced as "good", but, as any all-powerful and all-knowing Creator might do, He has a plan and a purpose in all of it. And, if He has allowed this world to go on its pathetic condition this long, it must be because He has a really great plan and purpose, especially for those who accept His mercy and forgiveness made available through His Son, Jesus Christ (which was part of the plan even before He made mankind). So I'm really glad He's God, and not me. I'd have made it even worse by now - how about you?

Who's calling please?

The concept of a "call" to ministry, or any other action taken in the name of Christ, is a somewhat slippery one. After all, if God is still "calling" men and women to a specific task of service, it's a pretty subjective experience for the one called. The apostle Paul had a very definite experience on which to base his claim that he was "called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God" (1 Corinthians 1:1). But normally, when the New Testament speaks of God "calling" believers, the word is used in the sense of the call to salvation by the Holy Spirit.

We often hear of someone speak of a call to the professional ministry, meaning a sense of conviction and certainty concerning the will of God for that individual. But I've never heard of someone claiming to have had a "Damascus Road" experience, upon which to base their claim to be so called. Instead, it's the more ordinary sense of inner leading that is, for practical purposes, indistinguishable from, say, a doctor's sense of vocational calling, or what my wife experienced when, even as a young girl, she sensed she should train to be a nurse (and she did, and her career has supported that perception).

But, does that subjective conviction or sense amount to a divine calling? That's where the slippery part is. To automatically ascribe such a conviction to God gives room for all kinds of people to attribute their actions to God with justification, including those who commit acts of violence "in the name of God", or because "God told me to." Surely, there ought to be some way to connect such perceptions to the Bible, in order to separate an actual "calling" from an ordinary, and very human sense of psychological attraction to an idea or practice. Otherwise, how do we know who's really "calling"? It could be just the echo of our own mind, as is surely the case with those who feel they've been called to do things clearly outside the bounds of biblical truth.

And, case in point, today's news from the recent meeting of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (the largest and most liberal-leaning Lutheran denomination) tells how the vote of those gathered went in favor of allowing ELCA churches to be pastored by someone who is both homosexual and sexually active in a "committed" relationship. They aren't the first to take this step, just the latest. The justification for this action was expressed by one delegate as being consistent with God's leading in his own life, as he said, "The same-gender couples I know live in love and faithfulness and are called to proclaim the word of God as are all of us." (My emphasis)

So, which is it? Are they indeed "called" by God, or are they just "led" (by whatever influence or perception that might be)? If the Bible is a unified book of God's inspired writings, then there is no way to justify such a calling with the clear statements of Scripture on the subject of homosexuality; at least not for those who take the Bible's words at face value, and don't try to bend them to fit modern sensibilities on this subject. Such "same-gender couples" may "live in love and faithfulness". But that doesn't mean they are biblically in the same category as a heterosexual person in respect to the calling of God to do His work (not that all heterosexuals are cleared for takeoff in the ministry either).

So, who's calling? If God has called these individuals to proclaim His gospel in a professional sense, then those who interpret the Bible to say that homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle are mistaken (as the gay-friendly churches are indeed saying). But if that's the case, then I've wasted 35 years of Bible study on a book that can't be trusted to say what it means. Either that, or God has changed His mind of this subject and I just didn't get the memo.

The more things change...

The pace of change in modern life is sometimes hard to keep up with, especially in the area of technologies in business, medicine and everyday living. But like the old saying goes, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Despite all the I-phones, CAT scans, video conferencing, microwaves and the like, the basic stuff of life isn't really different from the days when the Bible was written.

Reading through the first chapter of Romans this morning, it was clear once again that the things that most trouble our lives from day to day are pretty much the same as what troubled society in Paul's day. And the root of it all, placed in the human heart and mind, is still to be observed in the daily news and the daily grind we're all facing.

If anything, the many changes of how we go about our lives have only served to magnify the fact that Paul identifies as the key to understanding the human condition. And that fact is this: Though men have the witness of God in their hearts, the evidence of His creative power and nature as seen in the physical universe, they nonetheless "do not honor Him or give thanks."

Does that describe every human being? No, there are many who "fear God and keep His commandments," but only because God has, by His grace, revealed His word to men in the Bible and most especially in His Son, Jesus Christ. But He doesn't compel anyone to believe, and the decline in general moral and social behavior that is the stuff of our daily news reports comes exactly in correspondence to a steep decline in Christ-centered, Biblical spirituality in American public life.

We have expelled God from our schools, even punishing those who pray to Him at a recent school meeting. We have seen skeptics openly ridiculing the Church and her Savior in movies, books and other venues. We have seen legal groups defending a "do-your-own-thing" philosophy in the name of First Amendment rights, while attempting to restrict the rights of a Christian to wear a cross in the office. We have seen marriage reduced to a user-defined term for any two individuals in a long-term relationship to each other. We have defended the speech that was formerly considered vulgar and improper for public audiences, while insulting some who insist on praying in the name of Jesus.

We have seen, in one generation, the moral tone of society reversed, so that behaviors that were disapproved in the 50's are now on open display, while those who still publicly disapprove are called names, instead of those who do such things. And this is exactly how Paul concludes the first chapter of Romans, where he says that, in spite of the fact that the Bible predicts a destiny of eternal and spiritual death for pursuing behaviors forbidden by God, "they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them." (Romans 1:32)

I-phones and microwaves notwithstanding, nothing's really changed here.

