Tampering with Dead Bodies

To tamper with a dead body is a crime. In Florida for example, the law states, “A person who willfully and knowingly disturbs the contents of a tomb or grave commits a felony of the second degree.” A conviction for such a crime can result in a prison term of up to fifteen years.

From ancient times, tombstones and coffins contained inscriptions warning offenders not to interfere with the contents. Tampering with the dead was a dishonor to the memories of the dead. In addition, the habit encouraged the practice of necromancy – communicating with the dead.
In the New Testament, after the death of Jesus, the Jewish authorities found a new reason to enforce this ban of tampering with dead bodies. The Jewish authorities realized that the tomb where the body of Jesus had been placed was empty – His body could not be found.
                          
Therefore, according to the New Testament record, the Jewish authorities devised a plan to bribe the soldiers who were on duty to guard the tomb. The soldiers were to testify that “His disciples came during the night and stole Him away while we were asleep” (Matthew 28:13).

The Roman soldiers accepted the bribe, thus implicating the disciples of Jesus. However, nowhere in history do we read where the disciples were charged for stealing the dead body of Jesus. Obviously, such a charge would require the prosecution to produce as irrefutable evidence, the stolen body. There was evidence of an empty tomb, but not a stolen corpse.
In his volume, New Testament History, the late Professor F.F. Bruce tells the story of Roman Emperor Claudius and his edict to forbid tampering with dead bodies. Here is the edict that was issued within fifteen years after the resurrection of Jesus:

“It is my pleasure that sepulchers and tombs, which have been erected as solemn memorials of ancestors or children or relatives, shall remain undisturbed in perpetuity... Let no one disturb them on any account. Otherwise it is my will that capital sentence be passed upon such person for the crime of tomb-spoilation.”

That edict of the Roman Emperor Claudius has been housed in the Cabinet des Médailles in France since 1878. The inscription is said to have been “sent from Nazareth” to Paris. The writing-style on the inscription belongs to the earlier half of the first century.

The date and the source of the inscription leave unanswered a few important historical questions. For example, why would the Emperor of a region covering one million square miles be so interested in establishing an edict for a region covering six square miles? And that question leads logically to another - was there a presumed incident of tampering with the dead in that area, to warrant such an edict?

Could the presumed incident be related to the empty tomb where Jesus was placed? For Jewish authorities, the fact of the empty tomb was more embarrassing than the likelihood of theft of the body of Jesus.

Was the charge of theft by the disciples possible? Clearly, such a charge is fanciful. The disciples were so scared of the authorities, why would they so foolishly implicate themselves? Such a stealing charge would constitute a serious crime. As a matter of fact, why didn’t the authorities arrest them if they felt the disciples committed a crime?

In addition, the crucifixion had taken place in Jerusalem, some eighty miles away from their Nazareth home. Would they have disposed of the corpse in Jerusalem or travel with it for a few days in the Near Eastern hot temperatures? Preposterous!

What would seem to be the best option is the one recorded in the most reliable document of ancient literature – that Jesus, who was crucified, came back to life on the third day following His death.

The New Testament writers further contend that for 40 days the resurrected Jesus was seen by hundreds of persons in a variety of settings – in small groups, in personal encounters and even on one occasion by more than 500 persons at the same time.

Logically, if those records were incorrect, why weren’t they challenged? Or, why did the authorities not locate the corpse and arrest the disciples for tampering with a dead body? Nothing like that was necessary because the evidence of the resurrected Jesus was overwhelming and irrefutable.

Ironically, if it were a crime, the disciples would have been guilty of handling Someone who was dead and is alive forevermore. Was it not Jesus who said, “I am the Living One, I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever?” (Revelation 1:18)

Ashamed and Uncomfortable?

In his book, Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire, Jim Cymbala tells the story of a soloist at Brooklyn Tabernacle. She was invited to sing at a church and was told in advance, “We want to ask you not to sing any song that mentions the blood of Christ. People feel uncomfortable with that, and our goal here is to be user-friendly.”

Uncomfortable about the blood of Christ? Today, many churches even find the frequent observance of the ordinance of remembering the death of Christ in communion to be a distraction in their up-beat worship services. Some churches even relegate the practice of believers’ baptism, with its symbolism to the cross, to a private adjunct activity, following a main service.

