In the opening line of Psalm 23, we hear the words, “The LORD is my shepherd.” The Hebrew word for LORD (note all capitals in our Bibles) is the name of God, Yahweh. The idea that God can be thought of as a shepherd predates David’s psalm and was a widely known concept in Ancient Near Eastern culture. Not only gods, but also people of authority – leaders, kings, and military commanders – were often thought of as shepherds.

Shepherding, tending to the flocks, is one of the most ancient occupations. Abel, son of Adam and Eve, we understand, was a shepherd, and millennia later, Moses was a shepherd for the middle third of his life. Because shepherds predated the founding of cities, those who had moved to urban areas often viewed them as being somewhat backward with harsh and unyielding personalities. Shepherds themselves did not enjoy an elevated reputation among the people of civilized places. Yet, kings and other powerful leaders, and sometimes even the gods were understood to be shepherds.

Even though the best shepherds were often viewed as being uncompromising, this was also one of the best characteristics of a good leader. A shepherd must never compromise on the care of his sheep, and a leader (king, general, or even a god) must not be comprising in his care of the people. Uncompromising is often viewed as stubbornness, but, at the same time, the positive side of stubbornness is stalwartness. Shepherds were dependable, something that was a necessary attribute of a king.

But more importantly, a shepherd must give all his attention to his sheep. To do that, most shepherds spent twenty four hours a day with the sheep, even sleeping in an area near the sheepfold, the place where the sheep were bedded in safety for the night. Jesus talks about the sheep knowing the shepherd being willing to follow only the one that they knew, but the shepherd must also know his sheep. A good shepherd will immediately spot illness or injury. He will notice if a sheep is missing. A good shepherd can sense if things are well with the flock or if there is something wrong. If there is something wrong, he will do everything to make it right. The only way a shepherd could do that was to be fully attentive to his sheep.

This is why people often thought of their leaders as shepherds. If their leader, be it a king of a general or a god, was not fully attentive to the needs of his people, the people would suffer. To be attentive, the king would have to live among the people and know the people so well that if something was amiss, he would immediately sense it and make corrections. A good king knew his people, and he was willing to sacrifice his own comforts for them.

We live in a democracy, and in a democracy, it should be that our leaders, who are elected from among us, would be attentive to our needs. Democracy should work because those who hold the power live among us and, we would expect, can sense when things are not well. In a democracy, leaders work for the public good, not their own, for they are part of the public, or at least that is our expectation. We expect our leaders to be like shepherds. We want them to be uncompromising in the care of the people in the nation over which they have authority, providing for the people before looking after themselves. We become uncomfortable when a leader amasses wealth for himself by taking advantage of his position. This happens far too often in almost every nation in the world.

Whether the leader of a nation is a king or Prime Minister or president, that person is expected to lead as a shepherd, providing for his sheep before he provides for himself. We would be blessed if our political leaders were more like shepherds.

When Jesus began his ministry, his first words were to announce the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God. He himself would become the king, sitting at the right hand of his Father in heaven. But Jesus does not often identify himself as a king; rather, the image that comes to mind more than not is of Jesus as a shepherd, a good shepherd. He tells us that a good shepherd would lay down his life for his sheep, meaning that they put the wellbeing of the sheep far above their own. We know Jesus to be uncompromising in this, for this was the reason that he came to this earth. With the Father and the Spirit, Jesus had agreed that the only way to save humanity from their self-inflicted mess was that he die in our place. He laid down his life for his sheep, and he did so by becoming one of us. He was truly the good shepherd.

Jesus’ perspective is to ours as well. The only right way for the kingdom of God to become evident on this earth is for the followers of Jesus Christ to be like shepherds. Contrary to the standards that we seem to be willing to accept from political and military leaders and the like, we are called to give up our lives for others. And we must be uncompromising in that. True, we might be viewed by the “civilized” people around us as being backward, but we accept that and conduct ourselves as Jesus taught us rather than giving into the ideals and actions of others. The church is always in danger of becoming worldly in that we would rather look after our own needs first, but that is not the Christian ethic. If we see ourselves as shepherds, following the example of Jesus Christ, against all odds, the kingdom of God will become present in our world.

In the book of Deuteronomy Moses is speaking to the Israelites as they are about to enter the Promised Land, and he is instructing them about how they are to live in the land. In Deuteronomy 17:14-20 we learn that if the Israelites should ever ask for a king, that king would be required to live by a variety of principles. One of the most significant is that he is to write out a copy of the Law (Torah), the Pentateuch, and he is to read it and follow it all the days of his life. It is by living by the Word of God that he will reign long and well. By making a copy of the Torah, he will be aware of everything in it, and he will always have a copy available for himself.

Prior to this instruction there is another important instruction regarding his military assets. If the Israelites should obtain a king for themselves, that king must not acquire for himself a great number of horses. Horses were not pets, such as they often are today; horses were military animals, used specifically by armies to strengthen themselves. Having a calvary gave an army a distinct advantage over the enemy, and having horses also enabled an army to acquire chariots, the most formidable military piece on a battlefield. Horses, in biblical times, were not often used for transportation; rather, it was more common for people to use donkeys or, if they had a lot of things to transport, camels. Horses were military animals.

There are other instructions to the potential king, but let’s consider the prohibition against horses. If an army did not acquire horses, they were at a distinct disadvantage. Because the army would have been limited to an infantry (foot soldiers), they would not be helpless before an army which had horses and chariots. Consider a modern-day equivalent: imagine an army of foot soldiers facing an army equipped with tanks and aircraft. No betting person would put any money on the army consisting of only infantry. It appears, then, that God was deliberately placing his people, the Israelites, at a distinct disadvantage. How could they fight against the much more powerful armies that surrounded them? Would they not be defeated and the nation Israel destroyed?