The confusion of certainty

The expression, "What was ___ thinking?", whether applied to ourselves or to another person, is an acknowledgment of how easy it is to become confused by one's own sense of certainty about an idea, a conviction or desire. It's a common enough thing for us all, to get attached to an idea that "sounds right" or maybe one which seems to go along with other ideas, and then we stop reasoning about the idea, to the point that we swallow it "hook, line and sinker."

Much of the time such confusion is harmless enough, and produces embarrassment but not much else. But often such disjuncture between conviction and reality can be tragic. In one of history's most horrific examples, the Nazi party managed to sway much of the German population into believing the idea of Jewish inferiority, to the point that genocide was thought to be normal. But no less horrific is the assumption, so firmly lodged in millions of minds, that a pregnant woman's right to choice in her own medical affairs should extend to the fetus growing within her, to the point that she may be exempted from the normal laws protecting the life of another person.

In today's local news, two stories stand side-by-side to illustrate this confusion of certainty. In one report, a Nebraska woman is charged with manslaughter for stabbing a pregnant teenager, killing the fetus in her womb. The teenager is expected to recover from her wounds, while the manslaughter charge is applied to the unborn child. Now, if the teenager had done the same with a tool of some kind or an abortive drug, she would be exercising her "choice", and subject to no consequences other than some people's disapproval. For another person to do that without the teen's "permission" is considered manslaughter.

The whole thing screams, "What's wrong with this picture?" We don't charge people with manslaughter for killing "tissue", or whatever the pro-choice people call the fetus to justify murdering it by abortion. But somehow the same legal system that doggedly protects a woman's choice also applies personhood to that same unborn child, in a case when its death is at the hands of someone else who makes such a choice.

And then, a second article concerns Dr. Leroy Carhart, whose abortion clinic in Bellevue, NE has already received a lot of negative publicity for years. Now, in the wake of the killing of Dr. George Tiller in Wichita, Dr. Carhart is aiming to raise the fallen banner of Dr. Tiller, known nationwide for his many late-term abortions. Dr. Carhart's mission is motivated by his conviction that, "We have to keep abortion available for the women of this country."

Compare that sentiment to our current legal situation in regard to assisted suicide. Obviously you wouldn't take a person to court who had just committed suicide, but neither are there indications in the legal code that it's unlawful to take your own life if you're suffering a terminal illness. But to assist someone in doing that, even with their permission, is still subject to prosecution. No one with any legal or social standing is saying, "We have to keep patient-assisted suicide available for the people of this country." And one who tried to make such a stand, Jack Kevorkian, went to jail for his convictions.

What can explain such a schizophrenic confusion among so many otherwise intelligent people? Perhaps the idea that a fetus is either a person or it's not, take your pick but don't try to have it both ways, is a bit too subtle a distinction in logic for those whose aim is to give a woman the unfettered freedom to end her pregnancy for her own reasons.

Let there be no confusion on this point: I'm all for supporting a woman's choice to become pregnant. And if she wants to make that choice, then let her be careful to avoid all situations where a pregnancy may happen. But once an egg and sperm combine to begin the God-ordained process of birth of a separate person, then the choice to end that life is not hers to make; anymore than it would be her choice to kill a terminally ill person, even with his permission. To say anything different seems to me, in Spock's words, "illogical."

Happiness vs. joy

In this morning's "Faith & Reason" column, a regular feature of the USA Today online edition, a book review is featured, written by Lindsey Norman, who confesses that "I love Christ with all my heart, but wrestle with God's goodness at times." A common problem for many, who have a hard time reconciling their human interpretations of "goodness" with the sovereign goodness of God.

It's an age-old problem, going back to Job and his friends, who believed, as many still do, that "bad things" in one's life are a sure sign that God is displeased, and is therefore punishing the one who has incurred His wrath. The difference between Job and his would-be counselors was that they assumed he had messed up royally due to the awful mess he was in, while Job insisted something terrible had happened in God's bookkeeping, since he could think of nothing he had done sufficient to earn the whipping he and all his family had received.

With this "wrestling" in the background, Ms. Norman goes on to comment on a recent book, "The Geography of Bliss", in which the author tries to determine what nation on earth may have the happiest people, and who the least so. After reading the book, Ms Norman acknowledges, like many before her, that "Happiness is difficult to come by and, ultimately, a challenging pursuit."

Then Ms. Norman follows up with her life-lesson gathered from this insight: "I concluded that there is a distinct difference between joy and happiness. Joy is an overall state of mind, a deliberate decision. We choose whether or not to have a positive attitude and outlook on life. Happiness on the other hand is connected to external circumstances."

Again, this is a conclusion that many before her have reached, and, while I can be "happy" for her discovery, it could have come sooner for her or anyone else by learning from the experiences of the apostle Paul, especially as recorded in the letter we know as Philippians. Paul's "happiness" factor was severely strained by an ongoing list of troubles (recorded in 2 Corinthians, chap. 11), and, in the case of the Phillippian letter, by being a captive of the Romans, not for criminal activity but for Christ.

Philippians, rather than being the report of an unhappy prisoner, is so full of joy that many Bible students have considered joy to be the central theme of the letter. Personally, I think "attitude" or "life view" is more the theme, with joy as one of the results of an attitude like Paul's. He rejoiced so persistently because his life view", stated in chap. 1 as "For me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain," was the deciding factor in how he felt about his circumstances.

