Number 6: “There is no ‘rapture’ in the Bible.”

Here Stockin words his statement in such a way that although there is some truth to his argument, the truth does not logically lead to his conclusion.

Let me explain.

He begins his argument by stating that the word “rapture” does not appear at all in the Bible.  This is correct.  In fact, there are a number of terms that theologians use to describe the teachings of scripture that do not appear themselves in scripture.  For instance, no where in scripture does the word “Trinity” appear, yet the consistent testimony of scripture attests to the triune nature of God.

The word “rapture” also falls into this category.  It is not found in scripture, and on this note I would agree with Stockin.

However, Stockin then draws a conclusion from this fact that is less than logical.  The last paragraph in his argument is as follows: “Simply put, the “Rapture” is not biblically supported, and is a very modern Christian precept with a history going back only to the 19th century.  So where did Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins get their “Rapture” ideas that spawned 16 best-selling novels?  Like most Christian dogma it’s pure imagination, and very little Bible.”

Mr. Stockin couldn’t be more wrong.  Although the word “rapture” doesn’t occur within the pages of scripture, it is a concept that is discussed throughout its pages.  The second coming of the Messiah is a major theme of the New Testament, and the reunification of Christ with His Church is a major part of His return.

I’ll quote 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17

For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

But if one passage isn’t enough…. how about these:  1 Corinthians 15; John 14:3; Matthew 26:29; 1 Corinthians 11:26; 2 Thessalonians 2:1; Jude 14; and 1 Thessalonians 3:13 ought to be a good place to start.

(Drum Roll)...... Number 7

In a blog titled, "The Top 10 Shocking Things that Christians Don't Know about the Bible," David Stockin asserts that there are a number of things that Christians don't know about the word of God. He then goes to great lengths in some cases to show how ignorant Christians are, and to a large degree, I concur. Largely we have a society that is biblically illiterate. As a result, I have thought that it would be interesting to engage in a little dialogue about Mr. Stockin's claims in order to see how accurate he really is.

Claim #4 "Thou Shall Not Kill is NOT a commandment."

He is correct. The translators of the King James Version of the Bible, working up to its publication in 1611 translated the Hebrew word tirezah as "kill," but this clearly isn't the indication of the text. Certainly there are times when the government, acting in the authority that God has given it will enter into war. There are times when policemen and women will have to use deadly force to keep evil people at bay. God certainly values life, and as men and women we are created in the image of God, and as a result we are to be respecters of human life. The Hebrew word translated "kill" in the KJV is better rendered as "murder" in most modern translations, because the word, coming from the Hebrew root word razah means "premeditated, vengeful, unlawful, killing." (see Brown, Driver and Briggs Hebrew Lexicon pages 953-954.

Number 8, part 2

In a previous post, I outlined 11 assertions made by atheist David Stockin in his blog titled, “The Top 10 Shocking Things Christians Don’t Know about the Bible.”  In this blog, I will attempt to address them one by one.

1)  No where in the Old and New Testaments aside from Genesis 2:24 do we find any passage supportive of marriage.

Should a simple list be enough:  Ephesians 5:21-33; Malachi 2:14-16; Mark 10:6-9; Hebrews 13:4; Colossians 3:18-19; 1 Peter 3:1-7

I feel like we could go on and on, and certainly there are more texts and scriptures that describe how marriage was intended to function and outline the fact that marriage was God’s creation in the beginning.

2)  The marriage at Cana isn’t a good text to argue Jesus’ support of marriage, because all the account in scripture says is that he stopped by the party to have some wine and berate his mother.  He didn’t even attend the ceremony.

First of all, I would agree that this passage says nothing about Jesus’ support of, or hatred toward marriage.  However, to argue that Jesus didn’t attend the “ceremony” is a statement that is made out of ignorance.  Marriage “ceremonies” in the Ancient Near East are not like ceremonies today where a bride and a groom stand before family and friends and pledge their lives to one another.  It was more of a legal transaction than what we are used to.  It often involved a dowry to be paid (by the groom to the brides father) and a celebration (Party) followed by the consummation of the marriage.  More than likely, the celebration WAS the marriage ceremony.

3)  Jesus commands his followers to abandon their wives and children to follow him (Matthew 19:29; Mark 10:28-30; Luke 9:57-62.)

Here we see the dangers of taking a few verses out of the context in which they were written.  The Matthew text and the Mark text are parallel accounts, and therefore can be handled together, the Luke text is a different situation altogether, but the underlying message is the same.