Humanly speaking, If the Old Testament Israel did not develop a strong military, they would have been destroyed, no question. But there was a reason that God didn’t want the king to go beyond a mere infantry and that was that there would be no question as to who gives the victory. If the king had all the tanks and missiles and drones (modern technology), and Israel won a victory, they would take credit for their own successes and not acknowledge God’s intervention.

Some people, among them Christians, would say that the present state of Israel (Israelis) is the same as the nation of Israel as the Old Testament. If that were true (and this is problematic considering how secular Israel is), then it should follow that although the threats are significant – Iran, along with many Mideastern states want to see the nation of Israel destroyed – it should follow that Israel did not need to develop one of the strongest and most technologically advanced militaries in the world. They could have simply said, “We rely on God to protect us and win our battles, so we don’t need to own even one tank.” But, if the Israelis and the Israelites are the same nation, then they certainly don’t take God’s promises very seriously.

We can have the debate about whether or not the present state of Israel is the same as the ancient state of Israel, which hasn’t existed as an independent nation since 586BC, but we probably won’t come to a satisfactory conclusion to which all would agree. What is clear from Scripture, however, is this: all those who put their trust in Jesus Christ, Jews and Gentiles, are part of God’s covenant community and come under his covenantal care. This does not mean that we may not have horses, if we take Deuteronomy 17 literally, but it does mean that we can trust God so much that we can be assured that he will protect his people against destruction. In other words, the church, who is brought into God’s covenant community through Jesus Christ, can rely completely on God for its existence, even when it might be threatened by powerful forces.

In the last few decades, and in particular in the last few months, I have heard followers of Jesus Christ talk about the Muslim threat, however they define it. They would go so far as to say that if we want to be truly safe, we cannot have them near us, for they pose a danger to the church. But would it also not be true that if God protects his church, there is no threat against the church. Yes, there might be persecution, but we are not threatened. The same can be said for government policies and laws which some seem to believe are a threat to the people of God. But if it is true that God is for us, then no one can stand against us. We simply need to live in trust.

In a world where we seem to be relying more and more on human-developed power for safety and protection, it would seem that the church has a message that has become more and more vital. We have a gracious God who has made promises to his people, and one of those promises is that he will fight our battles for us and give us victory. That doesn’t mean that we won’t be called to engage as well, but we engage as foot soldiers, even though that might seem we are in a weaker position. We trust that it is God who ultimately must bring victory.

Jesus rode into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, riding on a donkey. He didn’t ride on a horse. The gospel writers say that this was in fulfilment of Zechariah’s prophecy (Zech 9:9), and it is clear that Zechariah was basing his prophecy on Deuteronomy 17. Jesus rode on a donkey to show the world that it was God who would win the battle against the forces of evil, and Jesus did, not by amassing tanks and missiles but by dying on the cross. That was true victory, and it was complete. God doesn’t need tanks and armament to win the battle, and, it would seem, neither do we.

In a healthy beehive there are usually about 30,000 to 50,000 bees. There are nurse bees, guard bees, bees that move pollen and nectar around the hive, and bees that turn the nectar into honey. All the bees that stay in the hive are the younger bees while the older bees (3 weeks old and older, normally) are the ones we see flying to and from the flowers. The worker bees, all females, look identical to each other. The only bees that look different are the drones (male bees who do nothing useful in the hive) and the queen bee. In order to keep the hive strong, the queen has only one task and that is to lay eggs, between 1000 and 1500 per day, every day, all through the summer months.

Of all the bees in the hive, the queen bee is the most important. Beekeepers are not concerned if they see a few dead bees in front of the hive, but it becomes a serious matter if there is no queen bee in the hive because she is the one who ensures the survival of the colony. Even the bees know that, and their lives are focused on keeping the queen healthy and strong. In fact, it is not too far from the truth if we say that all the bees in the hive have the welfare of the queen in mind as they do their jobs. Sometimes doing their jobs requires sacrifice. If the hive is threatened, the guard bees will attack with their stingers, often losing their lives in the process. When it becomes cold outside, the bees huddle together with the queen at the centre, and the outer bees sacrifice their comfort to keep the queen alive. Even if the temperature in the hive drops to -40, the centre of the cluster of the bees in the hive remains near 30 degrees centigrade.

Imagine for a moment if the worker bees began to think only of themselves. If, when it became cold out, no worker bee would sacrifice her own comfort to keep the queen warm. The queen would die, and the hive would die with it. If a worker bee did not sacrifice her life for the queen when a skunk attacked the hive, the hive would be destroyed and the queen could no longer carry out her task of laying eggs. The hive would die.

In Ephesians 5:21 Paul says that we are to submit to one another out of reverence to Christ. He describes what that looks like using household relationships common in his time: wives and husbands, parents and children, slaves and masters. When applying this mutual submission to the marriage relationship for example, in his instruction to the husband, he says that if the husband is truly submitting himself to his wife, he will die for her, just as Christ died for the church. (Note that he does not state the same expectation for the wife.)

Recall that Paul is writing his letter to a church which was experiencing some division, division that was rooted in 2000 years of history. Jews and Gentiles did not think highly of each other, but when members of both groups put their faith in Jesus Christ, they found themselves worshipping together under one roof. Paul emphasizes that our faith in Jesus Christ is what joins us together so that we have one Lord, one faith, one baptism, etc. and that we belong to one family. To help us live in that new situation, he calls us to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Our calling is to look after the needs of others, often at the expense of fulfilling our own desires and wants.

