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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the early 1980s a movie arrived in theatres that was instantly successful and led to the production of a number of sequels. That movie was Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark. The plot is rather simple: archaeologists have discovered the location of the Ark of the Covenant (which disappeared from biblical accounts sometime around the fall of Jerusalem in 586BC), and the search for the Ark begins. Indiana Jones arrives at the place where the Ark is thought to be, and he encounters rivals, defeated Nazis, who want to restore the Third Reich in Germany. The race is on, and they both arrive at the Ark at about the same time. The reason that the Nazis want the Ark is that they believe that if they possess it, they will also possess its power. When they do try to steal it, they are vapourized, leaving the Ark in the sole possession of Indiana Jones. He moves it to the United States where it is boxed up and put into storage, presumably so that it can be studied at a later time.

The movie was extremely popular, and it has led to several spinoffs over the years. It is also a very disturbing movie if we think about it carefully. The idea behind the movie is that the Ark is a kind of magical box that can give one great powers in that the one who possesses the Ark could conquer the world. If it were a true movie, we are supposed to be comforted that the Ark is in the possession of the USA, and they would never use it to rule the world. Realistically, however it’s hard to imagine that anyone possessing such power as the Ark represents in the movie would not use it for their own purposes and glory. If someone is in possession of an object that would enable them to conquer the world, wouldn’t they eventually use it?

While the movies thrills, it is, in my view, an extremely dangerous movie because of what it implies. It implies that the power of God can be possessed by someone and used for their own advantage. The problem with the movie, again, is that it implies that the power of God (and therefore the will of God and even the person of God) can be owned and used by humans for their own ends. Whoever wrote the movie hadn’t read Scripture very closely.

Taking possession of the Ark for one’s own benefit is not something new. In 1 Samuel 4 the Philistines capture the Ark and place it in the temple of their god. The temple was not just a place to store sacred objects; rather, when the sacred objects of another god were placed in the Philistine temple, it was thought that the god those objects represented would serve the Philistine god and make him more powerful. Thus, placing the Ark in the temple the Philistine god signified that the Philistines believed that they could manipulate the God of Israel to their advantage and draw upon his power.

They were wrong. As we recall, the Philistines suffered terribly while the Ark was in their possession, from the appearance of disease-infected rats and tumours, and eventually they decided to return the Ark to the Israelites so that they would no longer have to deal with the God of the Israelites. Their experience proves beyond a shadow of doubt that God cannot be possessed or owned for one’s own advantage.

Still, The Raiders of the Lost Ark gives us that impression. It leaves us thinking that the box housed in an American warehouse could be remembered, and someone (hopefully someone good) could use it to better the world. That is what we are led to believe. The opposite could also be true. We are left with the impression that God, who is represented by the Ark, can be owned, and that God’s owner will have a huge advantage over everyone else, and that person could be evil.

While it may seem somewhat ludicrous that anyone might think that they can own God, there is some reason to believe that this might be still going on. Think about the simple sentence, “God is on my side.” As soon as we say something like that, we are defining the side, and then we are making God fit into whatever it is that our side is. God no longer gets to determine what he is or even who he is. God belongs to us when we begin to think in those terms. We see this happening in times of war, in politics, in denominations, in almost every area of life where sides are taken. We all want to claim God as our own.

Consider the Heidelberg Catechism in its first answer to the question: What is your only comfort (what gives you strength) in life and in death? The answer is not, “God is on my side.” It is not “I claim God as my own.” And it certainly is not, “God is my possession.” Instead, the catechism says that we belong to Jesus. We are his possession. We belong to him. He claims us as his own. This is our comfort, that we belong to him, not that he belongs to us.

The Raiders of the Lost Ark might seem like mere entertainment, but it presents a worldview that is clearly contrary to what we learn in Scripture. Our hope, our strength, our comfort, our assurance is not that God is on our side, that we claim him as our own. We don’t store him in a warehouse for study after which we can take him out and use him for our benefit or even for the benefit of the world. It would not be reassuring to think that anyone can use God for their purposes, even if we trust that they might not be tempted by evil. Our assurance is that God claims us as his own, and he won’t let us go. God is not someone to be manipulated or used for our own benefit. He is someone who loves us, provides for us, and guides us so that we glorify him and in so doing, enjoy him forever. Our comfort is not that God belongs to us but that we belong to him. Those are two very different things.

