Messiah Archives | Redeeming God

“Christ” is not the last name of Jesus … It’s a title

When someone talks about Christ, everybody knows they are talking about Jesus. Yet few people realize that the word “Christ” is not a name, but a title.

Defining Christ

The word Christ comes from the Greek word christos, and is not actually a translation of the word, but a transliteration. The Greek letters of christos have simply been changed into English letters so that we get the word Christ. The same is true of the Hebrew equivalent, Messiah (Heb., Mashiach; cf. John 1:41).

The words themselves mean “anointed one” and can refer to someone who has been specially chosen by God to fulfill a function or complete a specific task, such as a king (1 Sam 9:16; 2 Sam 2:4-7; 1 Kings 1:34-45; Isa 45:1), priest (Exod 28:41; 30:30), or prophet (Isa 61:1). While the anointing upon these individuals was initially performed with oil, it later came to be thought of primarily as a spiritual anointing by God.

However, it is important to note that the term Christ has nothing to do with being divine. That is, while it is a biblical and theological fact that Jesus was fully God, we do not get this idea from the fact that Jesus is the Christ.

Yes, Jesus Christ is God incarnate. Yet “Christ” does not mean “God.” Even though I can say “The sky is blue” and “The sky is up,” this does not mean that the word “blue” means “up.” It doesn’t.

So also, even though the Bible teaches that “Jesus is the Christ” and that “Jesus is God,” the two statements are not theologically equivalent. Both statements are true, but both statements are saying different truths about Jesus.

After all, if Christ, or Mashiach, meant “God,” then what would the Bible be saying about those other individuals in Scripture, such as David, Saul, or Cyrus, who also called Mashiach?

It is best therefore, to think of the titles Christ or Messiah, as referring to someone who has received a special anointing by God to perform a specific task or purpose. Such a definition is true of every anointed person, whether it is a king, a prophet, a priest, or Jesus Himself.

“Christ” means “Anointed One”

In the Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the title of “anointed one” (Mashiach or Christos) is used almost solely in reference to Jesus Christ. Paul takes the term even further so that it often refers not just to Jesus, but also to all who are in Jesus as part of His church (cf. Gal 3:27; Eph 3:4).

Eventually, the term “Christ” became so closely associated with the followers of Jesus, that eventually we became known as “Christians.”

So what is the best translation for the term Christ? While “anointed one” might be the most accurate translation, it is a bit of a mouthful to say “Jesus the Anointed One” all the time.

So is there a shorter term that might be preferable? Since most of the examples of anointed people in Scripture refer to prophets, priests, and kings, it is best to understand the term Christ in similar ways when it refers to Jesus.

Jesus is the pre-eminent prophet (Acts 3:18-24), priest (Heb 4:14-16), and king (Rev 19:16). Jesus is authoritative in how He judges, what He says, and where He leads.

Due to the wide variety of Messianic descriptions in the Old Testament, the Hebrew people often wondered what the Messiah would be like when He came. Would He be a king? A priest? A judge? A prophet? A deliverer? Would He be some combination of these, like the Priestly-King Melchizedek (Heb 5:5-11)?

When Jesus finally did arrive and declare Himself as the Messiah, the answer to all such questions was “Yes!” To speak of Jesus as the Christ is to speak of Him as our King, Priest, Prophet, Judge, Lord, Master, and Savior.

To speak of Jesus as the Christ is not only has the governmental role of ruler and king in view, but also the spiritual roles of prophet and priest, the legal roles of judge and counselor, and the personal roles of friend and brother.

So as it turns out, maybe the term Christ, left untranslated from the Greek christos, is the best word after all, as long as we recognize the rich significance and meaning of this term.

If you take all the roles from all the anointed leaders through all of biblical history, and combine them all together into one person, He looks just like Jesus Christ.

Jesus is the anointed King-Priest-Prophet-Judge-Lord-Master-Ruler-Savior.

As such, Jesus Christ rules and reigns not just over eternity, but also over every aspect of our lives here on earth as well.

“Christ” and the Gospel

This understanding of Christ is critical for a proper understanding of the biblical gospel. There are some people in Christianity who think that the gospel is only about how to go to heaven when you die.

The truth, however, is that while the gospel does tell us how to have eternal life so that we can go to heaven when we die (I call this “The Target Truth” in The Gospel According to Scripture), this truth is relatively small compared to the large number and wide variety of gospel truths contained within the Scriptures.