Although there are some differences between Jesus and the queen bee in the hive, the similarities are helpful and telling. As in a hive, all the worker bees focus their efforts on protecting the queen, so among believers all focus their efforts on honouring Jesus Christ. Because our focus is so entirely on him, we no longer focus on ourselves, and we become willing to give up our comforts and own personal wants and even our lives to ensure that Jesus is always glorified. So strong is our desire to glorify Jesus that we no longer want to glorify ourselves. We glorify him by joining each other in service to the Lord, ensuring that others are able to carry out their callings so that together all believers grow together and flourish. In glorifying Jesus, we submit ourselves to others so that they can glorify him as well.

This is the ideal toward which we strive. Without a doubt the church is not always known to be exemplary in its calling. Unlike in the beehive, if the bees fail to honour their queen with the result that whole hive dies, when we fail to glorify Jesus, God the Father remains gracious and restores us again. Bees don’t get another chance; we do. But that doesn’t mean that we should hold back with our commitment or compromise in our desire to glorify Jesus.

I suspect that most of the problems the church has faced over the centuries and faces today come from the fact that believers fail to live as bees. Far too often the church has focused more on its own survival and welfare while at the same time ignoring Jesus. In one example, a pastor presented himself as the one who could increase the number of people in attendance, but the elder board did not ask him how he intended to do that. It turned out that that certain parts of the biblical message (the death of Jesus on the cross for our sin, for example) were minimized. While the numbers increased for a time and while the community seemed warm and welcoming, over the years, because Jesus was no longer central, the purpose for the church disappeared, and members who longed for the gospel began to move to other churches. As another example, while the pastor and elders focused on the gospel, the people had begun to focus their attention on some of the things that they liked to do. Sunday became fun-day, and the desire to glorify Jesus began to wane. Fun activities began to replace the act of glorifying Jesus in worship, and the church began to decline both in numbers and in witness to the community.

While God is gracious with his people, keeping the church alive, it is also true that sometimes local congregations fail when Jesus is no longer central. Like a beehive which has abandoned its queen and dies, congregations can die when they abandon Jesus. Let us never forget that in glorifying Jesus, we put ourselves aside as we submit to each other out of reverence for Christ. There is no room for selfish individualism among God’s people just as selfish individualism will result in the collapse of a colony of bees.

But let us not fear, for while it may be in our human natures to want to glorify ourselves, the Holy Spirit continually returns us to our calling. As we focus our efforts on glorifying Jesus, we will discover that our Christian community is growing in mutual submission as well. And when that happens, we will be fulfilling our calling of making the gospel (honey) available to the world.

There is a model of Jeep that has become quite popular: the Rubicon. I suspect that the majority of Rubicon owners don’t know where the name comes from, but Rubicon sounds bold and daring. On my desk, I have a book entitled Rubicon. Its subtitle is The Last Years of the Roman Republic. The Rubicon is a small creek in Italy, and, at one time marked a boundary of a faction of the Roman Republic. The Roman Republic had been experiencing a great deal of turmoil, with various military factions claiming territory. A truce was made in which it was decided how much territory each faction could rule, and no general could take his armies past the boundaries that had been decided upon.

One general, Julius Caesar, in a very bold act, decided that he didn’t want to be just a general; he wanted to be the Caesar/Ruler/Dictator of Rome, and he led his armies across the Rubicon. Crossing the Rubicon was no major feat, for it is only a few metres wide, but the act of crossing it set into motion a major civil war in the Roman world which led to Julius Caesar’s eventual claim to the title of Pontifex Maximus (Greatest Pontiff, or more literally, Supreme Bridge-Builder). After Julius Caesar was assassinated (on March 15, the Ides of March), Rome remained in turmoil for a couple of decades until Caesar Augustus claimed power, named himself as the emperor, and the Roman Republic (ruled by the people through their representatives) was replaced by the Roman Empire (ruled by one person, a king or emperor). When Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon, he set into motion the events that would remove the authority of the elected representatives and replace them with the authority of one powerful person.

The phrase, “crossing the Rubicon,” has come to mean “passing the point of no return.” Julius Caesar knew what he was doing when he led his army across the Rubicon, and he understood that after he did, there was no turning back. You have to be bold and daring to “cross the Rubicon,” and, hence, the name given to a vehicle. The drivers of Rubicons have chosen that particular vehicle because of the image that they think it creates for them.

This week we celebrate Good Friday. There is a point in the biblical narrative when Jesus “crosses the Rubicon.” When he is on trial before the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling body and court, Jesus was asked if he was the Messiah, the Son of God. He didn’t deny or confirm the opinion of the high priest, but he quoted from Daniel 7 when he said, “From now on you will the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matthew 26:64) Jesus had to have known that to say these words meant that there was no turning back. He was applying Messianic Scripture to himself, thus saying that he was equal with God and chosen by God. Once he uttered those words, there was no turning back. His response to the high priest led him to be convicted of blaspheme, a sin punishable by death, and that led to his being convicted of treason in the Roman courts, a crime also punishable by death.

Jesus knew what he was doing, and he knew the consequences of his words. Had he remained silent he could have made it a lot more difficult for his powerful opponents to sentence him to death, for up to that point, they had not been able to make any of the charges against him stick. Jesus crossed the point of no return when he elevated himself to the very throne room of the Father.

Jesus knew what he was doing, and he also knew the consequences, for this was the very purpose for which he had come. He had come to set up a new Kingdom, the Kingdom of God, and this Kingdom would be very different from the ones that were in existence at his time, and, for that matter, which would be in existence in any place or time in history.

How does the Kingdom of God differ from other kingdoms or empires? If we consider two major empires in history, we see a commonality. The Roman Empire made every effort to conquer as much of the world as it possibly could. When it did conquer territory, it began to bring back to Rome the best that that territory had to offer. Wheat, iron, slaves – all of these were brought back to Rome for the benefit of Roman citizens. Similarly, the British Empire, as it conquered vast portions of the world, brought back to Great Britain the best that the lands under its rule had to offer. We might say that this is the prerogative of an empire, and that is why powerful empires take rather than give. While it is true that empires might invest money in conquered lands (think of Herod’s temple), it is often for the ultimate benefit of the empire, not for the people. (Herod rebuilt the temple, in large part, to placate the Jews so that he would not have to deal with their desires for liberation.) Placating the masses through investment was a way to keep the empire strong.

