Sunday, 21 December 2014

The Nativity Set: De-Sanitizing the Christmas Story

Well it’s that time of year again; time to begin preparing for the festivities of yet another Christmas.

The Christmas decorations in our home are very simple and basic: a hand carved nativity set my parents brought back from Indonesia, another nativity scene painted by a friend on three blocks of wood shaped like trees, a little illuminated Christmas village, and a wreath on our front door. That’s it; no Christmas tree, no lights, and no lawn ornaments. It’s not that we have anything against such things, for we don’t; we used to have them all too. Perhaps that will change again one day when the grandchildren begin to join the family, but for now in this season of our lives, this is Christmas.

As I set up our simple nativity set this year, it struck me how we’ve sanitized the Christmas story. Obviously the early church did not have nativity sets, since their creation was credited to St. Francis (d. October 3, 1226). However, if they had looked at a nativity set, they would have seen the events surrounding Jesus’ birth very different than our modern and sanitized “Christianese” version. What do I mean by that?

By saying that, please understand what I’m not saying. I’m not trying to be negative or suggest that we should or shouldn’t celebrate Christmas a certain way. I am simply stating that I had an epiphany of sorts as I reflected on the various pieces of our nativity set that I was setting up. Let’s look at a couple elements of the traditional nativity set.


The Star

Now I don’t know much about astrology and such things, but I’ve read of how some people think that the star of Bethlehem that the Magi saw may have been a meteor or a comet. This would account for it being seen by them as moving “ahead of them” (Matthew 2:9) through the sky. The problem I have with that is that this version of the star downplays the miraculous. It’s true that stars don’t move through the sky, but with God all things are possible – including moving stars - and perhaps especially so when it comes to the announcement of the long-expected Messiah.

Still, if it were a meteor or a passing comet that the Magi saw, that would have symbolized death. A meteor crashing to earth brings death and destruction and sorrow and fear; a star, on the other hand, somehow seems to speak more of peace and hope and the love of God through creation. While the angelic proclamation was “good news” (Luke 2:10), we seem to have disassociated the fact that there would be no good news without the cross of Calvary as the second part of the Christmas story. For it truly to be good news for you and me, Jesus had to die. Death and destruction had to follow the cute child in the manger. Ultimately, death was the sole purpose for the birth of Jesus.


The Magi

There aren’t a lot of people in the New Testament identified as magicians (“magos” in the Greek), but the Magi who visited Jesus at his birth were among them. Now obviously magicians and magic go together, but unlike our modern carnival “magic” shows, ancient magicians were often associated with sorcery, evil and even death. It is interesting to note that popular thought in New Testament times was that the gods could be controlled by the use of magic; people could be manipulated, evil spirits could be defended against, and even events could be brought about and controlled. When we read some of the early church apologists, it’s apparent that it wasn’t a denial of the miracles that was being argued against, but rather that the miracles were accomplished by the power of God rather than by magic.

As such I find it fascinating that among the first responders to the birth of Jesus were magicians, those very people whose belief and craft seem so contrary to the church and her message. The kind of people who, in a few short years, would come at odds with the Apostles, were at the bedside of the birth of the Saviour. People like Simon the Sorcerer (Acts 8: 9-25), false prophets and sorcerers Bar-Jesus and Elymas (Acts 13: 6-12), were all Magi like those in our nativity sets. Magic and superstition, often accompanied by death, both physical and spiritual, met Jesus at the manger.

As I reflected on this further, I was reminded of Isaiah 45:23, “Before me every knee will bow,” a verse that the Apostle Paul would allude to again in both Romans 14:11 and in Philippians 2:10. “Every knee,” including all those magician and ungodly and occult-worshipping knees that currently bow to the prince of this world, will one day bow to Jesus.


