I heard the bells on Christmas day
Their old familiar carols play,
And wild and sweet the words repeat
Of peace on earth, good will to men.

And thought how, as the day had come,
The belfries of all Christendom
Had rolled along the unbroken song
Of peace on earth, good will to men.

Till ringing, singing on its way
The world revolved from night to day,
A voice, a chime, a chant sublime
Of peace on earth, good will to men.

Then from each black, accursed mouth
The cannon thundered in the South,
And with the sound the carols drowned
Of peace on earth, good will to men.

It was as if an earthquake rent
The hearth-stones of a continent,
And made forlorn, the households born
Of peace on earth, good will to men.

And in despair I bowed my head
“There is no peace on earth,” I said,
“For hate is strong and mocks the song
Of peace on earth, good will to men.”

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
“God is not dead, nor doth He sleep;
The wrong shall fail, the right prevail
With peace on earth, good will to men.”

H. W. Longfellow

[Note: this poem was written during the American Civil war. Verses 4 and 5, which reflect that war, are not usually included in the popular Christmas Carol.]

Buz

A Nativity with Which Everyone Can Be Comfortable

(I am back after a couple of successive hard drive crashes and a lot of overtime.)

A friend of ours has a Nativity set which shouldn't offend anyone. It started out as a fairly common Nativity set, Mary, Joseph, baby Jesus, a shepherd boy and a lamb. However, somewhere along the line, baby Jesus was lost (possibly aided by a mischievous niece). So now she has Mary, Joseph, a shepherd boy and a lamb. Who could possibly be offended by that? Take Jesus away and all the controversy disappears.

That's how Christianity is ... or at least should be. I realize that there are some Christians who are controversial, not because of their connection to Jesus, but just because they are obnoxious all by themselves. They should not be. Our point of contention with the rest of the World should be our unshakable faith in Jesus, and our personal relationship with Him.

Merry Christmas.

Buz

Is the Church still Relevant (2)

Last time I asked the question, "Is THE Church still relevant?". A more pointed question would be, "Is YOUR church still relevant?". Is it?

What does your church do for you? Does it make you feel good. If it does, then it is probably not relevant. I once heard it said that "a church should comfort the afflicted and afflict the comforted." If your church doesn't comfort you when society is oppressing you, and challenge you when society is not oppressing you, then it is probably not doing its job.

God has called His people to be separate from society. There are times when the society tries to imitate the church, and at those times, the people of God have it pretty easy in society because we are doing what they are trying to do, only, hopefully, doing it a little better. We are like a car running with its headlights in the daytime ... only noticible if you look close.

But, society tires of trying to imitate the church. To live a truly holy life require supernatural energy from God, one cannot do it without Him. Then some things happen, (1) society begins to resent the church for continuing to live as they no longer can, (2) the churches which have enjoyed the comfort of society begin to imitate society rather than follow God.

I heard recently that a large group christian churches had decided to focus less on "salvation" and more on the environment. I was rather upset to hear about it, not that I do not think we should take care of the land that God has given us, but in truth, what they are saying is that they no longer care if all of mankind suffers for eternity in hell, as long as the grass on this ephemeral dwelling is green and pretty. I believe that group of churches have made themselves less relevant.

To be relevant, the church needs to:

- tell people that they are doomed to an eternity in hell (and all that entails ... hell will be an eternity of suffering, not a giant party)
- Jesus is the only way out of that destiny
- how to acquire that salvation from God
- once you have done that, how should you conduct your life
- how can we thank God for providing so great a gift
- how can you entreat others to also get off the path to eternal torment and onto the path to eternal life

If your church is not focussing on those six things, if it is instead telling you how to use God to make yourself rich and get everything you ever wanted, or telling you not to worry because there are many ways to God, then your church is irrelevant.

Buz

Is the Church still Relevant (1)

OK, so maybe religion is still relevant ... but what about the Church?

Well, let's look at that from two perspectives. First, the Church, as the formal body of the religion. I am most familiar with the Christian Church. Not specifically with any specific denomination (although I have been members of several, and attended many more), but the Church (capital "C") as the body of Christ here on Earth.

Just what is the purpose of the Church?

We are given several examples of what the early Christians did. They worshiped God. They prayed They had instruction in living a holy life. They fellowshipped together. Fellowship? What is that? To put it simply, they were a community. They ate together, helped each other, supported each other in difficult times, and did fun stuff together ... kind of like parties, I guess.