The kingdom of God is very different, for it does not take. God does not need to take anything from this world to benefit himself, and anything taken from this world would not add to his wellbeing in the slightest. In his Kingdom, God gives: he gives security, peace, blessings, and, ultimately eternal life. What he gives costs him, and there is no benefit to him. What makes the Kingdom of God different from all the empires, kingdoms, and realms that are known to us is that under the reign of God, we benefit while the establishment of the Kingdom cost Jesus his life on the cross.

Jesus “crossed the Rubicon” when let it be known that he was sent from God. He did so intentionally and boldly. But he was not daring in his taking the step beyond which there was no return. He did not have to be daring because he knew that his heavenly Father was with him, enabling him to establish a Kingdom that will never end.

This past week, in preparation for a Bible Study, I found myself having to look up the definitions of expiation and propitiation once again. For some reason, I cannot keep the definition of these two words in my head. It’s probably because we never use these words in our daily language, and, in addition, they do not appear in more modern translations of the Bible. I suspect that translators of the Bible today avoid these words because most people have difficulty understanding them.

At the Bible Study we were looking at Romans 3:21-31 with a special emphasis on verse 25. There we read in the NIV that “God provided Jesus as a sacrifice of atonement through the shedding of his blood – to be received by faith.” The King James Version has this: “God hath set forth [Jesus Christ] to be a propitiation through faith in his blood.” Reading that older version confuses me because I can never remember the definition of propitiation. I also discovered that the translator’s choice of the word, propitiation, is an interpretation based on a particular theological emphasis.

The best way to resolve the problem, for me, is to look at the Greek. Of course, when I look at the Greek, I also need to have a Greek-English dictionary handy. The dictionaries I have indicated that the Greek word has an interesting history, particularly in how it was used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (originally written in Hebrew). Discovering this also helped me understand the difference between expiation and propitiation and how we can understand Romans 3:25.

If we go back to the book of Exodus, while the Israelites are a Mount Sinai, we read about the building of the tabernacle and among the instructions for how it is to be built are the instructions for the building of the Ark of the Covenant. The ark was a wooden box, important in itself, but on top of the box is a cover which is translated as “atonement cover” in the NIV and “mercy seat” in the KJV (Exodus 25:17). The same word that is used in the Greek translation of the OT is the word that Paul uses in Romans 3:25 which we have in the English as “sacrifice of atonement.” Jesus plays the same role as the cover of the Ark of the Covenant.

That cover was understood to be the place where God made his throne here on this earth. It was hidden from the sight of the people by a thick curtain, and no one entered the room behind the curtain except for once a year on the Day of Atonement. On that day, the high priest would pass through the curtain, and he would sprinkle the blood of a sacrificed goat on the cover of the Ark. It was that act that provided atonement for the sins of the people.

The question that theologians ask is this: was this atonement accomplished through expiation or propitiation? And here is where the definitions of the words becomes important.

Expiation has to do with eliminating sins. We sin against God, and as guilty people, we must bear the punishment for those sins. Expiation means that the blood of the sacrifice eliminates those sins, that they become hidden, are covered over. I think of expiation in this way: expiation x’s out our sins so that we are no longer held accountable for them. Some would say that the blood of the sacrifice is expiation, when our sins are x’d out, and we don’t have to bear the punishment for them any longer. To put it another way, our criminal records are wiped clean.

Propitiation is a little different. God, rightly so, is very angry with our sin. Who wouldn’t be angry with people who ignore him (even though he made us), who do their best to ruin the world through greed and selfishness and who turn against each other instead of caring for each other? God has every right to be angry with us because of our sin. If the cover of the ark is God’s throne, God has the right to direct his anger at us outward from his throne room and so destroy those who dare stand against him. Propitiation is this: the blood of the sacrifice appeases God’s anger so that it is turned away, and we are no longer in danger of his wrath.

As we can see from the KJV’s wording, the translators thought that the emphasis of Jesus’ work on the cross was to turn away God’s wrath that was directed toward us. And they are right, but their choice of one word eliminates the possibility of the other.

The NIV translators, recognizing the problem, decided to use the phrase, “sacrifice of atonement,” recognizing that the word “atonement” refers to making amends so that a relationship is restored. Their translation choice does not say exactly how that happens but leaves us to contemplate what did happen through Jesus when he died on the cross.

It seems that the best understanding of what did happen needs to include both expiation and propitiation. Jesus, when he died on the cross, x’d out our sins, not by eliminating them but by taking them upon himself. The record of our sins is wiped clean, deleted, and eliminated from the trash can icon on the computer screens of our lives. At the same time, even as Jesus does that, he turns away God’s anger/wrath against us by turning it on himself. We no longer need to be fearful of God’s anger, for it is no longer turned against us. All who believe in Jesus receive both benefits: our records are wiped clean and God’s anger is turned away.

The words, expiation and propitiation, describe what happened at the cross. Unfortunately, I will probably forget what they mean the next time I have to use them, so I will have to look them up again. But I don’t think I will forget what Jesus has done: he has cleared my record by taking its contents on himself, and I will never have to fear God’s anger because Jesus has asked his Father to redirect it to himself. Expiation and propitiation. Hard words to remember, but beautiful truths to appreciate and enjoy.

A few weeks ago I began to think about the phrase, “God is on our side.” I have mentioned this a few times in a blog or sermon, but I thought it might be good to flesh it out a bit. Let’s consider two statements: “God is on our side” and “We are on God’s side.” There is a very big difference between these two statements.