The Gifts

The symbolism of the gifts is huge. The gold and incense and myrrh (Matthew 2: 11) from the magicians, was also packed with prophetic symbolism. Gold is a symbol of wealth and royalty. Jesus, who was and would be King, whose Father owns the “cattle on a thousand hills” (Psalm 50:10), already owns all the gold, and as such was only receiving back from the magicians that which He ultimately owned anyways. Just as any other earthly king often received gifts of gold, so too King Jesus received gold as a gift and symbol of His royalty.

Likewise the incense had its symbolism. As far back as Exodus 40:5 we see a golden “altar of incense in front of the ark of the Testimony” in the tabernacle of God. Incense was an important part of worshipping God. Historically it was a part of prayer, which raises another whole interesting question: Were these magicians praying as they offered their gifts?  Certainly they would have used incense in praying to their pagan deities (1 Kings 11:8, 2 Chronicles 30:14). Moving to the other end of our Bible’s, we see the prayers of the saints symbolically rising in a cloud of incense (Revelation 8: 3-4). Incense was also something used by the rich and wealthy and was burned at parties (Ezekiel 23:41), which sheds another image to the “celebration” of Christmas. However, it was also closely tied to death and funerals (2 Chronicles 16:14, Jeremiah 34:5).

Then we come to the myrrh. What is myrrh? My dictionary defines it as “a sticky brown substance that comes from trees, that has a sweet smell, and that is used in products that give the air or people’s bodies a pleasing smell.” Myrrh was a part of the anointing oil (Exodus 30:23) and was used by Joseph and Nicodemus to embalm Jesus’ body (John 19:39). Think about that for a moment; one of the baby shower gifts that Mary received at Jesus’ birth was used for embalming the dead. Imagine presenting a new mother a baby shower gift of embalming fluid today. Hmm, probably wouldn’t be received too well, and yet that’s what the magicians gave Mary at the manger. Once again, when we de-sanitize the nativity set, we see the dark symbolism of death, and specifically, sacrificial death.


The Lambs

Lambs were also an important part of the worship of God. From Abraham’s telling his son Isaac that “God himself will provide the lamb” (Genesis 22:8), to the slaughter of the Passover lamb in the days of Moses (Exodus 12:21), to Isaiah’s prophecy concerning Jesus that “he was led like a lamb to the slaughter” (Isaiah 53:7); lambs were regularly sacrificially offered to God, their spilt blood an atonement for fallen man’s sin.

When I looked at the little lamb figurines in my nativity set, I began to imagine them there at the manger of infant Jesus almost as a ceremonial retirement celebration. With the incarnation, with God putting on flesh, the services of the lambs are no longer required. The cute little lambs at the manger symbolized sacrifice and death as payment for sin. Thirty years later John would say of Jesus, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29).

When we look at our nativity sets, do they remind us of sacrifice, and that “Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed” (1 Corinthians 5:7)? If not, it may be time to de-sanitize our nativity sets.


The Innocents

As much as it is true that Jesus came to bring life, his birth also ushered in a lot of spilt innocent blood. “When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi” (Matthew 2:16). Now there’s a disturbing image! Aren’t you glad that slain little boys were sanitized out of the typical nativity sets? I sure am! Yet they are no less a part of the Christmas story.

What kind of a monster would order the murder of innocent little boys? It’s hard to imagine such an atrocity. Still, it’s for the monsters in all of us that Jesus came, born of a virgin, born in a manger, born to die as our sacrificial lamb, died so that we by believing in Him, “may have life, and have it to the full” (John 10:10).

Suddenly I find myself no longer being able to conveniently separate the Christmas and Easter stories, for they really are one and the same story. For me the nativity set suddenly has come to symbolically depict the cross of Calvary. Something to think about.

Merry Christmas

All Scripture taken from the New International Version (NIV). 

Sunday, 7 December 2014

Marriage: Rethinking What Makes it "Christian"

“Isaac brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he married Rebekah. So she became his wife, and he loved her …” (Genesis 24:67; NIV).