Of all these things, we are commanded by Jesus to love each other, and again by Paul not to quit getting together. So, that "fellowship" thing must be pretty important.

Of course, look at the times they lived in ... in many places, becoming a Christian meant you lost your job. In others it meant you were executed. One of the Roman Emperors would have parties, and for light in the evenings, he would dip Christians in tar, hang them on poles and light them on fire. Others were thrown to the lions in the arena. The lucky ones got to live as slaves on the ships. So, it meant a lot to have a community to share your sorrows, and your hopes ... people to help you when you lost your job, or your family.

How about today? There are few in the U.S. who have lost their jobs because they converted to Christianity. Fewer who have been executed because of it. What does the Church offer us today?

Well, for one thing, it offers us the chance to share our abundance with our suffering brothers around the world who are losing their jobs and their loved ones because they have converted to Christianity. (You may not think of that as a big opportunity, but having been on the giving end and the receiving end of the stick, I can tell you, it really is much more blessed to give than to receive.)

Another thing it offers is the chance to worship God and to learn about Him. (You might be thinking that you can do that as well, or even better at home by yourself.)

But one of the best opportunities it offers is the opportunity to make true Christian friends. (Oh joy, I hear you say, sarcastically, just what I need, some "Christian" friends ... boring hypocrits.) I won't argue that I have met some folk in church who I wouldn't trust to water my plants, but I will say that all of my very closest friends have been fellow Christians - people that I would trust with my life and the life of my family. I have met Christians, through other Christians, who on our first meeting were willing to open their house to me in a time of need.

I do not claim to be a prophet, but I can tell you this, there will come a time in the not too distant future when it will once again become very unpopular to be a Christian in the U.S. I don't know that people will be jailed for it, but I do believe that it will mean losing your job and becoming a social outcast. When that happens, all those folks who go to church on Sundays because it is the "thing to do", or because it is a good place to meet business contacts, will stop coming. Only those people who put God ahead of all else in their lives will be in church. That is when it will be a great time to be in church. That is when you will once again be able to trust those people with your life and the lives of those you love with no reservations.

Buz

Is Religion Still Relevant?

I think that question is quite appropriate. After all, science has told us all there is to know, and religion wasn't included. To quote The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe, "what's the use of our debating the existance of God when tomorrow your machine will give us his phone number?"

Well, the problem is that science has not told us all there is to know, it has only told us some of what we asked. And, the answers it has given us are limited by our own understanding.

If you had some sort of a sealed black box which plugged into the wall and had an on/off switch, you could measure how much electricity it used when it was off, and how much it used when it was on. You might take its temperature when it was on to see if it was putting out heat. You could put it on a scale to see if its weight changed when it was on. You might try making the room completely dark to see if there was any light coming from inside of it; or maybe probing it with a stethoscope to see if it made any sounds when it was on. You could put a ruler next to it and see if it changed size. If you were ingenious, you might come up with some more tests ... put some smoke around it and see if it created any air currents when it was on. But sooner or later you would run out of things to test.

If the box did something which you could not detect, if it somehow teleported a rock from Venus to Saturn every time you turned it on, and teleported it back when you turned it off, you would never know what the box did, and would probably conclude that it did nothing but hum a little. You do not have the ability to measure what it is doing, nor would you probably think to measure that particular function, even if you had the ability to make those measurments.

The scientific method is a tool, a powerful one, but it is limited by our ability to use it properly. It is also limited by our ability to ask the right questions and correctly interpret the answers.

So, science by no means negates religion.

But, that does not mean religion is relevant.

What purpose does it serve?
What influence does it have in our daily lives?
What influence should it have in our daily lives?

This is where religion finds its relevance ... or more appropriately, this is where we find it relevant.

Religion serves us. It tells us why we are here. It tells us of our importance in the grand scheme of things. It tells us that, in the eyes of our creator, we are all the same, because we all came from the same source. It tells us how to and how not to treat each other. It give us the courage to do that which we know is right in the face of that which we fear, because it gives us hope of a life that is not limited to our frail, mortal existance.

We serve religion. We have a responsibility to obey the laws which our religion commands us to obey. We are ultimately answerable to our creator above all others, even our religious leaders.

Religion also binds us together. We have a common belief, something that transcends the glitter and thorns of this world we live in. When outside pressure is telling us to pull away from our brothers, our religion tells us that they are our brothers and not to abandon them.

