The shortcut not taken

This was the part of the scripture for the sermon at church today:

Jesus said, "Have the people sit down." There was plenty of grass in that place, and the men sat down, about five thousand of them. Jesus then took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed to those who were seated as much as they wanted. He did the same with the fish.
When they had all had enough to eat, he said to his disciples, "Gather the pieces that are left over. Let nothing be wasted." So they gathered them and filled twelve baskets with the pieces of the five barley loaves left over by those who had eaten.
After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they began to say, "Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world." Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.

Jesus resisted the crowd's urge to set him at the head of an earthly dynasty. They were looking for a good provider; He intended to be a saviour. To get the crown He had in mind, a cross came first.

The temptation of the crowd is a very human response, one Christians aren't immune from. As the pastor said this morning, think for a moment if Jesus had accepted this 'easier' way to power. Provided the Father did not thwart Him for disobedience, He might have managed to set up a powerful kingdom... that would have lasted His lifetime. Then, like all other empires, it would have suffered the quarrels and struggles that topple every dynasty. And this would have been the fate of Man forever, with no hope of eternity with God. That is what was at stake in this temptation.

We can still be this short-sighted today. The 'religious vote' is taken for granted as a reliable block by those seeking office who are willing to say the 'right' things. But as I've said before, the desire to change our society from the top down is as much a temptation for the "Christian right" as it is for the Utopian left. Inherent in that approach is the use of force, whether legal or physical, to change behavior. It's ultimately self-defeating, too, as true change has to come from within, not from coercion.

Christ never worked that way. Yes, He points out that rejecting Him means rejecting eternity with the Father -- not an insignificant consequence. But it's a consequence He allows to be chosen by those who will not return His love. Love cannot be forced, only given. And the Kingdom of God is not one of conquest or power, but of courtship and promise.