So, even an imprisonment that kept him from his preaching travels was seen as a blessing, as he now had a "captive audience" in the guards assigned to watch him. (Chap. 1) And, though some people took advantage of his incarceration to preach the gospel of Christ "out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment." In spite of this, he said firmly, "I will rejoice!"(Chap 1) He found joy, not in his situation, but in the spiritual condition of the church, especially when they were "of one mind" in Christ (Chap. 2). He knew joy because he had "learned to be content" in his circumstances, discovering through all his trials that "I. can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." (Chap. 4)

Anyone who would be "happy" should spend a generous amount of time in Philippians, with the outcome of choosing to adopt the life-view of the great apostle of joy. Paul knew, as expressed in many other of his letters, that God's goodness is not limited, in this sin-corrupted world, to what we call the "good times", or to anything else defined by this world's circumstances. Rather, God simply is good, and therefore saves sinners and leads them to experience His goodness through His sovereign ability to "work all things together for good to those who love Him." (Romans 8:28). To live in the outworking of that goodness is truly joyful.

One size God for all?

For some time, many students of the Bible's teaching about the end times have considered that one ingredient in the end scenario would be a one-world religion; a blending of the world's various faiths and spiritual philosophies into a common denomination of religion for everyone. The synthesis of all faiths would become the preferred religion, a standard for all to follow; and Christians would thus become the enemies of the world-religion and its all-inclusive dogmas.

Given the world's religious makeup, however, it seems unlikely that Christians would be the only ones alienated by a "one size fits all" religion. Indeed, the current religious climate shows that Muslims are every bit as devoted to their own doctrines as any Christian fundamentalist or orthodox Jew. And that's why some people are coming to view fundamentalism of any type, Christian, Jewish or Muslim, as dangerous to world peace and harmony. And there's truth to that feeling. If there was a one-world religion that tried to merge all faiths into one unrecognizable blob, Christians wouldn't be the only ones objecting.

Nor is it likely, for pretty much the same reason, that John Lennon's vision of world peace could ever be fulfilled, in which he asked us all to imagine a world with "no religion", thus removing the source of much of the world's conflicts and enmity between peoples. There's just too many who would never be willing to give up their cherished beliefs for the sake of world harmony.

That's why I don't think a one-world religion or no religion is as likely to happen as a "unified-world" religion; a "big tent" view of religions, with room for all faiths and non-faiths under the same umbrella of acceptability. The only religions left out would be those that still insist on their exclusive right to be the "true faith"; which is exactly what Christians must hold to if they are to be true to the exclusive claims of Christ as the "way, truth and life."

No better picture of this unified world religion could be seen than, of all places, at Michael Jackson's funeral. Jackson was a co-author of the song "We Are the World", originally performed in 1985 for a benefit concert on behalf of African nations. The song was performed at Jackson's funeral, with a visual background composed of various religious symbols arranged together in an way as to emphasize that all faiths are valid. The clear message of the whole scene was "All faiths are of equal value, and deserve equal respect." It's the religious version of Rodney King's "Let's all just get along."

Even some sincere Christians like George W. Bush want to gloss over religious conflicts by supposing that Christians and Muslims "believe in the same God." That would be like saying we all believe in the same George W. Bush, except that some say he has two daughters, while others insist he has two sons and a wife named Diane. At some point we have to decide if world harmony may just not be worth the price of discarding the truth.

If such a unified world religion ever takes hold of enough people (as it has already become the preferred view of many), then Christians will be given a line in the sand that they cannot cross without denying the exclusive claims of their Savior, Jesus Christ, who insisted that "no man comes to the Father except through Me." In the end, the religion that will be persecuted by the world will not be those who cling to their religious truths, but those who are willing to die for the fact that there can be only one Truth, and His name is Jesus.

What kind of body is the Church?

The apostle Paul used the analogy of the human body a lot to describe the Church, and it's a fitting comparison, at least in theory. Like the human body, the Church is a diverse collection of parts, personalities, gifts and backgrounds, with many different roles and jobs for its members to do. And all of it is meant to be united under one Head, the Lord Jesus Christ. (Ephesians 1:22-23) And, if one might wonder why the unity of heart and effort that is supposed to characterize the Church is not more evident in real life, the most obvious place to look for an answer would be in the Church's relationship to her Head.

When a human body is sick, it may be due to one of many different diseases that afflict its various parts. But when a person's entire body is devastated by a system-wide disease that affects the movements and functions of the whole body, it's usually a problem somewhere in the brain, or an interruption in the nervous system that gets its signals from the brain. Parkinson's, Cerebral Palsy, paralysis, strokes and other brain injuries, and many other dysfunctions can totally disable an otherwise healthy body.

Unlike the human body, the Body of Christ has a Head that always does His job. But the Church Body, and its individual members, have a will of their own that may prevent the Head from giving the right directions. So with the Church, there may be different members who are suffering the effects of spiritual sicknesses, like undisciplined desires, lust, pride or ambition; but when the whole body of a local church or a church denomination is reeling from the effects of sinful practices, fleshly politics and worldly ambitions, you can bet there's a significant loss of communication with the Head.

If the Church was always following her Head, there would be no fractious splits, no heresies, no drifting into worldliness, no rivalries and disputes and other things that Paul attributes to the "deeds of the flesh." There would be no "arms" of the church going off in a direction totally contrary to His Word. If Christ was truly directing His Body, there would be harmony of heart and effort in carrying out His mission of making disciples; there would be unity of faith in His Word, instead of myriad theologies and sects competing with each other.