Our brains build on the foundations that science affords them but our hearts build on the faith of our religion.

Buz

"Do You Want to Get Well?"

What a stupid question!

Back up 15 minutes ...

There was a place in Isreal which was legendary for healing. It was a public pool, probably originally a decorative area, or maybe a place where the poor could come to cool off on a hot day. But after years it was no longer used for that purpose. It seems that this place had a reputation for healing miracles. Legend had it that if you sat there long enough, the normally calm waters would get a ripple, or maybe a splash, and that was supposedly because an angel touched the water. At that point, the first person in the pool was healed of whatever illness they had. Either it must have worked, or maybe the people hanging around were so desperate that they would try anything.

Any way, there was a man, a quadraplegic, who had been there for thirty-eight years (St. John 5:1-14). He must have seen some people healed, otherwise I cannot imagine that he would have stayed there that long. As a matter of fact, he does claim that other people have gotten in ahead of him (v. 7) and they must have been healed, or he would have gone home (at least I would have if I had been him).

It is into this situation that Jesus walks. He looks at the man and asks him that question, "Do you want to get well?" I find it interesting that instead of saying, "What are you, nuts? Of course I do!" the man tries to explain why he hasn't been able to ... "some one always jumps in ahead of me." (So, get a patio chair and go sit in the shallow end ... don't get out of the pool!)

(Hint to the man who had been sitting there for thirty-eight years, you are talking to the Guy who sends the angels to splash in the pool!)

Jesus by-passes the pool and just tells him to get up and walk. And he does. No splashing in the pool, no going for a swim, no big ceremony. Just a simple "pack up and go" (OK, "Pick up your mat and walk.") And he was healed.

What about us? Do we want to get well? Well from what? The simple answer is sin. Do we want to be healed from our sin? Oh, not just the "God saved me and washed away my sin, and now I'm going to Heaven" sin, but what about the daily sin that we commit? Do I really want to be healed of the sin of ignoring God six and a half days a week, and playing Christian on Sunday morning? Do I really want to be healed of the sin of ignoring other people and thinking myself to be the most important person in the world? Do I really want to be healed of the sin of treating God like a cosmic Santa Claus, and constantly pestering Him with my petty wants? Do I really want to be healed of the sin of not falling on my face in worship and treating Him like the Creator of the universe that He is?

There is a part of us that says, "oh, yeah, I guess I could do that, if I want," but can we really? I'm sure that every time the man saw the water splash, he thought, "maybe this time." But, it didn't happen. He was too far gone, he lost the ability to move the inches to get into the pool. Had Jesus not come by, he probably would have been there until he died. We are also too far gone. Sin has robbed us of the will or the drive or whatever you want to call it that would "put us in the pool".

"I could do that if I wanted to," but the not-wanting-to is part of the disease of sin. Even if we could start, we could not keep it up. The life of the Spirit cannot be lived in the power of the flesh. That means that if you have to force yourself to do the right thing, go to church, give an offering, be nice to people even when they're a pain, etc., then you will come to the end of your rope and quit. It might be tomorrow, next week, or a year from now, but at some point you will say, "to heck with it! It's not worth it!"

Like the man at the pool, we need Jesus to heal us.

Buz

Theo Crazy

I had someone tell me tonight that he would rather live in a theocracy than in a democracy ... bad idea. Don't get me wrong, as I have very openly admited, I am a very committed Christian.

The thing is that if it were a true theocracy, I mean where God had a prophet as His spokesperson, and would do things like part rivers, send rain on a clear day, and raise the dead to prove that this person had the right to speak for Him. And if the person were found to be speaking for himself rather than for God, would be covered in leporous boils, then sure, I would have no problem living in that theocracy.

I trust God. If you look at the Old Testament in the Bible (the books from Genesis to Malachi which were written before the the birth of Jesus), and go into the laws, there were a lot of petty little laws, like don't wear cloths made out of cotton and wool, which were specifically for the Israelites. But there were other laws, like the Ten Commandments, which were applicable to everyone living within the borders, and to visitors. Things like don't commit murder, don't commit perjury, etc. And, God said that all those laws applied equally to people in the land. So, if you were an Israelite, you couldn't kill your neighbor, who was a Moabite, and get away with it.

