Christmas a Day Late

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Trying to type/blog anything about Christmas before Christmas was just not in the cards for me. Between last minute "before holiday" stuff I had to finish in my business, preparing and presenting the "Christmas Sermon" at church last Wednesday, rehearsals/memorizing lines for our new year's eve production, and all the general busyness of getting ready with my family to celebrate the holiday on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, well -- no time to sit at the computer and think deep thoughts. And even when I now have a chance to type out these thoughts, I am unfortunately a victim of my own capriciousness. Please forgive me for the scattershot nature of these thoughts.

But on the morning of Christmas Eve, I saw a news article on potential scientific explanations for the Star of Bethlehem, and it got me thinking about some things. About how Jesus, as the Son of God, as the Lord of the Universe, as the "Word made flesh" (see my note from last year on the subject, which was the topic of my Christmas Sermon, at http://soxfan59.xanga.com/718775201/what-christmas-means-to-me----/) chose to reveal himself to the world, both at the time he was born and down through history.

Jesus' entry into our world was a bit of a paradox. He was God, created the world (see John 1), and was truly the "King of Kings and Lord of Lords." But he did not enter the world in a way in which the people of his time would have expected a King, let alone God, would have presented Himself to us. Instead of grandness, power, and glory, Jesus entered the world in humility, poverty, and obscurity. (See Philippians 2:5-8). People who were not paying attention to the subtle cues that were given missed it completely. And that meant most of the people of Jesus day.

Then again, sometimes the clues were not so subtle, but were meant for a select audience. For example, the Shepherds mentioned in Luke 2.

We don't know much about the shepherds, but from their reaction to what happened, I presume they were a lot like many of the rural, farm-community folks I know here in the U.S. Hard working, frugal, and devout. Working so hard, they had to stay up all night in order to take care of the sheep. Rough around the edges, perhaps, but basically faithful, patriotic citizens of Israel who were, deep down, hoping for the coming of the Messiah and the deliverance he would bring. Many of them may have been a little more than rough at the edges -- as a rough a life as being poor and dependent on the agricultural industry of the ancient world probably led to as many hard drinking, hard living types as we would find in any American community today. They were sinners, imperfect, and I bet they knew it. Yet, their cultural values were probably honorable -- they just lacked a real connection to God, a connection that went beyond culture, ethics, or family ties.

And then, as they were working one night, the sky is split by an other-worldly light, and an army of angels appears in clouds around them singing. They are told that the hope of the universe, the fulfillment of their hopes and dreams as a nation, as a culture, and as individuals is wrapped in a blanket, sleeping in an farm animal's feeding trough in a cow stall back in the center of a backwoods town not far away. Then they go check it out, find its true, and their lives are transformed with hope, and they spread the news to anyone that will hear.

The shepherds' first encounter with Jesus -- with the real, living, personal Jesus, the "Word made flesh" (see John 1:14) -- was a supernatural experience. I wonder how many people, both then and today. miss out on encountering the reality of who Jesus is and what he would mean in their lives because they can't deal with the supernatural, or aren't willing to move beyond an intellectual approach to their faith. I think there are many times God offers us supernatural "moments," opportunities when he opens up the sky for us, even in subtle ways, to reveal the reality of who He is, and we aren't willing to accept it, or pay attention to it.

I met Jesus for the first time in a manner quite similar to the shepherds. I was raised in the church, immersed in its culture, and trying my best to be devout. I was also, though, a little rough around the edges. I had done some things that I was rather ashamed of, and had helped cement a sense of separation from God. I was still trying though, thinking that if I worked at it hard enough, I'd have some sort of breakthrough and be right with God. But my "faith journey" at that time was very much on hold, very much void of positive results, sort of like the shepherds, just waiting there in the dark, not knowing if anything would happen. Then, just like the angels in the fields around Bethlehem, the Holy Spirit suddenly broke into my darkness with the light of the Gospel -- the truth that salvation comes through faith, and my sins were forgiven, and there was a God who wanted to walk with me and make me a new creation. I "ran to meet him" like the Shepherds, and found it all to be true, and like them, my life has never been the same. I found what I was looking for, but only after what I was looking for grabbed me in supernatural power and showed me the way.

