Killing Me Softly

The current controversy over whether execution by lethal injection represents a humane and painless death reminds me of a story my late grandmother told me a long time ago. During the Second World War many of her villagers in Serbia were executed at the hands of local warlords. One of them, a cynical doctor, was known to enjoy killing his victims with a saw. Inducing a prolonged and torturous death by sawing off his head, he would whisper as if soothing a dying victim: “Do not fear, the doctor will do it softly”. 

At this moment, the US Supreme Court is revisiting the issue of whether death penalty by lethal injection is in tune with the US Constitution. Executions across the country, in all of the states, have been temporarily put on hold. Meanwhile, a debate on the character of the penalty, supposed to be the most civilized and dignified form of involuntary euthanasia, is taking place at different levels.  

Advocates of this form of death penalty argue that those who are killed by lethal injection do not suffer at all, and that their departure looks more like gentle drifting into a deep sleep. This is achieved, they say, thanks to the administration of a three-part chemical cocktail: the first one inducing sleep, the second one paralyzing the muscles, and the final introducing massive cardiac arrest. Apparently, a person undergoing execution is not at all aware of the moment of his death. According to the comments of its proponents, this is a very kind death for those deserving to die.  

However, something went wrong in the execution of Angel Nieves Diaz in Jacksonville, Florida, on December 13, 2007 which called for a quick suspension of all executions in the USA. He seemed to have suffered a slow and agonizing death that lasted for 34 minutes, during which time he remained conscious but unable to communicate his agony. Jonathan Groner, a professor of surgery at the Ohio State Medical School, said that on the basis of the results obtained from the autopsy it is very likely that “he was tortured to death.” Opponents of execution by lethal injection have since argued that execution by lethal injection should be outlawed because it violates the constitutional ban on “cruel and unusual punishment”. 

Apparently, in the USA, the death penalty is currently not under investigation, but only the method of its administration. Once this is resolved by the Supreme Court, it is very likely that the executions will continue. 

I would like to suggest that the underlying issue in the case of the lethal injection goes beyond the question of whether our most benevolent style of execution measures up to its claims. For it does not make a difference from an ethical, moral and spiritual standpoint whether execution is performed by crucifixion, drowning, burning at the stake, beheading, electrocution, firing squad, lethal injection, or even hugging or kissing. It still remains a forced, involuntary and imposed death: a cruel and ugly thing. Killing anyone softly, whatever the circumstances and reason, does not upgrade execution to a more advanced institution. The more gently it is administered, the more sinister it becomes, almost resonating the sadistic soothing voice of a Frankenstein doctor from the Balkans – “No worries mate, we’ll do it lovingly!” 

Opposing the death penalty in all of its facets should not mean that one denies a government and its institutions of justice, the right to prosecute and punish criminals by pursuing the full measure of the law against them. There are individuals who have committed, and there will be more in the future who will commit, the most despicable criminal acts against another fellow human being, or society in general. They certainly must be called to account. Society needs to be protected from them. But the main question in the pursuit of justice for those who have been cruelly wronged and victimized is not whether we have developed perfectly sophisticated and gentle execution mechanisms. Instead, we should ask if there are better ways which should replace retributional and avenging justice with those that are redemptive and restorative. 

In societies that take pride in their adherence to the principles of democracy and spiritual rootedness in Jesus of Nazareth, the search for a better way should become a priority. Our understanding of the supremacy of God’s revelation through Jesus ought to lead us into understanding that the ultimate inspiring insights to shape our societies should not be the ancient “eye-for-an-eye” practices, but rather Jesus’ humanism that teaches us to seek justice through the instruments of repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation. 

These are not abstract spiritual categories regarding the salvation of souls alone, but also the superior and applicable principles needed for the formation of an ever more humane society, should we take Jesus seriously. Enlightened by his character that inspires every follower of Jesus to love his/her neighbor and reject sin rather than the sinner, we should begin to see that legalized killing – even of the most deserving murderer – is not Jesus’ way of appeasing justice, and that the death penalty carried out in any manner still bears the stamp of a barbarian vengeful killings and tribal reprisals which were never of a divine design. And to keep on excusing it on account of Old Testament practices – as if those would make it right – would in our time meet Jesus’ reproach: “It was because of the hardness of their hearts that Moses allowed them to do so, but because of me you should know better.” 