A number of years ago, two missionaries met each other by accident in a market in the country where they had been assigned. They struck up a conversation and it took about 30 seconds for them to realize that they both were serving the Christian Reformed Church. One was working with World Missions (now Resonate) and the other was working for World Relief (now World Renew). While they were both working for the same denomination, neither knew the other was in the same part of the world. They were shocked that they had both been in the region for several years but had never found out about each other.

As I heard this story (and it is true), I was in the head office of the denomination in Grand Rapid, Michigan, and the one who was telling me the story pointed to two different parts of the building. That section, he said, is World Renew, and that section, he said pointing across the hall, is Resonate. He said that for a number of years those working in either section rarely crossed the hallway to talk to each other. Each agency of the denomination worked in a silo, doing its own work, and doing it well, but often not collaborating with those on the other side of the hall. This story about the two missionaries meeting in the field was one of the motivating factors for the heads o the two agencies to begin talking together, and they made some significant changes. Instead of working independently, they decided to collaborate as much as possible, sharing information and resources as it became available. Never again would two missionaries from two agencies not be aware of each other.

Even as I talk about this story, I am also thankful that our denomination does have these two different agencies, each tasked with a particular aspect of the church’s work in the world. The church has two tasks: to bring the gospel to the world, a work that is primarily done through evangelism, discipleship, and planting churches. The second task is to alleviate some of the physical effects of sin by distributing food and clothing in times of crisis and by helping people develop farms, start businesses so that they can become self-sustaining. We might call these two aspects of the church to be word and deed ministries. Our denomination was doing both, but it was doing them separately.

A few years ago, I took a course taught by Rene Padilla, an Ecuadorian missiologist well known around the world for his careful thinking about missions and the task of the church. The course was called, “Integral Missions.” I took the course in a Baptist seminary, and many of my classmates were from Baptist backgrounds, a Christian tradition that takes very seriously the evangelistic task of the church. They tend to de-emphasize helping those with physical needs as being part of the church’s calling. Dr. Padilla called for the church to integrate its faith and deed ministries, saying that unless we engage in integral missions, we do not present the whole gospel. He referred to word and deed ministries as being two wings of a plane, an apt metaphor.

He pointed to the ministry of Jesus. Jesus came to teach, and teaching was an essential part of his ministry. Matthew’s gospel, for examples, records several of Jesus’ discourses, the most well-known being the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7). At the same time, Jesus also heals a large number of people, freeing them from the physical effects of sin. Often we see these miracles of Jesus as being a way to prove to the world that he is sent from God, and that is an appropriate understanding. But the miracles do more than just prove Jesus’ divinity and right to speak authoritatively. The miracles, like Jesus’ teaching, reveal the Kingdom of God. Jesus’ teachings give us a vision of the Kingdom of God, and his miracles give us a concrete experience of what that Kingdom is like. In other words, the miracles foreshadow what eternal life will be like, giving us a taste of what is to come.

Padilla encouraged us to think about the ministry of the church. The church is not only a place where the gospel is heard; it is also a place where the gospel is experienced. Padilla’s hypothesis was this: if the gospel cannot be experienced, it will not be heard, and if the gospel is not heard, it cannot be experienced. We cannot have a deed ministry without a word ministry, for without the word, there is no meaning to the help that we can give. On the other hand, a word ministry without a deed ministry makes the word seem false and lacking in compassion. We need both if the gospel is going to be authentic.

It would seem, then, that as followers of Jesus Christ carry out the task of telling the world about God’s grace in Jesus Christ that they also offer an experience of how that grace changes everything. This would mean that the church, the body of believers, becomes a place where people can experience a foretaste of heaven, where they are welcomed and love, where their needs are met, and where they can come to know who Jesus is and what he has done.

We think of the early church as it is found in the first chapters of the book of Acts. Even as the apostles proclaimed the gospel, the new believers pooled all they had so that all would have enough. What is described in Acts is not necessarily a prescription for the church, but it is an example of how the early church sought to experience a foretaste life in the Kingdom of God by ensuring that no one of its community should live in need. While we are not expected to pool all that we have, at the same time, it should be true that within the community of believers everyone experiences God’s blessings.

Today, World Renew and Resonate work closely together, bringing the gospel to the world both in word through evangelism and discipleship and in deed by assisting those with physical needs so that they can enjoy the fullness of God’s blessings. Integral missions, as Rene Padilla named it, is the fullness of the mission of the church.