The gospel message of Jesus Christ is not primarily about how to go to heaven when we die, but is instead about how to follow Jesus on this earth while we live.

The gospel is more about this life than about the next. And Jesus as “the Christ” shows and instructs us how to live this life.

When we see that Jesus as the Christ claims authority and preeminence over every aspect of our lives, this helps us learn to follow Him and seek His guidance as we go about our days and interact with others. Serving Jesus as our Lord and Master reminds us that we do not serve human kings or presidents, but only King Jesus. Our affiliation is not to a political party, but to the Kingdom of God (Acts 17:2-7).

So when we read about Jesus Christ in the Bible, or when we read about how Christians are in Christ, it is important to not over-spiritualize word Christ, but instead to recognize that a statement is being bad about the Lordship and Mastery of Jesus over all things.

Yes, the term Christ itself means “anointed one” but Jesus was anointed to rule and reign over all things. The term Christ reminds us that as Christians, we follow Jesus as our Lord, Master, Ruler, and King.

In this way, the term Christ is central to the gospel because without Jesus as the Christ, there is no gospel. The good news message about Jesus is often described by Paul as “the gospel of Christ” (cf. Rom 1:16; 1 Cor 9:12; Gal 1:7).

If we want to understand the gospel, we must understand what it means for Jesus to be the Christ, the Messiah, the Anointed One of God, the Kingly and Priestly Ruler of all.

There are over 500 references in the New Testament which mention the term Christ. We cannot look at all of them, so let us consider one key text which reveals what it means for Jesus to be the Christ.

John 20:31 – Jesus is the Christ

… but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name (John 20:31).

I stated above that the word Christ is not directly equivalent to being divine. That is, even though Jesus is God, and even though Jesus is the Christ, the two statements are not equivalent.

Though the title Christ carries rich theological symbolism and significance, one idea it does not carry is that of divinity.

Nevertheless, there are verses that seem to teach this connection. John 20:31 is one such verse. Some people use John 20:31 as evidence that divinity is included within the concept of Christ, for this text defines the word Christ with the phrase “the son of God.” A closer inspection of this passage reveals what John is really saying.

John 20:30-31 contains the purpose statement for the Gospel of John. He says that he wrote his Gospel account so that those who read it might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing they might have life in His name. This does indeed fit with what John writes in his Gospel.

Many refer to the fourth Gospel as “The Gospel of Belief” for it explains over and over that God gives eternal life to anyone who believes in Jesus for it (cf. John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47).

Since Matthew, Mark, and Luke are written more for Christians to help us learn how to follow Jesus in the path of discipleship, the purpose of John’s Gospel makes it the best one for unbelievers to read. John specifically wrote his Gospel account so that unbelievers might believe in Jesus.

However, John did not write this Gospel account only for unbelievers. While he emphasizes over and over how a person can believe in Jesus for eternal life, John also knows that God wants much more for us than to just believe in Jesus.

Though it is critically important for someone to believe in Jesus for eternal life, this is only the beginning of all that God has for us in Jesus Christ.

God not only wants us to have life; He wants us to have it in abundance (John 10:10; see Abundant Life).

The Gospel of John is not just about how to receive eternal life, but is also about how to fully experience this life in Jesus.

So although John is the best Gospel for nonbelievers to read, there is lots of discipleship truth in this Gospel for believers as well.

John wants Christians to have all of the life that Jesus has for us, not just eternal life, but also the full experience of eternal life in Jesus Christ. And this comes, not just by believing in Jesus for eternal life—which is emphasized all over in the Gospel of John—but also by believing that Jesus is the Christ, that is, that He is King, Ruler, Master, Lord, and Savior.

Does saying that “Jesus is the Son of God” mean “Jesus is God”?

But what about that phrase “Son of God”? Does not this mean that Jesus is God?

Well, like “Christ,” the term “Son of God” is also a title. The way John uses this title in the verse shows that the two terms mean the same thing. John explains the word “Christ” with the term “Son of God.”

Since many people think that the title “Son of God” means “God,” they then conclude from this text that the term “Christ” also means “God.” But it does not.

During the Roman Empire, especially beginning with Caesar Augustus and following, the Caesars often referred to themselves as sons of God. By this, they were not claiming to be God incarnate, nor were they claiming (in most cases anyway) that they were the biological offspring of a Roman deity and a human woman.