Rather than holding onto the cynical practice of placing inmates sentenced to die on death rows for ten, fifteen, twenty and more years as they wait for their execution, a dignifying and ethically superior way would be to transform all that time, energy and material means into a form of intentional and formative educational punishment – morally and spiritually redemptive, potentially transformational and prospectively restorative.

Tihomir Kukolja, Houston TX, USA, January 15, 2008

New Year Reflection

As I was reminiscing about an appropriate message for my friends at the beginning of the New Year 2008, the news reached me about the assassination of opposition leader and former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto.

The tragic news shocked and saddened me immediately for several reasons.

First, it reminded me instantly about the fragility of the world we live in. In many ways it seems that the world of today is not much different from the one of the Middle Ages. The hearts and minds of the people today have not become less fanatical, barbarian and dark than in those days. In fact religious superstition, ideological fanaticism and sinister political agendas, any of which or all could have been behind the murder, have already taken away the innocence of the 21st century.

Second, the words of Paul of the New Testament, that “whoever wants to live a godly life will be persecuted” have come to life again in the tragic death of Benazir Bhutto. Just like Mahatma Gandhi, John and Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., and many other leaders of courage, she too paid with her life for her undivided pursuit of the values she believed in. I believe, despite all her imperfections, that she was a godly person who had the good of Pakistan on her heart.

Third, I can still vividly remember, at the National Prayer Breakfast 2007 in Washington DC, many of us having the honor of listening to her reading the Gospel account summarizing the Greatest Commandment. While she was reading the inspired lines about loving God and our neighbors she came across as a person who deeply revered and honored Jesus. Knowing that Benazir Bhutto was a Muslim lady, her reverence for Jesus left a strong and lasting impression on me.

The world has definitely lost another great leader. Tragically those who do it do not seem to care much about such qualities.

Now, at the time when millions of flowery season’s greetings are roaming across the world, the brutal murder of Benazir Bhutto reminds me of a sobering reality: that at the end of the year 2007 this world is still a messy place, hijacked by the wicked powers in heavenly and earthly realms, which calls for tireless prayer and action on the part of the people who know a loving God and are committed to love their neighbors, whoever and wherever they are.

Let me share with you some of the questions that, at this moment, are not letting me slumber, sink into apathy or become overwhelmed with the amount of evil around me:

What is it that I can do to make my community, country and the world a better and safer place?  

How can I stand for social justice and righteousness more decisively and deliberately in the year 2008?

How to help make the pursuit of forgiveness, reconciliation and social repentance a priority on the governments’ agendas in 2008? What stand should I take against all forms of terrorism and abuse of personal or group freedoms, wherever they are coming from and whatever their agendas?

Where and how can I find like-minded friends so that together we could make these causes grow stronger and more impacting?

And, in the face of wickedness such as the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, how can we together work towards the fulfillment of Paul’s charge: “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Romans 12:21.)

Wishing you a reflective, engaging, proactive and blessed New Year.

Tihomir Kukolja, Houston TX, USA, January 1, 2008

Also published by Spectrum

Greater Love Has No One than This

Disclaimer: This article was originally written almost a year ago when the Croatian and Serbian media reported on the mutual reconciliation attempts by two know actors. Despite the fact that their reconciliation did not work out very successfully, the message of this column remains relevant and important. 

Over the last few weeks media in Croatia and Serbia followed the announcement of two well known actors that they would soon restore their friendship, severed fifteen years ago due to vocal differences over their understanding of the nature of war in Croatia in 1991. Both leading regional film and theatre legends and close friends for many years prior to the war, Croat Boris Dvornik and Bata Zivojinovic from Serbia, decided to make their reconciliation public as their quarrel fifteen years ago was also a public affair. 

The upcoming reconciliation and renewal of friendship between the two public figures, in my view, deserves a hearty approval of anyone not addicted to ethnic tribalism so prevalent across the region formerly known as Yugoslavia. But what really caught my attention, as I watched an interview with Boris Dvornik on the Croatian Television a week ago, was Boris’ response to a provocative question: “If you had to choose between a friend or your country, what would you choose?” The Croatian actor responded: “ Friend!” 