Instead, the Church is seen by an increasingly skeptical world as "spastic", given to "convulsions" and widely divergent signals in communication that totally distort the unity of message and mind that Paul sought for the Body of Christ when he urged Christians to "make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose." (Philippians 2:2) How different would be the history and present life of the Church, if the apostle's words had been lived out on a world-wide scale. Though we can't reverse history, we could at least commit ourselves in our own local churches to making sure our Head is in charge of His Church, rather than just being attached to a dysfunctional Body.

What is the Church, really?

It would be an understatement to say that the Church, in her almost 2000 years of existence, has presented a varied and often contradictory picture to the rest of the world. At times full of compassion and service, at times more of a spiritual police force; an organization at most times more than an organism.

There may be many reasons to account for this, but a point of analysis occurred to me recently, while preparing a message on the Church; and that point has to do with what the Church is, which should be driving what the Church does. The difference between the Church and Israel is much more than a comparison of the Law of Moses vs. the Age of Grace, or one nation vs. all nations.

Fundamentally, Israel was related by birth as the seed of Abraham, called to please God by living out their faith in Him through obedience to statutes, doctrines and practices. The Church, on the other hand, is related by second birth as the spiritual seed of Abraham, called to relate to God through faith in the Savior, whose obedience to the will of God led Him to the cross, where He fulfilled the sacrifices of Moses' law for all who trust in His death on their behalf.

The bottom line of this contrast is that Israel was a people united by their common ancestry and by a relationship to God as a nation. They were charged with not only obeying the Law, but with enforcing obedience on the rest of the nation, so as to remain a holy people. The nation's holiness was a direct result of scrupulous observance of the Law, though mere legalism was never meant to substitute for the faith modeled by father Abraham.

The Church, meanwhile, is a people united by a common Spirit, and by a personal relationship to God as born-again individuals. The Church, unlike Israel, is not charged with enforcing the holiness of her members, because each one is already holy (thus addressed as "saints"). Church discipline was practiced, not to mandate holiness, but to prevent the fleshly behavior of some "so-called brethren" from diluting the testimony of the Church, which is supposed to be "lights in a crooked and perverse" world.

The Church has too often in her history acted as if Christians were just "Israel 2.0", an updated version of the nation of the Ten Commandments and laws of the Old Testament. Many subgroups of the Church have used updated versions of priests (ignoring the fact that all of us are priests under one Great High Priest). Many use rules of conduct patterned after the Ten Commandments, while some try to use those commands as the basis of a moral society by placing them in front of the courthouse; ignoring the fact that the Law can't change anyone since it can only convict, not change the heart.

The Church has engaged in countless wars over doctrine and practice, as if trying to "purge the camp of sin", like Israel in the wilderness, attempting to enforce standards and rules as each one sees them. Of course, the many and varied interpretations of those standards is why there's so many different kinds of churches, and so many different schools of thought about how the Church is supposed to be changing the world. Indeed, doctrine and practice are important, but not as the basis for our holiness.

The Church is a holy people by virtue of being indwelt by the Holy Spirit; and, when we walk with Christ in a common love for Him and for one another, we allow Christ to express His power and grace through us. When we demonstrate the light of Christ in us to a lost world, we exert more power than any crusade or inquisition could do by brute force. And that's something that good old Moses, on his best day, couldn't do.

Bibles? How Dare They!

Some of the parents of kids attending the high school in Frisco, TX (a small town north of Dallas), were expressing outrage in a Fox News report today. One mother was quoted as saying, "I was never notified by the schools that they were going to allow this. I was a little shocked." Some parents "even contacted the police about their children's safety."

What nefarious deeds could be causing such a ruckus? Subversive, anti-government materials? Free drugs? Pedophiles? No, it's the Gideons, handing out Bibles in the school, or on the sidewalk outside. How dare they!

School officials insist they were in compliance with the law by allowing the Gideons to come into the school to set up a display, with the provision that no direct conversations take place to urge students to take a Bible or listen to any Bible-friendly exhortations. And, the school's PTA president "didn't feel like [the Bible] was being pushed upon" students at the school. But no matter, for some parents concerned for their children's welfare, bringing Bibles anywhere near the school may as well have been setting up a marijuana kiosk in the cafeteria.

Meanwhile, schools in other cities have been allowing Muslim speakers to come and make presentations on Islamic beliefs, for the sake of "awareness", including a school last year in Houston, where students were taught "the Five Pillars of Islam and how to pray five times a day and wear Islamic religious garb." A similar "presentation" on Christianity would have doubtless started a riot among parents in Frisco.

This kind of selective secularization of our society is not new, and not likely to be diminished by the passing years, as long as the "correct" thing in our culture is to keep religion (specifically the Christian version) as far away from public life as possible. It makes you wonder if some people are going to try to take Jesus to court when He returns. Actually, they will be in court, and He's the Judge.

Peace or appeasement?

I'm sure there were many admirable qualities about Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister who served England as the Second World War was taking shape in Europe. But today, he's best known for assuring the world that there was "peace in our time," based on nothing more than an agreement signed by Adolf Hitler. The difficulty of balancing peace with appeasement has been ever since perfectly illustrated by Chamberlain's eagerness to win peace, to the point that he could not discern how great a price should be paid for it.

This remains a thorny question among politicians of this vastly diverse world scene, and the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East are but one example of this. It's a difficult issue to work through, not the least of reasons being the religious differences between all parties involved. So it has been common for some who make their living as "ambassadors for peace" to try their hand at creating the right atmosphere for a lasting end to conflict.