We must love Jesus more than we love anyone else. 

In Matthew and Mark Jesus has just finished addressing a rich man who had great wealth and refused to abandon that wealth in order to follow Jesus.  Again, the issue is not about wealth, but about where your loyalty lies.  If my heart belongs to my stuff, then I cannot fully follow after Jesus.  If my heart belongs to my family, above my God, then I cannot fully follow after Jesus.  Certainly this is a harsh teaching, but it is not meant to demean or belittle marriage.  On the contrary it is about priorities.  Jesus must take top priority in the life of a Christian.  The same is true for Jesus’ comments in the Luke text.

The issue isn’t marriage, but priorities.

4)  Jesus gives instructions on how to divorce your wife.  (Matthew 19:5-9, Mark 10:8)

Yes, he does.  And if you read the text in context, he actually limits the justification for divorce.  Moses, because of the hardness of the people’s hearts allowed for divorce in just about any circumstance.  This was the first version of the No Fault Divorce!  But Jesus says this isn’t the way God intended it.  Marital unfaithfulness is the ONLY justification Jesus gives for divorce.  (Later in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 Paul adds another justification:  If an unbelieving spouse abandons a believing spouse, the believing spouse is not bound by that marriage)

5)  Paul orders Christians to not get married (1 Corinthians 7:27)

Read the whole text:  1 Corinthians 7:25-38 in particular verse 28 which says, “But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned.  Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that.”

Paul isn’t condemning marriage, but recognizing that marriage brings with it anxieties and troubles that unmarried people do not have.  Additionally it could be argued that unmarried people have anxieties and troubles that married people do not have (see 1 Corinthians 7:36).

7:38 sums it up well:  “So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better.”

6)  Jesus praises those who have made themselves Eunuchs (Matthew 19:10-13)

I would like to quote Bob Utley, Hermeneutics professor from East Texas Baptist University:

“Marriage is the norm (cf. Gen. 1:28; 9:17), but celibacy is a godly  option (cf. I Cor. 7:7,17).  A believer’s prayerful desires will guide him/her in this area.  If one chooses to be single, it should be for service to God (cf. I Cor. 7:32).

The Jews of Jesus’ day rejected singleness as a godly option. 
Jesus (then) discusses the different types of singles.”

Certainly this is a difficult text, but it in no way is designed to instruct everyone to make themselves eunuchs, or remain celibate or single.  Put simply this text challenges the culture of the day by asserting that singleness is a godly choice (as is marriage).

7)  Jesus gives instructions on murdering and beating children (Matthew 15:4-7; Mark 7:9-10)

Honestly, I don’t know how these texts instruct people to beat or murder children.  Read them here.

8)  Jesus endorses the beating of slaves (Luke 12:47)

First of all, this is a parable steeped in the culture of the day in which it was written, and secondly, I’m not sure what this has to do with marriage.

9)-11) Jesus says that he has come to destroy families (Matthew 10:21 and 10:34)

Matthew chapter 10 is full of malicious talk about the family and marriage.

Matthew 10 also instructs Christians to become martyrs in the same way that the Koran instructs Muslims.

The “offensive” texts in Matthew 10 are found in two places:  Matthew 10:21-22 and 10:34-39. (contrary to Matthew 10 being “full of malicious talk about marriage and family.”)

First things first, though, there is very little, if anything, said in this passage about marriage in particular.  It does, however, when taken out of context, appear to be harmful to the family.  Therefore let us engage in a brief discussion.

In this passage, Jesus is sending out the 12 apostles in order to take the Good News to the people of Israel.  In doing so, they will no doubt face persecution.  The persecution, Jesus warns, will not simply be from unnamed, faceless Jews, but instead it will come from those closest to you.  In many cultures today, to profess the name of Jesus means that your family will disown you and in some cases hand you over to authorities to be punished and/or put to death.  As a result, your commitment to Jesus must be greater than your commitment to your family, and even your own life.

Secondly, Jesus has not come to bring war or strife, but the fact that the Messiah has come will force humans to make a radical decision between followship or rejection of Him.  The text which talks about “hating your father or mother” is not meant to be taken literally,but instead should be recognized as a Hebrew idiom (cf. Gen. 29:31,
33; Deuteronomy. 15; Mal. 1:2-3; John. 12:25).  This then speaks of a radical priority commitment to Jesus which supersedes all earthly relationships. 