His sobering response to a daring question made me think about a bold statement made by Jesus of Nazareth in which he elevated the importance of friendship above all other relationships dictated or manipulated by the crowd, popular opinion or political fashion. He said: “Greater love has no one than this that he lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13.NIV). Interestingly enough, I do not recall that Jesus ever called his followers to lay down their lives for a country, ethnicity, or structure that categorizes people on the basis of race, nation or religion; which does not mean that there are not times when such sacrifices are legitimately called upon. What it does mean, however, is that in the eyes of the Creator the integrity, sanctity and dignity of a human life enjoys a much higher priority than the often misleading concepts of comradeship forged by the centuries of power struggle, tribal greed, political partisanship, and allegiances to various forms of mythological deceits and divisions. 

Inspired by Jesus, who through his death more powerfully than anyone else demonstrated how far a friend would dare go for another friend, I cannot help but ask myself what would my response have been to the TV interviewer’s question, in light of the fact that I am surrounded by an impressive international family of friends dispersed across the Balkan Region and beyond? Where would I stand in regard to my friends in Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia or USA should the years 1941, 1991, or 2001 repeat themselves? What would I do should a new situation arise whose agents would demand an undivided worship of their demons of ethnic, religious or any other ideological narcissism? Would I possess the moral courage to keep the friendships within the international family of friends vibrant and alive in all its innocence and honesty despite the overwhelming circumstances, or would I succumb to the pressures to have it sacrificed at the altar of euphoric tribal or ideological arrogance and blindness? 

By living and dying for his friends Jesus of Nazareth defamed all ethnic, religious and political tribalism not only of his days but of all times, declaring them idolatrous. Judaism and Samaritanism, as well as Phariseeism, Sadduceeism, Zealotism and other isms of his days, did not impress him at all. It was the wellbeing and closeness of his friends that mattered to Him the most. If He were to walk the Balkan roads today, as He did those of Judea two thousand years ago, his attitude would remain the same. His friends in Croatia, Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Albania, Bulgaria and Romania would be the primary object of His affection. He would not be a flag bearer of any national, racial, or societal exclusiveness, nor would he let any ethnic group trademark his name. Indeed, if He were to walk the roads of our planet today, He would have intimate friends in Iraq, USA, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Israel, Palestine, Australia, Tanzania, Norway and UK who would take up all his attention and time sooner than any international or geopolitical affair of the global power brokers. 

As a follower of Jesus I have no other choice but to set my priorities right and in tune with those of Jesus. I am encouraged and reminded by Boris and Bata that the way of friendship is also Jesus’ way, despite all the cynicism that nowadays makes its way from ethnic sectarians on all sides. As for me, regardless of how far their reconciliation goes, I want to share the message of my own heart with all my friends across the Balkans and the world: I love you and I will not trade your friendship for any national myth, ethnic arrogance, religious exclusiveness, ideological correctness, or political fashion of the moment. 

Likewise friends, neither have you any other choice, should you call yourself followers of Jesus of Nazareth, but to raise the banner of undiluted friendship high above any other banner that selects and evaluates friends on the basis of racial, ethnic, religious or other divisive ideological pedigrees. More than once Jesus summoned his bewildered friends: “My command is this: ‘Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command.’” (John 15:13.14. NIV). 

Tihomir Kukolja, Houston TX, USA, November 28, 2006./Fuzine, Croatia, November 22, 2007.

Leaders Worth Following

Most of the media today feed the imagination of multitudes with success stories of celebrities whose names are synonymous with scandalous relations, perverse morality, obscene prosperity, and arrogant leadership. Their success is often a misery for many, and their major contribution to the human family is measured by the prevailing emotional, intellectual and spiritual drought they leave behind. If they are the best the world can offer today, we are indeed living in hazardous times. 

For this reason it is becoming urgent today that we draw our attention to the achievements of another kind of people: those who have, oblivious to public attention, brought inspiration, healing, restoration of broken relationships, a glimpse of justice, and a vision of a better world to their fellow men and women. William Wilberforce (1759-1833), an English politician and social activist dedicated his entire professional life to ensuring that the practice of slavery was abolished once and for all from British society. German theologian and clergyman, Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945), paid with his own life for standing up to the National Socialism of Hitler’s regime, at a time when most German Christians succumbed to veneration of the Fuehrer. Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968), an USA civil rights activist had a dream about a human family united across racial divides. In India and around the world, Mother Teresa (1910-1997), an Albanian nun with a global mission, brought hope and love to millions of poor and outcast. Desmond Tutu (1931), a South-African bishop, spoke and wrote boldly about the evils of the Apartheid long before it was abolished in 1994. These, and many more, in the words of Jesus, were the “salt and the light of the world”. (Matt. 5:13-16.) By their courage and firmness of character they made this world a better place. 

