Category Archives: Ravi Zacharias

Ravi Zacharias Ministry – The Scandal of the Cross

Ravi Z

There is a striking verse in the New Testament, in which the apostle Paul refers to the cross of Jesus Christ as foolishness to the Greek and a stumbling block to the Jew. One can readily understand why he would say that. After all, to the Greek mind, sophistication, philosophy, and learning were exalted pursuits. How could one crucified possibly spell knowledge?

To the Jewish mind, on the other hand, there was a cry and a longing to be free. In their history, they had been attacked by numerous powers and often humiliated by occupying forces. Whether it was the Assyrians or the Babylonians or the Romans, Jerusalem had been repeatedly plundered and its people left homeless. What would the Hebrew have wanted more than someone who could take up their cause and altogether repel the enemy? How could a Messiah who was crucified possibly be of any help?

To the Greek, the cross was foolishness. To the Jew, it was a stumbling block. What is it about the cross of Christ that so roundly defies everything that power relishes? Crucifixion was humiliating. It was so humiliating that the Romans who specialized in the art of torture assured their own citizenry that a Roman could never be crucified. But not only was it humiliating, it was excruciating. In fact, the very word “excruciating” comes from two Latin words: ex cruciatus, or out of the cross. Crucifixion was the defining word for pain.

Does that not give us pause in this season now before us? Think of it: humiliation and agony. This was the path Jesus chose with which to reach out for you and for me. You see, this thing we call sin, but which we so tragically minimize, breaks the grandeur for which we were created. It brings indignity to our essence and pain to our existence. It separates us from God.

On the way to the cross two thousand years ago, Jesus took the ultimate indignity and the ultimate pain to bring us back to the dignity of a relationship with God and the healing of our souls. Will you remember that this was done for you and receive his gift?

You will then discover that it is sin that is foolishness. Our greatest weakness is not an enemy from without but one from within. It is our own weak wills that cause us to stumble. But Jesus Christ frees us from the foolishness of sin and the weakness of our selves.

This is the very reason the apostle Paul went on to say that he preached Jesus Christ as one crucified, which was both the power of God and the wisdom of God. Come to the cross in these days given for our contemplation and find out this scandalous, mysterious, all-reaching power and wisdom.

Ravi Zacharias is founder and chairman of the board of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

 

Ravi Zacharias Ministry – Inimitably Broken

Ravi Z

In John’s telling of the life of Jesus, Jesus is described as the kingly shepherd who lays down his life for his friends, the gate who lets in the sheep, and the lamb of God himself. So it is not without significance that John dates Jesus’s death on the day of preparation of the Passover, the day a lamb is slaughtered in remembrance of God’s passing over the Israelites in Egypt. Whereas Matthew, Mark, and Luke each describe a final supper shared with the disciples in the upper room, John hints at the consumption of a meal in the mysterious space after Christ’s death. In other words, the bread of life and Lamb of God is first broken and slaughtered so that the Passover meal can be seen in its full significance in a greater upper room.

This mystery of the Lamb after the slaughter is extensively heightened in the Revelation of John. Envisioned is a heavenly scene with one seated on the throne holding a scroll, and John begins to weep because no one is worthy to open it. But then one of the elders points to “the Lion of the Tribe of Judah,” “the Root of David,” the one who “has conquered.” And John sees between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders “a Lamb standing as if it had been slaughtered,” one worthy to open the scroll. John doesn’t explain how a lamb can be standing after it has been slaughtered. What does that even look like? What are we to do with such a creature?

For me it brings to mind the deliberately impossible demands presented by Jesus. How are we to be perfect? To live holy lives? To keep anger at bay lest we be guilty of murder in our hearts? It is a life we might succeed in trying for a time, but ultimately one we cannot remotely achieve. In the words of one theologian, “[T]he summons to a holy life, far from assuming its achievement, assumes quite the opposite: that God has acted and nothing can be done in response. The structures of existence are incapable of change or alteration, whether empowered by grace or not.“(1) Which is perhaps to say, the lamb was slain. Irreversibly, Jesus was slaughtered, his life laid down for his friends. And now, in a seeming incapable structure of existence, this slaughtered Lamb stands.

Professor John Lennox notes that when Scripture speaks of Christ as the Lamb of God, it is easy to think of it as something like a symbolic code. We read of the lamb or the lion and the recognition is instantaneous: The lamb is Christ. The lion is Christ. But John’s description of the slain and standing lamb slow us down, seeming to say not only who it is, but what it is. This is Christ as the lamb—that is, beyond the statements he made about himself, beyond the parables, beyond the imagery and symbolism with which Jesus spoke truths and turned categories on their heads. In this inexplicable picture, Christ is the overturned. John places Christ as the lamb before us, and he is slaughtered yet standing. For John, literarily at least, the way of slaughter is the way of victory.

This is not to say, as some argue, that our own suffering is a similar way to the victorious life or that Christ is calling the world to suffer with him at the cross. The deliberately impossible marvel of the slain and standing lamb is blurred when we attempt to imagine ourselves in any way able to reproduce it. We can no more do so, than we can reenact the Incarnation.(2) While it is true that John’s audience was likely to suffer for their faith, the slaughtered lamb is not encouragement for of a brand of discipleship that recreates Christ’s suffering as victory; slaughter is not the goal. On the contrary, the slain and standing lamb is the one weapon capable of tearing violence and unjust suffering entirely apart. This is not a symbol disciples are to learn to repeat or mimic; it is the very structure and feat of existence that allows them to be disciples. John’s description moves far beyond the slaughtered lamb as symbol. This is Christ as the lamb—the impossible structure of existence given not for the world of souls to mimic, but rather to take, eat, and drink paradoxically. This is his body—a slaughtered and standing lamb—powerfully, mysteriously, impossibly broken and given for the world.

Jill Carattini is managing editor of A Slice of Infinity at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Atlanta, Georgia.

(1) Roy Harrisville, Fracture: The Cross as Irreconcilable in the Language and Thought of the Biblical Writers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 111.

(2) For more on this, see J. Todd Billings, Union With Christ, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011).

Ravi Zacharias Ministry – Days Without Hope

Ravi Z

It was a day without hope: March 11, 2011. The 8.9 magnitude earthquake set off a devastating tsunami that washed away coastal cities in Northeastern Japan. Thousands of homes were destroyed. Roads were impassable, transportation destroyed or shut down, and power remained down for weeks in the cold temperatures of early spring. All around were scenes of desperation, as stranded survivors cried for help, buried alive under the rubble of what remained of their cities, communities, and homes. Things couldn’t get much worse when the damage to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor was discovered, making it impossible to return home. Over 300,000 were left homeless and over 18,000 people died.

March 11, 2011 was a day without hope for me, as well. Like many around the world, I couldn’t believe that yet another massive earthquake and tsunami of such magnitude—like the Southeast Asian tsunami of 2004—had wrought so much destruction and devastation. Yet on this same day, I attended the funeral for my husband who had died suddenly on March 2, 2011. I felt as if I was buried by the rubble of grief over his lost life and the life we shared together for nearly twenty years.

Even those unacquainted with the biblical narrative have likely heard the familiar story of the raising of Lazarus from the dead. It is one of the critical events in John’s Gospel for it is the last miracle Jesus performs prior to his entry into Jerusalem and his crucifixion.(1) As readers of this story, we have the privilege of knowing the triumphant ending, but for Mary, Martha, and all who loved Lazarus, his death and burial must have also felt like a day without hope. Mary and Martha had sent word to Jesus informing him of their brother’s illness. Surely he would rush to their aid and save their ailing brother. Lord, he whom you love is ill.

But rather than rushing to their side, or simply speaking the words of healing as he had done for others, Jesus delays going to them. The Gospel reads: Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus, so when he heard that he was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was. Jesus delays going to them and this sets up one of the difficult tensions in this passage. Jesus loves this family, and yet his delay means Lazarus will die, and worse, his delay will prompt the grief, heartache, and misunderstanding that must have arisen by his absence.

When Jesus does arrive, Lazarus has been dead for four days. Jewish belief taught that after three days the soul would leave the body and corruption would set in. So for those who mourned Lazarus, there was no hope of resuscitation or of saving him now. The fourth day was truly a day without hope. And yet this is the day Jesus shows up.

The story of the raising of Lazarus is prefaced by a statement of its purpose: This illness does not lead to death; rather it is for God’s glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it. In stating that he will be glorified, Jesus is not declaring that now that he has arrived to save the day, he will be admired and praised as the hero of the story. Rather, the raising of Lazarus will speed his own death. From that day on the religious leaders counseled together how they might put him to death. The glory of the resurrection would first be the horror and despair of Good Friday and Holy Saturday.

The passion of Jesus bleeds through the surface of the story. Jesus was “deeply moved in spirit and troubled,” and he wept. The crowd who saw him weeping said, “See how he loved him!” Yet they couldn’t possibly understand all that was going on. Jesus knows that calling Lazarus out of the tomb means that he must enter it himself. The narrative makes that fact abundantly clear. The belief in Jesus as a result of this miracle prompts the religious leaders to plot his death. But for Jesus there is no other way because only in this act can he be the resurrection and the life for the world.

Yet, Martha, Mary, and Lazarus are not simply props for a spiritual story. They are real people trapped in death and grief, who do not yet know the end of the story. Jesus will bring life, but he does so as one who ministers among the suffering. Although the readers of this story were not there, Jesus holds them in mind too. Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.

For some women affected by the tsunami of March 11, 2011, a social enterprise is helping them to remove the grave clothes. Nozomi, which means ‘hope’ in Japanese, is the name of an initiative bringing sustainable income, community, and hope to the women in Northeastern Japan. One third of the women involved are single mothers and grandmothers; most of these women lost their livelihood, a family member, and/or their home when the tsunami crashed into their world in 2011. With broken pieces of pottery left in the wake of the tsunami, they are now creating jewelry. Broken shards are transformed into beautiful treasures. Their lives, too, are filled with renewed dignity and hope following the devastation of the tsunami.

The raising of Lazarus is our human story. We who dwell in days without hope can be brought to life. Jesus stands at the edge of every tomb, shouting “Come forth!” He calls forth life and liberation from the hopeless hole, on the hopeless day, amidst a hopeless people. He calls forth life in the midst of certain and confirmed death. We can substitute our own name for that of Lazarus, hear the call of Jesus, and walk into the light of day, pulling free of our grave clothes as we go. In the entombed, hopeless reality of life’s darkness and suffering, we can hear an untimely voice. And it is a voice that calls us by name.

Margaret Manning is a member of the speaking and writing team at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Seattle, Washington.

(1) See John 11.