Again, this passage is not meant to demean marriage or the family, both of which are institutions defended by scripture.  Instead, given the context in which Jesus is making these statements, we are to understand that he is calling us to a radical commitment to him, even if it costs us all of our familial relationships

Now i will admit that these are difficult teachings, and ones that we must heed if we desire to be true followers of Christ.

But no where in these texts do we understand them to stand in opposition to marriage or family.

More to come!

Jesus is against marriage? NUMBER 8

In this particular article, David Stockin claims a good number of things based on scripture taken out of context.  Before we begin, let’s take a look at how he supports his claim that “Jesus is against marriage (with anyone).”

(note:  The statements below are summations of the points made in an article titled, “The Top 10 Shocking Things Christians Don’t Know about the Bible.” written by a self proclaimed atheist named David Stockin.  The statements numbered below are not mine, and, in my opinion, are great examples of eisegesis (reading into scripture your particular point of view) and poor hermeneutics (biblical interpretation).)

1.  No where in the Old and New Testaments aside from Genesis 2:24 do we find any passage supportive of marriage.

2.  The marriage at Cana isn’t a good text to argue Jesus’ support of marriage, because all the account in scripture says is that he stopped by the party to have some wine and berate his mother.  He didn’t even attend the ceremony.

3.  Jesus commands his followers to abandon their wives and children to follow him (Matthew 19:29; Mark 10:28-30; Luke 9:57-62.)

4.  Jesus gives instructions on how to divorce your wife.  (Matthew 19:5, Mark 10:8)

5.  Paul orders Christians to not get married (1 Corinthians 7:27)

6.  Jesus praises those who have made themselves Eunuchs (Matthew 19:10-13)

7.  Jesus gives instructions on murdering and beating children (Matthew 15:4-7; Mark 7:9-10)

8.  Jesus endorses the beating of slaves (Luke 12:47)

9.  Jesus says that he has come to destroy families (Matthew 10:21 and 10:34)

10.  Matthew chapter 10 is full of malicious talk about the family and marriage.

11.  Matthew 10 also instructs Christians to become martyrs in the same way that the Koran instructs Muslims.

Now, there are many problems with this claims, and one post would be too long to deal with each of them together, so we will take a look at one or two at a time, so that we can work through his arguments in an orderly manner.

The first installment will be later today.

The Top 10 Shocking Things Christians Don't Know About the Bible.... NUMBER 9

OK, so I'm sorry about not posting yesterday, we had a lot going on here at the church... I'm sure you'll forgive me.

The number 9 shocking thing that Christians don't know about the Bible according to David Stockin is as follows:

9. There is no resurrection of Jesus in the Bible

OK, now this one just makes me laugh. He's really reaching for anything at this point. He states the following:

There is absolutely no resurrection narrative found anywhere in the four canonical Gospels. Nowhere in the New Testament is there a description of Jesus coming back to life. Sorry to disappoint you, but all of the "He is Risen" stickers are just wrong. "He has Disappeared" would be more accurate.

There is no more important event for a Christian's faith than the resurrection of Christ. Paul sums it up this way...

... if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain." 1 Corinthians 15:14

And so, when Stockin attacks the historicity (you're welcome Kelly Russell) of the resurrection, then he not only attacks the validity of scripture, but our faith as well.

So let's put to the test Stockin's claim using the criteria that he uses. First, he argues that there is no resurrection account in the four canonical gospels. Second, he says that nowhere in the New Testament is there a description of Jesus coming back to life.

The Four Gospels

Matthew 28:1-20

Two women approach the tomb, there is an earthquake, and an angel rolls the stone away. The guards freeze with fear and the report that Jesus is alive is given along with a command to tell the other disciples. As they are leaving, they SEE Jesus, and actually TOOK HOLD of his feet. Later, after the guards muster up a lie about the disciples taking the body, the eleven disciples see Jesus again just before he ascends into heaven

Mark 16:1-8

Three women approach the tomb, an angel rolled the stone away and told them that Jesus was alive.

Luke 24:1-53

Some followers (4 women) of Jesus approach the tomb and find it empty, it is reported to them by two angels that Jesus is alive. They quickly returned and told the disciples but no one believes them. Peter goes and sees the empty tomb.

Then Jesus WALKS and TALKS with two disciples on the road to Emmaus.

Then Jesus APPEARS to the disciples, they TOUCH him and he EATS with them

They they watched as he ascended into heaven

John 20:1-21:25

John devotes two chapters to the resurrection of Christ.

As with the other gospels, it is women who first see the empty tomb.