Lately I’ve been thinking a lot about marriage, and specifically the question as to what constitutes marriage in God’s eyes. For the purpose of this musing, I’m not interested in the current popular discussion about whether or not the homosexual community should or shouldn’t be allowed to get married, nor am I interested in society’s definition of marriage at all, but rather only about God’s view of marriage for His children.

Having said that, and for the purpose of this post, I’m defining “His children” as true Christians – born again, filled with the Spirit, Bible believing – as opposed to those who might identify themselves as such simply based upon their lineage or denominational upbringing, without having any real relationship with Jesus Christ.

If you would call yourself a true child of God, a Christian as described above, then what does it take to be considered “married” before God? Assuming there is such a thing as a “Christian wedding,” what is it? Is it getting married in a church building as opposed to in a courthouse or a park? Is it having a pastor (priest, reverend, minister, etc.) presiding over some special ceremony in such a church building as opposed to a justice of the peace or some other provincial/state sanctioned person saying a few words and making the declaration that these two people are now married?

And what about the term “Holy Wedlock?”

The word “Holy” suggests that it’s a God-thing for sure, and there is a “lock” in wedlock suggesting a permanency to the union, but again, how do we get to that part? Oh, I know how we get there in our modern society; I’ve been to enough weddings. But do those ways of getting there truly make “Holy Wedlock,” or are we still missing something here?

At the risk of digressing too far, many years ago while I was still a pastor, I remember thinking of how I would rather officiate a funeral than a wedding any day. No, I didn’t preach that from the pulpit. However, the few select individuals I did mention it to, often had that “deer in the headlights” blank stare, thinking such a thing as rather odd. After all, funerals are often seen as depressing and sad, whereas weddings are happy times. But as an evangelical pastor, I saw more opportunity for pastoral care and to present the important things in life - such as the Gospel, our mortality, and eternity – at funerals than I did at weddings. Do people really pay attention to the words the pastor says at a wedding, or are they just looking at the beautiful bride and thinking ahead to the party that’s about follow?  At a funeral, however, we are all forced to deal with the question of death and the possibility of life afterwards. That question never comes up at a wedding. But back to the original musing:

What does it mean to be married in the eyes of God?

First of all it means being yoked to someone of like Christian faith. Paul said, “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14; NIV). Many have understood that to mean that a Christian should never marry a non-Christian, because in the important things in life, there simply is no common denominator.

I remember getting myself in hot water one time when I refused to marry a couple in the church I was pastoring. The bride’s parents were active members of the church, but she lived in another community and simply wanted to get married in her “home church,” a term that I understand less and less as time goes on. And though she claimed to be a Christian, and certainly grew up in a Christian home, she was marrying a divorced man who was clearly a non-Christian. They were not yoked together in a common Christian faith, and though the wedding still happened, because of my own convictions at the time, I refused to officiate it. Needless to say, it didn’t make me very popular with the family.

Likewise I used to cringe when people would come to the church office and ask to “book the church” for their wedding and ask me to officiate it. I wondered why they, non-Christians, wanted to be married in a church building. After all, if you clearly don’t believe in God, then why choose the place where people who do believe in Him hang out as the place to get married? Why not just go to the courthouse, or some little Las Vegas chapel where they don’t care what you believe? Or do they think that by getting married in a church building that they suddenly are having a “Christian” wedding? Does standing in front of a pastor as you exchange vows make the whole thing somehow more Christian and legitimate? On more than one occasion I’ve mused about the hypocrisy of it all.

Sometimes I think we kid ourselves. The only thing that makes a wedding “Christian” is when two genuine Christians choose to get married to each other. It has nothing to do with where the event happens, and I’m beginning to think, nor does it have anything to do with who leads or officiates it. Having said that, and at the risk of further toying with a possible sacred cow, do we really even need a pastor at a genuine Christian wedding at all? Sure, the state/province requires certain approved individuals there for legality’s sake, but again, that has nothing to do with whether or not we’re married before God. In fact, I am hard pressed to find any biblical reference to a pastor (priest, reverend, minister, etc.) involved in the wedding ceremony, but I do find mention that “God has joined together, let man not separate” (Mark 10:9); the Officiator is God, not man. This begs another question:

Does God Require Man’s Pomp and Ceremony?