Let’s consider a hockey team. The team happens to be made up of all Christian young men who desire to serve the Lord. Their chaplain comes into the dressing room half an hour before the game begins, and he spends a little time in devotions and prayer. As he talks with the players, they begin to talk as if they, an unashamedly Christian team playing against teams which are not overtly Christian, should win because God is on their side. They reason that if God had to pick teams, he should pick theirs, and because he is able, he should also give them the win. How should the chaplain respond?

The chaplain could easily respond by agreeing with the team, and he could pray for a win. A win, after all, would witness to the fact that God is on their side. It would be a testimony to the other teams that faith in God is justified and that others should put their faith in him as well. The chaplain could say that, but he would be treading on dangerous ground. What if his team did not win? What if the team did win but cheated and played unfairly to do so? How would that be a witness to who God is? Right before the game might not be the time, but it would seem that in the next little while the chaplain would have some work in helping the team understand that their belief that God was on their side has some problems.

There is a bigger problem. When we say that God is on our side, who is setting the agenda, the priorities, the values? We are. We define the side, what it looks like, and what its goals are. We set the agenda, and we expect that God conform himself to our agenda. But would God agree? Would he say, “I am fully supportive of this team/nation/organization, and I will enable them to succeed, thus witnessing that I am on their side”? I expect not because God is not in the business of providing support for our agendas. He does not conform himself to what we want to do. To think that is to get it backward.

The chaplain, as he meets with the team, would have to tell them that God is not on their side. God’s plan may not be for them to win the game or the championship. God might have another agenda, one that does not include their being successful in the way they hope to be. The chaplain would then have to explain that we should not expect so much that God is on our side as we should be on his.

When we consider what God’s side might be with respect to a hockey game, we would say that the players, who are his children, should behave in an appropriate way. They should play with all their hearts, using the skills God gave to them. At the same time, they should keep their emotions in check. They should obey the rules and not take cheap shots. Perhaps, if an opposing player made a particularly good play that resulted in a goal, they might commend him for his good work. (That would be hard to do, of course.) The chaplain would explain that God desires that we do things according to his will, and that we live as is appropriate for a follower of Jesus Christ. We are called to be witnesses to God, and not he to us.

When we say that God is on our side, we set the agenda, but when we say that we are on God’s side, we recognize that he is setting the agenda. That means that if we are truly on his side, we will conform ourselves to his priorities, values, and will. We will live and act in a way that pleases him.

To do that, of course, we have to know what God’s will is, and we can find that in Scripture. The Sermon on the Mount, found in Matthew 5-7 contains a fairly extensive summary of what it means to be on God’s side. Loving our enemies, living pure lives, being witnesses to the world, and so much more are examples of what being on God’s side looks like. Whatever we find ourselves doing, we should do so with the desire to follow Jesus. To be on God’s side means that we witness to who he is. We want to make God known to the world, and we do not expect God to make us known by helping us win the game.

Perhaps one of the most egregious times in the history of Christianity occurred about 1000 years ago when the Christian church in Europe, claiming that God was on its side, sent soldiers (along with a goodly number of rabble-rousing tag-alongs) to “the Holy Land” to liberate Jerusalem from the infidels, those without faith (as they defined them). When they said that God was on their side, they also took the liberty of committing atrocities (pillaging, burning, killing, and raping) because, they said, they were doing the Lord’s work. That century or so during with the crusades took place is remembered as a black mark against the church by Christians and non-Christians alike.

In contrast, we think of the early church which was experiencing persecution going to the poor and needy and sick, providing them with support, help, and healing. Among the pagan Romans it was remarked that Christians were different, for they helped others rather than participating in the Roman way of taking from others. Their witness was truly remarkable as they conformed themselves to the ways of the Lord, offering themselves to serve others. They saw themselves as being on God’s side, helping others, and not he on theirs, fighting against persecution and oppression.

We must be very careful how we speak and what we think. Although we do find the words, “The Lord is on our side,” in Scripture (Psalm 124:1, not the best translation in the NIV), we recognize that this verse does not mean that David, the psalmist thought that God was on his side. Rather, he understood that God was with him to support him, a better translation of the Hebrews. David, never for an instance, believed that God was on his side; rather, he sought to do things God’s way, and was declared to be a man after God’s own heart.

If we declare that God is on our side, we are putting ourselves in God’s place and he in ours. If, however, we seek to be on his side, we are recognizing that he is God, and because of that, we seek to do his will and live as a follower of Jesus Christ should.

In the past century or so food processors have developed flavours that make our food taste like something it is not. We can make potato chips taste like ketchup or popcorn taste like cheese. Flavouring otherwise bland foods can make snacking more enjoyable. Perhaps even more common are flavoured water-based juices: raspberry, blueberry, watermelon, and the like. Some have enjoyed the flavour of an exotic fruit without ever having seen that fruit.

There is a downside to all this, and it has to do with how God made our bodies work. Scientists have discovered that our bodies are built so that they can identify the nutrients in a particular food and somehow we are wired so that when our bodies need a particular kind of food, that food tastes particularly good. We may have experienced that with salt. Salt normally is unappealing, but if we have been perspiring a great deal, it can be that salt or salty food tastes quite good, at least at first. So, when we crave the nutrients in a tomato, we find tomatoes to be quite tasty. When we have enough of those nutrients, tomatoes are less appetizing. It is the experience of many that after a hard day’s work we have greatly enjoyed a meal, but a few weeks later, when we eat the exact same food, it doesn’t taste nearly as good. This experience is related to our bodies need for nutrients.