So, why wouldn't I support a theocracy? Well because in all practical terms, it would not be a theocracy, it would be a Samocracy or a Barbocracy. The person who could yell the loudest and claim that he had a word from God would tell everyone else what to do, and if you questioned them, obviously you would be a blasphemer and thrown in jail or executed, or if you had enough backers, we could start a schism and have a holy war until we cleansed the earth of all the Barbocrats.

Personally, I am a child of the King and a part of the army of God, not the army of Sam, Barb, or whoever has the pulpit this week.

Buz

Teaching Creation?

(Well, if anyone reads this post, this will probably prompt a response.)

For decades there has been an ongoing debate as to whether the presentation of Creation, as given in the first three chapters of Genesis, should be taught in science class. The proponents claim that with all the holes in the Theory of Evolution (capitalized for a reason), that Creation is at least as valid as the ToE. The opponents claim that there is nothing scientific or valid about the story of Creation, it is just an ancient myth.

The problem seems to be a misunderstanding, on both sides, as to what "science" actually is. Science is NOT the answer to everything. Science is a logical methodology of organizing observations, facts, and calculations to present a POSSIBLE reason as to the events that occur and how they occur. And, in simple cases, why they occur.

Should creation be taught in science class? No. Here is the reason why. Imagine it is 300 BC, and you are in Greece, sitting on a hill watching a storm at a distance. You can see the dark clouds, and above them you can see the sun shining. At one point, you see lightning strike a tree and start it on fire. You did not see Zeus (Jupiter) or Hephaestus (Vulcan) throwning the lightning bolt, so being a curious person, you wonder where the lightning came from, you start thinking. You remember that once you saw heavy dew in a spider's web create a very shiney pattern on an old, dry evergreen branch, and in a few minutes, it burst into fire. Somehow, the water transformed the sunlight into fire. You begin to put two and two together, the sun was above the clouds, the clouds somehow contained water (that is where the rain came from) ... perhaps the water in the clouds somehow transformed the sunlight into fire. You run to tell someone of your thoughts. "Hey, stupid, we have lightning at night, too, when Apollo has put the sun in his stable ... besides we already KNOW what causes lightning, Zeus." And you are quickly stoned as a heretic.

The problem with teaching any religious-based idea in a science class is that:

..(1) it cannot be tested because:
......(a) you cannot put God in a test tube, and
......(b) you may be burned at the stake for even
............suggesting that it SHOULD be tested, and
..(2) you always run the risk of alienating or
........ostracizing those who disagree.

If you whole-heartedly agree with those statements then listen very closely because that exact thing is happening right now ... to those who disagree with the Theory of Evolution. Those who disagree are having papers rejected from publication and have been threatened with having their degrees revoked. (Not all religions meet in a church and sing hymns ... some meet in college classrooms and sing the praises of Charles Darwin. The Theory of Evolution has become a foundational pillar of the religion of Scientism. Hence, the capitalization ... it is the one of the new Commandments,)

So, should educators totally ignore the story of Creation, or, indeed, the entire bible. No. What should be taught at the beginning of science class is what science is and what it is not. Science can tell us that a fertilized chicken egg will hatch in about 21 days. But it can't tell us the exact difference between a chicken that is alive and one that has been dead for a few seconds. (Oh, it can tell some basic things, like this one is breathing and that one is not.) Science can tell us that our DNA is over 90% the same as that of our fellow primates, but not why we even bother to study their DNA and they don't bother to study ours.

In science we have observations, facts, and calculations. These are our building blocks ... the "bricks" of the scientific structure. We also have ideas; they are our mortar. The ideas turn the observations, facts, and calculations into theories. Theories are structures of science. The problem is that if we are building, and there is a hole in our theory, the only thing that science can fill it with is a "brick". There is no "not-brick" in science.

That is where philosophy and religion come in. They have "not-bricks". The scientific definition of truth is "that which can be proved". The philosophical or relgious definition of truth is "that which is true". There are things which are true which cannot be proved. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that you cannot know the speed of a particle and its location at the same time. The basis of this is that in measuring something, the very fact that you are measuring it alters the thing you are measurning. For example, a pitcher throws a ball and you clock it with a radar gun. Before you turn the radar gun on, the ball was going 90.0000000002 miles/hour. When the energy from the radar gun hits the ball, it causes it to slow down, ever so slightly to 90.0000000001 miles/hour. So what, you could never measure it to that great a degree, so it does not make a difference. Perhaps, but the principle is there. I cannot PROVE that the ball was travelling at 90.0000000002 miles/hour because my attempt to measure the speed affected the speed. BUT, that does not mean that, in TRUTH, the ball was going at 90.0000000002 miles/hour. Therefore, not all truth can be proved.