What distinguishes these people from the celebrities of the moment is that at some point in their life journeys they decided to stand up, not so much for their own rights, but for what they knew was right for the human family. They were true heroes armed with the attitude of service. By the power of example and action, more often than words, they gained the authority to become leaders worth following. Their inspiration, vision and values came from a higher authority than themselves. In the words of C.S. Lewis, they were the people who “did most for the present world precisely because they thought most of the next”. Such people deserve to be called prophets of our times. 

Today, more than ever before, we need to see the rise of prophets like Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr., William Wilberforce, and others like Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965), a German theologian, musician and medical missionary in Africa; Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948), an Indian anti-violence resistance leader with global impact; Catherine Booth (1829-1890), mother of the Salvation Army; or Boris Trajkovski (1956-2004), the late Macedonian president with a heart for reconciliation. If the 21st century is not to sink deeper into moral anarchy, the world needs leaders who will not treat their fellow men and women as a disposable commodity. It needs leaders who will dare to make a difference not under the intoxication of ethnic, racial and religious nationalisms, but inspired by the compassionate character of Jesus of Nazareth. Moreover, the world needs leaders who will not live for the applause of the masses, but will understand that in order to change the world one needs to have his/her life changed first. 

Many are familiar with the story of the man who wanted to change the world, only to realize that unless he changed his country first he would not be able to change the world. Soon he realized that unless he changed his town first he would never be able to change his country. Not long after he became aware that before he could change his town he had to change his family. “Alas”, he exclaimed, “I will never change my family lest I change myself first!” Finally, he realized that he was not able to change himself at all unless he let God do it. 

There is an account in the Bible about a leader who understood that his character needed urgent attention before he was to face the challenges that surrounded him. An Old Testament account presents a graphic picture of the patriarch Jacob wrestling with God one night. Determined that he would not let God go till He blessed him, Jacob wrestled with God the whole night (Genesis 32:22-30.). This wrestling encounter became a defining moment in Jacob’s life; his personal point of reference in the challenging times that followed in later years. That night he wrestled with himself too, making a statement that he wanted God to take away from him all double standards, dishonesty, manipulation, corruption, lies and twisted conscience that marked his life up to that moment. As a consequence of the encounter biblical history lists Jacob among the three most honored patriarchs of the Old Testament times, together with Abraham and Isaac. 

The history of humankind is full of leaders who desperately desired to become immortalized as messianic characters. Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler sacrificed millions of human lives to that end. They fought with many, but never did they fight their own vices, nor did they wrestle with the One to whom everyone will one day have to give an account. Leaders of integrity, on the other hand, learn to understand that the criteria for success is not in how far one has climbed the top charts of popularity or how much controlling power one has gained over others, but how much – in a daily struggle with oneself and God – a leader has matured in his or her own character. 

If you aspire to be a leader, or if you simply want to be a person who counts, wrestling with God and yourself that sharpens your character will become an ongoing educational tool in your life. Only charlatans and careerists might claim otherwise. And it will start with seemingly small and very personal things, such as: do you treat your girlfriend or boyfriend with dignity or as an exchangeable commodity; are you faithful to your wife, children and family; do you give in to alcohol, drugs, pornography, or gambling; do you easily use disrespectful language and inappropriate jokes; what do you do when no one sees you? Tomorrow’s leaders of integrity are those who are now, with the help of God, wrestling out of their lives, one by one, those things that are polluting their characters.  

Tragically today, the concept of a leader of integrity is a very much politically manipulated category. Increasingly when the opposition decides to destroy a political rival, it succumbs to digging into his or her distant past in order to find anything by which it could publicly disgrace or impeach them. Suddenly a fifteen year old public statement, one’s student movement affiliation from thirty year ago, or a private telephone conversation with a friend or family member is broadcast to question whether a person is fit for leadership. Interestingly enough, very often the diggers themselves later end up disgraced and disqualified too. Many would have been better off had they only considered Jesus’ advice to the framers of his time – “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone”. (John 8:7.) If sinlessness were the criteria for leadership, everyone would have been disqualified at one point or another. 