So, what is the downside? Scientists have discovered that flavouring food can lead to overeating. For example, if my body craves the nutrients found in blueberries, and I eat a blueberry-flavoured snack that has none of the nutrients of a blueberry, my body will continue to crave blueberries and even though my stomach is getting full, the blueberry-flavoured snack still tastes delicious. This can lead to overeating as our bodies continue to crave nutrients and are fooled into thinking they are receiving them when we eat a flavoured snack.

Sometimes Christians flavour worldly ideas with Christian flavours and pass them off as being authentic. Throughout the years of the Cold War, the era which saw the Soviet Union pitted against the West in a war or minds (thankfully the war never turned hot), Christians developed a theology in which they justified the development of arms and military might by passing it off as a fulfilment of Scripture, particularly the book of Revelation. By identifying the Soviet army as the forbidding and evil army of the north, they identified the West as being God’s army sent out to meet the evil army on the Plains of Megiddo, west of the Sea of Galilee in what would become the battle of Armageddon (Armageddon = Mountain of Megiddo). They supported and justified the building of up powerful weapons of destruction as being Scriptural, seeing the West as being the instruments of God’s wrath against the forces of evil.

With the fall of the Soviet Union, that theology began to vanish, but not entirely. It is still around, and every time their side (the West) goes to war, they see this as being divinely justified, for once again, it is believed, the West, God’s chosen people, are doing war against the forces of evil.

What we have is political and military doctrine flavoured with Christianity. While our minds, particularly the Christian mind, are fed with this Christianity-flavoured doctrine, we find we cannot get enough. In the years of the Cold War, I watched a number of documentaries in which theologians fed their viewers with this kind of teaching. There was an almost insatiable hunger for these teachings which sought to unravel history and justify the build up of armaments from a Christian perspective. Appetites were not satisfied, for what people were receiving was not the truth but something else flavoured as the truth. They never got enough.

Political policy and military doctrine have their place, and we are free to agree or disagree with the decisions our world leaders are making. But when we add a Christian flavour to that doctrine, we are creating something that will always leave us craving for more. It sounds fulfilling, but it is not.

So, what do we do? Food scientists are realizing the danger that flavours create, not because the flavours themselves are physically harmful to our bodies but because they deceive our bodies, and our bodies do not receive the nutrients they need. Consumers are becoming aware of this, and they are choosing more natural foods, foods that have flavours that correspond to their nutritional needs.

We can do the same with what we teach and are taught. It is one thing to have a political position, be it on the right or the left. We all have reasons for thinking as we do. It is a completely different thing to flavour our political leanings with a Christian teaching, for when we do, we are giving people something that does not satisfy. It will never be enough.

We can eat a potato chip that is unflavoured, and that will not ultimately harm our bodies as long as our bodies are not fooled into thinking they are eating something else. We can hold a political viewpoint or military doctrine, but we should hold it purely as what it is, a political viewpoint or military doctrine. When we flavour it with Christian teachings, with teachings from the Bible, we are offering something that may taste right but which will not bring salvation and which will never fully satisfy.

What we need to do is seek the fulfilling and satisfying truth of Scripture, seeking to understand it as it is meant to be understood and not using it to justify other policy of behaviour. Certainly, we may apply Scripture to our current situation, but we must not use it to flavour what is happening around us with the flavour of Scripture. More often that not, the teachings of Scripture if used correctly, instead of flavouring political and military policy, will stand in sharp contrast to it, offering a real salvation instead of one that ultimately will not deliver what it might promise. Even more, we may be surprised to find that when we do not flavour policy with Scripture, it could bland or even distasteful, especially if it seen as having salvific value. Like food purists, we will learn to crave the saving truths of Scripture.

Last week, a few hours after the US and Israel entered into a state of war with Iran, I was asked if I would participate in such a war. I could not give a coherent answer, but it made me think about the whole concept of war and whether a Christian could participate in the intentional killing of fellow human beings and, if so, under what conditions. In other words, is there a time when it is reasonable for a Christian to participate in war?

To help me with that answer, I did a little research, and I discovered that the church has been thinking about this for a long time. Even as long as 1600 years ago, Christians were asking that question, and they came up with some criteria that would help us decide if it can be legitimate for a Christian to go to war.

The first criterion is this: Is going to war a last resort? Have all other means failed? Has diplomacy failed so completely that no amount of talking will change anything? War, as we know, involves the killing of people who are created in God’s image, and it makes sense that we try to avoid that unless there are no other options. War must be a last resort, not just one item on a list of possibilities in resolving a dispute. Leaders who call their nations to war must be able to prove that they have done everything they can and that violence is the only alternative left to them. With regard to the current situation, can our leaders say without qualm and with full honesty that they tried to talk but to no avail? Or might it be true that diplomacy was moving slowly and an opportunity to speed things up through violence presented itself, and they made the most of that opportunity? Is war a last resort?

The second criterion is just cause. Why is the war being waged? What are the reasons given for the war? Is justice being accomplished by going to war? Wars of conquest, where a powerful nation arms itself against a weaker one simply to obtain the resources and land of that weaker nation are not just. It is thievery, and we are told in Scripture is against God’s will. A just war, however, might include saving people whose lives are in danger. Although not fully understood at the beginning, entry into war with the Nazis saved the lives of millions, although, sadly, salvation did not come soon enough for millions more. While the ends do not justify the means, if the ends are just, sometimes the means (war), if there is no other option, do bring justice to a situation.

The third criterion is this: is there a reasonable chance of success? To answer that question, we have to first define what success looks like. Is success the overthrow of an evil regime? Or is success the elimination of weapons of mass destruction intended to be used in unjust ways? Before war can begin, those who lead their nations into war must carefully define what the purpose of the war is and then also show what success will look like. Once success has been achieved (the overthrown of an evil regime, for example), the war should come to an end. Going one step further than the stated goal would be to engage in a war that could well be deemed as illegitimate.