Ravi Zacharias Ministry – The Rule of Compartments

Ravi Z

It is similar to the parent who defers the questioning child with the evocation to “go ask” the other parent. Professors who have dedicated their lives to the study of a particular subject are not fond of venturing into unrelated territories. So the student who asks a theological question in economics class is told to ask his theology professor, and the student who asks an economic question in theology class is told to ask his economics professor. The admonishment is laced with the not-so subtle, though common and accepted, language of specialization, privatization, and compartmentalization—namely, stick to the subject at hand and keep these things properly separated.

Professor of theology William Cavanaugh is aware of the academic phenomenon of deflecting such questions, the cultural milieu that encourages compartmentalization, and the natural tendency of students to rebel against it. He sees in students an authentic discomfort with the idea that we need to compartmentalize our lives, a bold awareness that our culturally growing drive to keep politics from theology or theology from finance and religion from law doesn’t actually work. “I think they have a very good and real sense,” notes Cavanaugh, “that in real life things are not separated: that the way you buy has a lot to do with the way you worship and who you worship and what you worship.”(1) Cavanaugh encourages this awareness by commending the kinds of questions that recognize compartmentalization as unlivable, and by doing the historical work that shows this notion of separable entities as a modern, credulous construction in the first place.

Compartmentalization may well be a way of coping with a world that wants to keep the confusion of many religions out of the public square, but it is evident that it is not a very good coping mechanism. Each isolated discipline wants to discuss on some authentic level the good or benefit of all as it pertains to their subjects. And yet they somehow want to bracket any and all questions that might lean too closely toward things of a spiritual nature—purpose, meaning, human nature, morality. While such restrictions might successfully allow us to avoid stepping too closely to religion, in the fancy footwork it takes to do so, we end up sidestepping the actual subject as well.

On the opposite side of these contemporary fences, spirituality is restricted to private realms, personal thoughts, or a single day in the week, and thus becomes far more like one of life’s many commodities than an all-encompassing rule of life. Separate from the world of bodies and societies, the world of hearts and souls is not seen as appropriate or even capable of informing our understanding of business or capitalism, the principles behind our daily choices, how we live, what we buy, or what we eat. The presuppositions here are equally destructive of the true identity of the thing we have compartmentalized. Held tightly in such compartments, the Christian way ceases to be a “way” at all.

So what if our categories are wrong? If our compartments merely confuse and obscure, failing to be the coping mechanisms we think they are, will we remove them? And what does life look like without such divisions? What if Christianity is not a category of thought at all, a set of beliefs, or a religion that can be privatized without becoming something else entirely? What if the life of faith is not about what we think or what we do, but who we are? Such a way would exist over and above every category of thought, every compartment and realm.

In fact, long before theology was ushered out of the public square, out of politics, economics, and the sciences, it was considered to be the highest science, the study of the rational Mind behind our own rational minds. It was the discipline that made sense of every other discipline, the subject that united every subject. Such a perspective is inherently foreign to the contemporary mindset. But it cannot be shooed away like a meddling religion or deferred like an unwanted question without dismissing some sense of cohesion—and without dismissing Christ himself. His very life is a refutation of compartmentalized thought, belief, and action. His cross was neither public nor private; it spanned both, and every century following its own.

In dire contrast to the harried and highfalutin rules of compartmentalization, Jesus’s rule of life was undivided and down-to-earth, pertaining indivisibly to hearts and souls, bodies and societies. He paid theologically-informed attention to every day and everyday lives, and the institutions, ideologies, and systems that shaped them. He went to his death showing the inseparable nature of the spiritual and the physical, who we are, how we live, and what we believe. Those who follow him to the cross, through Good Friday and each day beyond it, do so similarly.

Jill Carattini is managing editor of A Slice of Infinity at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Atlanta, Georgia.

(1) William Cavanaugh with Ken Myers, Mars Hill Audio Journal, Volume 95, Jan/Feb 2009.

(2) Richard J. Foster, Prayer: Finding the Heart’s True Home (New York: HarperCollins, 1992), 27.

 

 

 

Ravi Zacharias Ministry – Random Hallelujah

Ravi Z

The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation is a national establishment dedicated to artistic excellence, funding local arts projects that engage communities in collective cultural experiences. With the assistance of the ever- and omni- potent YouTube, they put themselves on the map in recent years with an initiative they called “Random Acts of Culture.” Call it a cultural experiment in the transformational power of the arts, Mozart in the mall, tango in the airport terminal, or Puccini at the farmers’ market—the result was art in unusual places, wide-eyed children and startled shoppers, culture interrupted by culture.

The idea was simple. Gather a group of talented artists in a particular city—a string quartet from the Charlotte Symphony, the Opera Company of Philadelphia, or two very gifted dancers—and set them loose from the concert halls to stage a performance in the street. Or, as it were, in the shoe department. Shoppers at a very crowded shoe sale in Miami were startled as one by one their salespeople suddenly turned into characters from the French opera Carmen—shoe boxes in hand.

Yet one of these intruding bursts of creativity caused the most commotion by far. In October of 2012, the Opera Company of Philadelphia brought together over 650 choristers from 28 participating organizations to perform a Random Act of Culture in the heart of a busy Macy’s store in Philadelphia. Accompanied by the Wanamaker Organ—the largest pipe organ in the world—the Opera Company and throngs of singers from the community infiltrated the store as shoppers, and burst into a pop-up rendition of the Hallelujah Chorus from George Frideric Handel’s “Messiah” at high noon.

The reactions on the faces of singers, shoppers, and salespeople are worth the YouTube visit alone—which has been replayed over 8.5 million times: people with shopping bags in tow stop to raise their hands, gadgets and phones are pulled out of pockets and purses to record the moment, the busywork of a crowded mall in action otherwise stopped in its tracks by words that make it all seem so small.

The kingdom of this world

Is become the kingdom of our Lord,

And of his Christ, and of his Christ;

And He shall reign forever and ever,

Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

And then come the tears. The most posted comment after the replaying of this random act of culture is the presence of teary eyes and tingling spines. Some of the comments indeed belong to people who identify themselves as Christian. But many others come from people who claim they are pagan, atheist, or just thoroughly unreligious. But all have similar reactions: “Just beautiful!” said one. “[M]oving beyond words.” “One of the greatest things to happen in Philadelphia in a long time.” “[It] brought tears to my eyes.” “[It] gave me goosebumps.” “I couldn’t stop crying. So beautiful…” Another musician describes a little boy with tears running down his face. After everything was over, she walked up to the mother to ask if he was okay. She said, “‘Oh no, he was just so surprised and moved.’”

With the utmost of respect to Puccini’s La Boheme, there were no reports of any four year olds crying in awe thereafter. Some have attributed the difference in audience reaction to the sheer scope of this particular random act of culture—it was certainly the biggest; combining the world’s largest pipe organ with enough choristers to transform the already striking three-story Italian and Greek marble historic Macy’s Grand Court into a stunning concert hall. Others attribute the heightened reactions simply to the power of the classical arts, the surprise of long forgotten memories, or the beauty and influence of great music. Noticeably absent from all this commentary was reaction from those who seem to find something wrong with anything Christian in the public arena. “I’m an atheist, and I approve of this random act,” writes one responder with a smiley face. “I’m Hindu and I tearfully agree!” another replied. “It’s the beauty that counts.”

Certainly, the story of a God who comes near is exactly that. Beautiful. Remarkable. Show stopping. And our intense reaction to beauty is nothing if not an inherent recognition of a Giver of beauty, a creator of the things that bring chills to our spines and tears to our eyes—the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in Spirit, embodied, in Person.

In contrast, and I think illustrating this point, comedian Steve Martin sang a song last year at the New Orleans Jazz fest that he called “the entire atheist hymnal” (on one page of paper). He called it:  “Atheists Don’t Have No Songs.”

Chris¬tians have their hymns and pages,

Hava Nag¬i¬la’s for the Jews,

Bap¬tists have the rock of ages,

Athe¬ists just sing the blues.

Ro¬man¬tics play Claire de Lune,

Born agains sing “He is risen,”

But no one ever wrote a tune,

For god¬less ex¬is¬ten¬tial¬ism.

For Athe¬ists there’s no good news. They’ll never sing a song of faith.

In their songs they have one rule: the “he” is al¬ways lower¬case.

 

Some folks sing a Bach can¬ta¬ta,

Luther¬ans get Christ¬mas trees,

Athe¬ist songs add up to nada,

But they do have Sun¬days free.

Of course, his humor is meant to entertain us—and does. But what a contrast to a piece of music that moves hearts and masses across the board. Handel’s Messiah is arguably one of the strongest expressions of Christian doctrine ever produced, and yet it’s called a masterpiece of beauty by everyone—without so much as flinching as to whether our philosophies really allow room for it in the first place.

In fact, I think it makes all the sense in the world that both inexplicable tears and profound joy accompany the words and sounds of Handel’s Messiah. For this Messiah brings with him an invitation unlike any other: Come and see the Father, the Creator, the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. Come and see the Light, and the Overcomer of darkness, the One who wept at the grave of a friend, and the one who collects our tears in his bottle even before he will dry every eye. Hallelujah, indeed.

Jill Carattini is managing editor of A Slice of Infinity at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Atlanta, Georgia.

Ravi Zacharias Ministry – Alternative Stories

Ravi Z

In a very perceptive book called Life: The Movie, author Neal Gabler argues that entertainment has conquered reality. All of life has become a stage, and the way to success is through the pathway of becoming a celebrity. Gabler suggests that we spend our lives buying and shopping according to images and ideals that we hold as we seek to shape ourselves for our own performance. The constant use of significant celebrities to model lines of clothing, sporting goods, and cosmetics tell us subtly that if we own these items, we too can be like our heroes. We are strategically convinced that we don’t simply have to watch the rich and famous; we can become them. The democratization of credit and the availability of easily-accessed goods guarantee our ability to play the part or parts we choose.

The practical aids are many. Credit and finance options bluntly inquire, “Why wait?” In earlier times people had to consider whether they could afford such things, and they might have had to delay while they saved. The time between viewing and having was often considerable, but not anymore. The messages are clear that we can have it if we want it, and we can have it now. It comes, of course, with a huge price tag in terms of increasing debt and anxiety. But even as the social crisis ticks like a time bomb in many homes, the waiting has been taken out of wanting.

It has become the job of the advertising industry to keep us in a state of permanent dissatisfaction and restlessness with who we are or what we have. The answer is always bigger, better, faster, or more like someone else. Words like “enough,” “sufficient,” and “wait” are derided in favor of having what you want now and immediately becoming who you really want to be. We are informed of our lack of something and then told it is ruining the quality of our lives. But the voices of the media then tell us salvation is at hand! The new product or service will liberate you. It will initiate you into a better world, a new life, an alternative salvation.