By taking the title “the son of God,” the Caesars were saying that while they had been born as a human being to human parents, they had now become the adopted child of the gods. This status as adopted sons of God conferred upon them all the power and privilege that came with being part of the divine family, which meant that the Caesars had the divine right to rule over the Roman Empire.

So the title “son of God” is not primarily about being God or becoming a God, but is instead about ruling with the authority of God. Like the title “Christ,” it is about being King, Lord, Ruler, and Master over all things.

When a Caesar declared himself to be a son of God, he was not saying he was God, but was instead claiming that he had the right to rule and govern the Roman Empire.

This also is what it means to refer to Jesus as the Son of God, except that Jesus does not only rule over the Roman Empire, but over every kingdom, empire, and country on earth.

So here at the end of his Gospel account, John explains that he wrote his Gospel so that those who read it might believe that Jesus has the right to rule over all areas of life.

Not just over every corner of ever countries, however, but also over every act and thought of all people. John wants people to believe in Jesus not just for eternal life, but also for every other aspect of life as well.

Those who believe this will have the full experience of life that God wants for us. This is what it means to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (cf. 1 John 4:2-3, 15).

To learn more about the title “Christ,” and the meaning of other texts that use this term, take the Lesson on Christ in my Gospel Dictionary online course.

Understanding the Gospel requires us to properly understand the key words and terms of the Gospel. Take my course, "The Gospel Dictionary" to learn about the 52 key words of the Gospel, and hundreds of Bible passages that use these words.

This course costs $297, but when you join the Discipleship group, you can to take the entire course for free.

Did Paul wish that he could go to hell in Romans 9:3?

By Jeremy Myers
8 Comments

In Romans 9:3, Paul writes, “For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh.”

Is Paul saying that he wished he could go to hell if it would mean that his Jewish brethren would believe in Jesus and become Christians?

No, Paul Does Not Desire to Go to Hell in Romans 9:3

First, hell is not mentioned in Romans 9:3. Paul states his desire to be accursed if this would allow his brethren, the Jewish people, to recognize Jesus as the Messiah.

When people believe that the word anathema, or accursed, means “going to hell when you die,” they think that Paul is wishing he could go to hell if only all his fellow Israelites would receive eternal life instead. This sounds very noble and extremely spiritual, but Paul isn’t saying he wants to go to hell for the sake of the Jewish people.

Paul is saying that he would be willing to lose his life if it meant that his fellow Israelites would recognize Jesus as the Messiah. It is interesting that while the Jewish men in Acts 23:14 announce a curse on themselves if they don’t kill Paul, Paul here announces a desire to be cursed if it would lead to the deliverance of the Jewish people.

Indeed, Paul’s life was quite often on the line as he sought to declare the gospel to the Hebrew people. So these were not mere words on Paul’s part, but were actually indicative of Paul’s regular approach to ministry.

The Translator is the Traitor

The objection to this way of understanding Romans 9:3, of course, is the phrase “from Christ.” In the NKJV, Paul says that he wishes he “were accursed from Christ,” but other translations are not so vague. The NAS has Paul wishing to be “separated from Christ” while the NIV has Paul stating a desire to be “cut off from Christ.” Yet neither “separated” nor “cut off” are in the original Greek, but were added to the text by the translators in an attempt to explain what they thought Paul was saying.

However, rather than clarifying his point, it appears they have muddied it. While Paul’s statement could be understood as a desire to be eternally separated from Jesus Christ, this does not fit with all other uses of the term anathema in the Bible, and so it is the least likely way to understand this text.

Two other possible ways of understanding Romans 9:3 are preferable.

Two Ways of Understanding Romans 9:3

First, when Paul states his desire to be “accursed from Christ,” he could be saying that Jesus Christ is the originator of the anathema. In this way, Paul would be stating that if he were put to death (anathema), it would be something that came from Christ.

A second option, however, is more preferable still. When Paul writes about “Christ,” he usually does not have only Jesus in mind. The word Christ (Gk., Christos) is equivalent to the Hebrew word for Messiah (Heb., Messiach), and means King. But in reference to the way Paul uses the title Christ, it does not only refer to Jesus, but also to all those who are in Jesus Christ and rule and reign through Him.

In Paul’s letters, the word Christ is shorthand for “the body of Christ” or “Jesus Christ and all who are in Him.” Since Christ and Messiah are kingly terms, when Paul speaks of the corporate life of Christ in the church, he is also thinking of the rule and reign of God on earth through the body of Christ, the church.