So comes the current Catholic pope, Benedict, to make his appeal to the warring nations, and, of course, he bases his exhortations on the theology of peace as he understands it. He is reported in today's headlines saying, "The Gospel reassures us that God can make all things new, that history need not be repeated, that memories can be healed, that the bitter fruits of recrimination and hostility can be overcome, and that a future of justice, peace, prosperity and cooperation can arise for every man and woman, for the whole human family, and in a special way for the people who dwell in this land so dear to the heart of the Savior."

Now, the religious and the secular viewpoints have a common interest in peaceful relations among mankind, but they employ very different methods, especially if you take seriously the words of Jesus on the subject. Jesus said very bluntly, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34) Of course, Jesus is also called "Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6), so we can't call Him a warmonger for such language. But we must understand that true peace in the Bible's view begins with peace between men and God, and the Gospel is God's "peace mission", whereby, according to Paul, "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation." (2 Corinthians 5:19)

The Bible states that, apart from the "justification of faith", there can be no "peace with God" (Romans 5:1). Without that, there is no real chance of lasting peace among men. The things that divide mankind are just too deep, too strongly felt, too tied to culture and tradition, and mostly too blocked by the core human motives of self-preservation to permit any worldly or political solution to human conflict, at least without significant alteration of the basic operations of the brain; which has been contemplated by many like Huxley (Brave New World), or Orwell (1984).

Meanwhile, it is a worthy objective to work toward a cessation of open warfare among nations, and most would grant that Benedict has nothing but the sincerest motives for doing his part. But to call men to have hope in "a future of justice, peace, prosperity and cooperation can arise for every man and woman" is a long shot at best, given the depth of differences that divide the people responsible for actually enforcing such a peace. And, to imply that "The Gospel reassures us that God can make all things new" in the context of worldly peace among nations that do not agree on the more fundamental issue of gaining peace with God, is an attempt to short-cut the Gospel message into a "let's just all get along" sermon. That not only misleads any who would still hope for world peace, it seriously distorts the message of the Gospel, and turns biblical peace into worldly appeasement.

A Day of Prayer?

When the apostle Paul told us, by way of the Thessalonian letter, to "pray without ceasing" (1 Thessalonians 5:17), the idea of a "day of prayer" seems to maybe send the wrong message to some of our citizens. Sure, it's a fine reason to draw the Church together to pray with one voice, as happened at a "prayer concert" last night at a large Omaha church. But do we need a day on the calendar, and one set by Harry Truman at that (a fine gentleman, but not well known for his evangelical convictions), to bring the Church together for prayer?

And, with the religious climate in our nation today, can we really hope to have a "national" prayer day that will in any way be satisfying to all, even among those who accept the name "Christian", and even less those who call themselves some other name or no-name. James Dobson is miffed at the president for not sending a cabinet member to the event at the Capitol, and now a "source" claims that conditions were set on who could come from the White House, i.e., they had to be "pro-life." An understandable qualification from Dobson's view of an event built on prayer to the God of life, but further limiting the scope of a day intended to bring the nation to prayer.

Meanwhile, others want to open up the appeal for prayer to all comers, regardless of the content of their faith statements. Now, as I understand the Bible, God Himself puts limits on the kind of prayer He responds to, i.e., that which comes through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, which is to say, "in Jesus' name." God may "hear" other prayers, and in His sovereign will may allow a person to follow that route to eventually find the truth that is through the One Savior of all mankind, Jesus Christ. But that's not to say He regards all prayers as equal, just being happy that at least folks are praying, not cursing.

Maybe it's just impossible these days to get everyone to agree on the meaning of a "day of prayer", so it might be better to just call the Church of Jesus together (and maybe a lot more often than yearly would be a good idea), and make it clear that only those who pray in the Spirit of God (Ephesians 6:18) are expected to join in. At least then we won't get people confused by thinking at "all prayers are equal."

Two kinds of design

Spring is, if not everyone's favorite time of year (some, like my wife and I, like Fall even more), is at least a popular one with, I'm guessing, almost every person. The whole "winter's over" mood is a great thing in itself; to say nothing of flowers and other flowering plants. The magnolia trees, lilac bushes and other blossoming things around Omaha and other cities can only be enjoyed in the Spring.

And seeing all this as one drives through the city makes an interesting contrast between two kinds of creation by design. You have all the varying expressions of God's design on one hand; His use of color and structure, animated and still life, and all of it continually reproducing or, in the case of non-living things, to preserve itself according to the power He gave each living thing to do so.

On the other hand, you have man's handiwork of design, instantly recognizable in its contrasting style. Whereas God constructs His creation by means of life processes and other means that produce the "natural" look, humans can only make use of things God made. This makes for a great difference; one which we should marvel at, even as Paul said, "His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made." (Romans 1:20). And, as God's nature is meant to be "clearly seen" through His creation, men are pronounced by Paul as being "without excuse" when they fail to recognize and honor God for His creative work.

So you have two kinds of design: one dynamic, always moving and changing, the other static, able only to decline and deteriorate, never grow from within. You have one that follows the principles of life, and so grows in sometimes unpredictable ways, like the evergreen tree above, growing around the rock it took root by. You have another design, man's, that must follow rules of "what works" in fashioning the finished product. And when some of men's designs follow a more dynamic principle, such as using heat or pressure to modify the shape of something, they are using a force available to them in what was already created by God.