Is it possible that we are trapped in a web of deception, and that we are being conditioned to blindly follow the pied pipers of fame and fashion as they determine who and what we are and how we should live? Is the bottom line to make money at all costs? Is happiness really being able to get what you want when you want it? Maybe it is time to recognize that life is far more than these trivial yet powerful views. Maybe it is time to call foul, to insist that real life is something far more nuanced, focused, and holistic than what the prophets of materialism have to offer.

The Christian view and alternative is that we are the products of a personal, loving creator, and that our lives, opportunities, and resources are gifts to us. We interact with nature and the material world, we see God within it, but we also have other dimensions to our nature. The psalmist explains it in a way that much of the world rejects: The earth is filled with the glory of God. Because we have been made by God and for God, our ultimate glory—our claim to fame—is found in God.

The pretensions of the world are many, the seductions vast, and the attractions powerful. Yet in a world of invasive desires, intrusive demands, and restless indulgence another voice can be heard: “Come unto me all who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” The answer is not in a product but in a living person.

Stuart McAllister is regional director for the Americas at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Atlanta, Georgia.

Ravi Zacharias Ministry – Imagination and Wishful-Thinking

Ravi Z

To fully understand C.S. Lewis’ love for the imaginary—indeed, to understand the man himself—something must be said about the distinctively English world Faery. The world of Faery, which has its roots in Celtic culture, is not so easily categorized. It is not at all the land of delicate fairies that Walt Disney would have us imagine. Nor is it simply imaginary, a story altogether detached and unrelated to the world before us. Faery is, first, a place. It is lush and green like gentle British landscapes and ancient English forests, but forests untamed, willful, and enchanted—”a world, that sometimes overlaps with Britain but is fundamentally Other than it.”(1) Biographer Alan Jacobs hints at the importance of Faery on the imagination of Lewis, and in particular, this “old idea that Faery overlaps our world—that one can, unwillingly and unwittingly, pass from one into the other.”(2) Faery is both beautiful and dangerous, its boundaries unclear. The encounter with Faery and its tales, the “horns of Elfland faintly blowing,” was one that haunted Lewis much of his life.(3)

For Lewis, “the horns of Elfland” were heard and followed and dear, like arrows of Joy shot at him from childhood—through the death of his mother at the fragile age of nine, through the horrid years at boarding school, through the doubt and dismissal of faith and God, through the metaphysical pessimism and the deep layers of secular ice, through a dejected and reluctant conversion, to Narnia, and to the Joy itself.

Of course, this is not to say that the imaginative world in which Lewis lived was one fueled in any sense by Christianity or faith; nor were the imaginary worlds he loved anything one might necessarily call Christian. But it was an imagination nonetheless that shaped the way he viewed world—until he saw fit to abandon it all. Among other reasons for the distancing of his imagination, a new intellectual movement in psychology was becoming increasingly influential. As Lewis writes, “What we were most concerned about was ‘Fantasy’ or ‘wishful thinking.’… [W]hat, I asked myself, were all my delectable mountains and western gardens but sheer Fantasies?… With the confidence of a boy I decided I had done with all that… And I was never going to be taken in again.”(4) For a long line of atheists like Lewis at this time, where the Christian imagination possesses beauty and hope, it is because at heart the Christian religion is about wish fulfillment—even if it is, as some contend, a beautiful, imaginative delusion.

Of the many objections to Christianity, it is this one that stands out in my mind as troubling: that to be Christian is to withdraw from the world of reality, to follow fairy tales with wishful hearts and myths which insist we stop thinking and believe that all will be right in the end because God says so. In such a vein, Karl Marx depicted Christianity as a kind of drug that anesthetizes people to the suffering in the world and the wretchedness of life. Likewise, Sigmund Freud claimed that belief in God functions as an infantile dream that helps us evade the pain and helplessness we both feel and see around us. I don’t find these critiques and others like them particularly troubling because I find them accurate of the kingdom Jesus described. On the contrary, I find them troubling because there are times I want very much to live as if Freud and Marx are quite right in their analyses.

I was a seminary student when the abrupt news of cancer and jarring estimates of time remaining pulled me out of theology books and into my dad’s hospital room. The small church he attended was pastored by an energetic man whose bold prayers for healing chased doubt and dread out of the room like the pigs Jesus ran off a cliff: “Faith is being sure of what you hope for and certain of what you do not see.” He read this verse from Hebrews 11:1 to us repeatedly, imploring us to seize the promise of healing and to cast out even the smallest sign of doubt that our miracle would not happen. We simultaneously met with oncologists who told us it would be unlikely for dad to live more than six weeks. I had at my disposal, a faith and theology that could have uttered so many different responses. But we wanted the miracle so badly, I didn’t dare. So as if we were participants in a magic show doing our part for the trick, we followed the pastor’s rules, so much so that we didn’t talk about funeral plans or preferences until it was too late.

This is no doubt one moment when the imagination of faith was far more “wishful thought” than any thing else. Fear lived more powerfully in that prayer than trust or hope or even love. As a result, I know all too well the critique of Christianity as wish fulfillment to be a valid point, for in this instance, it was. “Yes! ‘wish-fulfillment dreams’ we spin to cheat / our timid hearts and ugly Fact defeat!”(5) And yet this is not to say that the wishing my father would live was itself invalid, that the hope we imagined was rootless, or that there is not One who moves us to wish in the first place. For indeed, “Whence came the wish, and whence the power to dream?” continues J.R.R. Tolkien in the very poem that would capture the doubting Lewis. In other words, if the material view of the world is true, why should we have such dreams in the first place? As Lewis would write later, using the same argument:

“[W]e remain conscious of a desire which no natural happiness will satisfy. But is there any reason to suppose that reality offers any satisfaction to it? Nor does the being hungry prove that we have bread. But I think it may be urged that this misses the point. A man’s physical hunger does not prove that that man will get any bread; he may die of starvation on a raft in the Atlantic. But surely a man’s hunger does prove that he comes of a race which repairs its body by eating, and inhabits a world where eatable substances exist.”(6)

For two young boys clinging together in the hallway as adults whispered about cancer and came and went from their mother’s room, Flora’s death was the event whereby “everything that had made the house a home had failed us.”(7) As his mother lay dying, nine year-old Clive Lewis prayed that she would live. Alan Jacob describes Jack’s prayer for her recovery: “He had gotten the idea that praying ‘in faith’ was a matter of convincing yourself that what you were asking for would be granted. (After Flora had died he strove to convince himself that God would bring her back to life.)”(8) Lewis insists the disappointment of these failed prayers—not to a Savior or a Judge but, like me, to something more of a magician—was not formative to his young sense of faith. No doubt the longing for his mother to be well again, for home to be restored, and for someone to hear this deep wish made its mark on his imagination, nonetheless. A scene in the Magician’s Nephew perhaps says more:

“Please—Mr. Lion—Aslan, Sir?” said Digory working up the courage to ask. “Could you—may I—please, will you give me some magic fruit of this country to make my mother well?”(9)

Digory, at this point in the story, had brought about much disaster for Aslan and his freshly created Narnia. But he had to ask. In fact, he thought for a second that he might attempt to make a deal with Aslan. But quickly Digory realized the Lion was not the sort of person with which one could try to make bargains.

Lewis then recounts, “Up till then the child had been looking at the lion’s great front feet and the huge claws on them. Now in his despair he looked up at his face. And what he saw surprised him as much as anything in his whole life. For the tawny face was bent down near his own and wonder of wonders great shining tears stood in the lion’s eyes. They were such big, bright tears compared with Digory’s own that for a moment he felt as if the lion must really be sorrier about his mother than he was himself.”

“My son, my son,” said Aslan. “I know. Grief is great. Only you and I in this land know that yet. Let us be good to one another…”(10)

Christianity is indeed on some level wishful thinking. For what planted in us this longing, this ache of Joy? Yet it is far from an invitation to live blind and unconcerned with the world of suffering around us, intent to tell feel-good stories or to withdraw from the harder scenes of life with fearful wishes. Digory discovers in Aslan what the Incarnation offers the world—a God who, in taking our embodiment quite seriously, presents quite the opposite of escapism. The story of Rachel weeping for her slaughtered children beside the story of the birth of Jesus is one glimpse among many that refuses to let us sweep the suffering of the world under the rug of unimportance. The fact that it is included in the gospel that brings us the hope of Christ is not only what makes that hope endurable, but what suggests Freud and Marx are entirely wrong. Christ brings the kind of hope that can reach even the most hopeless among us, within even the darkest moments, when timid hearts spin pained wishes. Jesus has not overlooked the suffering of the world or our deep longings within it anymore than he has invited his followers to do so; it is a part of the very story he tells.

Jill Carattini is managing editor of A Slice of Infinity at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Atlanta, Georgia.

(1) Alan Jacobs, The Narnian: The Life and Imagination of C.S. Lewis (San Francisco: Harper, 2005), 16.

(2) Ibid., 18.

(3) Alfred Tennyson, “The Princess,” Alfred Tennyson: The Major Works (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 151.

(4) Lewis, C. S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life (Orlando: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1955), 203.

(5) J.R.R. Tolkien, as quoted in Alan Jacobs, The Narnian: The Life and Imagination of C.S. Lewis (San Francisco: Harper, 2005), 145.

(6) Jacobs, 146.

(7) Lewis, 19.

(8) Jacobs, 5.

(9) C.S. Lewis, The Magician’s Nephew (New York: HarperCollins, 1955), 168.

(10) Ibid.

Ravi Zacharias Ministry – Living Authority

Ravi Z

We live in an age where a crisis of authority is endemic. Reading the world news headlines, I cringe at articles concerning brutality, betrayal, and oppression by those in “authority.” There seems to be no end of warlords and despots, brutal dictatorships, and tyrants siphoning the resources of nations to hoard it for malevolent use. These negative images of authority only exacerbate the feelings of mistrust of those who suffer under corrupt regimes.

That corruption seems endemic with positions of power is not a novel insight. Over one hundred years ago, Lord Acton warned: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”(1) While Lord Acton’s sentiment appears thoroughly pessimistic, the power that comes from being put in a position of authority often tempts the one who leads to use that power for selfish gain, often in ways that promote harm, disorder, and injustice. Given the abuse of authority that seems too often on display, it is no wonder that many feel a wary skepticism towards authority figures and institutions of power.

The attribution of authority applied to Jesus’s teaching ministry might make those who struggle with a more jaded view of authority pay attention; for even someone not familiar with the intricacies of Christian belief or theology would be reticent to compare the authority of Jesus with the way in which authority is often demonstrated in our world today. Jesus never held political office nor did he have a high-ranking leadership position in the temple or synagogues of his day. He would ultimately be crucified by those in authority over him.