To be honest, we want a happy Christianity, without symbolic reminders of sin. A Christianity with minimal need of reflection. The cross invites us to reflect on the heinousness of sin and the heavy price Jesus paid for it. Forgiveness of sin is not amnesty. Forgiveness is possible because Someone paid the price for sin - death on a cross.

As an atheist, the late Christopher Hitchens could not accept this Christian doctrine. On one occasion he said, “I find something repulsive about the idea of vicarious redemption – you can throw your sins onto somebody else, vulgarly known as scapegoating.” Hitchens understood the message of the cross, but he was not prepared to embrace it.

The cross of Jesus Christ differentiates Christian faith from religion in general. Religion tells us what we must do in order to achieve forgiveness. Christianity insists that forgiveness has already been paid for on the cross. Paul contended, whereas Jews demanded miraculous signs and non-Jews (Greeks) looked for wisdom, he preached Christ crucified – a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to non-Jews.

As a matter of fact, Paul argued that God’s power was evident in the cross of Christ. Whereas others depended on oratorical skills and philosophy to make an impact; for him, it was the cross of Christ that enshrined the power to make an impact. To the Corinthians Paul said, “When I came to you...I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (1 Cor 2:2). He was convinced that what others considered foolishness, was God’s demonstration of power.

In addition, whereas we view death as coming to the end of the road, God viewed the death of Jesus as the beginning. But why would God use the horrific death of Jesus on a cross to bring new life? Paul provides two answers. The first, no one other than God could get the credit. Absolutely no one could bring new life from death – that is a demonstration of divine power. Paul’s second reason is that no one can boast about what he or she accomplished. The truth is, new life in Christ cannot be acquired by any human effort.

The Bible calls this grace – undeserved favor. In one of his letters, Paul said, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8).

But couldn’t God have accomplished grace by some other means, probably, not as severe as the cross? The logic is simple – punishment must be commensurate with the crime. Because of the severity of sin, severe punishment was inevitable. Hence, the worst sinner could find God’s grace, because of the cross.

Furthermore, if we could have paid for our sin, then what would happen to those who could not afford to pay? Also, if we could have paid for our sin, we could boast about our ability to help ourselves. Because of the cross, such boasting is not possible, in that new life in Christ is a gift. Since it is free, one may ask, wouldn’t it then cheapen the gift? The question implies that my contribution increases the value of God’s gift – ludicrous thinking.

In his letter to the Galatians, Paul argued that any attempt to add to what Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross, nullifies the value of the gift – “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned” (Galatians 1:8)!

The 17th century hymn-writer Isaac Watts got it when he wrote: “Forbid it Lord, that I should boast, save in the death of Christ my God; All the vain things that charm me most, I sacrifice them to His blood.” This Easter season might be a good time to return to the words of Fanny Crosby’s hymn, “Jesus Keep Me Near the Cross”, or Elizabeth Clephane, who in 1872 wrote “Beneath the Cross of Jesus”.

There is no user-friendly version of the Gospel. Without the cross, we are presenting another gospel, not the one God offers to anyone who seeks Him. Like Paul, I contend, “I am not ashamed of the gospel...” I further contend that the cross is still the best antidote to the narcissism and violence in our culture today.

Morality & Law

Every law springs from a system of values and beliefs. In other words, every law is an instance of legislating morality. As a matter of fact, because a nation’s laws have teaching influence, law inescapably exerts a shaping effect over the beliefs, character, and actions of the nation’s citizens.

In his article, “Law and Morality” (Christian Research Journal - Volume 21, Number 3) Michael Baunam contends that “those who seek to separate morality from law are in pursuit both of the impossible and the destructive.”

That pursuit appears to be evident with the resurgence of the conversation on the Buggery Law in Jamaica. One newspaper headlined an article, “Buggery Splits Church...”. Both the Jamaica Evangelical Alliance and the Jamaica Council of Churches have been drawn into the conversation. That became necessary because two key leaders from both church bodies have made statements that seem to challenge government’s right to legislate an area of morality.