Peter and John then run and find Jesus is not in the tomb.

Jesus then appears to a weeping Mary in the garden.

Jesus then appears to 10 disciples in a room with locked doors, but Thomas doesn't believe.

So Jesus appears to the 10 and Thomas and they TOUCH him.

Later in the account he appears to 7 disciples while they are fishing. He eats with them and has extended discussions with Peter and John.

In conclusion... each of the four gospels contains an account of the resurrection of Christ, and all but Mark record post resurrection appearances of Christ which describe Jesus touching, eating and teaching the disciples.

The Rest of the New Testament

Where to start? Because the New Testament says so much about the resurrection of Christ, for simplicity we will simply refer to 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 which discusses the post-resurrection appearances of Christ.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than 500 brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born , he appeared also to me.

So, according to Paul, Jesus not only was raised from the dead, but he appeared to over 500 different people over a period of 40 days, and then appeared to Paul at some point following his resurrection (see Acts 9). This is not what we would expect to hear in Jesus were simply "missing." He wasn't "missing," he was alive, and people saw him, touched him, ate with him, and walked with him.

But do you want to know what is really cool? 1 Corinthians 15:6 tells us that most of the people that had seen the risen Lord were still alive. That meant that when Paul wrote this, the people in Corinth could have traveled to Jerusalem and met these people.

Not only that, but in Acts 2, Peter stands up and preaches that Jesus had been crucified and that he rose from the dead. Thousands of people hear this first sermon of Peter's at Pentecost. The whole event occurs less than 2 months after the crucifixion of Christ and not one person is recorded as pointing out the absurdity of Peter's belief in the resurrection. Not one person points to his tomb or his body. Instead, we see thousands of people who place their faith in a risen Lord.

And by the way, these people that saw Jesus after his resurrection believed it so strongly, that they all lost their lives in some of the most horrendous ways possible

As we continue to work our way through the claims of David Stockin, we will see that in some cases, he has a valid argument based on how he defines certain words, or on how he words his statements. But in this case, he is just plain wrong.

The Top 10 Shocking Things Christians Don't Know About the Bible

As I was researching for a sermon last week I came across a website that is written by a self-proclaimed atheist named David Stockin. In the introduction to his article, he writes the following:

"It never ceases to amaze me how little Christians know about their religious texts. My experience is that the more religious a person is, the less he or she knows about their religion."

He then compiles a list of "top 10 things about the Bible Christians don't know." in order to "demonstrate exactly how shockingly out of touch modern Christians are from the teachings found in the Bible."

And so, for the next 10 days or so, we will take a look at each of these 10 "facts" that have been presented, one at a time, in order to see if Mr. Stockin is correct (in some cases he will be right), mistaken (in some cases, he uses verses out of context or defines words in such a way as to prove his point), or just flat out wrong (yep, he's wrong some, too).

As Christians, hopefully this will give us insight into the mind and workings of an atheist, and hopefully give us some practice in discerning truth from fiction.

And so, without further adieu.... (in my best David Letterman voice).... NUMBER 10

10. Despite Mel Gibson's movie, there is almost no crucifixion account.

David Stockin's Statement: "One thing that stuns most Christians is that there is actually little to no text describing the crucifixion of Jesus. In general, all the Gospels have to say is that he was convicted and crucified. That's pretty much it. Of the few details that are in the Gospels, they don't actually relate to the actual crucifixion. There are a few details regarding some comments made by Jesus (each Gospel has a different account), crowds mocking him, thieves beside him, etc. But most folks are surprised at how little there actually is in the Bible regarding the crucifixion of Jesus. So what did Mel Gibson base his grotesque movie on? You'll have to ask him."

I have so much to say about this particular issue, but I will try to limit my comments so this post is actually readable. Let's start with the biblical accounts of the crucifixion as described in the four gospel accounts.

First we have to realize that each gospel was written to a specific people, which determined the style of writing and content of the message. For instance, the book of Matthew is written primarily to the Jews, and as a result, there is a heavy reliance upon Old Testament scriptures and Jesus' fulfillment of those scriptures. As a result, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all tell identical stories as well as stories that are unique to their own gospel.

This in no way attacks the validity of the scriptures any more than 4 different individual accounts of D-Day would make any of us question the fact of the invasion of Normandy. As a result, Stockin's parenthetical statement about each gospel containing a different account, although somewhat accurate, doesn't prove anything.