Science can tell us that we are here, and MAYBE, how we got here, but there are no "bricks" to tell us why. There are no observations, no calculations, no facts to say we are here because. Some people mistakenly believe that because science does not have the answer, that means that there is no answer. That is like saying because I cannot smell colors, colors do not exist, or because I cannot see thunder, there is no such thing as thunder, or like trying to use sandpaper to drive nails into a board. It is expecting the wrong type of answers from science.

So, am I a heretic? Actually, I strongly believe in Creation, from a philosophical point of view. I do not understand how the things we seem to observe, a universe which seems to be 15+ billion years old, dinosaur fossils which appear to be 100+ million years old, etc. can be reconciled with an account which, if I understand it correctly, states that the universe that we know was created in seven days about 6000 years ago.

This will sound very unscientific and closed minded, but I believe God, and if what science has found does not reconcile with what I believe He has said, then one of three things must be true: (1) I do not correctly understand what God said, (2) science has made a mistake, or (3) they are both true, but my mind is too simple to understand the greater principles which unite them.

In conclusion, the simple answer is "no Creation should not be taught in science class." And if that is all you take away from this monologue, then you have completely missed the point.

Buz

The Hard Sell

Jesus may have been a good teacher and all, but he was a terrible salesman. I say that, with the current idea of churches as a multi-level marketing scheme in mind. Some churches try to go so far to make the gospel (the story of Jesus and his plan of salvation) acceptible, that they practically tell the listener anything they want to hear, just so they will "become a Christian" (note that I put this in quotes because I believe that it is that local church's description of becoming a Christian, not the on presented in orthodox Christianity.)

First, why do I say that Jesus was a terrible salesman? Well, the idea that modern society has of a salesman is someone who (1) is completely sold on his product ... at least as far as the buyer can see, (2) presents all the positive aspects of that product to the buyer and convinces them that this represents the best of all possible decisions which they can make, to the point of smothing over any negative aspects of the product, and (3) presses the buyer to make that decision now, before they have a chance to change their mind and possibly reassess their priorities.

Jesus had (1) pretty much covered. In St. John 14:6 he says, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father (God) except through me." That sound like he has complete belief in his method of salvation. However, let's look at a couple of other chapters and see the other points. In St. John 6, Jesus feeds over 5,000 people. Think of it. Never having to collect taxes to feed the poor and hungry because the king can just wave his hand and feed everyone out of one lunch box. They were ready to make him their king right there. So, now that he has the crowd eating out of his hand (literally!), how does he capitalize on the situation? He tells them that he is the bread of life, and that if they truly want to belong to his kingdom, they must drink his blood and eat his flesh. Oh yeah, that's going to be a crowd pleaser! We realize that it was a metaphor, but as the folks were grumbling and leaving in disgust, he didn't try to recover, calling to them, "hey folks, wait a minute, it was a figure of speech ... I didn't mean you had to become cannibals." All he did was to look at his confused students and ask them, "well, are you going to leave me, too?"

Jesus had no problem with large crowds, but he realized something that perhaps today's mega-churches need to begin to learn. With the body of Christ (the Church) and the local church, God is not looking for quantity. He is looking for quality. That is not to say that he is looking for CEOs and professional people, the things that our society thinks of when we think of "quality people". He is looking for a quality of the heart. Someone, who once they have taken the step of faith and found God to be trustworthy, is willing to commit the rest of their life to him (as St. Paul says in Romans 12:1, "living sacrifices".)

Jesus could have probably had 15000 followers in the few years he preached. He could have healed a lot of people, fed a bunch, and kept his metaphorical outbursts to himself. And, had he done that, he might not have been executed, and the church probably would have died out before 200 AD.

As it was, he trimmed his followers down to a few fanatics who were willing to march into hell with him, if necessary (St. Matthew 16:18). Everyone of them and most everyone in their circle of friends to a level of four or five deep at least, were executed, and yet the Church built on those few is still alive today.

Maybe our modern churches need to re-examine the idea of "selling" the gospel.

Buz

My First Grandchild!!