Does a government really have the right to legislate morality? All laws, regardless of their content or their intent, arise from a system of values, from a belief that some things are right and others wrong, that some things are good and others bad, that some things are better and others worse. For better or worse, every piece of legislation touches directly or indirectly on moral issues, or is based on moral judgments and evaluations concerning what it is we want or believe ought to be, what it is we want or believe we ought to produce and preserve.

Morality speaks of a system of behavior regarding standards of right or wrong behavior. The late Christian scholar C.S. Lewis defines morality as it relates to our behavior on three levels: (1) to ensure fair play and harmony between individuals; (2) to help make us good people to have a good society; and (3) to keep us in a good relationship with the power that created us. Based on this definition, it's clear that our beliefs are critical to our moral behavior.

However, moral behavior presupposes a standard by which that behavior is determined. C.S. Lewis believes that standard was set by our Creator. An historical overview of Jamaica’s buggery law would seem to suggest the same.

The British Buggery Act of 1533, from which Jamaica’s law immerged, was an Act of Parliament that was passed during the reign of Henry VIII. It was England’s first civil sodomy law. Prior to enacting this law, such offences were dealt with by the ecclesiastical or church courts. The 1533 Act defined buggery as “an unnatural sexual act against the will of God and man.”

Jamaica’s “Offences Against the Person Act” refers to buggery as “anal sex between a man and another man, a woman or an animal”. Contrary to popular belief, the Act is against ‘homosexual acts’ and not against homosexuality, which is sexual attraction to people of one’s own sex or gender. In other words, the Jamaican Act legislates against behavior, not attraction.

Consider the nature of civil law. Through the threat of force, these laws constrain or require actions. Such laws are not akin to scientific laws which describe the patterns found in nature. Civil laws prescribe behaviors. Some moral standard or moral vision lies behind all civil laws. They do not appear out of nothing, and they are not morally neutral.

Civil law will not make anyone good. Moral character cannot be legislated. But laws that are just make people less likely to do what is bad for society. And governments have an obligation to do what is right or good for society.

One of the central purposes of the government is to enforce the law. The government remains the prime custodian of people's values. Ethics and moral values have a great influence on the operation of the society. It is therefore true that the government exercises control over the society. This is true considering the task of enforcing laws.

Governments enforce civil laws against pedophilia, paraphilia and other deviant forms of sexual activity. When governments fail to enforce such just laws, citizens resort to their own system of justice. Such failure on the part of governments produce vigilante groups.

The Bible encourages us to pray for governments. Governments must protect citizens from evil and promote good, and we are even instructed to pay taxes for those purposes (Romans 13:4).

An Education in Civics

(by David Barton – WallBuilders)

The Inauguration of Donald Trump was remarkable in many ways, not the least of which was that six different individuals offered prayers, with four of those prayers ending in Jesus’ name and the other two openly quoting from the Bible. Ministers were once again allowed to pray according to the dictates of their own conscience, as originally intended by the US Constitution.

Another unique feature of his Inauguration was the large number of protesters present. Most were Millennials, and while some focused on single subjects, others were still protesting the general election results. Among the latter group, a common protest sign was, “Trump is not my president.” But that statement says more about our education system than it does about those who held the signs. It affirms the failure of American education in four areas: American history, government, Constitution, and truth.

First, the sign was intended to express their outrage over the fact that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.9 million votes but lost the presidency—an outcome they believed was unprecedented in the history of American elections. Only it wasn’t. The identical thing has happened in several other presidential elections. Shame on schools for not teaching basic American history and why such outcomes occur.

Second, the message on the sign was rooted in the protestors’ mistaken belief that America is a democracy. But we are not. Those who formed our government hated democracies and wisely protected us from them. For example, James Madison affirmed that “democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention [and] incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.”

Founder Fisher Ames warned, “A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction,” and John Adams lamented that democracies “never lasts long.” For thousands of years, democracies have consistently proved to be a source of lurking disaster—an unpredictable form of government where passions and selfishness can prevail over reason and deliberation.

America was therefore established as a constitutional republic—what John Adams described as “a government of laws and not of men.” Shame on schools for not teaching basic American government.