What I am saying is this: decide today to become a person of integrity, decency and truth in small matters whatever the cost, whatever the circumstances, and whatever your past. Wrestle with yourself and God to make your decision a permanent reality and you will become the leader your town, country and the world urgently needs: a leader worth following.  

Tihomir Kukolja, Zagreb, 05^th November 2007 / Houston TX, USA, December 13, 2006.

More than Principles

At what place in one’s journey with Jesus of Nazareth does one become his follower?  

Let us imagine two young people deeply in love with each other and at that place in their relationship when they are seriously planning their marriage. We would expect that by then they have both embraced each other completely and unconditionally. However, imagine the bridegroom telling his bride a week before their wedding: “Darling, I love you with all my heart. I am excited about spending the rest of my life with you. But there are certain conditions that should apply to our marriage: I would like you to promise that from now on we would never talk about your parents, your passions, or your beliefs!”  How much genuine commitment is there in the heart of the husband-to-be towards his fiancé?

How much is he sincerely in love with his wife-to-be if he dares to be involved in her life only to a certain point? Who would, in his or her right mind, want to be in a relationship with a calculating partner?  

Lately I have been focusing on attentively reading the Gospel of John, with the intention to discover afresh the person of Jesus. I have been following the advice of a good friend who has recently challenged a group of young leaders to read the Gospel of John with one sole purpose: to discover what the writer, Jesus himself, his followers and contemporaries at the time really said and implied about Jesus of Nazareth. In other words, I wish to see afresh if the question he posed to his contemporaries “Who do you say I am?” (Matt. 16:15.), remains to be a defining question for anyone today who claims to be his follower?  

Let me share what I have discovered.  

From the very first paragraph of John’s Gospel and throughout the book, accounts implying that Jesus of Nazareth was something else, a unique gift of God, multiply in intensity and progression. In one instance after another his contemporaries, including his enemies too, declared that he was “the true light” (1:9), “the lamb of God” (1:35.), “a teacher who has come from God” (3:2.), “a prophet promised to come into the world” (6:16.), “the Savior of the world” (4:42.), “the Holy One of God” (6:68.)  

Besides, the Gospel of John reports that Jesus acted and taught with authority never witnessed before (7:46.). He healed the sick, opened the eyes of the blind, raised the dead, and miraculously fed thousands. Over a short period of his active life of service he impacted many in such a way that they followed him wherever he went, always expecting a new exciting experience or a miraculous surprise. The extent of the potential use of Jesus, for political and social advancement of the nation or personal gain, was immediately recognized by his followers who even conspired to make him a king, whether he agreed with it or not. Who would not have desired a king who could provide an immediate emergency medical service for anyone who was seriously sick, free meals for thousands and a supernatural defense system for the nation? In short, for a while and up to a certain point, following Jesus represented a very attractive, promising and rewarding option for the people to whom Jesus was the man of the hour.  

But a turning point would come as soon as and whenever Jesus made sure that his followers understood the true nature of his identity and intention of his mission. He stated repeatedly and in many ways that his miracles, parables, and social and humanitarian engagements went far beyond the visible, immediately attainable and socially desirable. He told them that he was “a spring of water welling up to eternal life” (4:13.), “the bread of life” (6:35.), “the true vine” (15:1.), “the light of the world” (8:12.), “the gate (10:7.9.), “the good shepherd (10:11.14.), “the resurrection and life” (11:25.), “the way, the truth and the life (9:5.)”. Moreover, he repeatedly stated that he was “before Abraham” (8:58.), even before the world begun (17:15.), giver of eternal life (17:2.), that “he and the Father are one (10:30)”, and that “he who looks at him, sees the one who sent him” (12:45.) According to John it was at such times that many of his followers would turn back and would no longer follow him (6:66). Finding his claims offensive, despite the evidence of his outstanding miracles, many of them would eventually join the crowd that shouted his death sentence – “Crucify him! Crucify him!”   