But one area in which the gospels are in striking agreement is on the events of the last week of the life of Christ. In fact, huge portions of the gospels are devoted to this one week's events.

In Matthew, chapters 1-20 follow Jesus for three years of teaching and healing on this earth. Chapters 21-28 (that's 28.5% of the book) are devoted to the final week of Christ's life.

The other gospels follow suit:

Mark: Chapters 1-10-- 3 years; Chapters 11-16 (37.5%)-- One week

Luke: Chapters 1-18-- 3 years; Chapters 19-24 (25%)-- One week

John: Chapters 1-11, 21-- 3 years; Chapters 12-20 (42.8%)-- One week

It is obvious, with at least 1/4 of the gospel writings devoted to this final week of Christ's life on earth (prior to resurrection) that each gospel is just an extended passion narrative. In other words, it is Christ's death, burial and resurrection that finds itself at the core of the message. It is so important to the gospel writers, that each of them slams on the breaks and devotes huge portions of their book to discussing the events that surround this final week.

As far as the actual crucifixion event, each gospel mentions the crucifixion, some giving more detail than others.

Matthew 26:47-27:26 discusses the arrest and trial of Jesus. Verse 26 states that they had him flogged. It is this flogging practice that typically began the crucifixion process in the Roman world. The flogging (to which Mel Gibson gives great detail and screen time) was brutal and often left the criminal with exposed muscle and bone.

Matthew 27:27-31 discusses the mocking and physical abuse that occurred at the hands of the soldiers

Matthew 27:32-56 describes what happened during the 6 hours that Jesus was actually on the cross during which time he cried out to God, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

In total, Matthew devotes roughly 83 verses to describing what took place in a period of time less than 24 hours

Mark, the shortest of the gospel accounts, also gives an account of his crucifixion.

Mark 14:43-15:15 describes the arrest and trial of Jesus

Mark 15:15 says that he was handed over to be flogged (per custom of Rome, see above)

Mark 15:16-20 discusses the mocking and physical abuse at the hands of the soldiers

Mark 15:21-41 describes the 6 hours on the cross, during which time he cries out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

In total, Mark devotes 71 verses to the events of less than 24 hours

** Note, Matthew and Mark agree in the sayings of Jesus while on the cross without ANY discrepancy

Luke 22:47-23:25 discuss the arrest and trial

Luke 23:26-49 describe the 6 hours on the cross, during which time, Jesus says, "Father, forgiven them for they do not know what they are doing (23:34)," "Truly, I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise (23:43)," and "Father into your hands I commit my spirit (23:46)."

In total, Luke devotes 72 verses to the events of less than 24 hours.

John 18:1-19:16 describe the arrest and trial of Jesus

John 19:16-37 discusses the events that transpired during the 6 hours on the cross, during which time Jesus says, "Woman, here is your son," "Here is your mother (19:26-27)," I am thirsty (19:28)," "It is finished (19:30)."

** again, note that just because each gospel records different words uttered from Christ's mouth, that does not mean that he didn't say all of these things (and perhaps more) while on the cross. But each gospel records what is important for its readers (and writers) to understand and know. For instance, John records the interchange with Mary (see vs. 19:26-27) because John was involved in the dialogue. No other disciple would have had the personal connection to those events that John had. It would make sense that he would record it, while others would not.

All in all, John devotes 77 verses to the arrest, trial, and crucifixion of Christ, the events that took place in less than 24 hours of time.

We could go on, and mention additional passages from both the Old Testament and New Testament that discuss the crucifixion of Christ as a central theme (along with his resurrection) of the gospel message, but it seems clear that Mr. Stockin is only interested in what is recorded in the 4 gospels.

In this brief post, I have show that the gospels devote 29 chapters of material (More than the entire length of any one gospel account) to the final week of Jesus' life, and a total of 303 verses (nearly twice as many as Psalm 119-- which is the longest chapter in the entire Bible) to the arrest, trial, and crucifixion of Jesus.

Now, his argument is going to be this: When it comes to the actual time that Jesus spent on the cross, very little is said.

My response is two-fold:

1) What do you want to be said? Crucifixion was a gruesome process, it was painful-- both physically and mentally. He would have had an increasingly difficult time breathing, and as a result, he would not have spoken much. Most of the time that Jesus was on the cross his followers would have been found in mourning, as they watched as their son, friend, brother, and savior die. Additionally, he was only on the cross for a total of around 6 hours. This is a relatively short amount of time for someone to hang on the cross. As a result, it is not surprising that the gospel writers didn't have chapters worth of material.