Could it be enough for a genuine Christian man and a genuine Christian woman who love each other and who want to spend the rest of their lives together to simply make the decision, perhaps announce their intentions to a couple Christian friends as witnesses and to pray over them, and then simply move in together? Then, having consummated that relationship, are they not, based upon their faith, already married before God? Is that perhaps not a better definition of “Holy Wedlock?” Is that not a “Christian Wedding” in the truest sense of the term? Does man’s officiating it in a solemn ceremony make it any more so? Does the reciting of man-made vows trump the two hearts, already joined together in the Holy Spirit?

Let’s take this one step further. Is this too not a part of our being called “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a people belonging to God, that you may declare … “ (1 Peter 2:9); that you and I, average and ordinary Christians, have just as much authority in the eyes of God (if not more so based upon our relationships) to declare someone married as the pastor or judge? The power may not be vested in us by the state to do so, but as a child of God and joint heir with Jesus Christ (Romans 8:17), could it not be said that all genuine Christians already have all the authority they need to bind or to loose (Matthew 16:19), including praying for and declaring a couple married before God?

I remember one wedding I went to several years ago where a non-clergy friend of mine performed such a small ceremony. There was no pastor or priest, and to make it legal in the eyes of the province, the couple still had to visit a justice of the peace afterwards, but by then the real “Christian wedding” had already happened. When I asked the bride afterwards why she chose our mutual friend to “officiate,” she told me it was because he was the most godly man she knew. What I found interesting (and sad at the same time) was that none of the local pastors even made her list, but that’s a topic for another time.

The Ironic Dichotomy

In a day and age when it is said that there are now more so-called Christian marriages ending in divorce than non-Christian marriages, it makes me wonder. Could it really be possible that we Christians, who preach love and forgiveness, ironically have yet to learn how to truly love and forgive one another? So much for those marriage vows, and so much for the pomp and ceremony in which we uttered them.

In a day and age when even cohabitating people, if they break up, are considered married by the courts and are given the same rights with regards to property and wealth distribution as married couples are, it all makes me wonder. It also begs another couple questions: What is marriage really? Where is God in those marriages?

Have we perhaps turned our so-called Christian weddings into simply another religious event? Given the distain many have for being religious, and based upon the previous statistic, have we perhaps in some ways ironically become even more worldly than the non-believing world around us? Ouch! And if so, it also begs the question: Why do we bother with the whole pomp and ceremony at all?

Am I still missing something here? Something to think about. Peace.

May God bless, protect and preserve our marriages.


For this reason a man will leave his father and mother 
and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
(Genesis 2:24)

Tuesday, 25 November 2014

Got Enemies? Imagine ...

Imagine ...

As it often does, my morning meditation today began in Proverbs.

"If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire upon his head, and the Lord will reward you." (Proverbs 25: 21-22; Amplified)

Imagine if everyone actually treated their enemy in such a fashion? Imagine if all of us actually treated those difficult people in our lives, those ones we have a hard time appreciating, in such a fashion? I imagine we would soon turn the world on its head to such an extent that even wars would be a thing of the past. Perhaps we could even go so far as at least thinking about dismantling our military forces. After all, why would we need them if we actually treated our enemies as Proverbs 25:21 suggests? Do you imagine I'm taking this too far? Hmm, maybe ...

Jesus said, "But I tell you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, To show that you are children of your Father Who is in heaven; for He makes His sun to rise on the wicked and the good, and makes the rain fall upon the upright and the wrongdoers [alike]." (Matthew 5: 44-45; Amplified)

Imagine if everyone who calls themselves a Christian proved it (Jesus said "to show") by the way they loved and prayed for their enemies? Imagine if the church actually obeyed Jesus in this? After all, Jesus also said, "Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" (Luke 6:46; NIV). I imagine that it's probably very difficult, if not outright impossible, to even have an enemy if I actually sincerely and unpretentiously loved and prayed for that person. Imagine if we believed Jesus on this one?