Why were so many impressed with Jesus only as long as none dared go beyond the appeal of his humanism, philanthropy, peacemaking, humanitarian concern and common ethical principles? Why was it then, and why does it still remain equally hard today, for so many who have initially embraced a precious gift, to take courage to unwrap the whole package? Could it be that honest ignorance about his true identity blinded some of his followers from seeing the full picture? Or, did a creeping conviction, supported by the ever growing evidence that God indeed dwelled in Jesus, scared them from taking the final step because it called his followers to a new level of commitment and accountability? As if they were saying: “Please, don’t tell us more. The less we know the better!”  

John’s account about Jesus’ healing of a man born blind (John chapter 9) provides an interesting insight into the attitudes of people preferring denial to a full commitment. Many have just seen an amazing miracle. They could not ignore the fact that they witnessed the same divine agency in action that created the universe and the very life itself: for to heal a man born blind from birth called for more than an act of cheap magic. It called for a creative intervention equaling to giving a leg to a person who had never had one, or both arms to someone who had only had one up to a moment ago. But instead of letting their hearts be changed by this extraordinary encounter with Jesus, most of the witnesses preferred denial. Some of his neighbors who knew the blind man well from his childhood decided to doubt that the healed man was the same man they used know as a beginning blind neighbor (9:9.). His own parents pretended that they did not know who healed their son, almost wishing that he had never had his sight restored at all (9:21.22.). Leaders of a prestigious religious establishment of the day fiercely dismissed the whole miracle on the account of a petty religious detail (9:16.).   

But the response of the man whose eyes were open was entirely different. His journey from darkness to seeing turned into an enlightening spiritual journey too. At first the healed man, not knowing better, acknowledged Jesus as a good man (9:11.). Then he realized that the one who healed him must have been much more than an unusual man. He called him a prophet (9:17.). Soon he concluded that the one who opened his eyes must have been much more than a prophet. When finally Jesus revealed himself to him as the Son of Man, without any hesitation the healed man acknowledged and worshiped him as the Lord (9:35-39.). By the end of the day not only his physical eyes were open. What is even more important, his spiritual sight was restored too.  

This account tells the story of faith of every follower of Jesus who dares to go with him the full journey. Or a story of a lover who does not brag about being in love with his fiancé, while at the same time setting limits to how much he would really want to commit himself to their relationship. This is a journey of everyone who would not let his or her family, piers, culture, tradition, social standing, or other internal and external inconveniences stand in the way of embracing Jesus entirely, in his human and divine totality, wherever He may lead. This is a story confirming that the way I respond to Jesus’ question “Who do you say I am?” will sooner or later determine if I am his follower indeed.  

I like the honest testimony of a young believer at the recent Renewing Our Minds Gathering in Fuzine, Croatia, who shared her reasons for deciding to embrace the total package. She said: “I could not help but be faced with Jesus’ statements such as ‘I am one with the Father’. He really didn’t give me a choice. Either I would believe the whole story or not. I couldn’t believe just a part of the story. I thought to myself, if this man was not what he said he was then everything else he ever said or did was a lie. It troubled me and I needed the answer. After reflecting and praying for awhile I said to myself: ‘I do not believe Jesus was a liar. I believe him.’ Even today, several years later, I am not sorry I made a decision to follow this person. It literally turned my life around.”  

It is important to be inspired by the humanism, social awareness, humanitarian concerns and unifying ethical principles of Jesus of Nazareth. People who follow them are changing the world one step and place at the time. But those principles mark only the beginning of a journey that would soon call for more honesty and courage, till one is able without a hesitation and embarrassment to join the confession of doubting Thomas: “My Lord and my God!” (20:28.)   

On the other hand a fragmented, trimmed, reduced, beheaded and cosmetically branded Jesus will never do. They are only the placebos with limited, even misleading impact. He never intended, nor is he intending today, to give us the luxury of manipulating him into anything less than what he really is: “the supreme Agent of the unimaginable Power on whom the whole universe depends” (C.S. Lewis). Such a Jesus indeed “transcends all religion because he is the incarnation of all that is true, good, loving, gentle, tender, thoughtful, caring, courteous and selfless” (Richard C. Halver). Such a Jesus is worth following to the end.  

All references to the Gospel of John are from the Bible, New International Version  

Questions to Reflect: Who do you say Jesus of Nazareth is? What will you do with Jesus of Nazareth? What scares you from daring to see in Jesus of Nazareth more than an impressive moral example?  

Tihomir Kukolja, Zagreb, 25^th October 2007.