I think there are a lot of folks, especially those raised in the church, who miss the supernatural cues,and wind up waiting out in the dark, in the fields, rationalizing away the last few dozen visits from the angels that point the way to the manger.

But its the second half of the Christmas story we all know that got me thinking about this. The other group of strangers who were drawn to seek out the Christ child. They too were drawn by a supernatural event. But it was much more subtle, and appeared to be an even that only they would have noticed.

I am, of course talking about the Magi, the "wise men," who are mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew's telling of the Nativity story.

Unlike the Shepherds, these guys were not "working class." Nor were they even on the radar when it came to the plan of redemption the Messiah of Israel would provide. The Magi were foreigners. Gentiles. Pagans. At heart, enemies of Israel. If they were not polytheists (some historians argue they were Zoroastrians), they believed in a God whose very purpose and concept was at odds with the God of Israel.

The Magi were likely Medes, from the area of the middle east that today is part of Iraq and Iran. They were a class of religious astrologers who brought star gazing, science, and the occult together in a highly specialized art form. These were the ones who were initially asked to interpret the dreams of the Kings of Babylon in the Book of Daniel. They followed the paths of the stars in order to predict the future and interpret the current spiritual condition of the world around them. This type of divination was forbidden by the Mosaic law, and would compare today with what are considered "dark arts," "black magic," or witchcraft. Yet, in the ancient world they were well respected as artisans of their craft, and were world famous for what they did. While some Christian traditions view them as "kings," they were more likely the servants of the kings of the Median and Persian empires of that day, which meant the wealth and power of those ancient kingdoms were probably at their beck and call.

The scriptural account relates that these "wise men" had observed a star in the East which had meant that the "King of the Jews" had been born. In Matthew 2:9, the star "went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was." Modern scholars dismiss this kind of stellar behavior as a myth. But there is some evidence from ancient history that something was afoot in the heavens at that time. Some rare comet activity was reported and an unusually bright assembly of stars was reported by ancient Chinese astronomers. But recently, a British Astronomer named Mark Thompson has reported a particular set of stellar anomalies occurred around the time we believe Jesus was born which could have caught the eyes of the star-gazing Magi.

Thompson says that between September in the year 3 B.C. and May in the year 2 B.C., the planet Jupiter and a star called Regulus passed very close to each other three times. These three “conjunctions” were caused “by an astronomical phenomenon called retrograde motion, in which a planet will appear to stop its normal eastward drift through the night and instead drift back toward the west for a period of several weeks,” according to a report in Britain’s Telegraph. “This happens because the outer planets in our solar system are orbiting the sun at a slower rate than the Earth and so our planet occasionally overtakes them.”

Thompson says that among astronomers, Jupiter is known as the king of planets, and Regulus is known as the king of stars. Their passing so close to each other three times would have been considered highly significant by astronomers of the day.

Thompson says that the retrograde motion would have meant that Jupiter was traveling west, which fits with the description in the Bible that the wise men came from the east.

Interestingly, this would probably mean that the "star of Bethlehem" as we know it today -- this incredibly bright star that would have drawn a lot of attention in the night sky -- was probably not observable to the naked eye, or at least not noticeable to anybody BUT somebody who focused all their attention on the heavens. This would have been like a coded message to the Magi.

And the greatest irony is that any pious Jew of that day would have condemned this kind of practice, not to mention any evangelical Christian of today. Astrology predicting that the Messiah would come? That's as off the charts as finding spiritual messages on a Ouija Board.

Yet, God allowed this, somehow. He sent a supernatural message to a group of pagan people, who were most likely not even remotely interested in searching for the Jewish Messiah, or in offering him homage or worship. But this subtle message, written in the night sky, was as overt a signal to the Magi as the angels were to the shepherds. And because the Magi were apparently morally and ethically committed to whatever religious system would allow for the stars to predict history, they were compelled to travel thousands of miles to find the Christ child, bring him gifts, and worship him as the King of Kings.