The book of Acts seems to be missing its ending. In Acts 28, the last chapter, we read about Paul being imprisoned in Rome. It seems that as he arrived there, some of the Jews of that city went to visit him in prison, and he told them the story of how he had come to be in prison and awaiting trial. He had been falsely accused in Jerusalem, had been imprisoned, had been held in Caesarea for quite some time without a trial date, had appealed to Rome, travelled to Rome, and was now awaiting a trial before Caesar. The Jews of the city wanted to know more about Paul, and they visited him in prison. Paul told them his story, but he also took the opportunity to tell them about Jesus. Some of the Jews believed, but, we are told, the majority did not. Paul, in frustration, recalled the teaching of the OT book of Isaiah where we read that the Israelites of 600 years earlier had refused to hear God’s Word. He then went on to say that his ministry would now focus on the Gentiles. And, in the very last words of the book of Acts, we are told that Paul remained in Rome for 2 years, preaching the gospel without hindrance.

And that is where the story ends. Luke, the author of Acts, seems to have left out the rest of the story, neglecting to tell us about how the church in Rome grew stronger, how things went at the trial (Paul was set free), and what Paul did after he left Rome. We do know from Paul’s other writings that he travelled as far as Spain, preaching the gospel to the people there. But we do now know this from the book of Acts.

Some have commented that this is entirely appropriate, for although we would like to know the rest of the story, the rest of the story has not been written. That is true. If Luke has told us about Paul’s eventual death (tradition has it that it was in Rome where he was beheaded), we might have come to think of that being the end of the story. If we had read that one of the greatest Christian missionaries who ever lived had now died, we might be inclined to believe that it was all over. But, since the story of the missionary work of the church isn’t finished in the Bible, we are moved to believe that it is not yet over.

We do know that the gospel spread throughout Europe through the early centuries, mostly because Rome conquered most of Europe. We know that there were churches in many parts of western Asia and northern Africa. It also seems that there were churches as far away as India. But, we can be quite certain, there were no Christians in sub-Saharan Africa, in vast parts of Asia, including the far east, and in North and South America or Oceania. It wasn’t until centuries later that the gospel was made known to the rest of the world. Today there are very few places where there are no Christians at all. In nearly every nation there is, at very least, a few Christians and often a few churches.

The relatively recent spread of the gospel began in earnest in the early 19^th century with William Carey from England heading up a very significant missionary movement. He was joined by many others who endured long voyages to distant places to tell the world about Jesus. Today, the largest churches in the world are not located in the Mideast, where the church began or in Europe where the church has been for hundreds of years. The largest churches in the world are located in Nigeria where one congregation sees an attendance of over 500,000 and in South Korea where a congregation welcome just under 500,000 people weekly. In fact, of the top 18 largest congregations in the world, only four are found in North America and none are found in Europe.

We might think that because the gospel has gone to all parts of the world that the work of missions is nearly completed, but that is not so. Some places which used to be predominantly Christian, at least in name, are now almost entirely without knowledge of Jesus Christ. We think of places like Yemen (now Islamic but at one time a very Christian nation), Quebec (at one time Roman Catholic and now almost entirely secular), and the Netherlands (at one time nearly entirely Christian and now vastly secular). The very places that once used to send missionaries are now in dire need of someone to tell the people there about Jesus.

In other words, the story remains incomplete. And that, perhaps, is why Luke ended the book of Acts so abruptly. He wanted to illustrate that there is more to the story, parts of which are largely unwritten. That makes us part of the story too. The ministry of the church may not be to just feed Christians with spiritual food but, rather, to feed Christians so that the can, in turn feed others. The purpose of the church is to continue the unfinished work of Acts. One day the story will be finished, and it will be at the same moment that we see Jesus returning to this earth. Until then, we are on a mission to make Jesus known.

A few weeks ago, I made a comment that we should read one book every year which we know we would disagree with. I was quoting one my professors from the evangelical seminary I was attending. He was a prominent New Testament scholar, a devout believer and a good teacher. He was also an Arminian, meaning that he did not agree with the Calvinist teachings embodied in Reformed theology. At one point in the class, he spent a few moments telling us why he held to the teachings of Arminius, explaining Calvin’s theology at the same time. It was at that moment that I became an avowed Calvinist. I am sure that he would be a little appalled if he knew that it was he who pushed me solidly into the Reformed tradition.