This final option provides the best way of reading Romans 9:3.

When Paul writes about being anathema from Christ, he is not stating a desire to be eternally cut off or separated from Jesus, but is instead stating his desire, if it were possible, to give up his life and his ministry within the Kingdom of God if such a sacrifice would help Israel come to the knowledge that Jesus is the Messiah.

This, of course, would still allow Paul to spend eternity with God and with all the saints.

In Romans 9:3, Paul does not have a wish for hell, but a willingness to sacrifice himself for the sake of those he loves.

Such sacrificial willingness is supremely Christlike, which only goes to show that if Paul were indeed to die for Christ as he desires, this would not separate Him from Jesus but would instead be the perfect representation of Jesus in His sacrifice for us.

This course costs $297, but when you join the Discipleship group, you can to take the entire course for free.

The Satanic Messiah vs. The Suffering Messiah

By Jeremy Myers
6 Comments

Have you heard of the Satanic Messiah? Probably not, since most people usually don’t think of Satan and the Messiah as having anything to do with each other.

Yet surprisingly, worship of the Satanic Messiah may be more common than we realize.

In fact, such worshippers may exist in our own town … maybe even in our own church!

What is the Satanic Messiah?

The Satanic Messiah usually goes by the name of “Jesus,” and is often confused with Jesus. In fact, the Satanic Messiah Jesus is identical to the Suffering King Jesus in nearly every way.

There are only three things that set them apart. While the Satanic Messiah looks like Jesus, acts like Jesus, and talks like Jesus, the Satanic Messiah has accepted and adopted the three values of the Satanic kingdom which were offered to Jesus in Matthew 4 and Luke 4. In Matthew 4 and Luke 4, Jesus rejected the Satanic offerings of (1) self-reliance, (2) control over others, and (3) glory before men. And while Jesus rejected these things when offered to Him by Satan, the Satanic Messiah has accepted and adopted such offerings, and has even called them “good.”

Where is this Satanic Messiah so that we might avoid Him and warn others to do the same?

This Satanic Messiah is the Messiah which is often preached from the pulpits and beheld in the books of modern Christianity. If modern Christianity has patterned itself after Jesus, then the Jesus we present to the world is not the Jesus who rejected the offers of self-reliance, control over others, and glory before men, but is the “Jesus” who has accepted such values and now holds them up as virtues.

Where is such a “Jesus”? He can be found all around us. He can sometimes be found in our churches, homes, and in our own treatment of others.

If the church is the representative of Jesus to the world, then to the degree that the church seeks to meet our own needs before the needs of others, desires to control the beliefs and behaviors of others (both inside and outside the church), and chases after glory, fame, power, wealth, and recognition before men, is the same degree to which the church presents Jesus as a Satanic Messiah to the watching world.

Don’t be shocked by such a statement. This is not new. Mankind has always tried to make God in our own image, and God has always been trying to reveal Himself to us as He really is. We have wanted a God of self-reliance who needs nothing and nobody, who glorifies Himself by destroying His enemies and forcing every molecule into submission to His will, and who requires that all people worship and adore Him lest they face the torment of His eternal wrath.

But in the face of this grotesque depiction of a manmade-God, God has been trying to show us since the very beginning in Genesis 1, that He is a God of light, love, hope, healing, mercy, grace, and forgiveness. As a result of God’s eternal love, He created human beings so that we might love Him in return. He wants our love, but knowing that He cannot force love, He woos us and invites us and calls us to Him, but we, being the worst of all possible lovers, slander His name, drag Him through the mud, tie Him up in a dark corner, and eventually even crucify Him on a barren hill. And all the while we declare that it is God Himself telling us to do these things.

It’s insanity. When God sends His messengers of grace and love to show us what He is really like, we get so upset that someone is threatening our idea of a God-who-looks-like-us, that in the name of God we kill the very messengers of God. This is what we have been doing since the very beginning. It’s what we’re doing today. It is also what we did in the days of Jesus when the “image of the invisible God” walked among us. Jesus was not despised, rejected, condemned, and ultimately killed by the sinners and so-called “enemies of God,” but by those who claimed to know God best.

The Messianic Secret

All of this better helps us understand what many Bible scholars call “the Messianic secret” in the Gospels. Have you ever noticed that as Jesus went around preaching and performing miracles, almost any time someone recognizes Him as the Messiah, He instructs them to keep quiet about this and tell nobody else? Since we all assume that Jesus came to declare Himself as the long-awaited Messiah, we get confused when Jesus prohibits people from telling others that He is the Messiah.