Third, the “Trump is not my president” sign affirmed their unawareness of how presidents are to be elected according to the Constitution—an election process that mirrors our federal bicameral system. For example, Wyoming has half-a-million citizens, but California has 39 million. So, in the US House, Wyoming gets only one Congressman while California gets fifty-three, and California will beat Wyoming on every vote in the House. 

But in the Senate, California gets only two Senators—the same as Wyoming; the representation is solely by state, and every state has equal voting strength with all others. This is a prominent feature in our federal system. A bill is not passed merely by the House, which reflects the popular vote; it also must be passed in the Senate, which reflects the vote by states.

The protesters believe that only the national popular vote matters. But even though Mrs. Clinton garnered the votes of most of the largest cities in America, she did not win the majority of the states, cities, or counties. In fact, Trump won 30 of the 50 states, more than 80% of America’s 3,141 counties, and an equally lop-sided percentage of its 35,000 cities. The protestors were unaware (as are most Americans) that the Constitution establishes an election system that balances diverse measurements.

Finally, the declaration that “Trump is not my president” establishes a personal opinion as the ultimate measure of right and wrong—that truth is whatever I believe or declare it to be. But the problem with this is that there are absolutes. Jump off the Empire State Building and see what happens. On the way down you may personally object to what is happening, or be offended by it, or even vehemently disagree with it, but none of that will change the results. There is no alternate reality - none.

It’s time that Americans demand that their schools once again teach American history (so students know that the popular vote winner does not always win the presidential election), American government (so they know we are a republic and not a democracy), the Constitution (so they understand our bicameral federal and election system), and absolute truth (that personal opinion must submit to truth and reality).

If we don’t make these changes, we will not want to imagine, much less experience, the horrifying results from Abraham Lincoln’s warning that “The philosophy of the schoolroom in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.”

(My thanks to WallBuilders and David Barton for allowing me to publish this article.)

MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.: His Letter from Prison

I just finished reading two letters. Both letters were written in April 1963. The first entitled, “A Call for Unity”, was written by eight Alabama clergymen to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The second letter was Dr. King’s reply, entitled, “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”.

Allow me to provide the background that warranted the writing of the letters. African Americans were living under some of the most horrendous conditions. Their churches and homes were being firebombed. Jim Crow laws prevented them from sharing with whites in various public settings - their sense of worth was denied.

Civil rights leaders peacefully protested the injustices of segregation. In order to protest, even peacefully, it was necessary to break Alabama’s segregation laws. In responding to this situation, the eight clergymen wrote to Dr. King. Their letter was “an appeal for law and order and common sense.”

They asked for the discontinuation of the protests. They cautioned that the demonstrations were providing opportunities for others to become violent. Hence, in order to avoid possible violence, discontinue the demonstrations; obey the law and resort to dialog with the authorities.

Dr. King’s response from the Birmingham City Jail should be read by everyone interested in civil discourse. The spirit and tone of the letter is a lesson in civility and Christian grace. As he came to the end of the ten-page document (single-space), he said, “If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.”

Other than the tone of the letter, Dr. King’s response was well-reasoned, biblical and sensitive to needs of hurting people. Although he never challenged the good intentions of the clergymen, he clearly challenged their devotion to “order” at the expense of “justice”. In essence, the clergymen were asking that their peace be maintained, as peace was delayed and denied for others.

The clergymen believed Dr. King’s peaceful demonstrations were tantamount to extremism. To this charge, he reminded them that Jesus was an extremist for love. He called for a radical reaction to opposition – “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matthew 5:43-44).

As though that were not radical enough, Dr. King went on to cite the Old Testament prophet Amos. He was an extremist for justice when he said, “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” (Amos 5:24).

For Dr. King, the issue was not merely being branded as extremist, “but rather, what kind of extremists we will be.” He went on to ask, “Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?”

Quoting St. Thomas Aquinas, Dr. King contended, “any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” As such, all segregation laws were unjust – they damaged human personality. “Segregation gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority.”

Here we are, almost 44 years since those letters were written and no one cares to know the names of those clergymen. However, Dr. King’s name and contribution are known around the world – as a matter of fact, to be able to honor his birthday with a national holiday speaks volumes.