I am amazed when I think of this, because I know of people who were like the Magi who ended up being attracted to Jesus. People who came from different cultures and non-Christian faiths who experienced supernatural events that pointed them to consider the message of the gospel. People who had dedicated their lives to hedonism and selfishness, who considered Christianity and faith a load of poppycock, who saw something compelling, either in the Bible, or in something someone said, or an incredible series of circumstances that caused them to conclude that there must be something to the concept that Jesus was the Son of God. People who have had near-death experiences or been under the influence of drugs, and heard the call of God in their "visions," and when they regained consciousness or sobriety realized it really was the God of the Universe calling to them.

As I thought about this, it struck me. There were three audiences who got to worship the Christ before he grew into an adult. There was the captive audience of his family, his mother and the man who would act as his earthly father. The shepherds, working class and rough. And the Magi -- pagans, foreigners, outcasts among the Jews. Not a high class member of Israeli society among them. And, all of them had had a supernatural experience to draw them in to Jesus.

So I think we sometimes need to adjust our focus. The rough and tumble, the people of the street. Those to whom we can't relate or even those we would consider the enemies of the church or Christianity today -- God loves these people as much as he loves any of us. Jesus came to reach them. The Christmas stories in the gospels make this clear.

I must continue to expand my vision as a follower of Christ. I must be open to have people who I would never expect to be interested in Jesus to have such an interest. I must be open to the concept of those who I do not understand, or perhaps don't care for very much, to be called into the Kingdom. And most of all, we cannot brush off the supernatural call of God that makes a personal connection with each of us -- whether it takes shape through biblical prophecy, or seems to rear itself from unexpected sources. The story of the Magi make it clear that God will work to reach people who are open to Him in ways that defy our religious conventions. Jesus, his saving grace and power, and a living relationship with Him goes beyond our expectations.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Illinois Supreme Court determines underage drinkers can't drive under any circumstance

Yesterday, the Illinois Supreme Court issued an opinion involving an interpretation of Illinois' very strict law involving under age drinking, which basically provides that if someone under 21 is caught consuming alcohol, their drivers' licenses are automatically suspended. The Court, however, went the extra step and held that even if the drinking offense did not involve the driving of a car, the suspension still applies.

In this case, which consolidated several appeals from the lower courts, involved individuals charged with underage drinking who plead guilty to that offense. No vehicles were involved. The trial court placed each on court supervision for 90 days and then entered an order declaring unconstitutional as applied the statute requiring suspension of a driver’s license on receipt of court supervision for underage drinking, even where no vehicle is involved. It found a due process violation. The Secretary of State brought the direct appeal to the Supreme Court from the finding of statutory unconstitutionality.

In 1989, the Illinois Supreme Court had held unconstitutional a statutory provision calling for revocation of a driver’s license on conviction of certain sex offenses. There, as here, there was no use of a vehicle. In this decision, the supreme court distinguished its earlier ruling, noting that, here, the legislature may have believed that a young person who consumes alcohol illegally may take the additional step of driving after consuming alcohol, and it is reasonable to believe that a young person disobeying the law against underage consumption may also lack the judgment to decline to drive after drinking. Preventing young people from driving after consuming alcohol is unquestionably in the public interest.

The supreme court also held that the obligation imposed here on the Secretary of State to suspend a driver’s license is mandatory, rather than discretionary.

Thus, the circuit court’s holding of statutory unconstitutionality was reversed.

And, the warning is clear. If you are not yet 21 years of age, and are caught drinking in violation of the law, you will lose your drivers' license, regardless of the circumstances.

Serious food for thought for young people in Illinois who might choose to drink, even if they never step behind the wheel of a car.

Legalizing Marijuana -- What would Happen if we did?

What would happen if marijuana were legal, taxed and regulated just like cigarettes or liquor? I am not necessarily advocating that pot should be readily legal and available, but in today's trying economic times, it could become a reality. Here is a reprint (with some additional comments of my own) from Avvo's "Nakedlaw" website. Read on to find out.