Yet, authority is attributed to the teaching of Jesus. While Jesus preached, the multitudes listening to him “were amazed at his teaching; for he was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.”(2) What was it about Jesus that made his teaching authoritative?

Many commentators note that the scribes cited other teachers and leaders in their teaching, but Jesus cited himself and his own words as a sign of authority. This is borne out in the repeated use of the phrase “you have heard it said…but I say.”(3) Jesus’s authority comes from issuing his own teaching and his understanding of the Torah.

But is Jesus’s authority simply attributed to his being smarter or more learned in his interpretive skills than the religious and legal authorities of his own day? Did he use better logic or cleverer argumentation? Or does his authoritative teaching demonstrate something greater than clever turns of phrase and charisma?

Jesus’s authority comes not simply from his teaching, but in the way he revealed God’s authority as he lived his life. Indeed, the Gospel of Matthew sandwiches the famous Sermon on the Mount in between accounts of miracle stories. In fact, eight miracle stories immediately follow the sermon and give witness to Jesus “as one having authority,” because he used his authority in ways that promoted life. Jesus was healing “every kind of disease and every kind of sickness among the people.”(4) The authority of Jesus was not simply a demonstration of power or influence in the way we normally think of authority. Rather, the authority of Jesus brought healing and restoration. Illness and disease kept people away from community, away from temple worship—away from God. Jesus released individuals from sickness, delivered them from principalities and powers, so that they could be restored to their communities and were able to worship. His authoritative teaching brought those on the outside in.

Indeed, the miracles that Jesus performed demonstrated the nature God’s authority. All who relied on Jesus could enter into the realm and rule of the God who was on full display in his life and ministry. Jesus was not simply acting for God, but acting with God in such a way as to demonstrate that something new had come and had come with real power and authority. Although the word “authority” often conjures images of overlords or dictators for many in our contemporary world, there is an alternative vision on full display in the life and teaching of Jesus. Those who choose to place their lives under his kind of authority are free to live in ways that demonstrate God’s reign.

Regardless of the earthly authorities we experience today, we can live in light of the authority we see in Jesus. The original language indicates that his kind of authority gives us the capability or liberty to enter into God’s new realm more fully and more deeply than we ever thought possible. Placed under his kind of rule gives us both the capability and liberty to live as those with authority—authority that brings healing, calls powers and principalities to account, creates order from chaos, and restores new life to what was dead.

Margaret Manning is a member of the speaking and writing team at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Seattle, Washington.

(1) John Emerich Edward Dalberg, 1st Baron Acton (1834?-1902). Letter, April 3, 1887, to Bishop Mandell Creighton. The Life and Letters of Mandell Creighton, vol. 1, ch. 13, ed. Louise Creighton (1904).

(2) Cf. Matthew 5-7; Matthew 7:28-29.

(3) Cf. Matthew 5:21-22; 5:27-28; 5:31-32, 33, and 34.  Lloyd J. Ogilvie, ed., Myron J. Augsburger, The Communicator’s Commentary: Matthew (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1982).

(4) Matthew 8 and 9 present the healing of the leper, the Centurion’s servant, Peter’s mother-in-law, the calming of the Sea of Galilee, the casting out of demons, the healing of the paralytic, the healing of the hemorrhage, and the healing of the two blind men. Matthew 4:23-25 presents Jesus healing those from Syria, Galilee, Decapolis, and Jerusalem. These who are healed likely made up the crowds who listened in amazement to his sermon.

Ravi Zacharias Ministry – The World Without Story

Ravi Z

When journalist Alex Renton’s six year-old daughter Lulu asked her parents to send the letter she penned to God, Renton had to stop to consider all the possibilities. Renton is an atheist. And while he does not see himself keeping company with the “angry atheists of our time,” he was less than pleased by this invasion of Lulu’s moral imagination by primary school teachers who see God and mathematics with equal certainty. One of the easiest responses would have been simply to have the talk on religion a little earlier than they imagined, to sit Lulu down and tell her that the letter could not be sent because God does not exist. “We would have said that [God] was invented by human beings, because they were rather puzzled by life and death and some other problems in between,” writes Renton. But to give Lulu that answer seemed to him almost self-indulgent, more about his own scruples than Lulu’s wellbeing. The decision, he felt, was a complicated one: shield your child from delusion or protect their innocence as they learn about the world at their own pace.

In short, what was at stake for Lulu was an issue of imagination. While God, to Renton, is on imaginary par with the tooth fairy or Father Christmas, a delusion full of wishful thinking, he also knows it to be at times a beautiful delusion. And while he found himself proud of Lulu’s budding rationalist sensibilities even amidst her supernatural curiosity—her letter simply read, “To God, How did you get created? From Lulu, XO“—he was less than pleased with the teachers he believed were fueling this part of her imagination. Yet he was simultaneously torn by the dismissal of everything that imagination entailed:

“The Bible, taken highly selectively, is of course a pretty good introduction to the humanist moral system in which I’d like to see my children play a part. I have a copy of A. C. Grayling’s new ‘secular bible’: a wonderful enterprise, but it lacks the songs and the stories.“(1)

Convinced that Christianity posits an imaginary world, Renton laments nonetheless a world entirely without the imagination with which Christianity nurtures. The songs and stories and the beauty of a world filled with God is one in which a child—and even her rationally minded parents—can naturally delight. A world without that imagination is one to mourn on a very real level.

Renton’s dilemma is one in which C.S. Lewis the atheist would have deeply resonated, though it was not until sometime after his conversion to Christianity that he was able to put his struggle between the rational and the imaginative into words. As his biographers have well documented, imagination and the imaginary boldly colored Lewis’s childhood—from his own chivalric adventures in Animal-Land, which allowed the young Lewis to combine his two chief pleasures—”dressed animals” and “knights in armor”—to his growing affections for fairy tales and dwarves, music and poetry, Nature and Norse Mythology. For the young Clive Lewis, who announced at the age of four that he would hitherto be going by the name “Jacksie,” imagination quickly took a dominant role, his first delight in myth and story eventually turning into a scholar’s interest in them.

Yet unlike Alex Renton who notes admiration for the songs and stories of faith, Lewis was quite underwhelmed with the Christian imagination. “[T]he externals of Christianity made no appeal to my sense of beauty… Christianity was mainly associated for me with ugly architecture, ugly music, and bad poetry.”(2) He read and admired the mind of Chesterton, the verse of Milton, and the imagination of MacDonald, but only in spite of their Christianity.

On the other hand, Lewis’s imaginative life was not something that could be readily claimed by his rationalism, materialism, or his atheism either. Quite the contrary, in fact, Lewis sensed throughout his adolescence that this imaginative part of his mind had been necessarily cut off from the analytical. He had “on the one side a many-islanded sea of poetry and myth; on the other a glib and shallow ‘rationalism.’” It made for a rather gloomy outlook on reality, as Lewis notes, for “nearly all that I loved I believed to be imaginary; nearly all that I believed to be real I thought grim and meaningless.”(3) This need to further himself from the imaginary would continue to rear its head as he delved further into the fierce rationalism of his teacher Mr. Kirkpatrick and upon efforts to assume a new intellectual presence at Oxford. Describing his first two years, Lewis notes his resolve to give up any such flirtations with the imaginary, which simultaneously gave way to “more unhappiness and anxiety.”

Yet what Lewis would come to discover in time was not that he had “seen through” these stories—Avalon and Hesperides and Elfland—but that by them he had learned to see. Like G.K. Chesterton, whose fierce intellect Lewis had once admired despite his Christianity, Lewis came to see that he, too, “had always felt life first as a story: and if there is a story there is a story-teller.”(4)

Notably, Alex Renton’s initial discomfort toward the meddling with his daughter’s imagination gave way to another idea. Instead of sitting Lulu down and trying to explain that God was not taking letters because God was not real, he decided the burden of proof rested elsewhere. He decided that since Lulu’s letter was of the making of Christians, they should bear the burden of providing her with an answer. He asked his Christian friends first, who weren’t very helpful, followed by several professionals to whom he sent a jpeg of Lulu’s letter to God. Two of the denominational leaders did not reply. One sent a letter that seemed to him theologically sound, but not very conducive to a six year-old’s imagination. The last reply came from Lambeth Palace in the form of an email from then Archbishop Rowan Williams himself. Penned to Lulu, Williams agreed her question was a difficult one, but suggested that God might reply a bit like this:

“Dear Lulu—Nobody invented me—but lots of people discovered me and were quite surprised. They discovered me when they looked round at the world and thought it was really beautiful or really mysterious and wondered where it came from. They discovered me when they were very very quiet on their own and felt a sort of peace and love they hadn’t expected.

Then they invented ideas about me—some of them sensible and some of them not so sensible. From time to time I sent them some hints—specially in the life of Jesus to help them get closer to what I’m really like.

But there was nothing and nobody around before me to invent me. Rather like someone who writes a story in a book, I started making up the story of the world and eventually invented human beings like you who could ask me awkward questions!”

And then he said that God would send her lots of love and sign off. “I know he doesn’t usually write letters, so I have to do the best I can on his behalf. Lots of love from me too.”(5)

Renton and Lulu were both sincerely touched, the thoughtful reply meaning much more than he ever expected. And Lulu especially liked the part about “God’s Story,” confessed Renton. A world without that Story—and the songs and stories that accompany it—is indeed something to mourn.

Jill Carattini is managing editor of A Slice of Infinity at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Atlanta, Georgia.

(1) Alex Renton, “A letter to God—and a reply from Lambeth,” The Times, April 21, 2011.

(2) Lewis, C. S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life (Orlando: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1955), 172.

(3) Ibid., 170.

(4)  G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (Chicago: Ortho Publishing, 2013), 55.

(5) “A letter to God—and a reply from Lambeth.”

Ravi Zacharias Ministry – Beauty in the Subway?

Ravi Z

Dale Henderson gives cello concerts in New York City subway stations because he fears the day when classical music will be no more. He plays for free, focusing primarily on Bach Solo Cello Suites because their “power and beauty unfailingly inspire great appreciation, joy and deep emotion in those who hear them.”(1) Some commuters stop and stare, curious or captivated, many having never heard a cello or Bach concerto before. For Henderson, the music is an offering of something meaningful, seeds for future generations of classical music admirers who would not otherwise know it, beauty well worth lugging his heavy cello down into the subways to protect.

It is not always easy to talk about beauty without a minefield of objections or at best complicating list of qualifiers. Its modern place in the “eye of the beholder” gives it a tenuous feel at best. While Henderson describes a world without classical music as soul-less, others may not miss it so much. And yet it is hard not to talk about beauty in a broken and breaking world that makes its distinctive encounters increasingly stand out.