In an article on the meaning of the holiday, the King Center website states that “the King holiday honors the life and contributions of America’s greatest champion of racial justice and equality, the leader who not only dreamed of a color-blind society, but who also lead a movement that achieved historic reforms to help make it a reality.”

Today we commemorate Dr. King’s great dream of a vibrant, multiracial nation united in justice, peace and reconciliation; a nation that has a place at the table for children of every race and room at the inn for every needy child. We are called on this holiday, not merely to honor, but to celebrate the values of equality, tolerance and interracial sister and brotherhood King so compellingly expressed in his great dream for America.

This year’s celebrations coincide with the ending of two terms of service by the first black president of the United States – what a tribute to Dr. King.

Peace on Earth?

The news headlines preceding Christmas 2016 were frightening – massacre in Germany, major threat averted in Australia, bombing in Syria, Libyan plane hijacked, and the list goes on. None of those events suggest that we are experiencing peace on earth.

Interestingly, the same could be said of the world in which Jesus was born. The philosophical and religious backgrounds of paganism in the first century left a sense of emptiness among many. For instance, belief in the reality of the ancient gods and goddesses of classical mythology resulted in widespread agnosticism.

Many sceptics deduced that the gods were originally men who had distinguished themselves either as warriors or benefactors of mankind, and who after their death were accorded divine honors.

What was aptly termed “the failure of nerve” characterized the moral and religious vacuum that many felt but could not overcome, despite the panaceas offered by a welter of competing teachers, philosophers, priests, astrologers and quacks.

Epictetus, a first century Roman historian and philosopher said of this era: “while the emperor may give peace from war on land and sea, he is unable to give peace from passion, grief and envy. He cannot give peace of heart, for which humanity yearns more than even for outward peace.” As emperor, Caesar Augustus ruled the nations, but could not conquer the human heart.

That was the religious and philosophical world into which Jesus came. That was the world which heard the angels say, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom His favor rests” (Luke 2:14). So unlike today’s understanding of peace, the angels were not referring to the absence of war. They were declaring God's desire for harmonious relationships between men and nations.

Like with the Hebrew word shalom, peace means completeness, wholeness, health, welfare, safety soundness, tranquility, prosperity, perfectness, fullness, rest, harmony, the absence of agitation or discord. Shalom comes from the root verb shalom meaning to be complete, perfect and full.

That understanding of peace is so different from those who believe that assuming a posture of strength dissuades potential attacks, consequently leading to peace – the absence of war. But peace is much more than the absence of war.

In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul linked peace to a person, and not merely to an ideology. He contended, “for He (Jesus) is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility... (Ephesians 2:14).

Hundreds of years earlier, the prophet Isaiah predicted of the coming Messiah, that He would be sar shalom – Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6). Jesus, who Christians believe is that Messiah, said to His disciples, “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you...” (John 14:27). For this reason, Christians see Christmas as the arrival of the Prince of Peace.

Despite the isolated cases in history of using Christianity to incite and initiate wars, the Christian message is universally known as a message of peace.

Christianity influenced the abolition of slavery and infanticide. In addition, it is because of the Christian ethic that the outrage against euthanasia, sex trafficking and abortion persists.

Because Christians are expected to demonstrate the life of Christ as a lifestyle, we should constantly pursue peace. The biblical teaching is unambiguous, “... as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Romans 12:18). Christmas provides tremendous opportunities to illustrate this truth.

In 2015, an estimated $373 billion was received for charities from Americans. About $119 billion of that amount went to religious charities – including churches and para church organizations. That is more than what is spent by the federal government on education or human services. Interestingly, most of that money was received within ten weeks before Christmas.

This fact reminds me that every hour, during this month of December, there is a performance of Handel’s Messiah somewhere in the world. Since the musical was premiered on April 13, 1742, the response around the world has been phenomenal.

George Frideric Handel personally conducted more than thirty performances of Messiah. The millions of dollars that Handel’s performances raised for charity led one biographer to note, "Messiah has fed the hungry, clothed the naked, fostered the orphan . . . more than any other single musical production in this or any country."