Payton Connor ... born 4/13/2007 22:33




... with his old man ...

Buz

The Gift that Keeps on Giving

In church we were talking about Spiritual gifts, specifically the gift of healing. It got me to thinking. The bible talks a bit about Spiritual gifts ... quite a few different ones, at least 20, if I remember correctly. However, usually when people talk about Spiritual gifts they talk about healing, speaking in tongues, or prophecy of some sort.

St. Paul talks about the gifts of the Spirit and compares the Church (full of people with various gifts) to the human body. He compares some to eyes and others to feet.

I figure that healing has to be one of those "eye" gifts. Everyone wants that one. Not only do we all see the importance of the eye, but we also hold it to be very precious. Wouldn't want one poked out. As a matter of fact, that is one of the fears our mothers pile on us ... "if you do that, you'll poke your eye out!" No one worries that much about toes. Mothers never say, "watch out or you'll cut off your toe."

There is another gift that, unless you've heard sermons about or done studies on gifts, you have probably heard seldom about ... the gift of helps, or helping. Those are the people who joyfully set up tables, lock up after church services, trim the church grounds, etc. Mostly a lot of work that nobody ever notices. You're never going to see Benny Hinn or Oral Roberts on TV Sunday morning sweeping the stage or fixing the podium. I've heard a lot of people praying for the gift of speaking in tongues or healing. I can't remember ever hearing someone praying for the gift of helping.

It must be one of those "toe" gifts. But, you know what? You have 10 fingers and 10 toes, but only 2 eyes. So the necessity of people with "mundane" gifts must be 10:1 for those with "flashy" gifts. Not that things like healing aren't important, but I don't think that it was arbitrary that God prompted St. Paul to use that illustration.

Think about another thing. If you lost both eyes you could fall back on your ears. If you lost both eyes and ears, you could still even read in Braille and you could get around with a cane. However, if you lost your hands and feet, even if you kept your eyes and ears, you would have a seriously difficult time just taking care of yourself.

Another thing about Spiritual gifts. I have heard it said that if someone prays for me and I am not healed that it is my lack of faith which prevented the healing. I have trouble seeing how that holds up when you compare it to the gift of helps. If I need help painting the church, and no one shows up to help me, or if when they do show up, they stand around and drink coffee rather than paint, it is obviously not my lack of faith that prevented the church from being painted.

I know what you are thinking ... St. Matt 13:53-58 says that, in his home town even Jesus could not do many miracles because of their lack of faith. If that lack of faith prevented Jesus from doing miracles, then how can Benny, Oral, or whomever be expected to do any more?

Well, I have another thought on that. Jesus said that he did nothing on his own (St. John 8:28-29), but only spoke (and did) what the Father (God) taught him. Isn't it at least a little bit plausible that when it says that Jesus "couldn't" do miracles where there was no faith had less to do with his inability and more to do with his mission. After all, if you believe that Jesus was Almighty God in human form, then not only could he have done miracles in the face of a lack of faith, he could have done miracles if the only thing around him were the demons of hell opposing his works. However, if the Father told him, "don't waste your limited time in this place, they will not believe you even if you raise people from the dead," then in order to be obedient to God the Father, he "couldn't" do much there.

[Next time I hear some preacher say that the lack of healing was due to the other person's lack of faith, I would love to say, "gee, preacher, I have the gift of giving, but due to your lack of faith, you ain't getting anything this week!"]

When St. Paul talks about the use of Spiritual gifts, specifically the gift of speaking in tongues, he states that the gift is subject to the giver. What does that mean? It means that the giver has control over the use of the gift. If someone has the gift of tongues, then he has the choice of whether to speak in tongues in the church service. God does not put him into a trance and take over his voice so that he cannot stop. God has the choice not to give that person the words to speak or not, but once God has done that, the person still has the choice whether to speak them or not. The same goes for every other gift. If God does not give me the money, I cannot use the gift of giving to pass it on to others; if God does give me the money to help others, I still have the choice of whether to give it to them or not. If God does not empower me physically (i.e. if I am flat on my back in the hospital), then I cannot help others with the gift of helps; if he does give me the health, I can still refuse to help someone else. Finally, if God does not chose to heal someone, then I cannot, in my own power, use the gift of healing to heal that person; again, if God does give me the ability to heal someone, I still have the choice to say no. However, notice that in these instances, it is God not providing the power through his chosen instrument that prevents the gift from being used, or the instrument refusing to carry out his wishes. It has little to do with the recipient.