Even with these three criteria, there are other considerations, principle among them the welfare of civilians. While it is generally accepted that when there is war and the lives of noncombatants become insecure, it must be the goal of the military to preserve the lives of civilians as much as possible. When combat involved weapons that could be employed only in hand-to-hand combat, the threat to the lives of civilians was minimal. However, when the weapons became more powerful and could be used at greater and greater distances, civilians were placed in greater danger. Bombing runs using visual sites often resulted in high civilian casualties. With the advent of high-tech electronics and sensitive GPS devices, it is possible to place a weapon within millimetres of its intended target. Sadly, however, weapons can be mis-aimed, or their tracking system may fail, and missiles which were intended to destroy military sites tear classrooms of students into shreds. Whatever the methods used, in war, if the collateral damage (a sanitized way of saying “death of men, women and children not engaged in war”) must be minimal and must be proportionate to the cause. The death of a handful of civilians might be justified if it means the saving of the lives of thousands. It is never right, but civilian deaths generally are inevitable in a war.

As an afterthought, we would do well to be reminded of Gregory Chaucer’s words as quoted from The Canterbury Tales:

There is full many a man that cries: “War, war!” that little knows what war involves. War at its inception has so high and wide an entrance, that every man may enter when he likes and easily find war. But, truly, what end shall befall, is not easily known. For truly, when war is once begun, there is many a child yet unborn that shall die young because of that war, or else live in sorrow, and die in wretchedness. And therefore, before any war is begun, men should take counsel and deliberate deeply.

I must admit that I cannot answer the question whether I would feel compelled to participate in any war, but it does seem that before anyone enters into or supports a war, they must carefully consider whether it is the only option left to obtain justice. War, which always involves the killing of fellow human beings who are created in God’s image and thus to be protected, should never be an easy option. It should always be a last resort in which its purpose and success are clearly defined, and where the injustices it seeks to overthrow far outweigh the injustices it creates.

And, always we must consider that Jesus, though fully able to win the war against his enemy by calling upon 10,000 angels to do battle, and while being fully justified in doing so and engaging in war, did not consider war to be the last resort but gave his life instead so that others could be saved. While we might not be able to save others through self-sacrifice, we should also consider the way of following in the footsteps of Jesus.

In the past few days two kinds of emails appeared in the spam folder of my email. One had to do with peeing my pants and the other had to do with night vision. These were not random. Last weekend Helen and I spend quite a bit of time on the road, and at one point I said to her, “If we don’t stop soon, I’m going to pee my pants.” And, at another point we were driving in wet snow that covered the lines on the road in a car with a broken wiper blade, and I said to Helen, “I’m having trouble seeing at night.” Someone (something) was listening, and this triggered something in cyberspace, and I am now receiving emails about how to improve my night vision and to stop peeing my pants (which, by the way, is not a problem).

I don’t pretend to know how the Internet works and how I was overheard (probably via my phone) saying these things, but I do know that these spam emails were not random. I had never seen those topics appear in my spam box before, so I know that it was targeted at me based on what I had said. I also have to say that I am not particularly bothered by this, at least not at this point, because I suspect that there was no human involved in the whole process. Rather, computer algorithms generated these responses, and my spam filter eliminated them from my inbox. (I always check my spam folder in case something was placed there in error.) Perhaps I might be more concerned if I thought that someone who was in the business of persecuting Christians had developed an algorithm which would enable them to identify me as someone they wanted to harm. That may come in the future, but I do not worry about that now. For now, I feel safe.

But this whole thing made me wonder: if the things that I am overheard saying were fed into an Artificial Intelligence (AI) program and that program was asked to develop a program that would create a profile of who I am, what would that profile look like? I worry that if that program only recorded me when I am driving down a street where I perceive that most of the other drivers have a less than average intelligence, my profile would not be one I would be proud of.

In a conversation I had recently, I challenged someone who was using rather derogatory terms to speak of people of a certain ethnic and religious heritage. I challenged her on it, and she said that she was just using those terms in a joking way. Maybe she was just joking, but if those statements became part of her profile, she would be labelled as a racist. She is a Christian, and she sees that all people are created in the image of God, regardless of skin colour or ethnicity and therefore should not be belittled. Racism is always wrong for everyone, but it is especially wrong for Christians because of our theology.

So, I wonder: if an AI program was tasked with listening to me for a week to produce a profile of who I am and what I think, what would it look like? We talk about profiling people, and profiling is usually done based on looks and in some places, if you are not white, you are immediately suspect. That is sinful profiling because it does not actually tell who a person is. It is much fairer to profile someone by what we hear them saying and watch them doing, for gathering that information helps us understand what a person really is like.

Jesus himself talked about profiling, in a sense. In Matthew 15:18 he says that is in our hearts come out in our words and actions and lifestyles. We can read what we are saying backward, taking what a person says and does to analyze their hearts, and that would give a much more accurate profile than what people erroneously do when they profile person based on appearance.

It would seem, then, that if AI listened to my conversations for a week and watched everything that I do, it could come up with a fairly accurate reading of what is in our hearts, the core of who we are. With today’s technology, it is not impossible, and we might find that the results would be close to reality.

What if we developed profiles of thousands of people, drawing upon what they were saying and doing over the course of a week of two? Would we begin to find trends and patterns? Could we begin to discern if being a follower of Jesus Christ changes our profile? Could someone determine that we are saved by looking at what we are saying and doing? Would our words and life choices be much different from those around us? Is there something about individuals within the Christian community that makes us stand apart from others? We would hope so, for as we commit our ways to Jesus, we expect the Holy Spirit to make us more Christlike.