Why would Jesus want to keep His identity secret? Why does He want His role as the Messiah to remain a secret?

The reason, I believe, is because the Messiah the people wanted was not the Messiah Jesus came to be. The people of Israel wanted a warrior Messiah, one who would slay the enemies of Israel, overthrow the corrupt and pagan Roman Empire, slaughter the wicked, and set up Israel as the ruling nation over all the world.

The Messiah the people of Israel wanted was the same Messiah that Satan offered to Jesus in Matthew 4 and Luke 4.

Jesus knew that if word that “The Messiah has come!” spread around the countryside, many people would start little rebellions in their towns, believing that this was what the “Messiah” wanted them to do. Thousands of people would show up with swords in hands, ready to follow the “Messiah” into battle against Rome. Since this is not what Jesus wanted, and not at all the kind of Messiah He came to be, He told people to keep quiet about Him being the Messiah. He needed to show them what kind of Messiah He was before He would let them announce that the Messiah had come.

The Confession of Peter

We see this exact same scenario play out on a smaller scale in Matthew 16. Jesus asks His disciples who He is, and Peter, by the Holy Spirit, says that Jesus is the Messiah (Matt 16:16). Jesus praises him for this answer, but then immediately tells them not to let anybody else know (Matt 16:20). A few verses later we learn why. Jesus instructs His disciples that since He is the Messiah, He must go to Jerusalem to suffer and be killed.

But the disciples do not want to hear this. Peter, the one who just proclaimed that Jesus was the Messiah, pulls Jesus aside and tells Him to stop saying such things (Matt 16:22). The Messiah is to kill His enemies; not be killed by them. The Messiah is to rule and reign and conquer; not suffer and die. At least, this is what Peter thinks.

How does Jesus respond? He rebukes Peter as speaking for Satan (Matt 16:23). He says that the Messiah which Peter has in mind has nothing to do with the ways of God, but is based entirely on the ways of men. This is the Satanic Messiah.

Jesus then goes on to say that if we truly follow Him, we will follow Him into death and self-sacrifice (Matt 16:24-26), not into power, glory, self-advancement, and control over others.

The Spirit of the Anti-Christ

When we put all this together, then we also begin to understand the New Testament teaching about the anti-Christ.

If the Christ is the Suffering King who bleeds and dies for His enemies, who loves and accepts all, and who has no desire to control others but only to serve them, then any “Christ” which is used to defend war and violence toward enemies, to reject and divide from others, and to control and manipulate others for personal gain, is the anti-Christ.

Any portrayal of Christ that allows Jesus to accept the offers that Satan made to Jesus in Matthew 4 and Luke 4 is a false Christ, an anti-Christ, a Satanic Christ.

The Church and the Satanic Messiah

But has not the church accepted and adopted for ourselves the very things that Jesus rejected in Matthew 4 and Luke 4?

If so, are we not wanting, desiring, proclaiming, and following a false Christ, an anti-Christ … a Satanic Christ?

In many ways, the church has become just like Peter.

Though Peter understood that Jesus was the Christ, he did not understand what it meant for Jesus to be the Christ. The church has been making the same mistake ever since. The Messiah that Jesus rejected is often the Messiah that much of the church proclaims.

When we lust for power over others instead of giving power to others, we are following the Satanic Messiah.

When we desire to control the beliefs and behaviors of others instead of trusting that God will lead them as He leads us, we are following the Satanic Messiah.

When we call for the death of our enemies “in Jesus’ name” instead of seeking to serve our enemies in His name, we are following the Satanic Messiah.

When we chase after wealth, power, prestige, glory, and fame instead of choosing to love, give, bless, and forgive, we are following the Satanic Messiah.

Instead of helping people in hopeless situations, we give them authority figures who tell them what to do.

Instead of seeing that we are all brothers and sisters on this earth and that our struggle is not against flesh and blood, we create false divisions based on skin color, cultural traditions, religious preferences, and invisible geographical boundaries called “borders.”

Instead of seeking to be reconciled to our enemies, we seek revenge upon them by asking leaders to bomb them, kill them, or at the bare minimum, round them up and lock them away.

We cry out for freedom from oppression, not so that oppression can cease, but so that we ourselves can become the oppressors.

We vote in leaders who promise to change everything else so that we ourselves do not need to change.