1. Drug arrests would purportedly drop and prison space would open for violent offenders. As it stands now, there is a drug arrest made every 18 seconds in America. Now, not all of these arrests are marijuana related, and in fact, marijuana arrests have declined. However, there were more than 800,000 pot-related arrests in 2008, and there are still a number of these arrests taking place as we speak. If marijuana were legalized, these drug-related arrests might drop off -- maybe immensely, freeing up jail space and allowing police to focus on violent crimes.
2. Fewer kids would try marijuana. It may be counter-intuitive, but legalizing marijuana for adults could lead to less pot use by kids. Why? Studies have shown that even though pot is currently illegal, kids find it more easily than beer and cigarettes. (Although if you click on that link it goes to a site sponsored by a group advocating for the legalization of marijuana -- sort of a "slanted source" -- is it reliable?) Legalizing marijuana would put street dealers out of business who don’t care about the age of their customers.
3. Street violence would drop. According to Jeffrey A. Miron, director of undergraduate studies at Harvard University’s economics department, street violence would drop. The problem with pot being illegal is that it forces people to resolve disputes themselves, often with violence. If pot were legal, buyers and sellers could resolve their business disputes just like everyone else — in court. Gang violence, which is due in part to the illegal marijuana trade, would decrease as well.
4. State governments would have a lot more money. If pot were legal, state governments could heavily tax it just like alcohol and tobacco, creating a new stream of revenue. For example, estimates show California could rake in over $1 billion per year in pot taxes. What’s more, according to The Budgetary Effects of Marijuana Prohibition, taxpayers are spending about $14 billion each year on the war against marijuana. That’s money that would be saved if marijuana were legal.
5. Accidents and emergency room visits may increase. Although marijuana doesn’t historically conjure up images of wife beating and recklessness like alcohol, it does impair motor skills and judgment, which could lead to more accidents. (Of course, we don't have a history of LEGAL marijuana use, so comparing its potential abuse to alcohol abuse has no logical connection). However, this assumes legalizing marijuana would lead to more people using it, which isn’t necessarily true. In Holland, where marijuana is legal for everyone over 18, the percentage of adults using it is less than half of that in America. Is this just a cultural difference between the Dutch and Americans? Perhaps, but even in Europe, the French, Italians, Spaniards and Britons all use more pot than the Dutch, even though it’s illegal in all those countries.
6. The price of marijuana would drop and corporations would profit. In areas where medical marijuana is legal, the increased supply has already caused prices to plummet. If pot were legal for everyone, prices would drop even further as large companies grew, cultivated and distributed marijuana on an industrial scale. Such large companies and their shareholders would make billions in additional profit (a part of which goes back to the government in the form of taxes) and they would need to hire more workers. Of course, some small-scale growers could also thrive, much like some microbreweries thrive in the face of Bud Light.
7. Mexican drug cartels would be crippled. Marijuana accounts for as much as half of Mexican drug cartel revenue, which means legalizing it would cripple their business. This would free up the border patrol, the forest service and local law enforcement to worry about deadly drugs like meth, cocaine and heroin, not to mention terrorism. A financial blow to Mexican drug cartels would also weaken their control over American street and prison gangs.

Until marijuana legalization takes place in the US, we’ll never really know how things will pan out. However, we could get a glimpse of it in November when Californians vote on legalizing marijuana for everyone over 21.

The New Health Care Law and Federalism

Its almost ironic. Over the past week, leading up to to Sunday, the House of Representatives was debating the details of the new Health Care Act, which passed (barely!) on Sunday. At the same time, I was working with my daughter Cassi as she was studying about the Constitution at school.

In particular, Cassi was participating in a program called "We the People," where students were placed on debate-style teams and assigned a general topic. They would then appear as a panel before judges, and quizzed on their ability to discuss the topic as it related to the Constitution.

Cassi's topic was about how specific constitutional passages have affected the institutions of American Government -- basically, she needed to discuss the concept how the federal government's power to govern has evolved, and how the interpretation of the Constitution has affected specific aspects of government. Not an easy task, to be sure.

In an effort to help Cassi understand these concepts, I tried to bring her back to basic concepts -- Constitutional Law 101, so to speak. The kind of things that the Founding Fathers debated when the Constitution was ratified. The kinds of things that still form the basis for understanding how Federal Government works.

