If He Isn't God, We Aren't Saved

Twice last week I had conversations with people who believe that Jesus was a great man, but that he wasn't divine. "Why do you believe he was God?" one person asked. "If God can do anything he wants, why can't God just send a powerful messenger?" I replied, "God can certainly do anything he wants. And in the 1st Century, the thing he wanted most was to become flesh and live among human beings on the Earth for a few years. So he did."

Some people assume this is a popular new idea; the notion that Jesus was a great man, but that he wasn't really God. Perhaps it is popular, but it's not new. When the Council of Nicea summoned church leaders from all over the world in 325 AD, one major purpose was to address that new idea. This charismatic teacher named Arius had created quite a buzz with his doctrine that Jesus was wonderful, but not divine. Some 300 church leaders opened up their Bibles and searched the scriptures to find the truth. In the end, all of them but two voted against Arianism.

It's an appealing thought for some that Jesus might only be a messenger. If he was simply a messenger, maybe his message was for a specific place and time- not for all people and all time. If he was only a spokesman for God, perhaps it wouldn't be so bad if a few of his ideas were slightly wrong. And if he was indeed only a prophet, he'd be right there in the company of Mohammed, Brigham Young, and a host of other more recent religious celebrities. But for those of us who value truth more than comfort, the Bible speaks clearly about the identity of Christ.

• Early in the first year of his ministry, Jesus observed the faith of a man who was paralyzed, and promised him, "Your sins are forgiven." Needless to say, this was offensive to some scribes who witnessed the event. They shouted that only God can forgive sins. Christ then healed the man and directed him to pick up his bed and walk. The purpose of the miracle was to prove that Christ could not only heal sickness, but could forgive sins. He was presenting himself as divine. (Luke 5:24.)
• John's Gospel begins by describing the creation of the universe through the power of The Word; a force that was with God and was God. John 1:14 continues, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory- the glory of the only begotten son of the father, full of grace and truth."
• In explaining the virgin birth, the Angel Gabriel explains to the virgin Mary, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy- the Son of God." Christ's mother was a human being, but his father was God. (Luke 1:35)

Of course, an ordinary prophet could have delivered the Gospel Message. But Christ had much more than a message; he had a mission. His chief function was to be sacrificed for the sins of the world. Had he simply been a perfect man, he could have exchanged his life for one sinful life. He could have exchanged his life for Peter, and died for Peter's sins. Or he could have exchanged a perfect life for Joseph of Arimathea, and died for Joseph's sins. But only God could offset the sins and treachery of the entire human race. Only God could swap his eternal righteousness for the overwhelming unrighteousness of the race of man. And that is why God did more than send a prophet. He sent Moses to deliver Israel. He sent Paul to evangelize the Gentiles. But when it came to blotting out the sins of the world, God came in person and took care of it himself.

An Unbeliever Drops by to Chat

I was just about to write this week's blog when a kindly gentlemen asked my Administrative Assistant if the Pastor was in. He had some questions about our faith that he was hoping I might answer. As is our custom when anyone has spiritual questions, I dropped everything, and he was ushered into my office.

After polite greetings, he asked if I could explain the difference between all the various Christian churches in the world. Learning that his background was Bahai, I told him my answer would be extremely broad and very simplistic. Catholics draw their authority from the Bible plus centuries of rulings, decrees and bulls issued by various popes. Protestants insist that the Bible alone is authoritative as the Word of God. I went on to explain that among Protestants, we all worship the same savior and teach the same Bible, but that each denomination tends to emphasize one set of biblical ideas over another. For example, Baptists place a high priority on immersion while Presbyterians baptize in a different way. Some denominations organize around a hierarchy while Baptist churches do not. That was pretty succinct, wouldn't you agree?