It was because of this experience that I came to believe firmly that we should read one book every year with which we know we will differ. To put it more broadly, we should be willing to listen to someone who differs from us and listen to them with respect and care. One of three things will happen: first, we might find ourselves disagreeing with them and become more crystalized in the view we already hold. Second, we might find ourselves agreeing with them and we might even be willing to change our position. Or third, we might find ourselves asking more questions that will require further reading and study. This third possibility is really what we are hoping for, for when we ask questions and seek answers, we will grow in our knowledge.

Unfortunately, in today’s environment, it is inconceivable to many that we take a moment to listen to someone with whom we differ. Instead, it is a common practice to vilify those with whom we disagree, counting them among our enemies. This is very evident in the contemporary political sphere where we tend to view those who are not of our political leanings as being inept at best and evil at worst. Perhaps it has always been this way, and it may be that I am more aware of it now than before, but I find it disturbing. It might be far better to view those with whom we differ politically, for example, as having the same goals (the wellbeing of our nation), but different ways of getting there. I may disagree with the methods of someone who is not aligned with me politically, but I should very slow to question their motivation, unless, of course, they have stated quite clearly that they are doing what they are doing for their own benefit of the benefit of their friends. If I trust that we have similar goals, there is room for listening and discussing.

This was certainly true of my Arminian professor. He wrote a seminal book on hermeneutics (how to interpret and apply the Bible), and his one desire as a scholar and professor that the church be better equipped to follow Jesus as given to us in Scripture. He loved the Lord, and he loved the Lord’s church. As a result, I felt privileged to have him as professor. I could well have said, “He’s an Arminian and I don’t hold to his view, so I’m not going to take a class from him,” but then I would not have been blessed by what he could teach me about the Greek language. (I took a course in Greek from him.) I have to say, as well, that while my appreciation of Reformed theology was strengthened because I disagreed with him, I also found myself to be willing to think more deeply about how we are saved and what my role is in that salvation process.

It is true that over the centuries various parts of the Christian church have not been very gracious toward others who differ from them. In fact, even today, I hear, quite regularly, parts of the Christian church being treated as if they are the enemy. But we must be careful, for we might well be making those who God has also called into his enemies as well. That is not appropriate.

Let me illustrate with an example of how we must look beyond where we differ to the underlying motivation that we have in common. I was reading an article about the icons of Jesus (pictures and statues). I completely disagree with having them placed in the church for veneration, and I do not think they have any place in our worship. Nevertheless, this article helped me understand the motivation that is behind the creation and display of such images. These images, the author wrote, teach us to be respectful. We do not approach an image causally but, rather, we approach them with a sense of awe, not because the image is worthy of our veneration but because the one that the image represents is.” The article went on to say that these images (icons) provide us with an opportunity to practice our respect and awe for God. Again, I disagree that the church should display such images, but, at the same time, I understand some of the motivation for their display. We should be completely respectful of Jesus, approaching him with a deep sense of awe and wonder. I agree with that sentiment, and, as the author lamented, this sentiment is being lost to the Christian church, for we often do not show the awe that we should when we come before the Lord. We are quite casual, in fact, in our attitudes, and that shows disrespect to Jesus. I don’t think images of Jesus will solve the problem, and I don’t think that the Bible even allows for them as part of our worship. That being said, we also much be careful to act like Jesus is just one of us and even treat him as we would a casual friend. He remains our Lord and our God, and we must respond appropriately.

The point is this: while we may disagree with the methods of others who differ from us, we should be careful to understand their motivation. Why do people do what they do? We must never, ever assign an evil motivation to someone who is seeking the very same thing we want. In fact, we should listen carefully to them so that we can understand what motivates them to do what they are doing. Once we understand their motivation, we have a foundation for future discussions in the area of method. For example, if I understand that someone uses a statue of Jesus because they want to teach themselves to be in awe of him, I would say that the far better option would be to study the gospels and see Jesus in them. The gospels give us a much more awe-inspiring view of Jesus than does a statue.

We should listen to those with whom we disagree. Yes, we might find that they are right, and although change is hard, it can make us better people. Or we might find that we become more certain of what we already believe. Or, most likely, we will find ourselves engaging in deeper study and reflection. But whatever the case, we must not assign evil motives to those with whom we disagree, or we will lose our opportunity to become better and more informed people.