The United States is a "Federal" system. That is, there are two systems of government co-existing over the people of the United States -- the national government, based in Washington, D.C., and the government of each individual state. The overriding, basic understanding of the power of the Federal government, as expressed by the Founding Fathers (e.g. in the Federalist Papers), and by the interpretations of the Constitution by the U.S. Supreme Court is one of LIMITED, ENUMERATED POWERS. The Federal power is LIMITED, in that the three branches of the Federal government are only allowed to assert those powers specifically granted to them in the Constitution. Federal Power is ENUMERATED, as the powers granted to the national government are specifically listed in the Constitution. For example, most of the powers granted to Congress are listed in Article I, Section 8, and include things like the power to tax, borrow money, regulate commerce, declare war, etc.

Contrast this with the Constitutional understanding of the power of the states' governments. Case law interpreting the Constitution defines State power as "inherent." That is to say, State government would have power and exist even if there was no Federal Constitution, and the State's power is general and not subject to limitation except for specific limitation by the Federal Constitution. This "inherent" authority includes a general "police power," which Courts have defined as the power to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of that State. Thus, an action by a State government is presumed valid under federal law unless it violates some specific limitation imposed on States by the Constitution.

I tried to explain to Cassi that in theory, State power is much broader than Federal power. States have inherent authority to act in any rational way to protect the health, safety and general welfare of their citizens. In contrast, the Federal government action must fall within one of the enumerated powers of the Constitution. Federal Courts have traditionally held that this means that there is no general Federal "police power." The Federal government technically has no right to regulate the health, safety or general welfare of the people. Each act of Federal legislation or regulation must come from a specific, enumerated power listed in the Constitution (e.g. commerce power, taxing power, spending power etc.). In addition, the Bill of Rights (which was enacted as an effort to further limit Federal Power at the time the Constitution was ratified in 1789) specifically provides in the 10th Amendment that powers not specifically given to the federal government belong to the States.

Please note, however, that I said these concepts exist "in theory." This is because the enumerated powers for Congress in Article I, Section 8 includes the power to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the Untied States." This so-called "necessary and proper" clause has been used by Federal courts to define and shape certain specific "implied powers" of the federal government. Federal legislation and regulation only needs to be rationally related to a constitutionally specified objective, and it will be deemed valid as an extension of the "enumerated powers." For example, this doctrine was defined in the case of McCullough v. Maryland back in 1819, where the establishment of a national bank via federal legislation was upheld. While getting into the banking business is not one of the enumerated powers, the Court determined that chartering a national bank was a rational and valid extension of the power to regulate commerce and raise revenue. Historically, then, when the Courts have interpreted federal legislation, they have usually deferred to Congressional power by connecting legislative purpose to the enumerated powers via the "necessary and proper" clause.

The same is true of the 10th Amendment. Only in rare occasions have the Courts invalidated Federal legislation on the grounds that it is interfering with powers that belong specifically to the States. There was a time in the early 20th century when the Supreme Court might have struck down legislation that interfered with a State's internal police power (e.g. wage and hour laws were once viewed this way), this has been engulfed by "necessary and proper." In addition, the Court has also viewed the concept that procedural safeguards built into the federal system (things like equal representation in the Senate, and state control over the structures of federal elections) mean that the structure of the federal system is designed to protect State interests.

As I looked at some of the details of the new Health Care Act, it all fit into these concepts of federalism. . . and made me think that Congress and the President may have given us legislation that has overstepped the boundaries of federal authority.

Two things in the new law look to me like they are at least arguably unconstitutional.

One is the concept that everyone will be required to purchase health insurance. The other is making the State governments liable for many of the financial and insurance related liabilities built into the plan.

I can see a valid argument being made that requiring all citizens to purchase health insurance as falling outside of the enumerated powers. Some people will argue that this is no different than being forced to have auto insurance, or paying for Medicare or Medicaid. But it is. First off, required auto insurance only kicks in if you drive a car and have a drivers' license. Thus, its rationally connected to the use of an auto and driving on the roads. Plus, its a STATE requirement. State governments have a general police power -- the feds do not. If I am forced to buy health insurance, but never need to go see a doctor, well, it would be like requiring people who don't have drivers' licenses to buy auto insurance. Thus, there is arguably no rational relation to one of the enumerated powers.

