Politics has such a bad name these days that it is common for people to say they are not political or that they do not do politics. I wish it was that easy to avoid politics but it is not unless we are willing to let others, whose ideas might be directly opposite to ours, determine how we organize the society in which we live.
Webster’s definition of politics is about obtaining power and control but says little concerning the end of that power and control which is to structure a society in a particular manner.
We ordinarily do not think of Jesus as political but his entire ministry was political because it dealt with how a society should be organized, how we are to view and treat our fellow citizens, and how we are to live our lives . Jesus’ involvement in politics was not, as Webster’s indicates, to gain power or control but to change people’s lives. When people’s lives are changed, then society will change.
Jesus wanted people to do more than have a correct belief system; he wanted them to change to be a new creation. Christianity has a limited influence on our culture because we are so focused on a correct belief system instead of the new life God wants us to live.
 Mindy Belz, “A policy of engagement”, World, July 12, 2014, p. 32.
The Candy Bombers by Andrei Cherny is one of the best history books I have read and it is about the Berlin Airlift. You might ask: What does a history book about the Berlin Airlift have to do with the subject matter we discuss in this blog?
The Berlin Airlift was necessary because the Communists were attempting to take over the entire city of Berlin by essentially starving the city into submission. What if the Allies had responded by telling the people of Berlin to “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” (James 2:16)? Would that have provided any benefit to the people of Berlin?
No, we all recognize that in a case such as this, words, while nice, do nothing to help those who are in need. Instead, the Allies set up an aerial train that landed a plane every couple of minutes in Berlin to feed the city and they did it for months.
So why do we Christians think that we only need to express a belief in Jesus and his death and resurrection for our sins to be saved? We have so many examples in our lives, such as the Berlin Airlift, that show words alone are not sufficient and that we need actions to go along with those words. Why do we persist in holding to a doctrine of salvation that teaches the opposite—that words alone are sufficient?
I recently read an excerpt from a book, The Prodigal Church by Jared C. Wilson, in which he states:
We have this notion that theology is something that takes place somewhere “out there” in the seminaries or libraries. . . In many churches, theology is seen as purely academic, the lifeless intellectual work for the nerds in the church or, worse, the Pharisees. 
Well, that is probably most people’s opinion of theology. My wife says that the question she always had as a child when leaving church was: “what does this have to do with my life?”
Theology is the study of God and his relationship to the universe which includes us. Theology is important because it is essential we know who God is and how he relates to us. However, God desires that we do more than just know the correct theology he wants us to be a new creation, to be like him. If our theology does not move us in that direction, then our theology is of no value.
 Jared C. Wilson, The Prodigal Church, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2015, chapter 4.
Pope Francis’ recent speech to the US Congress included an admonition for a “renewal of that spirit of cooperation which has accomplished so much good throughout the history of the United States”. 
While I am a fan of Pope Francis, he is asking Congress to something that Christianity has not been able to accomplish. Look at all the different Christian religions and denominations. Do all these divisions show Christians have exhibited a “spirit of cooperation” or do they show a spirit of divisiveness? Jesus’ prayer to God was for his followers to be as one just like Jesus and God are one. The reason for this unity was so that the world would know that God has sent Jesus to our world and that God loves the world (John 17:11-23).
Has Christianity fulfilled this God-given task? The answer is obvious. Why not?
 Chris Casteel, “A call for unity”, Tulsa World, September 25, 2015, p. A1.
This past January 8th we raised a question in this blog about God’s involvement in our world. Specifically, we questioned Muslims who attributed to God the many lives that were spared at a mosque during a tsunami. In the past few weeks, there has been several news stories about high winds leading to a crane collapse which killed over 100 people at Mecca’s Grand Mosque. If Muslims give credit to God for sparing lives during a natural event such as a tsunami, why have we not seen Muslims blamed God when lives are taken because of a high wind.
All the religions of the world have this problem. In their effort to prove the validity of their religion, they resort to attributing events that have a positive outcome to God. The problem is that when negative events occur, who do they hold responsible?
Christians constantly talk about salvation and being saved but what exactly is salvation? The theological definition of salvation, according to Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, is: “Deliverance from the power and penalty of sin”. The problem is this definition does not tell us how we obtain this deliverance.
Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary in BibleSoft’s PC Study Bible gives us more details on what salvation is:
The salvation that comes through Christ may be described in three tenses: past, present, and future. When a person believes in Christ, he is saved (Acts 16:31). But we are also in the process of being saved from the power of sin (Romans 8:13; Philippians 2:12). Finally, we shall be saved from the very presence of sin (Romans 13:11; Titus 2:12-13). God releases into our lives today the power of Christ’s resurrection (Romans 6:4) and allows us a foretaste of our future life as His children (2 Corinthians 1:22; Ephesians 1:14). Our experience of salvation will be complete when Christ returns (Hebrews 9:28) and the kingdom of God is fully revealed (Matthews 13:41-43).
So why does most of Christianity only emphasize the first aspect of salvation—belief in Christ? Are the other two aspects of salvation of no consequence? Why did God include these other aspects of salvation in the Bible?