2) Years from now, when we read of the execution of Saddam Hussein or of the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden, there will not be chapters and books of details that surround their death, but no one will dispute the historicity of the events. We don't need all of the gory minute by minute details. Why? Because it doesn't really matter. For historians, it is important that we have recorded that Hussein was killed by hanging, while Bin Laden was killed in a military raid of his compound.

And although Jesus was NOT a criminal (he was convicted of false crimes), nor had he committed ANY wrong (unlike Hussein or Bin Laden), he was put to death as a part of political and judicial action.

And as Christians, the important aspects that follow this final day of Jesus' life (prior to resurrection) are the facts that he was crucified on a Roman cross (a detail that each of the gospels (and the rest of scripture) is in complete agreement on); and that he rose from the dead (another fact, as we will see later, that the gospels, and the early church all agree on.) We should not doubt the historicity of the accounts simply because we don't have every gory detail. We don't apply the same criteria in any other event in history.

So, as far as Mr. Stockin's first statement, that there is almost no crucifixion account, I beg to differ. It is the consistent testimony of scripture (and extrabiblical accounts too, but that is another story) that Jesus Christ died on a Roman Cross.

I've got a river of life

Imagine if you will, a very remote village located deep in the Congo Jungle of Africa… for 2000 years villagers have existed in this village, subsisting on hunting and the small amount of crops that could be grown and harvested among the high trees that canopied them.

Hundreds, and perhaps thousands of years ago, so long ago that no one really remembers when, the forefathers of this village dug a canal to bring freshwater through the jungle and near enough to their village that their women wouldn’t fear attack on the long traverse to and from the water’s edge. The stories about the building of the canal were matter of legend. Stories were told of the villagers fighting off attacks from neighboring tribes and defending the canal to the point of death. Many individuals died in the project that ultimately took years to finish.

Those that completed the task were considered heroes. The villagers named their children after the men that gave their lives to the canal that brought much needed life-giving water the village.

But now the canal is dry. The life giving water that once flowed between its mighty banks has long since gone missing. The river had been diverted and the tributary that once fed this canal has also run dry. But the canal is still there. It still bears the marks from where the waters used to rise and fall with the rainy season. The villagers still name their children after the engineers, and they often still engage in battles to defend the now lifeless banks of a canal that used to be worth something.

The villagers had long since misunderstood the source of life—They thought he canal was to be reveared, the canal was to be honored, the canal was to be fought for… but the canal did not give to them life. The canal did not quench their thirst. The canal did not offer anything in and of itself. The canal was simply a channel, through which life was delivered.

Now make no mistake about it, the canal was essential. It was the vehicle that carried the water to those in need… but now it was simply an empty ditch, a vacant trench that carried no life giving or redeeming qualities.

Nearly 2000 years ago, a man walked this earth, and he claimed to be someone different. He claimed to be the son of God; he claimed to be God himself.

And when he left this earth, ascending into heaven under the watchful eyes of the disciples, he brought into being the church. The gathering of believers.

And it brought life. The gospel of Jesus was carried the ends of the earth and people were filled with living water, never to thirst again (John 4). People were fed spiritually and became spiritually well. People who never had hope, now were filled with the fruits of love, joy, hope, and peace. Fruits that were watered by the life-giving gospel carried to the far corners of the earth by the church.

And many died to protect it from attack. And many suffered and bled in its construction.

And the church became honored. Those that helped to build and sustain it were counted as heroes. People named their children and streets and buildings after those who had worked so hard to make it all that it was.

But we, just like the villagers of the Congo, often misunderstand the source of life.

Because the church in and of itself offers no redeeming qualities. The redemption comes from what the church carries. Life comes from the truth that is vehicled through the church’s methodology, programming, and witness.

And all of this begs the question: Is the Church still the bastion of living water, or is it a dried up ditch? On a more personal level, the Bible tells us that Jesus is alive inside of all of us. (Galatians 2:20). Are you a vibrant channel of God’s grace, allowing Him to use you to pour out his life-giving power on all you come into contact with (John 7:37)? Or are you an empty well that used to be filled with goodness, but now offers no more redemptive value.

I want the Church to be a channel of God’s grace and salvation. I want our church to be a tributary of the main branch that feeds and fuels and brings life to those that we come into contact with. I want my life to be a channel of God’s grace and salvation. I want people to find life in the life that I carry within my own.

And I will fight for that church. I would die for that church. But there is little use for an empty ditch.