The Satanic Messiah is alive and well, and I sometimes think he is worshipped and followed more than the one true Messiah, Jesus, our Suffering King.

Which Messiah do you worship, and why?

Bloody Jesus

By Jeremy Myers
10 Comments

A few nights ago I was talking with my incredibly smart and beautiful wife about the violence of God in Scripture and how we can interpret both in light of Jesus Christ, and we realized that in some ways, Christianity has fallen into the same trap that Judaism fell into so many years ago.

Before Jesus came (and in fact, even today) when Jewish people read their Hebrew Scriptures and saw a violent God doing violent things, they projected this onto their expectations for what the Messiah would be and do when He finally came. They saw a violent God, and so were looking for a violent Messiah. They wanted a Messiah who would throw off Roman rule, would slay the enemies, kill the wicked, and banish all the unrighteous into eternal pits of darkness and gloom.

This was partly why the Jewish religious leaders rejected Jesus as the Messiah. He did not fit the bill! He did not live up to their expectations. He did not match what they read in the Bible. He did not fulfill the expectations, promises, and prophecies of what the Messiah would do when He came. And in fact, on numerous occasions, Jesus flat-out told them that the reason He was not doing these things is because they had misread and misinterpreted their Scriptures.

Hmmm…. now take those two paragraphs and substitute in what Christians think about the second coming of Jesus….

By an amazing twist of hermeneutical skill, we Christians have learned to nod our heads at both Jewish and Christian interpretations of Scripture.

We say, “The Jewish interpretation and understanding of God was correct. They just got the timing all wrong. God is violent and bloody, and so is the Messiah. But Jesus didn’t come the first time to kill all the sinners; He will do that when He comes again. Maranatha! Come, Lord Jesus! Let the bloodbath begin!”

[Read more…]

Bono on Jesus, Religion, and Grace

By Jeremy Myers
9 Comments

Frank Viola wrote a post recently about a book about Bono, lead singer for U2.

I have been a U2 fan for nearly 25 years, although the more recent albums have not really been my favorite…. but whatever.

In the book, Bono had this to say about Jesus, grace, and religion. I don’t know much about the rest of Bono’s theology, but if these statements are any guide, Bono gets it!

My understanding of the Scriptures has been made simple by the person of Christ. Christ teaches that God is love. What does that mean? What it means for me: a study of the life of Christ. Love here describes itself as a child born in straw poverty, the most vulnerable situation of all, without honor. I don’t let my religious world get too complicated. I just kind of go: Well, I think I know what God is. God is love, and as much as I respond [sighs] in allowing myself to be transformed by that love and acting in that love, that’s my religion. Where things get complicated for me, is when I try to live this love. Now that’s not so easy.
There’s nothing hippie about my picture of Christ. The Gospels paint a picture of a very demanding, sometimes divisive love, but love it is. I accept the Old Testament as more of an action movie: blood, car chases, evacuations, a lot of special effects, seas dividing, mass murder, adultery. The children of God are running amok, wayward. Maybe that’s why they’re so relatable. But the way we would see it, those of us who are trying to figure out our Christian conundrum, is that the God of the Old Testament is like the journey from stern father to friend. When you’re a child, you need clear directions and some strict rules. But with Christ, we have access in a one-to-one relationship, for, as in the Old Testament, it was more one of worship and awe, a vertical relationship. The New Testament, on the other hand, we look across at a Jesus who looks familiar, horizontal. The combination is what makes the Cross.
Religion can be the enemy of God. It’s often what happens when God, like Elvis, has left the building. [laughs] A list of instructions where there was once conviction; dogma where once people just did it; a congregation led by a man where once they were led by the Holy Spirit. Discipline replacing discipleship. Why are you chuckling?
It’s a mind-blowing concept that the God who created the universe might be looking for company, a real relationship with people, but the thing that keeps me on my knees is the difference between Grace and Karma.
I really believe we’ve moved out of the realm of Karma into one of Grace. You see, at the center of all religions is the idea of Karma. You know, what you put out comes back to you: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or in physics; in physical laws every action is met by an equal or an opposite one. It’s clear to me that Karma is at the very heart of the universe. I’m absolutely sure of it. And yet, along comes this idea called Grace to upend all that “as you reap, so you will sow” stuff. Grace defies reason and logic. Love interrupts, if you like, the consequences of your actions, which in my case is very good news indeed, because I’ve done a lot of stupid stuff.
[Read more…]