One author describes the common, but individual, effect of our varied encounters of the beautiful this way: “‘Beauty’ seems suited to those experiences that stop us in our tracks. Whether it’s a painting called Broadway Boogie-Woogie or a scherzo by Paganini, the beautiful is conducive to stillness. It doesn’t excite us, or necessarily instill in us the desire to replicate it; it simply makes us exist as though we’re existing for that very experience.”(2) His words are rife with the power of beauty to create longing, a desire to somehow participate. Beauty indeed leaves us with the ache of longing for another taste, another glimpse. And for each of us, this longing can come at unique or unsuspecting times—at the spectacular sight of the giant sequoias or a tiny praying mantis, at a concert or watching a First Nation powwow and taking in the colors, the drums, the survival of a betrayed people.

But to suggest that beauty is simply a spectator’s preference, an individual’s pursuit of an abstracted and timeless ideal, is to miss something significant. What of those moments when beauty is neither pleasant nor pretty, but haunting? What of the communal ache of beauty? The well-known scene in Elie Wiesel’s account of the Holocaust when describes a young man named Juliek, an incredibly gifted violinist from Warsaw. Wiesel describes the night when Juliek, on the brink of death, played a Beethoven concerto in the dark for that group of dying, starving men. Wiesel remembers the intensely beautiful, sad and haunting music, noting that it was as if Juliek was playing his very life upon that violin, offering a lament for each of them. Their encounter with the beauty of the composition was humanizing, made all the more jarring in such a dark and dehumanizing setting. In the morning they woke to find Juliek dead, his violin crushed on the floor beside him.

The sometimes haunting interplay between the presence of beauty and its absence, the space between beauty and brokenness only contributes to beauty’s power to stop and still us. But how do we account for it? The severe absence of beauty can stir a common ache within us, a longing that is inexplicable if beauty is merely accidental or an abstraction divorced from reality. As musician and professor Jeremy Begbie writes, “Beauty… has all too often been abstracted from time and temporal movement, and been turned into a static, timeless quality. Suppose, however, we refuse to divorce it from the transformation of the disorder of creation in the history of Jesus Christ. Suppose we begin there? Does this not open up a more dynamic paradigm of beauty?”(3)

The Christian worldview offers a God who not only made the beautiful, whose glory offers glimpses, but the God who can take away brokenness, and transform a disordered creation in Jesus Christ. This is a God who takes all the glimpses and introduces the whole—not as an escape from reality but a deepening of it. For the beauty of God is one that can hold life as well as death.

I remember vividly one summer when I was working with a group of kids in an afterschool program and a young girl was stung by a bee. She had a severe reaction and the paramedics were unable to revive her. Sitting with one of her young friends at the funeral, somewhere in the middle of it she turned to me with tears in her eyes and said, “The cut on her face will never heal.” The young girl had a little cut on her forehead from some previous playground encounter, and her friend made this observation in the midst of her own shock and grief. I remember thinking how incredibly insightful her words really were. She was noticing something very simple, but there was something quite profound in her thought. She seemed to be saying instinctively that this wasn’t right, that wounds are meant to heal, that the broken parts of life are not okay: indeed, that wholeness is both our stubborn longing and profound calling.

Remarkably, in this little girl’s comment is something that every prophet in the Bible has said—the ones who were trying desperately to open the people’s eyes to the glory of God around them and the ones who were pointing out the absence of glory. Each of them looked around the world, and seeing its broken cuts and ugly blemishes, cried out instinctively, “This is not the way it’s supposed to be!” We were made for wholeness.

Perhaps beauty has an effect on us because it hints at this beauty of God, manifestations that come not intangibly but, like Jesus Christ, within time and community, and thus a beauty that transforms, a beauty that is able to embrace life as well as death.

Whether a fleeting glimpse in the subway or a quiet act of kindness, whether something that stirred a community or stood up to a culture, each of these dim glimpses suggests not an escape from reality but a calling further into it, such that when we see the face of God we shall know that we have always known it.

Jill Carattini is managing editor of A Slice of Infinity at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Atlanta, Georgia.

(1) Pia Catton, “A Musician for the Masses Improves His Station,” Wall Street Journal, December 31, 2010.

(2) Arthur Krystal, “Hello, Beautiful: What We Talk About When We Talk About Beauty,” Harpers, September 10th, 2010.

(3) Jeremy Begbie, Voicing Creation’s Praise: Towards a Theology of the Arts (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 224.

Ravi Zacharias Ministry – What Is Faith?

Ravi Z

“Faith is believing what you want to believe, yet cannot prove.”

Sadly, many people, including some Christians, live with this definition of faith. For some it feels liberating. It means being able to believe in anything you want to believe. No explanation is required, indeed, no explanation can be given; it is just a matter of faith. For others, such a definition is sickening. Embracing faith means you stop thinking. As faith increases, reason and meaning eventually disappear. No explanations can be given, and none can be expected. Thus, living in faith is living in the dark.

For both groups, the problem is the same. By starting with the wrong definition of faith, they have asked the wrong question, are dealing with the wrong problem, and so have ended up with the wrong answer. Faith is not wishful thinking. It is not about believing in things that do not exist. It neither makes all things believable nor meaning impossible.

So what is the right definition of faith? “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen,” writes the author of Hebrews. A few verses later faith is similarly defined as knowing that God exists and that God rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

Perhaps the best word we can use to translate the Greek word “pistis” (usually translated faith) is the word “trust” or “trustworthy.” Suppose you tell a friend that you have faith in her. What does that mean? It means two things. First, you are sure the person you are talking to actually exists. And second, you are convinced she is trustworthy; you can believe what she says and trust in her character.

It is in this way that the writer of Hebrews talks about faith in God. Faith is knowing that God is real and that you can trust in God’s promises. You cannot trust someone who isn’t there, nor can you rely on someone whose promises are not reliable. This is why faith is talked about as the substance of things hoped for and as the evidence of things not seen. Both words carry with them a sense of reality. Our hope is not wishful thinking. Faith does not make God real. On the contrary, faith is the response to a real God who wants to be known to us:

“I am the Lord, and there is no other;

besides me there is no god.

I arm you, though you do not know me,

so that they may know, from the rising of the sun

and from the west, that there is no one besides me;

I am the Lord, and there is no other” (Isaiah 45:5-6).

Ever since the church began, the refrain has always been the same: Come, believe, follow the light of the world. It has never appealed for people to leap into the dark; no such invitation is found anywhere in Scripture. Instead, we are called to step into the light. The Christian gospel is not a message that revels in ignorance. It is the revelation of God in the person of Christ, so that we might know there is no other. The Christian is called to see things as they really are, and not as she would simply like them to be. We trust in a God who has been revealed to us in the Son and the Spirit. We believe because God is real.

The Christian gospel invites you to delve into reality. It commands you to be honest in your commitment to know that which is true. Is Jesus real? Who did he claim to be? Is he really alive today? Faith comes in response to knowing the answers to these questions, even as Christ is calling you near. But don’t stop after the initial introductions! Just as you are able to put more trust in someone as you grow to know him, so faith increases as you grow in your relationship with Christ. There is a God who is real and true; there is a God who is near and longing to gather you nearer. The great joy of the Christian faith is found in the person who invites us to trust and believe.

Michael Ramsden is European director of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in the United Kingdom.

 

 

Ravi Zacharias Ministry – The Horns of Elfland

Ravi Z

Whether compelling the visions of a child or inspiring music or architecture, the power of the imagination is often clear.

O hark, O hear! How thin and clear,

And thinner, clearer, farther going!

O sweet and far from cliff and scar

The horns of Elfland faintly blowing.(1)

But what of the mere presence of the imagination? “I do not think the resemblance between the Christian and the merely imaginative experience is accidental,” wrote C.S. Lewis. “I think that all things, in their way, reflect heavenly truth, the imagination not least.”(2) Certainly, this taste of a richer fare was sensed in the formative imaginations at which Lewis supped long before he knew he was starving for their Host. Writes Lewis:

“Chesterton had more sense than all the other moderns put together; bating, of course, his Christianity. Johnson was one of the few authors whom I felt I could trust utterly; curiously enough, he had the same kink. Spenser and Milton by a strange coincidence had it too. Even among ancient authors the same paradox was to be found. The most religious (Plato, Aeschylus, Virgil) were clearly those on whom I could really feed. On the other hand, those writers who did not suffer from religion and with whom in theory my sympathy ought to have been complete—Shaw and Wells and Mill and Gibbon and Voltaire—all seemed a little thin; what as boys we called ‘tinny.’ It wasn’t that I didn’t like them. They were all (especially Gibbon) entertaining; but hardly more. There seemed to be no depth in them. They were too simple. The roughness and density of life did not appear in their books.”(3)

And while Lewis would come to see that this “lower life of the imagination is not a beginning of, nor a step toward, the higher life of the spirit,” he is equally certain that God in God’s mercy can profoundly make it such a beginning.(4) My own encounter of the great imagination of C.S. Lewis is similar to a testimony given at his funeral, namely, that “his real power was not proof; it was depiction. There lived in his writings a Christian universe that could be both thought and felt, in which he was at home and in which he made his reader at home.”(5) I believe I probably first loved God as an untame Lion, not because the God I wished for was kinder than the God who is, but because I did not yet see that my deficient vision of God was the vision that needed a better imagination. As Lewis later wrote of his intense love of all Norse mythology, “[A]t the time, Asgard and the Valkyries seemed to me incomparably more important than anything else in my experience…More shockingly, they seemed much more important than my steadily growing doubts about Christianity. This may have been—in part, no doubt was—penal blindness; yet that might not be the whole story. If the Northernness seemed then a bigger thing than my religion, that may partly have been because my attitude toward it contained elements which my religion ought to have contained and did not.”(6)

Even so, in moments of moral crisis, we do not pause to ask what Jane Erye would do, I once heard a writer say. She had referenced the Brian Nichol’s story—the gunman who went on a shooting spree in Atlanta and ended up holding a woman hostage in her apartment where she read to him from The Purpose Drive Life and eventually convinced him to turn himself in. She then asked if this story would have turned out the same if the young girl had read to him from Moby Dick or War and Peace or any of the great classics of history. Her point was clear: the influence of art and imagination is usually not in the thick of things, but on the margins of culture; nor it is always clear and obvious, but often dense and unsettling. And yet there are inarguably characters and stories that indeed become of moral significance, pulling us into worlds that call for attention, compassion, and consideration. Long before I had any idea about the word “allegory” or the concept of good or bad literature, Narnian kings, talking beavers, and the Queen of Glome began appearing in my dreams, beckoning me to another place. In the aftermath of death and subsequent disappointment over the miracle we did not get, it was Aslan’s empathetic tear for the grieving Digory that came to mind when all seemed lost. For Lewis, it was the bright shadow coming out of a George MacDonald book that found him mercifully in the margins. “In the depth of my disgraces, in the then invincible ignorance of my intellect, all this was given me without asking, even without consent. That night my imagination was, in a certain sense, baptized; the rest of me, not unnaturally, took longer. I had not the faintest notion what I had let myself in for by buying Phantastes.”(6) But the Spirit no doubt mercifully did.