He suggested this is a problem- that so many differences must lead to division and resentment. I smiled as I explained that I had attended an interdenominational conference just a week earlier. There were 7,000 pastors there from all kinds of churches: Baptist, Presbyterian charismatic, non-denominational and independent. We all worshiped Jesus Christ and studied the Bible together for 3 days without division, anger or competition. Indeed, we prayed together and encouraged each other. Sure, we have small differences, but it's not divisive.

He tried to elaborate with a metaphor: a mighty river loses its power when it is divided time and again over the miles. He asked if I agreed that so many denominations drain the church of its power. I explained that a mighty river becomes even more influential when it has many branches and tributaries. That's because it tends to transport water to larger areas and greater populations. I insisted that I don't believe it's bad for a river to have tributaries- or for the church to have denominations.

By now, it was apparent that my guest was not here to ask innocent questions. Rather, he had been well rehearsed and ready to argue that the Christian faith is weak and hopelessly divided. But now, he quickly changed the subject and asked a choice theological question. Wouldn't I agree that historically speaking, Jesus was not really divine, but that he was simply a spokesman for God? After all, he noted, God can only be one person: he can't really be more than one person.

I replied that the Bible teaches that we worship one God who expresses himself in three persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. "Aha!" he pounced. "Where does the Bible indicate that God manifests himself in three persons? Show me the verse!" He apparently assumed I could not.

So I picked up a Bible and read John 14: 8-21 to him. In this passage, Christ mentions the Father and the Holy Spirit, and refers to himself as the Son. My guest seemed a bit frustrated. He asked me about a passage in John 16. I handed him a Bible and suggested that he find it and read it to me. He fumbled around, read a few verses, and then insisted this was the wrong translation. I handed him two different translations. By now he was flipping through an ESV, an NLT, and the NIV! He demanded that I give him the King James Version.

Gently but firmly, I explained to my visitor that everything I believe about Jesus Christ and virtually everything I teach can be found in any translation of the Bible. I concluded, "If you require a KJV to make your point, it's because your idea is not based on the Bible: it's based on an English word. You're arguing about semantics, not the ideas of God's Word."

My guest suddenly became flustered, and seemed at loss for words. He had arrived at my office absolutely certain that his charges could not be refuted. But quite suddenly, he found there was no wind in his sails. Rather quickly, he made his way out of my office, leaving me to wonder what he might have learned. Indeed, what had I learned?

The lessons here are simple, I suppose. The next time someone tosses out some broad, popular criticism of the church, don't take the bait. Think again. And whenever someone tries to discourage you with all the problems in the Bible, don't let him get away with it. Hand him a copy of the Bible, and ask him to show you the problem verses. You may not be a Bible scholar, but if you're a disciple, you know the Bible better than he does.

The Church is the beloved bride of Christ, and I'm supposed to say she's a loser? Jesus launched his ministry on the idea that he is God. And I'm going to challenge him? Selah.

I Can't Believe You Said That!

It was tough getting out of bed this morning. I knew I could expect the usual challenges: jammed highways where cars never move, rush hour road repair crews, pollen at the levels of a ticker tape parade, breaking bad news on the radio. But thanks to the Wall Street Journal, I realized I would face a new challenge at the office: Oversharing! I can't take another workplace crisis!

"Oversharing?" you ask. Yes, according to columnist Elizabeth Bernstein (04-06-10), the most recent health hazard in the US workplace is indiscreet co-workers. You could call it the TMI Syndrome, for "too much information!" Symptoms include red faces, raised eyebrows and gasps of "I can't believe you said that!" The columnist included a litany of complaints from personnel who don't want to get personal:

• One employee confided to a work acquaintance that he keeps a tambourine in his bed side drawer for "special performances."
• A doctor was embarrassed when a nurse casually injected that she uses sex as a bribe to get her husband to accompany her to church.
• A working woman was left with haunting images in her mind after a co-worker confided to a dozen fellow staffers that whenever he enters cycling competitions, he shaves his entire body to reduce aerodynamic drag. The details were unforgettable.