The comparison to Medicare and Medicaid, or Social Security, even, does not work as well. These serve, in essence, as taxes. The Federal government has determined that these concepts and services are necessary (and they arguably fit into the enumerated powers, or at least have been determined to be so by the Courts), and that through the taxing power, they need to be funded. I may not like this as a citizen, but I can't object, because these regulations pass Constitutional muster as a valid extension of the taxing power. But requiring me to purchase insurance is different. Its not a tax. Its a contractual relationship. Also, there will come a time when I will reach an age when I automatically qualify for the benefits of the aforementioned programs funded by taxes. I may never come to use the insurance policy. Again, there is not the same rational relationship to a constitutional objective.

In addition, the provisions of the law that require certain state action and responsibility could run afoul of the 10th Amendment. In several recent cases, the Supreme Court has held that Congress cannot require States to enact a certain statute, or regulate in a specific manner. Congress does not have the power to "commandeer the legislative process of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program." (New York v. U.S., 505 U.S. 144 (1992).

It does seem ironic. Simple, basic principles of Constitutional law -- principles high school students are learning about as a foundation to understand how our government works. These simple principles could be used to unravel the new Health Care system. There are already talks of legal actions to thwart the enactment of the law. At least 30 states are planning on enacting their own legislation to oppose certain aspects of the law. We could see McCullough v. Maryland revisited in a modern setting, but with a different result.

While I sympathize with the concept of reforming our health care system, the over-broad concept the Obama administration has taken has given its opponents the tools to take it down, and possibly turn back the clock to a time when Federal power was much less extensive. The most comprehensive federal entitlement program in history, including social security, could be brought down or significantly limited -- because the Obama administration insisted this had to be the way to do it, a less extensive overhaul would not work.

This almost arrogant commitment to a liberal ideology that does not mesh with most of America could be a disaster. The question is -- will the voters respond? Will the courts act in a way like I have outlined here? Time will tell. But it is ironic -- the nature of our Federal system, which was designed to limit federal power, may actually work the way its was designed. And Cassi and her high school classmates may get a civics lesson that is up front and real.

Bill Pearce 1926-2010

Saturday night, while I was attending a church related social event, a friend asked me to comment on the passing of a "great trombone player." He thought I would know who he was talking about, but I was clueless, and he couldn't recall the name. Later, I learned that it was Bill Pearce. He died on February 22, after a long illness.

Bill Pearce was a huge inspiration to me when I was a teenager. You see, he was exactly what I wanted to be -- a jazz-style, lyrical trombone player with a sound like Tommy Dorsey and the technical fluidity of Bill Watrous, as well as a professional singer, and a well known radio announcer with his own nationally syndicated radio show. And he did all of this in the context of Christian ministry. He had his hands in and was at the top of his game in all of the arenas I aspired to be successful in as a teen.

I had learned about him first through his radio program -- "Nightsounds." I used to fall asleep listening to the radio as a teenager, and when I was in 8th grade and as a freshman or sophomore in high school, I was fascinated both the late night programming on WLNR radio from Lansing, Illinois. It was quite a variety -- the play by play of the Chicago Cougars, the new hockey team in the fledgling World Hockey Association, or Chuck Shaden's "Those were the days," rebroadcasts of old time radio programs. But after all that ended, around 11:30 or midnight, Bill Pearce's program came on. It was a time when I was really struggling with my spiritual identity, and the Nightsounds program really ministered to me with its biblical quotes and beautiful music.

It was much later that I learned of Mr. Pearce's singing and trombone prowess. I still have several of his recordings. It was my goal to become a professional trombonist and singer, and use my talents to glorify God. Later, in college, when I got the "radio bug," I also thought that being a radio professional would also be in my future. I wanted to do exactly what Bill Pearce was doing.

I got to meet Bill Pearce once. He was a featured clinician at a convention for Trombonists I attended with my Trombone professor, Dr. Tom Streeter, and our studio at Illinois Wesleyan, while I was in college. Probably 1978 or 1979. It was just Bill, presenting a workshop, playing his horn and singing to backup trax. It was an inspiring performance. He was genuinely warm and humble. I really didn't get much of a chance to talk to him -- it was more like "can I have your autograph." But he didn't brush any of us off.