It is quite true that a young materialist or pessimist, atheist or agnostic who wishes to stay this way cannot be too careful in choosing what to read. God is unscrupulous, as Lewis attests, willing to use our own imaginations against us, our own pens to probe the wounds. If imagination is not the property of materialism, but the playground of heaven, it is nonetheless not the thing itself. But the hopeful signs of God’s own compelling imagination are everywhere—beautiful and terrible, inviting and transforming. It is the encounter with the Gate, not the signs along the way, that transforms the entire journey. It is said that Lewis became more like himself when he finally kneeled and admitted that God was God—”as though the key to his own hidden and locked-away personality was given to him.”(7) Everything is intensified—his loves, his responses, Jack himself—as the one brought in kicking and screaming discovered in Christ and his kingdom the world of Joy he had only before heard feebly. The faint horns of Elfland give way to the resounding glory of the creator and wonders beyond our imagining.

Jill Carattini is managing editor of A Slice of Infinity at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Atlanta, Georgia.

(1) C. S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life (Orlando: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1955), 167.

(2) Lewis, 213-214.

(3) Lewis, 167.

(4) Alan Jacobs, The Narnian: The Life and Imagination of C.S. Lewis (San Francisco: Harper, 2005), 312.

(5) Lewis, 76.

(6) Lewis, 181.

(7) Jacobs, 131.

Ravi Zacharias Ministry – Liberating Information

Ravi Z

“The world isn’t run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It’s run by little ones and zeros, little bits of data. It’s all just electrons…. There’s a war out there… and it’s not about who’s got the most bullets.  It’s about who controls the information. What we see and hear, how we work, what we think, it’s all about information.”(1)

It’s all about who controls the information. When I first heard this quote, I immediately thought it was an overstatement. Daily news of conflict, natural disasters, continuing disputes over land and territory, and continuing struggles over energy resources remind us of “wars and rumors of wars” all around. Surely, the war is far more than simply controlling information.

But the way in which these news stories are told underlies the insidious perpetuation of conflict. The instant access to information and news as a result of the Internet makes every blogger a knowledge guru and every website a “purveyor” of the truth. Those “in the know” craft the news and spin their stories. Indeed, the more I see the way the world interacts with the wealth of information available through the power of the Internet, the more I become convinced of the truth of this statement: The world is run by information, and the world is embroiled in an information war.

A few examples might illuminate this point. After the horrible events of 9/11, media in this country began to report coverage of these events from the perspective of the Arabic-language broadcasting network.  How different the events looked to those whose only access to information was this one source. To some, a “holy war” was underway, turning terrorists into heroes and the innocent into evildoers needing to be punished. This was not simply a war of guns or bombs, but a war of information, and the power of information to shape hearts and minds.

The same could be said about the crisis that involves Russia and Ukraine. The Russian government makes sure that media reports that they are the protectors of Crime, and that the West—Europe and the U.S. are the provocateurs.    Who is telling the truth, and who is winning this war?

Beyond these global examples, daily inquiries into a variety of issues, theological, apologetic, or otherwise—all brought to my attention because of information from a particular website, blog, or online article. Conspiracies abound, competing agendas jostle for influence and groups point the finger at each other with regards to the truth. Definitive conclusions are drawn from hearsay and very limited information. Rather than increasing knowledge and alleviating fears, the great sea of information seems more often to confine us to shallow waters. A civil war ensues in which we bite and devour one another and are consumed.(2) The war continues unabated, at times with fierceness that rivals real warfare.

I’m just as guilty of picking up these weapons, using my own selective memory to take ideas completely out of context in order to win my own wars of information.  In fact, all of us are prone to picking and choosing the sources we will use for ammunition based on whether or not they confirm our own point of view, pacify our fears, or justify our smug sense of self-righteousness. But in the end, more often than not, we are submerged in an ocean of misinformation. Drowning in what appears to be knowledge, we accept “truths” devoid of historical context.  We assume, for example, that our information on Christianity emerged straight out of the 20th century, and out of the Western World. We forget that we are but a small part of a much larger ocean of faithful followers of the Way, the Truth, and the Life, which can be traced from Noah to Abraham, from Deborah to Esther, and from those twelve humble disciples all the way through the history of the Christian Church.

As I reflect on this war of information, I am reminded of what Jesus said to those faithful Jews who had believed in him: If you abide in my word, then you are truly disciples of mine; and you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free (John 8:31-32). Ultimately, the truth sets us free and liberates us from fear. Liberation can serve as our guidepost as we persevere against fear, divisiveness, and a propensity to judge first and listen later—especially towards those enlisted in the same battalion. The message of Jesus encouraged us to abide, remain, and rest in him because even the gates of hell—in whatever form they take—would not prevail. Some may rightly warn that abiding, liberating, and remaining in Christ seems a simple response to the onslaught of the information war. But perhaps it is necessary regardless, and somehow, by God’s grace, it is corrective as well, especially for those who seek to follow Jesus. In the war of information, the truth of a person—that of Jesus Christ—cuts a clear path and issues a clarion call. Those who call themselves Christian find their confidence in Jesus.  This is a confidence that liberates rather than wounds, and inspires us to speak the truth in love to a world warring over information.

Margaret Manning is associate writer at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Seattle, Washington.

(1) Sneakers, Universal Pictures, 1992.

(2) See Galatians 5:15.

Ravi Zacharias Ministry – Hyperseeing in a Hyper-filled Space

Ravi Z

On the influence of media and technology, discussions continue to abound. “Is Google making us stupid?” “Is Twitter bad for the soul?” “Is Facebook changing the way we relate?”(1) There seems an upsurge in articles questioning our faltering minds, morals, and communities (ironically reaching us through the very mediums that are blamed for it). Some note the shifting of thought patterns, attention spans that are beginning to prefer 140 characters or less, information gluttony, news addiction, and so on.

There is good reason, I think, to step away from the torrent surges of information and hyper-networking to think meaningfully about how it all might be changing us—for good and for ill. For with every new improvement and invention irrefutably comes gain and loss. And just as quickly as I can build a case against the gods of media-and-technology, I can also double check my footnotes on Google, find twenty additional perspectives on Twitter, and watch an interview with the author of one of the headlines mentioned above—all of which came from articles I read online in the first place. There are clearly advantages to having immediate access to such an incredibly rich store of information, inasmuch as this hyper-access to people, news, and facts assuredly has far-reaching effects on cognition, as well as the way we see, or don’t see, the world.

Speaking decades before the debates over Twitter or the wonders of Google, Malcolm Muggeridge seemed to foresee the possibilities of too much information. “Accumulating knowledge is a form of avarice and lends itself to another version of the Midas story,” he wrote. “Man is so avid for knowledge that everything he touches turns to facts; his faith becomes theology, his love becomes lechery, his wisdom becomes science. Pursuing meaning, he ignores truth.”(2) In other words, Muggeridge saw that it was possible to see so many news clips that we are no longer seeing, to hear so many sound-bites that we are no longer hearing, to seek so many “exclusives” that we are no longer understanding.

Speaking centuries before Muggeridge, the prophet Isaiah and the rabbi Jesus described their audiences quite similarly. “This is why I speak to them in parables,” said Jesus, “because ‘they look but do not see and hear but do not listen or understand’” (cf. Matthew 13:13, Isaiah 6:9-10). Undoubtedly, we are living in a time that is complicated by towering opportunities of information and knowledge; news clips, sound bites, blogs, and editorials, all piled so high and wide that we can scarcely see around our fortresses of facts. But perhaps regardless of the era, humanity’s skill in building towers of Babel—built to see beyond ourselves yet ironically blocking our vision—is both timeless and unprecedented.(3) Learning to see in a way that “reaches the heavens,” or, as Einstein once said, “to think the thoughts of God,” is far more about seeing God than it is about seeing facts.

In the art and work of sculpture, there is a term used to describe an artist’s ability to look at an unformed rock and see it in its completed state. It has been said of the sculptor Henry Moore that he had the gift of “hyperseeing,” the gift of seeing the form and beauty latent in a mass of unshaped material.(4) Hyperseeing is a word used to describe a sculptor’s extraordinary gift of seeing in four dimensional space—that is, seeing all around the exterior but also seeing all points within, seeing in a rough piece of stone the astounding possibilities of art.

It strikes me that the exercise of hyperseeing, then, as it might apply to our towering mountains of rough and unmolded facts, is something to which God tirelessly calls us. Far from building towers of knowledge that make names for ourselves, or accumulating sound-bites until we are no longer hearing, hyperseeing (and hyperhearing) the world around us requires God’s vision and voice. “Call to me and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you do not know” (Jeremiah 33:3). Far better than a world of mere facts is a world made visible by the promises of God.

Perhaps we practice the exercise of hyperseeing as we learn to see the power of the resurrection, the glory of the transfiguration, the gift of the Lord’s Supper, or the wisdom of the parables in the daily facts and movements of our lives in God’s kingdom. To be sure, the resurrection of Jesus—the rising of dead flesh to life again—is no more jarring than every other promise we hold because of him, promises we can now see in part, while hyperseeing the extraordinary possibilities of all they will look like upon completion:

“Every valley shall be lifted up,

and every mountain and hill be made low;

the uneven ground shall become level,

and the rough places a plain.

5Then the glory of the Lord shall be revealed,

and all people shall see it together” (Isaiah 40:4-5).

Indeed, the eyes of the blind shall be opened, the ears of the deaf unstopped; the lame will leap like deer, the tongue of the speechless will sing for joy; waters will break forth in the wilderness, and streams in the desert.(5) In a world hyper-filled with facts and knowledge, such are the sights and sounds of a kingdom the pure in heart (with or without the help of Google) shall see.

Jill Carattini is managing editor of A Slice of Infinity at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Atlanta, Georgia.

(1) cf. Nicholas Carr, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Atlantic, (July/August 2008), “Scientists Warn of Rapid-fire Media Dangers,” CNN Health, April 14, 2009, Peggy Orenstein, “Growing Up on Facebook,” The New York Times, March 10, 2009.

(2) From Firing Line, “Do We Need Religion or Religious Institutions” an interview with Malcolm Muggeridge, September 6, 1980, chapter 6.

(3) See Genesis 11.