In essence, the proceeds have brought peace to many. It is that message of peace, about the Prince of Peace, that continues to bring wholeness and harmony to billions around the world. For this reason, there is no need for anyone to live in turmoil, knowing that God’s peace is available in the Christ of Christmas.

FAKE NEWS OR GOOD NEWS?

When I was a child, anything that was intended to mislead was called a lie – it was not the truth. Some have since described such lies as half-truths, and more recently as fake news.

According to the New York Times, fake news refers to fictitious articles, fabricated with the deliberate motivation to defraud readers. Generally, with the goal of profiting through “clickbait” (Internet content of a sensational or provocative nature, whose main purpose is to attract attention and draw visitors to a particular web page).

PolitiFact described fake news as “fabricated content designed to fool readers and subsequently made viral through the Internet to crowds that increase its dissemination”. While in Germany recently, President Obama referred to fake news as “active misinformation”.

It is so sad when one cannot trust the media, committed to trustworthy communication. It is like we need a campaign for good news. News that is wholesome and reliable.

In a culture plagued with fake news, Good News is always good. That was true for the shepherds in Bethlehem when they were told by an angel “I bring you good news of great joy…” At that period in history, shepherds stood at the bottom rung of the Palestinian social ladder. They shared the same status as tax collectors and dung sweepers.

In reporting the story of the birth of Jesus, Luke says that the shepherds were “living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night” (Luke 2:8). As second class and untrustworthy Jews, no one expected them to host angelic messengers.

Near-Eastern Studies scholar, the late Dr. Joachim Jeremias, contended that shepherds were despised in everyday life. They were deprived of all civil rights. They could not fulfill judicial offices or be admitted in court as witnesses. According to Jeremias, “to buy wool, milk or a kid from a shepherd was forbidden on the assumption that it would be stolen property.”

One wonders, why would angels choose shepherds to announce the birth of Jesus? They could have opted for the religious or political elite of the day. It is obvious, even with the announcement of His birth, it would seem that the name of Jesus was never to be associated with snobbery and class prejudice - the good news was for everyone, not merely the elite.

The New Testament was clear in reporting the words of the angel – “I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people” (Luke 2:10). We are reading this information more than 2,000 years later, and can confirm that the good news of Jesus’ birth continues to have a global audience and impact.

Interestingly, the term “good news,” is a single compound word in Greek. It is the same word from which we get the English word gospel. Hence, the gospel is good news. For New Testament writers, this was more than a play on words. They actually believed, witnessed and passionately taught that the coming of Jesus was good news to the world.

Many of those New Testament eyewitnesses gave their lives in the process of sharing the message of good news to the world. Thankfully, millions have followed them in paying the ultimate price to share with others the message and mission of Jesus. The impact of that sharing is evident, not only in the size of Christian churches, but more so in the influence of Christian values in society.

Even a cursory study of the history of hospitals and health care will recognize the contribution of the Christian message. The same can be said of major universities and education on a whole, especially in the western world.

Despite attempts to deconstruct history by deleting the role of Christianity in many institutions, it is more than apparent that Christianity influenced the abolition of slavery and infanticide. In addition, it is because of the Christian ethic that the outrage against euthanasia and abortion persists.

Sometimes one wonders, where would civilization be today without Christian notions of compassion and forgiveness? In attempting to answer, simply peruse the history of institutions like the Boy Scout movement, YMCA, Credit Union, Salvation Army, Habitat for Humanity and so many others. Serious students of history in civil liberties, medicine, the arts, economics, science and the humanities, often express a sense of awe, because of the influence of Christianity in the birthing of these disciplines.

However, the good news of the birth of Jesus was not only intended to influence horizontal relationships. The birth was primarily intended to bring about vertical relationships with the God of heaven. Jesus Himself said, “I have come that you might have life, and have it to the full” (John 10:10). That fullness of life Jesus promised is both for now and eternity – that is good news.

Interestingly, the good news of Christmas is more than a once a year celebration. It is best reflected in a lifestyle, displayed throughout the year. Agreed, the Christmas season provides additional opportunities to care and share, but it does not stop there. It is a spirit that should influence us throughout the year.