It made me a little uncomfortable to receive emails that relate to conversations I had while in the privacy of my car. These emails also reminded me that what I say and do does say something about who I am or, at least, who I am perceived to be. I’m not sure I would want AI to generate a profile of me, but it might be helpful. Perhaps the profile would be an encouragement, but it also might reveal some areas of my life that need work. If we call ourselves Christians, it should follow that we also can be seen as Christians. Hopefully we do stand out from the rest of the world.

Some years ago I read a scholarly pamphlet which explained how the way people think has changed, especially regarding their belief systems. Although the pamphlet was highly technical in its language, two illustrations cut through the big words to give clarity to how people think.

The first picture is that of a wall made of concrete blocks. The bottom courses of block are the basic and foundational beliefs that one holds. Some examples of those blocks include, “God is real” and “Humans are sinful” and “God will punish sin” and “God is gracious.” Built on that bottom row of blocks is another row based on the first: “Jesus paid the price for sin” and “People who believe in Jesus are forgiven of their sins.” On top of that row of blocks are other rows, rows that deal with how we set priorities, how we interact with others, etc. In this system, the bottom row of blocks is vitally important, for if we knock out just one or two of the bottom blocks, the whole rest of the system weakens and eventually collapses. Salvation becomes irrelevant and standards of behaviour are lost.

We have seen the almost complete collapse of our walls in the past few decades as people stop believing in God and they stop considering the grave nature of sin. With the collapse of the foundation comes the collapse of society as we know it. Values and morality disappear because there is no foundation which supports them.

I am old enough that I tend toward this kind of thinking as do many of those who are of my age. Some of them have left the Christian faith altogether, rejecting the foundations of God’s existence, human sin, etc., and, as a result, they no longer believe anything or live lives that give any indication of a moral standard. Their walls have collapsed completely. On the other hand, those of us who operate with a system built on foundations are very adamant about guarding those foundations, for we feel that even if one or two of the foundational teachings disappear, there will be nothing left. All of life will collapse if those foundations are not maintained.

The second system of thinking, one adopted by many of the younger generation (subconsciously), uses the picture of a spider web. The important (and what we would call foundational) beliefs are the outer ring of the web. The web, we could say, is connected to the core beliefs such as “God exist” and “Humans are sinful.” The next ring would correspond to the second row of blocks, and the third ring with the third row of blocks, etc. As we know, when a spider spins her web, it has a beautiful geometric shape and is often quite artistic. As a child, I sometimes encountered a well-formed web, and I would poke at it with a stick, loosening one of the attachment points. The web would not collapse, but it would deform. It remained a web, but as I detached more of the points, it would grow increasingly deformed. Eventually it would hardly look like a web at all.

The pamphlet explained this more current system of thought in this way: a person may hold to many of the foundational beliefs but may reject a couple of them. For example, they might believe in the existence of God and they might be convinced that Jesus is our Saviour. But, at the same time, they may not believe that sin (or a certain sin) is really all that bad. This results in rather strange life choices. Someone might say that they trust in God, that they believe in Jesus, but they go on to live in sin with their girlfriend without thinking anything of it. Or, as another example, someone might believe in God, understand the gravity of sin, trust in Jesus but not believe that all human beings are created equally in God’s image. They might be highly racist or, as has happened in the past, make fellow human beings their slaves. While attaching themselves to many of the most important beliefs, they still have lives that are badly deformed because they have detached themselves from one or two of what we might call foundational beliefs.

With those who have a system of beliefs built like a block wall, it is generally fairly easy to identify if someone is a Christian. Their entire system falls all at once, and there is often nothing very Christian in how they think or how they live. On the other hand, it is very difficult to determine if a spider-web person is truly a believer. We do have to ask the question: how many of the key beliefs do they need to reject before we stop seeing them as being within the family of God? A deformed spider web is still a spider web, and for the spider, it still serves its purpose even though it might be deformed. There is a point, of course, when it will no longer catch flies, but it is hard to know what that point is.

For someone like myself who thinks in terms of a block wall, it is hard for me to understand how someone can call themselves a Christian and yet willfully and even proudly live and think in ways which are contrary to common Christian doctrine and lifestyle. It is illogical to me, for if something is not built on the foundation, it is wrong. For the person who is of the spider-web mentality, however, there is no real inconsistency. They still have a web of thought that includes most of what it is to a Christian, and they have no real concern about the deformation of their lives. Their inconsistency does not bother them because they still have most of the web of thought.

In the past, guarding the foundational points of the Christian faith was absolutely important because if we did not, the collapse was catastrophic. In our current state of things, we tend to be less concerned that someone hold to all of the important and essential teachings because we still see a web, even though it might be deformed. And this is where we might have reason to be quite concerned. In the 1960s, in Quebec, many people began to view the foundational teachings of Christianity to be either untrue or irrelevant, and the church collapsed with the vast majority of churches becoming nearly empty within a decade. They operated with the block wall principle. That collapse does not appear to be imminent today, at least not in the English-speaking part of North America. But there is another alarming movement, the deformation of Christian teaching. In removing (or ignoring) a few of the essential teachings of Scripture, there has been significant deformation but there does not seem to be too much worry. After all, there is still a web catching flies, and that should be good enough. But we do need to ask the question: if we continue to ignore some of the essential teachings of Scripture, when will what we view as Christianity cease to be Christianity? How much deformation is possible until the church is no longer the church of Jesus Christ? We don’t know, but certainly there is reason to make sure that we hold on to all of the teachings of Scripture so that Christian teaching and life can be beautiful as God intended it to be.

The Christian faith is meant to be a strong wall or a beautiful and intricate spider web. Removing the bottom stones results in collapse. Detaching a few points of the web results in deformation. No matter which system we operate with, a weak wall or a deformed web are not what God intended. It might be good for us to consider this and once again emphasize the importance of remembering that all of the teachings of Scripture are important and not just some of them. In so doing, we will have strong walls or beautiful webs, both of which glorify God.