Below is a great article, an interview he gave late in his career. There are a few links to audio files. Its a shame he wasn't more well known. Though I don't think fame meant a whole lot to Bill. He was just happy to play, sing, and minister on the radio.

Bill's theme song was his own arrangement of the artsong "Beau Soir" by Debussey. It was the opening theme for his radio show. I had the lead sheet for it. I could never play it as well as him. His haunting, lyrical interpretation defined how he played. And I can't hear that song, or even that style of music without thinking of Bill, and what he represented, and what he meant to me as a musician and in my walk with God. He was a shining example of a truly humble musician who used his gifts to further God's kingdom, without putting his own ego first.

I hope you enjoy the link to the interview. It really paints a great picture of Bill's life and contribution to our lives.

http://www.trombone.org/articles/library/pearce-int.asp

Galatians Journal: Chapter 6, verse 18 (closing out the Book of Galatians, and my Journal!)

Galatians 6:18 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers. Amen.

The last verse of the entire book/letter. We could pass over this quickly if we’re not careful – it just seems like a typical “doxology” style closing. Not bereft of meaning, but ostensibly not a lot of practical application. But if we dismissed this so easily, we’d be wrong – we'd miss Paul’s final sentence summary/emphasis on the major themes of the book.

Paul uses this type of blessing to sum up and close many of his letters (see Romans 16:20, Philippians 4:23, 2 Timothy 4:22, Philemon 1:25). But in the context of Galatians, this simple blessing serves to help sum up the entire message.

If we pick this simple sentence apart, there are 4 sections and concepts to emphasize. “Grace;” “Lord Jesus Christ;” “your spirit;” and “brothers.”

“Grace” The foundational concept for the book of Galatians. It is not what we do, or what we try to make ourselves into that brings us favor with God – it is the promise, it is God’s merit-less favor, His merciful kindness that unites us with Him, and nothing more.

“Lord Jesus Christ” It is Christ’s merciful kindness, His sacrifice that opens the gateway to our relationship with God. It is His Grace, and his Grace alone. Plus, he is “Lord.” He is the King of Creation, and the Universe. Each of us is part of his divine plan and purpose, and he lives us enough to have died for us.

“with your Spirit” The word here for Spirit is the same word used to describe the Holy Spirit – the third person of the trinity. This word can be used to describe the Spirit’s personality or character (as in “Holy” Spirit) or to emphasize His work and power (i.e. the “Spirit of Truth”), but the emphasis here shows that “Spirit” is not some depersonalized force – this is a Person, with a real and distinct identity, the co-equal of God the Father and God the Son. But because of the transformation of our lives in Christ – the “new creation” – He is now “our Spirit.” Paul has emphasized throughout the letter (Galatians 3:2-5; 5:16-26) that once we’ve been baptized in the Spirit, and filled by the Spirit, we “walk” with him in a supernaturally transformed life. Fulfilling the law was impossible (see Galatians 3:10-12), but now that Jesus has paid the price for the curse and the Spirit has filled and empowered us, we can walk in the fullness of the kingdom and please God. (see Galatians 5:16-18, 22-24).

“brothers” And here is the second major emphasis in the book of Galatians. The word for “brothers” here is a very powerful Greek term. “Adelphos,” a term we Americans recognize today from the name of the city of Philadelphia, the city of “brotherly love.” The ancient Greeks used this term to describe a sibling relationship, or in more general terms, to describe people of the same race or nationality. It might also be used to describe any fellow human being in the sense of a common bond of humanity (i.e. “the brotherhood of man”), it implies an extremely strong bond of affection. Paul, a Jew by birth (and an aristocratic one at that) was closely identifying himself with the ethnically Greek Galatians as if they were part of his family. Paul’s use of this term, I believe, is meant to show that ethnicity has no place in the Kingdom of God as far as acceptability to God or each other is concerned. The great heresy of the Galatian churches was as much ethnic prejudice as it was theological – the two concepts are inextricably wed to each other. The great sin of the American churches no different – we separate by ethnicity and culture as well. Many of us American Christians have correct theology to start – we believe in the promise, believe in salvation by grace, and recognize that obeying a set of rules will not make us right with God. But then we use a standard of cultural conformity to reject whole classes of other Christians, calling it “theology” when its really all about race, ethnic culture, or denominationalism. 1 John 2:9 say “Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in darkness.” Many of Christians here in America today have a correct view of theology, but walk in that same darkness. I pray for a gift of repentance for myself and my brethren, that we may turn from our arrogance and pride in our ethnicity and traditions and embrace the truth. We need to grasp the essence of Paul’s message in Galatians if we are to be effective witnesses of the Gospel in the world today.