No wonder a poet once spoke of being unable to see a "thing as lovely as a tree." The trees of Spring, and every other season, give evidence of a grander scheme of design than anything mankind can duplicate, because man can only make use of living things, not create or sustain them. How is it then, that some can look at human design and praise its creators, while they look at God's far greater design and call it "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest"? If they cannot see the hand of God in His designs, it's no wonder then that they can't see the wisdom and glory of God in His Word. Maybe they need to spend more time looking at trees.

How do we now vote?

Conservative evangelicals have self-identified with the Republican party for a few decades, mostly over issues like abortion and gay rights. That coalition of interests has caused a number of debates, depending on who the Republican standard-bearer has been. John McCain alienated a number of Christian voters with a more moderate stance on some issues like immigration, and was dissed by others on his pro-fetal tissue votes.

But the political world and the spiritual world are always two different spheres of ambition and thinking, and Christians may have a lot more to worry about than McCain and embryonic testing. As reported by CNN, "Steve Schmidt, a key architect of John McCain's presidential campaign, is making his first public return to Washington a bold one. Schmidt will use a speech Friday to Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group, to urge conservative Republicans to drop their opposition to same-sex marriage, CNN has learned."

The Republicans are first interested in sitting in the White House, not standing before the White Throne of Revelation 20. Political expediency always trumps religion with the average politician, and compromise, not religious conviction, is the path to success for most with the voters.

There are many who think the Republican party has been too cozy with the "religious right", as they call evangelical voters and those who speak for them. And I have often been concerned that the lines have been drawn too straight to divide between one party and another, as they relate to the issues a biblically-based citizen would call important. Democrats of today are in some ways a lot like Republicans of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt's day, at least on social issues like civil rights and equal justice.

Too bad for Christians there isn't a political party that sets its platform by the Bible, instead of by a national committee. But then, such a party would not likely succeed in getting a major candidate elected or even nominated. And, just so we recall, we're not citizens of this world anyway, and shouldn't expect to have our interests fairly represented in our government, any more than they were in Paul's day.

Our job is to testify to the resurrection and gospel of Jesus Christ, the real King. Give to Caesar what is his, OK, but don't expect him to "earn your vote." And if you vote for him, don't expect him to feel the same way about all your issues. But maybe he's still a better earthly ruler than the other guy (or girl). In the end, it's still the Lord who oversees them all, for His own "platform".

More about expectations

A few more reflections about what we may expect from the world we live in, at least in respect to the bad things that happen to us and others.

Making news this morning is another story of murder, or perhaps murder/suicide. Very sad either way, but the part that makes this story stand out from other sad accounts of killings around the Omaha area, at least for some citizens, is the part of town it took place in: the Dundee neighborhood. Not the north side, synonymous in some minds with random violence and gang shootings, but a mid-town area known for its shady streets and old, large homes and, presumably, peaceful atmosphere.

Now, if trouble in this world is an irregularity from the goodness we might expect, then it would make sense that troubles like crime and murder will occur only where "bad" people congregate, like gangs, criminals and ne'er-do-wells. Under that theory, "good" people in "good" neighborhoods should be immune from the disease of violence. If violence invades such sanctuaries of peace as the Dundee neighborhood, it's a strange and tragic event. But if violence and other social troubles are evidence of a deeper disruption in the soul of all men, of which violence is only one manifestation, then no neighborhood can put up walls to keep out a problem that actually comes from within.

It may be true that violence occurs more often in some parts of our cities than others. But does that mean that only "good" people live in the less afflicted areas? It seems obvious beyond dispute that some parts of town have a greater share of critical factors, like poverty, social desperation and other elements like drug trafficking that often follow in the wake of hopelessness and human struggle. Add these to a human mind separated from the goodness of God, and you have a recipe for violence that is going to happen more often than in areas where those "extra" elements are less prevalent.

But, even in the more violent-prone areas of our city, the violence is still a relatively small percentage of the total population, and is resented deeply by the majority of people who will never take a gun with them to their car, so they can shoot recklessly at whoever is in their sights. And in the other areas, there are still troubled people, feeling just as desperate and equally without answers for their burdens. If they also are separated in their souls from the God who loves them and wants to give them a real hope in Jesus Christ, then violence may break out in "good" neighborhoods as well. It's just what we should expect.

What would we expect?

A lot of people get fixated on the conditions of this world of ours, as if there's something wrong with the fact that there's a lot wrong with the world. Yes, there's a lot of troubles and disasters, sickness and wars, misfortunes and Murphy's Law, tragedies and heartaches. But, really, what would we expect?

Is there any evidence, scientific or otherwise, that would support the assumption that this world should be better than it is? Does an observation of other worlds lead to the conclusion that something is dreadfully out of sync about our world, that it is not as good, benevolent, predictable or supportive to our desires and plans as it ought to be? In fact, some people reason from the brokenness of this world to the faulty conclusion that there is no God. Atheist author Richard Dawkins wrote, "The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, as bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." He wrongly assumes that this problematic condition of the universe is the way it always has been, rather than something it has become.

But, if you assume that this world's problems and ills, in all their varied forms and descriptions, are a result of the brokenness of this world, as opposed to some kind of contradiction of its goodness, much less a proof of the godless emptiness of the world, then all the mishaps, woes, burdens and griefs appear as what would be expected, rather than something out of place. After all, if you broke your arm in a fall, you wouldn't expect it to feel the same as the unbroken one, would you?