But, alas, man has always chosen to rather do things his own way rather than God's way. Sometimes I imagine we must not think too highly at all of the one we call Lord, based upon the way we so mistreat one another, for whom I might add, Christ also died. Alas, man's inhumanity to man; now there's something worth hating.

Imagine ...

Photo Credit: Dennis Skley, Flickr Creative Commons

Sunday, 23 November 2014

Online Communities: Shaking Off the Dust

Do you participate in online communities? If so, I will bet that like most of us, you also have some mixed feelings about them from time to time.  I know that I sure do.

An ironic thing happened to me yesterday in one such community that left me scratching my head in confusion and facetiously thinking about this Bible verse:
And wherever they do not receive you, when you leave that town shake off the dust from your feet as a testimony against them.”   (Luke 9:5; ESV)

Let me back up and set the stage a little

Some time ago I joined a couple of “Christian” G+ communities, one whose community guidelines stated the following:

A Christian community for everyone who enjoys Bible study and discussion. 
Community Guidelines: 
1. Keep posts concise and relevant. Use the categories. 
2. Be respectful. 
3. Original posts are preferred. No spam, self-promotion (including promoting your blog or community), cross-posting, or memes. 
4. Include your own thoughts or questions when you post links, videos, or Bible passages. 
5. Posts are allowed by individuals only, not pages.6. No "one translation only" conspiracy theory posts or other ax-grinding.  
All posts are subject to moderation. These guidelines are in place to encourage quality content. Thanks for your help!

That all sounds well and good, doesn’t it?

“A Christian community for everyone who enjoys Bible study and discussion.” That sounds like it could be a good thing. Lord knows, I’ve enjoyed innumerable hours of Bible study and a plethora of fellowship discussion times centered in the Scriptures.

The only negative in their guidelines was the potential censorship as suggested by the “subject to moderation.” Still in all fairness, I understand the need for a moderator; I too moderate comments on my blogs. The difference, however, is I do so simply to block out spam; not to censor those who may think differently on a certain matter than me, and especially not when they put forward an obviously well thought out rebuttal or counter argument to my post. The irony here is that the G+ Community in question even claims it’s for “everyone who enjoys Bible study and discussion.” Apparently that is not entirely true.

Unfortunately, my experience with online communities and groups hasn’t always been very positive. Quite frankly, there does seem to be a lot of junk, even in groups and communities that claim to be “Christian.” I get it, we’re all imperfect people, saved by grace alone, but who still do a lot of stupid stuff. Who hasn’t scratched their head a time or two at all the seemingly loveless online arguments, even on sites that claim to be “Christian?” Perhaps we've even been guilty of it ourselves a time or two. But sometimes, enough is enough and you have to get away from the junk for a while. Consequently I put myself on a sabbatical, so to speak, and simply stopped participating in too many such groups.

Fast-forward a few years to yesterday

I went to visit one of these G+ communities again, read some posts, made a comment or two, and even received a welcoming comment back from one individual. For the most part, it was all-good.

I then noticed that this particular community has a category heading called: “Bibles, Books, & Study Tools.” Great, I thought! I’ll put in a plug for “Simple Church: Unity Within Diversity.” I shared a link to Amazon and wrote a few encouraging promotional words (or so I thought), posted it in the G+ community, and found it promptly deleted by the moderator.

Huh? What just happened?

Perhaps against my better judgment, I promptly wrote another post on the same community and under the same heading and invited the moderator to dialogue with me over this obvious misunderstanding. While some folks weighed in equally shocked, the moderator apparently did not think my question for clarification was worthy of a reply. Ultimately I deleted the post and thought the whole thing not worth it.