Galatians Journal: Chapter 6, verse 17

Galatians 6:17 Finally, let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus.

“Finally, let no one cause me trouble” Throughout this letter, Paul has been on the defensive. The heresy of the Judiazers threatened his whole ministry and purpose, as well as the purity and fundamental truth of the Gospel. The “trouble” I believe he is trying to head off is the concept of the Galatian Christians continuing to put him in a position where it is necessary to vindicate his apostolic authority (as he did in Galatians 1:11 – 2:10) and the divine truth of the message he brought to the Gentiles (as he did in Galatians 2:11 through 4:7). He is really concluding this letter by stating that the issues he’s discussed and the conclusions he’s reached are settled – there is no more reason to debate any of these concepts.

“for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus.” The word for “mark” here is the Greek word “stigma.” It literally means to make a mark on the skin through sticking or pricking. It’s a word that describes the process of tattooing the skin, or branding with a hot iron, or even cutting the skin so as to leave a distinctive mark. In Paul’s day, slaves, criminals and prisoners of war were tattooed for identification. Certain pagan religious cults, such as those in Egypt and Syria, also used tattoos to show devotion to their Gods or to designate that a person was set apart to serve the Gods. Tattoos were used to show to which master the person being marked belonged. The mark was a testimony to whom the person belonged, or to whom the animal belonged (the Greeks and Romans generally associated tattoos with barbarians, and branding was reserved for animals). The law of Moses specifically prohibited tattoos, so Jewish tradition allowed for other outward signs of a slave or servant – an earring, for example.

But this Greek word “stigma” had broad application, and could be used to describe any mark or puncture wound. Our modern English use of the word “stigma” is a direct descendant of the Greek usage. The mark placed on a slave or criminal denoted shame. Today, in English, “stigma” means something that serves to be a mark of shame or infamy, a stain, or reproach, especially regarding a person’s reputation.

So what did Paul mean by “marks of Jesus” that he bore in his body? I believe he meant it both literally and figuratively. Paul did bear actual scars and wounds that evidenced the persecution he suffered for the sake of Christ. He had been stoned (Acts 14:19), beaten (Acts 16:22, 2 Corinthians 11:25) suffered a variety of illnesses, some of which may have been the product of the stoning and beatings (2 Corinthians 12:7, Galatians 4:13-14). These physical “scars” marked him as a servant of Christ (see Galatians 1:10 and 2 Corinthians 4:10) in the same way the slave’s tattoo marked his as a bond servant.

But there is, of course, a deeper, spiritual meaning. Christ’s wounds were affected through the concept of sticking or pricking or piercing. Literally, in the meaning of the ancient Greek word, “stigma.” Thus, the ancient Greeks would have used the very same word to describe the wounds that crucifixion produced – nails driven through the hands (or wrists) and feet, the spear thrust into Christ’s side. Indeed, the Latin derivation of this word – “stigmata” – has been used to describe not just the wounds of Christ , but a cultic practice among Roman Catholic ascetics whereby the wounds of Christ ostensibly and purportedly supernaturally appear on the hands and feet of a person devoted to Christ. Paul certainly isn’t referring to that – but crucifixion is a major theme in this book – being crucified with Christ, dying to self, and walking in the newness of life in Jesus just as Christ rose from the dead. Paul noted that he – and all believers – are “crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.” (Galatians 2:20). Paul had not been literally crucified (no actual “stigmata” in his body), but was one with Christ’s death and resurrection in the Spirit. Therefore, he bore the “marks” of Jesus in the Spirit. (Galatians 6:14). For while the word here for “body” literally means the human body, it can also be translated simply as “me.” I do think Paul is referring to literal marks on his body from the wounds he received in persecution, but we miss so much if we don’t also consider this deeper meaning.