(4) As cited by Jeremy Begbie in an interview with Ken Myers, Mars Hill Audio Review, vol. 94, Nov./Dec. 2008.

(5) See Isaiah 35:5-6 and Luke 7:22.

Ravi Zacharias Ministry – Misdiagnosing Normal

Ravi Z

Almost everyday, we are beset with news of daily atrocities, murders, and tragedies that continue to shake us. I sit in a somewhat curious state as I hear certain phrases so often repeated. “They seemed like such a normal person.” “My kids played at his/her house regularly.” Then the reporter chimes in, “How could such a normal person do such a thing?”

I guess what intrigues me in this constant replay from daily and weekly life is the surprise. The reporters genuinely seem surprised (by the actions committed) and in joining in with the social narrative’s rules, so do we!  Many centuries ago, the ancient writer Herodotus wrote, “The most hateful torment for men is to have knowledge of everything but power over nothing.” This is perceptive.

The modern era was birthed in the consciousness of rational men and women in control of their own destinies. It was the age of reason; we can and would figure everything out. It was the age of man; no need for god, the gods, or superstitions of any kind. It was the age of science; the new insights, techniques, and technologies would allow us to build our brave new world. It was the age of progress, as many believed we would grow from good to great, and perhaps end up in (something like) Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek future, where all need has been eradicated and all live for justice and the good of all.

The problem with this, and with all utopian dreams, is that they are illusions or delusions. They are fantasy constructs of the very sort Schopenhauer and Freud attacked in terms of religion. Despite promethean promises, guru advice, or our deepest sincere desires, wanting it badly enough does not make it so. What kind of a world do we live in? Who and what are we? What is wrong in life and with me? How can anything be improved? These are world and life view questions.

Back in the 90s, I was involved in several high level consultations on the condition of Europe. We heard many informed and insightful people speak to Europe’s spiritual condition, her drift, and many of the contributors to her current malaise. After some time, one veteran Christian leader said, “The problem at the heart of Europe is the problem of the European heart.” He was citing the words of Christ. “It is what comes out of a person that defiles.  For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come” (Mark 7:20). Jesus pinpoints the human dilemma. The issue is not merely heritage, biology, sociology, politics, or economics; it has a fundamental root. As we learn from medicine, the wrong diagnosis leads to the wrong prognosis. This brings me back to the news, to the surprise at the latest outrages, endlessly paraded on our ubiquitous media. Are we misdiagnosing normal?

We all need heart surgery! We all know (in our deepest thoughts), that there are things in life and within us, over which we have little or no power, and for which we have little or no comprehension. The great physician, as our Creator and redeemer, specializes in the heart business. Broken hearts, angry hearts, selfish hearts, greedy hearts, and all kinds of hearts, can find an answer in Christ. All he asks is that we come to him and turn from our self-defined ways. Thankfully, the power to change rests in the hands of one whose power and goal it is to change us.

Stuart McAllister is regional director for the Americas at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Atlanta, Georgia.

Ravi Zacharias Ministry – The Cross and the Cookie Jar

Ravi Z

As a young man growing up in Scotland, like many others, I was exposed to Christianity and the symbol of the cross. However, it was a point of confusion, a mystery at best, and at worst, an object of scorn and disgust. I did not know what it meant or why religious people thought it important, but I knew I wanted nothing to do with it.

Obviously, I have had a change of mind. Why? I’ll explain as we proceed, but first, some helpful voices. Alister McGrath, Professor of theology, ministry, and education at King’s College, London, writes: “Just as God has humbled himself in making himself known ‘in the humility and shame of the cross,’ we must humble ourselves if we are to encounter him. We must humble ourselves by being prepared to be told where to look to find God, rather than trusting in our own insights and speculative abilities. In effect, we are forced to turn our eyes from contemplation of where we would like to see God revealed, and to turn them instead upon a place which is not of our choosing, but which is given to us.”(1)

In other words, nothing in one’s history, experience, or knowledge can prepare us for God’s means of drawing near. At the cross, something we are not expecting is revealed, something scandalous unveiled, something we could never have articulated or asked for is given to us. Philip Yancey, the renowned author, offers more on this:  ”Here at the cross is the man who loves his enemies, the man whose righteousness is greater than that of the Pharisees, who being rich became poor, who gives his robe to those who take his cloak, who prays for those who deceitfully use him.  The cross is not a detour or a hurdle on the way to Kingdom, nor is it even the way to the Kingdom; it is the Kingdom come.”(2)

I have come to realize that wrong ideas and images are responsible for much misery and disaster in our lives. And I think many of us have significantly distorted ideas about the purpose and meaning of the cross. When many people think of “sin” or the human condition before God, what comes to mind is perhaps something like the image of a child caught with his hands in the cookie jar. Such an image might well be understood as disobedience or maybe even naughtiness, but is it really that important? It is certainly not bad enough to justify extreme reactions. As a result of such a metaphor, our moral reflections on sin tend to foster incredulity or disgust. The response seems totally out of proportion to the offense.

But let us shift the metaphor. Supposing one day you go for a routine medical examination, and they discover you have a deadly virus. You did not do anything. You were not necessarily responsible, but you were exposed, and infected. You feel the injustice of it all, you are afraid, you are angry, but most of all, you are seriously sick. You are dying and you need help.

Whatever the cross and the gospel are about, it is not a slap on the hands for kids refusing to heed the rules of the cookie jar. It is not mere advice to get you to clean up your life and morals. It is not mere ideas to inform you about what it takes to be nice. It is about treatment, a physician’s mediation; it is about providing a solution and discovering life.

The cross may seem an extreme and offensive measure to the problem of sin and death and sickness—but what if it is the very cure that is needed? McGrath describes our options at the cross of Christ. “Either God is not present at all in this situation, or else God is present in a remarkable and paradoxical way. To affirm that God is indeed present in this situation is to close the door to one way of thinking about God and to open the way to another—for the cross marks the end of a particular way of thinking about God.”(3) Shockingly, thoroughly, scandalously, the cross depicts a God who throws himself upon sin and sickness to bring the hope of rescue miraculously near.

Some find it shocking, some overwhelming, some almost too good to be true. It is, however, for all.

Stuart McAllister is regional director for the Americas at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Atlanta, Georgia.

(1) Alister McGrath, The Mystery of the Cross, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 104.

(2) Philip Yancey, The Jesus I Never Knew, (Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 1995), 196.

(3) Alister McGrath, The Mystery of the Cross, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 103.

 

Ravi Zacharias Ministry – Super-Sized

Ravi Z

Walking toward the events of Easter, the suffering of the cross and the shock of the resurrection, has a way of dredging up the dust of existential questions that otherwise sit quietly along the way.

“Who can stay awake in this night of God?” asks Jürgen Moltmann of the events leading to the cross. “Who will not be as if paralyzed by it?… Is there any answer to the question why God forsook him? Is there any answer to the agonizing questionings of disappointment and death?… Is this the end of all human and religious hope? Or is it the beginning of the true hope, which has been born again and can no longer be shaken?”(1)

Beside the lacerated body of Christ, death is not a figure we can turn away from as if to say it is simply unwelcomed. And life, as it appears unhindered and uncontainable by the tomb and even the grave clothes, unexpectedly becomes a word we do not really know, despite our regular use of the term.

Many of the parables Jesus told worked to counter the unchallenged cultural interpretations that buried words in contemporary holes. In fact, his stories habitually seemed to unpigeon-hole concepts that had become so familiar they were no longer seen, words so often used in a particular way that their greater meaning had long been forsaken. Coming into a crowd, Jesus worked to remove the coded obstacles that blocked them from seeing words and truths in true kingdom-proportion.

But it is the same for us today. What do you do when a question about eternal life is answered with a story about robbers causing harm and neighbors who don’t care? Every story Jesus told, every sermon he preached with and without words moves us to rediscover the words we use and the confessions we make. The weeks leading up to the cross remind me just how often I limit and even misuse words and notions pertaining to “life” itself.

Insistence of the “sanctity of life” is one such confession oft on the lips of Christians. Created in the image of God, the church confesses that life is sacred, loved, and valued. With good reason, this confession is often voiced in arenas fighting for the unborn or ethical practices of medicine. Even the phrase “sanctity of life” likely brought to some of your minds one of these often charged and public areas of concern.

But if “life” is a word at the heart of the very kingdom Christ proclaimed, should the Christian confession of life not bring to mind all of this and even more? Should the life of a Christian not be one that offers a representation and confession of life’s sanctity on all fronts—on the streets, in forgotten prisons, in anonymous online banter? In other words, beyond our voices that rightfully cry out for the protection of the unborn and the dying, how else is our for-life stance being communicated to and within the world less predictably? In the words of Jesus, “For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world” (John 6:33). What might Christ’s kingdom-sized use of the word “life” include that we have overlooked?

I recently read an account of a pastor in Bellevue, Washington who reminded me of one such thing. Wanting his congregation both to represent and to identify itself with its missional calling, he called them to see life in its broadest context. He asked them “to recognize…that their missional calling involves the witness of their quality of life together as much as it involves service to real human needs and verbal witness to Jesus Christ.”(2) I am so accustomed to the phrase “quality of life” referring to ethics and medicine that the idea actually took a minute to settle. But once it did, I realized in fact how short-sided I had allowed that phrase to become.

If the greatest message of Christians is that God “sent his one and only Son into the world that we might truly live by being united with him,” it follows that our life together is a very representation of the life Jesus offers and the love God showed in sending his Son.(1) Here, quality of life is far more than a medical term, although it would certainly include our ethics in medical care and the means with which we treat the sick. Similarly, the sanctity of life is always more than a three-point argument or a voting record, but something Christ gives us to embody in every sense of the word and every manner of our lives together and in the world.

Moving toward the events of Holy Week, the multivalent words of Christ still mercifully confront our own, unearthing long-buried dimensions, revealing the unsearchable depths of the truly super-sized king and the kingdom our lives represent: “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

Jill Carattini is managing editor of A Slice of Infinity at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Atlanta, Georgia.

(1) Jurgen Moltmann, “Prisoner of Hope,” in Bread and Wine: Readings for Lent and Easter (New York: Orbis, 2003), 146-152.

(2) Lois Y. Barrett et al., Treasure in Clay Jars: Patterns in Missional Faithfulness (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 8.

(3) cf. 1 John 4:9.

 

Ravi Zacharias Ministry – The Treasures of the Heart

Ravi Z

Several years ago, I visited the Carnegie Library in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. For those who aren’t familiar with Carnegie-Mellon University or any of the Carnegie libraries scattered throughout the United States, it is an awesome experience to wander through towering shelves filled with books, music, and reference materials; vast resources—more than I could ever utilize—amply aided me in the writing of my research paper.