An illustration that I heard long ago was that Spiritual gifts are like water flowing through a pipe into a bucket. God is the source of the water and I am the pipe. If the source stops (i.e. if it is not God's will in this instance) or if the pipe is clogged (i.e. if there is some sin in my life that prevents God's power from flowing through me) then the water does not come through the pipe. But, the condition of the bucket will not prevent the water from coming through. The bucket may not be able to handle the water, but the bucket cannot stop the water.

Buz

Could it happen again?

I was listening to a sermon on Palm Sunday and Good Friday last Sunday and it got me to wondering ... if Jesus came today, lived the same perfect life he did 2000 years ago, would we be any different than they were back then?

Let me state what I consider the response was "back then".

The common people felt ill used by the politicians (the Pharisees) and the press (the scribes). They (the people) perceived that those who were in power over them used their (those in power) positions to control the peoples lives, while exempting themselves not only from their own petty laws, but the "real" law handed down from the ancient times.

They (the people) saw Jesus as someone who not only cared for their well-being and went out of his way to help them, but also as someone who had the potential to depose those leaders who made their lives miserable, AND who had already demonstrated the courage to do it (driving the money changers out of the temple for cheating people).

They (the leaders) saw Jesus as a threat. Not only did he did not support their elitist lifestyles, he showed no interest in building up his own power structure. Had he simply been someone who wanted power on his own, they probably could have struck a deal with him, allowing him to be a popular figurehead as long as he supported their positions. I am sure that most of them would have been satisfied with a compromise that kept them in power, especially if, through him, they could have ultimately achieved an even greater hold over the people.

However, since he would not support them, and they couldn't control him or compromise with him, their only alternative was to have him executed. They bought off wittnesses and brought him up on false charges, took him to the highest court in the land and used their political influence to have him condemned. The judge of that high court knew that he was helpless to fight the politics, so he appealed to the common people.

Now let's pause and think about that. Not too long ago, Jesus had held a great feast and fed everyone from just five biscuits and two fish. And less than a month from his trial he had raised a man from the dead. For about three years he had healed anyone and everyone who was brought to him, not asking for any donations or political alliegence. With him as their leader, the people would have someone who (1) cared about them at a personal level, (2) could wipe out hunger without ever taking a penny for taxes, (3) was the perfect health care system again without any taxes, and (4) could even wipe out death. Less than a week before his trial all the people wanted to make him the king. They lined the street to watch him come in with his entourage. They waved at him and went so far as to throw their coats in the street to pave his way ... sort of an early "red carpet" treatment.

These were the people that the judge asked to over-rule his verdict and free Jesus.

And what was their response?

"Crucify him!" ... or as we would say to day, "hang him."

Why? How could everyone flip so quickly? Well, you see, the leaders sent people into the crowd to "seed" the chant. And, the crowd went along. Once the "crucify him" chant got started, almost everyone joined in. It was the popular thing to do at that point.

I doubt if any of the people who had actually had their lives changed by Jesus, anyone who had a friend or loved one healed, joined in that chant. Oh, probably a lot of people who had listened to a few of his lectures joined in, maybe even a bunch who had eaten the fish and biscuits, but none who had actually seen how he treated people and defended the weak and fallen. But then, the number of people who knew Jesus was probably very small compared to the number who knew about him. And to those who only knew about him, it just wasn't all that important.

So what about today? I was listening to a "man on the street" interview where the interviewer was asking people about Jesus and about the bible. I was utterly amazed at the things that people "knew" about the bible, and even more horrified at what they "knew" about Jesus. There are a number of people who believe that Jesus had an affair with Mary Magdalene, or was married to her ... because "that's just the way people are" or because they had heard it from someone esle, there were some who even thought that it was in the bible.

So, given the same circumstances today. If Jesus did what he did, and offended the powers that be, and had the first televised trial in history ...

call 1-800-xxx-xxx1 to have him freed, or
call 1-800-xxx-xxx2 to have him executed

what do I think we would do?

Sadly, I think that the trial would presented in such a biased fashion, and also that so many would be so eager to condemn a man who spoke out against the moral infection that we call "sin", that it would be a landslide to have him executed. I think that history would not only repeat itself, but that it would be an even greated landslide than before.

Buz