So here we are. I am not disgruntled, and I still do wish to leave that community with my customary “Peace & Blessings” that I often sign off with.

Why do I mention any of this?

I do so because I find the whole thing strangely ironic, and maybe even a little amusing (in a sad sort of way). In trying to share with the Christian community a new Christian book on “Unity Within Diversity,” the “unity” was apparently overshadowed by the “diversity,” which in turn led to my post being deleted by the community’s moderator. Oh the irony of it all!

Well there you have it. That’s how I ended up thinking of “And wherever they do not receive you, when you leave that town [G+ Community] shake off the dust from your feet as a testimony against them.” The flip side of that, however, is that the even the notion of doing so somehow seems, well, rather "un-Christian" in that it sounds like we're abandoning people. Hmm.

For the record, I haven’t actually left the community yet (and maybe never will), for perhaps I will still have opportunity to clear the air if contacted by the unknown moderator. Besides, there are also some really neat people there that I have enjoyed conversing with in the past.

Discussion questions:

  • Given Jesus’ words concerning shaking off the dust as a testimony against those who do not receive or welcome us, how far do we go to promote “unity” within the “diversity” of our communities, and especially when others do not seem to share our passion for it? Do we just walk away?

  • Is there a greater likelihood for misunderstanding in online discussions as opposed to in person face-to-face discussions? Are people too quick to play the “spam” card, either to mask the topics they do not like, or simply out of ignorance as to what's really being said? If so what, if anything, can be done to try and correct that unfortunate tendency?

  • Obviously face-to-face and in person fellowship discussions are preferable, but they’re limited and not always possible. If it were not for social media, I never would have come to know some of the great people that today I proudly call my friends, but whom I’ve never yet met face-to-face. Having said that, do we modern Christians tend to hide behind our computers a little too much rather than seek good old fashioned times of face-to-face fellowship with other believers around us?


Something to think about. Peace & Blessings.

Photo Credit: Flickr Creative Commons

Tuesday, 4 November 2014

Simple Church: Unity Within Diversity

I am humbled and honoured to have been asked to be a part of this exciting new book venture. Twenty-four brothers and sisters in the Lord, all whom I only know from online connections, have come together to share their stories of "Unity Within Diversity." What an exciting time we live in that such a thing is even possible. I'm sure that previous generations never would have imagined such a thing. Praise God!

Here are a few thoughts from our editor, Eric Carpenter, on what this book is all about:

"What is simple church? This is a simple question that does not have a simple answer.

"Simple Church: Unity Within Diversity is an attempt to shed light on the above question and provide some answers. The twenty-four contributors all hope this book will help people, both inside and outside the church, better understand what simple church life is all about.

"Far too often discussions about the church descend into arguments that accomplish little. We have no desire to take part in that. Rather, each person who has written a chapter for this book desires that it will lead to increased communication, understanding, and ultimately unity within the body of Christ.

"Twenty-four writers means twenty-four slightly different perspectives. We certainly do not agree on everything. You will see that as you read through the book. What we do agree upon is that simple practices often lead to great opportunities for edification and service - both inside and outside the church. We want to share these ideas with other followers of Christ and explain what it is all about. If you would like to know more about simple church from a positive perspective, then this is the book for you!" (Taken from the back cover of the book).

Well there you have it; simple church. I'm sure all the fine contributors would agree that we've still not got this Christian walk perfectly figured out, but by the grace of God, perhaps we're a little closer today to where He would have us to be than when we've first begun our walks of faith. Again, I am grateful to be counted among such an insightful and fine group of sisters and brothers. If any praise be had, may it all be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

As for my own chapter, it is entitled: "Losing the Graffiti" and deals with the important subject of "Mutual Edification" in the Body of Christ.  If you're curious to know more, please do watch your favourite Christian bookstore for "Simple Church: Unity Within Diversity," expected to be on the shelves by Christmas 2014. Oh, and by the way, a special "Thank You" has to go to Wayne Jacobsen for his kind words in the foreword.