And broken, corrupted, damaged and downfallen is exactly what this world is, according to the Bible. Because of mankind's fall into sin, death and disease, trouble and travails have come upon the whole world and all who live in it. But Paul revealed that this corruption is not without purpose, when he said, "For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God." (Romans 8:20-21)

Man's spiritual rebellion from His Creator has had consequences for the whole world, and even the universe. God allowed the creation to be corrupted by man's sin, rather than leave sinful mankind in a perfect environment where they would forget about God even more than they do in this broken world. Mankind is the centerpiece of God's spiritual creation, so it is to be expected that a separation of man from the blessings of God would be felt in the physical creation as well.

But there is good news amid the trouble. The restoration of the world will follow the same schedule as the spiritual restoration of mankind, which will come only when God is once again ruling over the whole world, and every knee bows before King Jesus! Until that day, God is using the corruption of this world to highlight and even support the restoration of man's heart through the salvation of His Son, Jesus. We may expect trouble in this world, but God has promised to use "all things", even trouble, to accomplish His will and righteousness. We may also expect that as well!

More spiritual - less religious

A recent survey showed that Americans are "less religious" than 10 years ago, with atheists growing as much or more than any other category. That shouldn't surprise anyone familiar with the spiritual landscape of the 90's and early 2000's. There have been many signs that point to Americans' loss of enthusiasm for exclusive religions, that is, those that insist on a "one-way" view of God and how to find eternal peace with Him.

Yet, the survey shows a growth in the Evangelical segment, which may also show the degree to which many are searching for answers in a society that increasingly tells them there are no certain answers. The great divide between those who take seriously the claims of Jesus Christ to be "the Way, the Truth, the Life" on one hand, and those on the other hand who ridicule such exclusive truth-claims appears to be growing into a "Grand Canyon" of cultural division.

Who would have suspected in the 80's an atheist, and a militant, angry atheist at that, could pack out a concert venue in conservative Omaha, Nebraska, to give people an earful of anti-religious rhetoric. Yet author and lecturer Richard Dawkins was invited to do that recently, because there are more and more people who are tired of the divisions of religious camps fighting it out over whose truth is best. They're ready to pitch the whole lot, and declare all religions as "hazardous to health."

Yet, people everywhere are seeking spirituality of some kind, from Buddhism to various forms of New Age pantheism. The human spirit's yearning for knowledge of what is beyond us is hardier than the efforts of atheists and neo-pagans. But spirituality isn't the same as religion, and it can come in any number of flavors not specific to any religious dogma. So an abundance of spiritual activity can easily co-exist with a decline in religious life.

All this fits well with the Bible's warnings that the latter days will be marked by a "falling away" from the truth, and an increase in "lawlessness", which is people acting contrary to God's law, if not also opposite to man's law; and we are seeing a lot of both. Challenging times for presenting a one-way claim for truth, as the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but no more so than Jesus Himself faced against a hostile world.

The ultimate bail-out

Just a quick thought, as our new president is putting the finishing touches on his first address to Congress tonight. Whether this "stimulus plan", on top of other bail-out programs, is going to be effective against a raging recession and losses of homes, jobs and pension values - that's all quite uncertain, even to him.

But just think by way of contrast of the "ultimate bail-out" God provided by the gift of His Son for the unpayable debt of sin that mankind incurred against the righteousness and holiness of our Creator. One price - the death of a perfect sacrifice, paid once for all on the cross, and, as a result, every single person who "files for assistance," through a surrendered heart of faith in Christ as Lord and Savior, has experienced complete and eternal deliverance from spiritual bankruptcy and eternal loss of a heavenly home.

The outcome of the congressional bail-out may or not be efficient for the need of the economy. But perhaps a far greater outcome of the recession will be that many people stop trusting in material things for the well-being of their souls, and turn in faith and obedience to the God who made them to know eternal well-being through His Son. As for our nation's economy, maybe it will turn out to the best for people who realize that earthly riches are indeed a "sandy" foundation to built their lives on, compared to the Rock of Ages!

Got bread?

In many places of the world, bread is still referred to as "the staff of life." It's so basic, not to mention affordable in areas where pizza and burgers are not (even if they get delivery). No wonder Jesus chose bread as a symbol for the offering of His body on the cross for life of the world.

Jesus made the unequivocal promise, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst." (John 6:35) Though He was speaking to people in a largely subsistence economy, where poverty and physical hunger was common, Jesus promised an end to hunger of the soul; an end to thirst for true life of the inner man. Hunger of an empty stomach is still a common problem in our world, but soul-hunger is far more common, and far worse in its consequences.

If one can make "food" comparisons, you could say that many try to survive on other things than the "true bread" of Christ for their souls. And it's not a new phenomenon, as God said through Isaiah the prophet, "Why do you spend money for what is not bread, and your wages for what does not satisfy? Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good, and delight yourself in abundance." (Isaiah 55:2)

Instead of real bread, many try to get by on "junk food" for their souls, just as many do for their physical nutrition. No matter how many nutritionists warn about the dangers of overdoing it on cheeseburgers and fries, the drive-through line continues to back up at most fast food places. And no matter how many people experience the soul-starving effects of living as though the human soul could survive on fun, entertainment, money and pleasure, the only thing slowing the consumption of such things has been a slumping economy, rather than a response to God's invitation to "eat what is good."

Without the Bread of life, people are starving their souls, both in the sense of dying in spiritual isolation from the true Life that is Jesus Christ, and in the sense of many people who, while being born-again believers, are nonetheless getting by on a meager diet of the living Word of life, rather than being hungry for "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." No wonder the Church is so close to the rest of society in the statistics of personal problems, addictions, family disruptions, etc. You can't build a strong soul on a diet that consists mostly of spiritual junk food anymore than a strong, healthy body is built on a steady diet of Pizza Hut.