In this blog we maintain that when we stand before the judgment seat of God everyone will be judged based upon the knowledge they had and how well they lived up to that knowledge—did they fear God and do what was right (Acts 10:34-35). Because of this belief, we are often asked why Christians should share the gospel with others since belief in Jesus and his work for us is not essential to go to heaven.
The definition of “gospel” is the good news. The good news is that Jesus died for our sins; he bore the burden of all of our sins past, present and future. We do not need to worry about doing something to atone for those sins. We are free from our sins and the only thing we need to worry about is what kind of person we want to be—do we want to be like God or do we want to continue to follow our own sinful, selfish nature. Here again Jesus provides us with an example of the new life God wants us to live.
So why would we not want to share this good news about what Jesus has done for us and about the example he provides for us? When something good happens to us, we share it with everyone. Why not what Jesus has done for us?
The book I am reading, The Sun in the Church, mentions that the early Christians were more interested in celebrating the resurrection of Jesus than his death.  Even today, Easter Sunday is celebrated more than Good Friday.
So why does our theology emphasize the death of Christ for our sins and barely mention the resurrection? Why is the symbol of Christianity the cross and not the empty tomb? Back in July 2011 this blog quoted James A. Fowler who asked why we do not have a resurrection theology.
The answer is because it is easier to live a crucified Christ theology (we just ask God to forgive us our sins) than it is to live a resurrection theology (changing our soul so it becomes like God). Christ is our example. He died for our sins but he did more than secure our forgiveness, he was raised to a new life and he wants us to experience that new life as well.
 J. L. Heilbron, The Sun in the Church, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 27.
To read most of the popular press, religion has been at war with science since the time of Galileo. The fact is that most religious organizations have never been opposed to science and in fact promoted science. This is illustrated in a book I am reading—The Sun in the Church by J. L. Heilbron. He states that the Catholic Church gave more financial support to astronomy over six centuries (late Middle Ages thru the Enlightenment) than any other institution. Of course the reason for this generosity was the Church’s effort to determine a precise date for Easter but the Church was using science in this effort.  Many cathedrals were used as observatories—a hole in the roof and a meridian line on the floor was used to tell time and determine the precise length of the year.  The Church supported geography because it need to know where to spread the gospel. 
Part of the reason some people criticize the positions religion has taken concerning science in the past is because they are judging religion based upon our current knowledge of science, not based upon the scientific knowledge that was available in times past. I just read a book review in Sky and Telescope about Setting Aside All Authority. This is a new translation of Giovanni Battista Riccioli’s New Almagest (written in 1651) in which he discusses the arguments for and against heliocentrism (the planets revolve around the sun). At that time, heliocentrism could not explain all the observations made. On a strictly empirical basis and given the knowledge available at that time, geocentrism (the entire sky revolved around the earth) was as plausible as heliocenrism.
Sometimes this mindset about religion being at war with science gets old. Religion at times disagrees with the theories of science but theories are not facts. Demonizing those who disagree with your theories is a very unscientific way of trying to win a debate. Facts are a much better method.
 J. L. Heilbron, The Sun in the Church, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 3.
 Ibid., p. 4.
 Ibid., p. 78.
 S. N. Johnson-Roehr, “Science vs. Science”, Sky & Telescope, October 2015, p. 65.
In this blog, we make the assertion that salvation is not through belief in Jesus and his death and resurrection for our sins but rather by changing our soul so it becomes like God. In my discussion with Christians, they raise the following three objections.
God is sovereign and can do whatever he wants which includes making salvation only through belief in Jesus (e.g. Paul, in Romans 9:14-21, states that God will have mercy on whomever he wants). However, II Peter 3:9 states that God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. Once again Christians must read and interpret the entire Bible and not just pick out verses that suit their theology. That God is sovereign and can do whatever he wants is without question. That God is a God of love and justice is also without question. God will not act contrary to his character. If that is true how can God condemn people to hell for eternity even though they have never heard of Jesus or they do not have sufficient information to convince them of Jesus’ reality? He cannot and therefore our theology of salvation must change to match the character of God.
Ignorance is no excuse. Romans 1:18-20 states that all men are without excuse because God’s eternal power and divine nature can be clearly seen and understood though nature. Ignorance of the law is no excuse in our society because there are ways we can find out what the law states—we can search the web, go to a library or talk to a police officer, judge, or elected official. We do not have that option in regards to Jesus and his death and resurrection for our sins. God made us finite and knowing the reality of an event that has occurred only once in human history is difficult. One other point: The Romans 1 passage refers to belief in God, not belief in Jesus and his death and resurrection for our sins.
People are not condemned to hell because they do not believe in Jesus but because they have a sin problem. While this might be the case, it still does not speak highly of God. God has a solution to this sin problem through the person of Jesus. The question is: Why does he only inform a minority of the people on earth of the solution? We humans will take extraordinary actions to save someone from physical harm. So why would God not do the same for our eternal fate?
These three objections raise one question we Christians must answer: Will we make God fit our theology or do we make our theology match the character of God?