May God bless each of you and give you and yours His perfect peace. Amen.

Saturday, 1 November 2014

Conniving with Ananias and Sapphira

"Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one." (Matthew 5:37; NIV)

Todd Agnew has a song he calls “My Jesus.” In the lyrics he asks a couple of disturbing but valid questions: “Which Jesus do you follow? Which Jesus do you serve? If Ephesians says to imitate Christ, then why do you look so much like the world?

Since I first heard that song, those probing questions have always resonated with me. Perhaps they have with you too. When I think of those lyrics, I’m often reminded of a certain event recorded for us in Acts and wonder if the lesson the early church received has somehow slipped away into the pages of folklore, as it were, and perhaps needs to be re-taught. I also wonder how we today would receive that lesson if God were to re-teach it to us modern Christians in a similar fashion to the way He taught it to the early church. Certainly it isn't beyond the realm of possibility. God hasn't changed. I'm sure that what mattered to Him then, still matters to Him today.

However, I think the question still gets even more complex than that. If God were to do that, would we even recognize the thing as being of God? Or would we miss the lesson altogether because it would clash with some of our adopted understanding of things, such as "God's love," the "Fear of the Lord," and perhaps a few other doctrinal opinions? Have we really understood them correctly? Perhaps the lesson would even clash with our traditions, denominations, and last Sunday's sermon. Sometimes I wonder about such things.

Divine Execution: The Church’s Lesson?

But a man named Ananias – his wife, Sapphira, conniving in this with him – sold a piece of land, secretly kept a part of the price for himself, and then brought the rest to the apostles and made an offering of it.

Peter said, “Ananias, how did Satan get you to lie to the Holy Spirit and secretly keep back part of the price of the field? Before you sold it, it was all yours, and after you sold it, the money was yours to do with as you wished. So what got you to pull a trick like this? You didn’t lie to men but to God.”

Ananias, when he heard those words, fell down dead. That put the fear of God into everyone who heard it. The younger men went right to work and wrapped him up, then carried him out and buried him.

Not more than three hours later, his wife, knowing nothing of what had happened, came in. Peter said, “Tell me, were you given this price for your field?”

“Yes,” she said, “that price.”

Peter responded, “What’s going on here that you connived to conspire against the Spirit of the Master? The men who buried your husband are at the door, and you’re next.” No sooner were the words out of his mouth than she also fell down, dead. When the young men returned they found her body. They carried her out and buried her beside her husband.

By this time the whole church and, in fact, everyone who heard of these things had a healthy respect for God. They knew God was not to be trifled with. (Acts 5: 1-11; The Message).

That’s the biblical event that I always think of when I hear those lyrics by Todd Agnew. Have you ever been troubled by that story? Do Christians today look a little too much like the world? Have we "trifled" with God? Sometimes I’ve caught myself wondering about the Ananias and Sapphira story, thinking, what was the big deal? Even Peter said that it was his land to do with as he pleased. The more I think about it, however, the more I am beginning to wonder if any problems we have with the story aren’t directly related to a sort of lethargy that has somewhere and somehow crept into the modern church. (A caveat: by “church” I do not mean some institution, but rather the Body of Christ, and specifically, the average Christian). How have we become lethargic? I wonder if, perhaps ironically, we haven’t done so by not truthfully walking in the Light that we profess to be walking in. I may be wrong, but I don’t think the modern church shares the same urgency to truthfulness that the early church did. Too many of us seem to go about our lives with our fingers crossed behind our back, as if to suggest that such an action excuses our untruthfulness.

Light: Walk in It/Him

Ananias and Sapphira’s sin, what ever else it may have been, I believe was primarily a lack of truthfulness in the body of Christ. They were not really walking in the Light as Christians are time and again called to do in the pages of the Bible. I believe that God took their conniving lack of truthfulness seriously enough to make an example of them and teach the early church a lesson. Furthermore, I think that lesson spread far and wide, even beyond the church itself. Consider this verse:

"And none of those who were not of their number dared to join and associate with them, but the people held them in high regard and praised and made much of them." (Acts 5:13; Amplified).