At the time, I was too preoccupied with my research to take advantage of all the resources available to me in this great library. I didn’t wonder about the history behind the library, or think about what great act of generosity made it possible and brought it into existence. Carnegie, a Scottish immigrant to the United States, represents the classic tale of rags to riches that is the quintessential reflection of the American dream. Ingenious, shrewd, and visionary without any formal education beyond grade school, Carnegie became the richest man in America during the “The Gilded Age” of the late nineteenth century.(1) Riding the wave of rapid development from the Industrial Revolution, Carnegie became the king of industry, first of railroads and then of steel.

But Carnegie’s was a mixed legacy. While he amassed fortunes, his workers languished for pennies in what is described as one of the “darkest chapters in American labor history.”(2) He may have been less ruthless than some of his other industry contemporaries by today’s ethical standards for laborers, but Carnegie was brutal in his demands for long hours of labor with very little pay.

I began to pay attention to Carnegie’s life and legacy because he is an oft-cited inspiration for two of the richest men in the world today who started a philanthropic movement to systematically give their money away. These two men are Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. Gates and Buffett cite an oft-quoted refrain from Carnegie: “The man who dies rich dies disgraced… And besides, it provides a refuge from self-questioning.”(3) Perhaps some of Carnegie’s own self-questioning came from the way in which he made his money, seeking efficiency and profit at the expense of worker well-being. Whatever the case, the richest man in the world believed that money made from society should be given back to society. From Carnegie’s example, Buffett and Gates go and encourage other wealthy individuals to do likewise with their own fortunes.

Capitalism, at its heart, is about multiplying and advancing capital. But what is to be done with immense profits? Despite his mixed legacy, the example of Andrew Carnegie offers an intriguing option. Wealth production should include social capital—namely, that great gains financially can be accompanied by great gains for society and for the public good. Wealth can accumulate profit not just for individuals, but for communities, cities, and indeed, regions all around the world. Just as the biblical patriarch Abraham was blessed to be a blessing, we who are wealthy in all sorts of ways can allow caritas, or charity, to guide us in bringing blessing for others. Whatever the wealth—time, treasure, and talent—can be used for the sort of profit that is more than just individual, capital gain.

Those who seek to follow Jesus have a powerful motivation to view wealth in the same manner, and his instruction on the matter is yet another illustration of his concern for the whole and not merely an isolated group. Jesus instructed his followers to “go and sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure where no thief comes near nor moth destroys.”(4) This means, as one commentator on Luke’s gospel points out, that “possessions in themselves are neither good or bad; it is the choices that one makes concerning them that determines their significance…[T]he proper use of material goods that are non-essential to the disciple is to be manifested in the positive act of helping those in need.”(5)

In other words, wealth does create profit; but the kind of profit wealth creates is up to us to decide. It has been said: where your treasure is there will your heart be also.

Margaret Manning is a member of the speaking and writing team at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Seattle, Washington.

(1) From American Experience: “Andrew Carnegie: The Richest Man in the World,” http://www.pbs.org.

(2) Ibid.

(3) Andrew Carnegie, “Wealth” North American Review, June 1889, Volume 148, Issue 391, 653-665.

(4) Cf. Luke 12:33.

(5) John Sheila Galligan, “The Tension between Poverty and Possessions in the Gospel of Luke,” Spirituality Today, Spring 1985, Volume 37, 12.

 

Ravi Zacharias Ministry – Passion and Power

Ravi Z

One of the unique qualities of the Christian story is that it is presented in the voices of four different witnesses. During the season of Lent, it is interesting to look specifically at the different tellings of the events that led Jesus to the cross. The differences in each testimony offer an interesting glimpse of how personalities differ in their observing and experience of the world, as well as a potent reminder that the story of Jesus is not a flat and static conveying of information but a story as alive as the one who was tortured at the hands of the powers of this world.

For instance, as one theologian observes, Matthew’s crucifixion narrative and greater gospel emphasizes “the way of the humiliated Christ.”(1) In my reading of Matthew, I am always struck by the interplay between power and control, an interesting dynamic on which the writer has chosen to focus. Over and above the motif shared with Mark, Matthew seems to add a dimension of inquiry about power, and along with it, the hint that all is not as it seems: Who wants control? Who thinks they’re in control? Who is really in control? Roy Harrisville compares it to the paradox and reversal at the heart of Jesus’s ministry, the passion of Christ itself enacting “truths earlier hidden in the predictions and parables.”(2)

Thus, where Mark’s decisive crowd before Pilate yells, “Crucify him” (15:13 and again in 14b) and Luke’s crowd similarly, if more emphatically in the Greek, yells, “Crucify, crucify him!” (23:21), Matthew’s crowd twice yells, “Let him be crucified” (27:22b and 23b). There is a hint of a distancing of responsibility. The crowds indeed want the crucifying done, but done to him by someone else. Luke seems to further draw the distinction of choice and control, adding of his crowd, “And they were urgent, demanding with loud cries that he should be crucified. And their voices prevailed” (23:23).

Matthew’s account seems at first passive in the “who” of the act of crucifying, a crowd calling for death at a distance. Later Pilate, too, wants to distance himself from this responsibility, adding a hand-washing scene unique to Matthew’s narrative. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” says Pilate, “see to it yourselves” (27:24). The people, preferring control over the risk of release, answer, “His blood be on us and on our children” (27:25).

Now phrased in terms of blood, Matthew’s interplay of power and control is made all the more potent. Like Jesus’s many parables with their jarring sense of mysterion (mystery that is not hidden, but revealed), Matthew seems to suggest there is one in control indeed, but it is not the one who seems to be holding the power. The image of Christ’s blood upon this blind—though professing to see—crowd and their children is chilling. For unknowingly, they have declared the very thing that the humiliated servant has set out to do: His blood be on us and on our children.

Harrisville illustrates this all the more profoundly in his analysis of Matthew’s narrating of the Last Supper and the curious words of Jesus about the “blood of the covenant,” now explained in this passion narrative before us:

“The statement about the ‘blood of the covenant’ (26:28) will have its explanation in subsequent events, in Judas’s confession (‘I have sinned by betraying innocent blood’ [27:24]), in Pilate’s avowal of innocence (‘I am innocent of this man’s blood’ [27:4]), and in the people’s accepting responsibility for Jesus’s death (‘his blood be on us and on our children!’ [27:25]). All these will be the ‘many’ for whose forgiveness the blood of the covenant is poured out.“(3)

The story of Jesus as he moves toward the cross, told through eyes that remind us he has come for a world of unique individuals, is a story of power and weakness that turns our common assumptions and experience on its head. Like the parables, the way of the humiliated Christ confounds us, approaching in power, though hidden in the unlikely gift of a servant.

Jill Carattini is managing editor of A Slice of Infinity at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Atlanta, Georgia.

(1) Roy Harrisville, Fracture: The Cross as Irreconcilable in the Language and Thought of the Biblical Writers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 147.

(2) Ibid., 158.

(3) Ibid., 159.

 

Ravi Zacharias Ministry – Your Attention Please

Ravi Z

We may live in a world full of individualists and individualism, but when it comes to reaching the individual conscience and the individual ear, it is often not so simple. For the one in the crowd, for the individual among the masses, any appeal for moral action or ethical change is likely to be heard more with one’s neighbor in mind than oneself. Whether rooted in human nature or simply another form of individualism, it seems our neighbors’ flaws are far more worthy of commentary. F.W. Boreham noted this tendency in any congregation with more than one member. “[I]n a congregation of two, each auditor takes it for granted that the preacher is referring to the other.”(1)

True to form, it is on rare occasions that the prophets, who cry out at injustice and weep loudly for repentance, seem like they are talking to me. Most of the time, they seem more clearly to be talking to a family member, a wayward culture, or a particular philosophy, policy, or party. This is perhaps why the prophets must weep and yell so loudly, though often to no avail. Though the great command of Israel assumes that we are listening—Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One—often, we are not. Or rather, we might be listening, but we are listening for someone else.

With every fiber of their beings, the prophets attempt to counter our selective hearing. The last prophet, the prophet who cried for the world to recognize the savior among them, was no different. John the Baptist came bounding through the wilderness with an immensely personal message, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, and calling the masses to see their collective and individual need for the one who could make all things new. This is where Mark begins his gospel: with the cry of a prophet to open our ears. The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, he tells us, begins with the call of John the Baptist: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight!

Somewhere along the path to the cross, many Christians revisit these words first recorded by the prophet Isaiah and later described as the message of John. It is a message that perhaps seems easiest to hear for someone else; after all, John’s words were aimed at “the Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem” who responded by coming to the Jordan to be baptized. Or maybe the prophet’s call for preparation just seems a familiar part of a familiar story: before Jesus was recognized as the son of God, John the Baptist readied the crowds to see the one in their midst. Regardless, it is likely that all the many years of hearing the prophet’s cry for someone else has dulled the command in our minds. In fact, no matter who we hear that message for, it is actually quite a radical thought. How does one prepare roads for God? How does anyone make the paths of the Lord straight? When you remember the story of Jesus on earth, do you picture the men and women God used to prepare the way of Jesus among us, human beings who took an active role in shaping the paths of God’s coming—priests and prophets, those who prayed for God’s Messiah, Elizabeth and John, Jesus’s own mom?

Now, how much more radical is this image if you hear the command for yourself? Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight! Beginning his gospel with the cry of the prophet, Mark attempts to open the world to this very thought. The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ starts with our participation in God’s activity. How are you preparing the way of the Lord, paving roads and clearing paths for the sake of God among us? It is a question every bit as much aimed at your ears and your life as it was the first audience who heard it—or your neighbors who might need to hear it.

The story of Jesus coming as an infant in Bethlehem and setting his face like a flint toward the cross in his thirties is the beginning of the great promises and reversals we anticipate because of his redemptive presence with us—beauty rising from ashes and mourning turned to dancing, waters breaking forth from the wilderness and streams from the desert. But this story is not finished. Christ is coming again and John continues to call us to prepare the way, to join in the restoration that God has already started. Indeed, all of the prophets continue to cry out with inviting and powerful images of God’s work: swords made into to plowshares and spears to pruning hooks, wolves lying down with lambs, cows and bears grazing together, justice rolling down like waters and righteousness like ever-flowing streams, the desert blossoming, the blind seeing, the lame leaping, the lowly lifted up, and the hungry filled with good things. How are we participating in this very story? How do our lives change, if the prophets are indeed talking to us?

Jill Carattini is managing editor of A Slice of Infinity at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Atlanta, Georgia.

(1) F.W. Boreham, “The Ideal Congregation,” Dreams at Sunset (London: Epworth Press, 1954), 88.