Some would suggest this is just more evidence that our culture is loathsome and that most people are uncivilized. Maybe. But I have a hunch this just indicates how isolated and lonely many ordinary Americans feel. We sense that we need to be more personal in order to establish rapport and develop friendships. We have more opportunities at work than when we're alone at home watching "The Office." And we confuse "private" with "personal."

• Private includes details like how much of my body I shave, where my children were conceived, and what happens in my bedroom when the lights are off. When something is private, that means we don't go there in public.
  
• Personal denotes my hopes for the future, experiences in life which have been instructive, my opinions about a range of issues, what I did for recreation last week. Personal details are for people whom I trust, with whom I already have rapport.

On popular reality TV shows, the people who get ahead are often the ones who take the bait to bare their souls for the amusement of strangers. In that unique arena, it's essential that contestants must be entertaining. But outside the studios of NYC and the glamorized set for "The Apprentice," human beings should not feel obligated to be entertaining.

The starting point for office relationships should probably be "courteous" and "professional." And when I finally begin to connect with a few people scattered among the cubicles, I can experiment with "personal." But the best way to accomplish "personal," is to ask polite questions and then listen as other people answer. On the one hand, that will offer clues about how personal other people want to be. And on the other hand, it gives me valuable experience in respecting other people and allowing them to feel valued and appreciated. We'd all agree that the best conversationalists just happen to be those people who listen to us with apparent interest.

And finally, no healthy office is complete without an extra serving of "grace." The best way to train people in courteous, respectful behavior is to tolerate them when they fail, and continue to role model "acceptance."

The Outrage of the Week

Last month, Tiger Woods was the most hated man in America. This month, the target has moved. Jesse James, biker and celebrated husband of actress Sandra Bullock, has been awarded the title. Both men have been outed as callous adulterers. Both have endured the outrage of fans and the media. And both have been lampooned for their shocking- shocking, I say!- behavior.

I've gotta confess that I wasn't shocked to learn these men have been unfaithful to their wives. In fact, on several occasions when the topic has come up in conversations, I've asked "So what's wrong with that? Why shouldn't wealthy celebrities have affairs?"

Granted, I know the answer to that question. Adultery is a violation of God's Law. As a follower of Jesus Christ, I believe in moral absolutes. I realize that some behavior is always wrong because it offends God and hurts other human beings.

But most people in the USA don't have a valid reason to object to the misadventures of guys like Mr. Woods and "Mr. Bullock." Research indicates that most Americans don't believe in moral absolutes. Worse yet, the same research reveals that even most Christians don't believe in absolutes- that some things are always right and others are always wrong. "Who are you to judge another person?" is the guiding principle of this tolerant generation.

But you cannot dismiss the existence of absolutes and then say it's wrong for Tiger to cheat on Elin because he's famous and she's nice. It's irrational to argue for the freedom to choose for ourselves, and then slam Jesse for choosing to sneak around on Sandra. Either marriage is an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman or it's not. If it's not a universal law, then don't try to impose it on public figures without applying it to yourself and your co-workers. But once you agree it's always wrong to commit adultery, there must surely be other universal truths as well. So what's your source of authority, anyway?

The media have financial reasons for their outrage. Yes, the same pillars or respectability who produce and popularize TV shows like Sex in the City and Desperate Housewives are shocked- shocked, I say!- by the idea of celebrities doing indecent things. They are protesting all the way to the bank. Sleazy comedies boost ratings, but so do lurid headlines!

Of course, you and I know that sin is the predominant problem in our culture. And we recognize that adultery is only one arena where people are dishonoring God and injuring one another. If we can't convince people to stop (and we can't,) we should at least cause them to think. So whenever some secular friend at work or school beats up on the Celebrity Adulterer of the Week, don't gleefully join their little parade. Instead, look your friend in the eye and exclaim, "Really! What's wrong with that?" It could lead to a redemptive conversation.