Why did people not dare to join them? Was it because of their honesty and truthfulness? Was it because a few verses back Ananias and his wife Sapphira had dared to join them and they both lost their lives for being dishonest? Word of what had happened traveled fast, even outside the church (v.11). Were they frightened, knowing that they themselves were also prone to less than truthful lives, and thought that maybe God would kill them too if they got too close to those Christians? Let’s take this one step further. Does the world hold the modern church “in high regard” and make “much” of us? Let’s be honest; No, they don’t. And the only “much” that they often seem to make today is “much” of our shortcomings. How sad, and yet, I suspect that in many ways we've brought that upon ourselves.

Again, if we call ourselves Christians, then we are called to walk in the Light. This is not just a mere suggestion; it is a command. There are no loop-holes; it is non-negotiable, and there is no "Plan B." God was serious enough about this that He taught the early church a hard lesson, a lesson called “Ananias and Sapphira.” Consider these verses:

“And this is the message [the message of promise] which we have heard from Him and now are reporting to you: God is Light, and there is no darkness in Him at all [no, not in any way].

“[So] if we say we are partakers together and enjoy fellowship with Him when we live and move and are walking about in darkness, we are [both] speaking falsely and do not live and practice the Truth [which the Gospel presents].

“But if we [really] are living and walking in the Light, we have [true, unbroken] fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses (removes) us from all sin and guilt [keeps us cleansed from sin in all its forms and manifestations]” (1 John 1: 5-7; Amplified).

Do we claim that "Jesus is Lord?" Do we claim to "walk in the Light?" That's great, but let's be careful with those professions, because we might just be kidding ourselves. As I've written in a previous post, the profession "Jesus is Lord" might be a lie. Our personal and business relationships, ethics and integrity (or rather lack there of) might betray us.

Truth: The Great Non-Negotiable

Light is associated with truth. John called Jesus the “true light” (John 1:9). We can’t really walk in the Light, that is, walk in Jesus, if we aren’t truthful. I am tempted to even go so far as to suggest that a “lying Christian” is a contradiction in terms, and especially when we add any “conniving” into the mix as Ananias and Sapphira did. How can we secretly pretend something is so, when deep down inside we know that it isn’t so? How can we conspire against the Light by being dishonest? Peter accused Ananias of lying to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3), and not just to man. When we talk of “walking in the Light,” that’s the same thing as “walking in the Truth.” These are not separate concepts; they are two sides of the same coin. Jesus said,

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God” (John 3: 19-21; NIV. Emphasis mine).

Maybe I’m reading too much into this, but if we do “evil,” that is, if we are liars, does that mean we hate Jesus? Ouch! Or are the proverbial “little white lies,” with fingers crossed behind our back, an exception to the rule? How much honesty and truthfulness do we really see in the body of Christ today? How much honesty and truthfulness do we see in each other, in you and me? Are we also guilty of lying to the Holy Spirit? Have some of us become like Ananias and Sapphira, guilty of conniving (Amplified actually uses the word "connivance") our way through our own twisted form of pseudo-Christianity? Does it even matter? Does God still care about such things?

In our abhorrence of being made to feel guilty and judging others, and in our quest for freedom to walk and practice our faith as we choose, have we gone a little overboard and presumed too much? Does holiness, in the sense of being set apart, mean that there should be something noticeably different in you and me from the rest of the non-believing world? Did it ever really mean that?

What if God were to re-kindle that lesson that He taught the early church and make an example of us to the church today by divinely executing us for a "little thing" (in the world's eyes) as our connivance and dishonesty? Hmm, wouldn't that raise an eyebrow or two! Or would today’s church even make the connection?

God help us!

Which Jesus do you follow?
Which Jesus do you serve?
If Ephesians says to imitate Christ,
then why do you look so much like the world?