The Bread of life is freely available to all who will "delight themselves in abundance." Bon appetit!

The storm that keeps on storming

An article on CNN's web site this morning features the view of an economist from the University of Virginia, who sees the current financial mess as a "perfect storm" of money woes, created over the past decade and more by folks eager to make money by nothing more than making money. According to Peter Rodriguez, people investing in the housing market at its peak found new ways to increase their profits, while also increasing the chances of a meltdown.

Rodriguez reviews the run-up to the crisis, coming by a wild increase in housing prices and a decline in interest rates. As he puts it, "This encourages all sorts of risky behavior by individuals looking to buy homes, and it encourages banks to lend because, in an environment where prices rise, they're making lots of money." The whole house of cards finally collapsed when enough risky loans had been made to people unable to keep up the payments, and banks had more money out in bad loans than they could support in cash.

Now the storm keeps on stormin', and millions of ordinary people who would never think about risky investments are having their own bank accounts wiped out. It certainly brings to mind the Bible's warning about the "love of money", which is "a root of all kinds of evil", and sets men up for "foolish and harmful desires" (1 Timothy 6:9-10) Too bad more investors didn't read that first. But then, greed and love of money, like all sins of the heart, can blind a person to the consequences of his actions, so that such drastic outcomes are seen as something that only happens to "other people", or "careless people" or something.

Where this will all lead, with various bail-out measures and stimulus plans, etc., is hard to say, even for the experts. But no one seems to be talking about changing, not just the way banks are regulated, but the way the human mind should be regulated by the Word of God. Until a person experiences a true inner renewal, not of religion, but in the core of his heart and desires, the lure of easy money and the "American dream" will continue to deceive some people into taking their chances with a fast buck. Too bad it isn't just their luck that went bad, instead of bringing a whole bunch of bad luck to the rest of us.

A new day in America?

Many are hopeful, even in a euphoric way, that today is the beginning of a new day in American politics and national well-being. A new president has taken the reins of government, full of promises to bring a change in the business of the country, and has committed himself to serving all Americans.

These are fairly standard phrases for a man who's just taken over what is perhaps the biggest job in the world; one who knows that people are longing for good news and hopeful words. And it may well be that Mr. Obama has the support of Congress, and of enough of the American people, to make good on his campaign vows to effect the kinds of change a majority of citizens want to see.

Whether the changes will be beneficial ones, whether the massive problems awaiting him will yield to his wisdom, whether the country will be better off in four years, all remains to be seen. And whether the effects of all this will make America a more godly nation is a question that seems more in doubt than whether the economy will rebound under Mr. Obama's leadership; given the tone of his pledges to overturn certain policies of the previous administration that were widely supported by evangelicals.

Either way, churches of all theologies and philosophies have a common command: to pray for our new president, as for his entire government, that God may give the wisdom that doesn't come by way of political experience or sub-committee meetings. If God required the early church to obey the Roman authorities, as powers ordained by God to keep order in the world (Romans 13), and if God commanded Christians to "honor the king" that was in power at that time (1 Peter 2), then He certainly would have us lift up our current leaders in prayer.

And beyond praying for divine guidance for these men and women, let us rejoice that our King is still on the throne, and has promised to bring His administration of grace and righteousness to this world, in His time and in His way. And that's not just election talk!

The cost of not spending

Some years ago I first made an observation about the nature of our economy, an obviously consumer-driven system that thrives on businesses and industries catering to the buying public. Our prosperity is dependent on things that are made to be sold, and on people who buy those things, and on people whose jobs exist because stuff is made and bought. But making what people need is one thing; doing business in goods and services that are, to say the least, non-essential, is another.

This morning's news included a story on the economic conditions in Las Vegas, a mecca of non-essentiality if there ever was one. Of course, there's lots of regular folks there, such as some of my wife's relatives, who say they rarely go to the more well-known part of the city. Yet, they and other citizens are affected by the fact that Las Vegas has seen a large decline in gambling traffic to its many casinos.

That in turn has hit hundreds of casino employees who have been laid off, and the construction workers whose projects have been cancelled, and the transit workers who have less customers to carry, and the grocery stores who have less people buying anything but the essentials, and on and on.

What began as a credit and payment problem in the mortgage industry, leaving many people in foreclosure and many banks in bankruptcy, has become a general economic problem to companies like automakers that have nothing to do with mortgages and risky lending practices. Just the fact that people are spending less on non-essentials is having a rippling effect that might make the depression of the 30's look like a temporary downturn.

And this affects even those whose religious outlook leads them to a relatively contented lifestyle; people who make do with something old rather than replacing it with something new just because it's new. Even people who would never go near a casino will be affected by the closure of gambling businesses, because they employ people who won't have money to buy the products of companies who will go out of business and make more employees unable to buy more companies' products.

The Bible warned us long ago that greed, lust, materialism and love of money have a dangerous price tag, and lead people into "foolish and harmful desires." Prosperity seems, for most people, too much like a good thing to become a bad thing. But that which is currently ruining our nation's economy seems like a by-product of too much prosperity, too fast; enticing too many people with too many promises and too little reality. Too few people with real wisdom and godly contentment.

It was probably just a matter of time that this house of cards would collapse. The only good news in this has nothing to do with bail-out plans or tax cuts, but with the fact that God never goes out of business as the One who can make good come to those who love Him, using "all things", including the most economically bad news our country has seen for a very long time.