Jesus may have been a good teacher and all, but he was a terrible salesman. I say that, with the current idea of churches as a multi-level marketing scheme in mind. Some churches try to go so far to make the gospel (the story of Jesus and his plan of salvation) acceptible, that they practically tell the listener anything they want to hear, just so they will "become a Christian" (note that I put this in quotes because I believe that it is that local church's description of becoming a Christian, not the on presented in orthodox Christianity.)
First, why do I say that Jesus was a terrible salesman? Well, the idea that modern society has of a salesman is someone who (1) is completely sold on his product ... at least as far as the buyer can see, (2) presents all the positive aspects of that product to the buyer and convinces them that this represents the best of all possible decisions which they can make, to the point of smothing over any negative aspects of the product, and (3) presses the buyer to make that decision now, before they have a chance to change their mind and possibly reassess their priorities.
Jesus had (1) pretty much covered. In St. John 14:6 he says, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father (God) except through me." That sound like he has complete belief in his method of salvation. However, let's look at a couple of other chapters and see the other points. In St. John 6, Jesus feeds over 5,000 people. Think of it. Never having to collect taxes to feed the poor and hungry because the king can just wave his hand and feed everyone out of one lunch box. They were ready to make him their king right there. So, now that he has the crowd eating out of his hand (literally!), how does he capitalize on the situation? He tells them that he is the bread of life, and that if they truly want to belong to his kingdom, they must drink his blood and eat his flesh. Oh yeah, that's going to be a crowd pleaser! We realize that it was a metaphor, but as the folks were grumbling and leaving in disgust, he didn't try to recover, calling to them, "hey folks, wait a minute, it was a figure of speech ... I didn't mean you had to become cannibals." All he did was to look at his confused students and ask them, "well, are you going to leave me, too?"
Jesus had no problem with large crowds, but he realized something that perhaps today's mega-churches need to begin to learn. With the body of Christ (the Church) and the local church, God is not looking for quantity. He is looking for quality. That is not to say that he is looking for CEOs and professional people, the things that our society thinks of when we think of "quality people". He is looking for a quality of the heart. Someone, who once they have taken the step of faith and found God to be trustworthy, is willing to commit the rest of their life to him (as St. Paul says in Romans 12:1, "living sacrifices".)
Jesus could have probably had 15000 followers in the few years he preached. He could have healed a lot of people, fed a bunch, and kept his metaphorical outbursts to himself. And, had he done that, he might not have been executed, and the church probably would have died out before 200 AD.
As it was, he trimmed his followers down to a few fanatics who were willing to march into hell with him, if necessary (St. Matthew 16:18). Everyone of them and most everyone in their circle of friends to a level of four or five deep at least, were executed, and yet the Church built on those few is still alive today.
Maybe our modern churches need to re-examine the idea of "selling" the gospel.
Buz
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
The Gift that Keeps on Giving
In church we were talking about Spiritual gifts, specifically the gift of healing. It got me to thinking. The bible talks a bit about Spiritual gifts ... quite a few different ones, at least 20, if I remember correctly. However, usually when people talk about Spiritual gifts they talk about healing, speaking in tongues, or prophecy of some sort.
St. Paul talks about the gifts of the Spirit and compares the Church (full of people with various gifts) to the human body. He compares some to eyes and others to feet.
I figure that healing has to be one of those "eye" gifts. Everyone wants that one. Not only do we all see the importance of the eye, but we also hold it to be very precious. Wouldn't want one poked out. As a matter of fact, that is one of the fears our mothers pile on us ... "if you do that, you'll poke your eye out!" No one worries that much about toes. Mothers never say, "watch out or you'll cut off your toe."
There is another gift that, unless you've heard sermons about or done studies on gifts, you have probably heard seldom about ... the gift of helps, or helping. Those are the people who joyfully set up tables, lock up after church services, trim the church grounds, etc. Mostly a lot of work that nobody ever notices. You're never going to see Benny Hinn or Oral Roberts on TV Sunday morning sweeping the stage or fixing the podium. I've heard a lot of people praying for the gift of speaking in tongues or healing. I can't remember ever hearing someone praying for the gift of helping.
It must be one of those "toe" gifts. But, you know what? You have 10 fingers and 10 toes, but only 2 eyes. So the necessity of people with "mundane" gifts must be 10:1 for those with "flashy" gifts. Not that things like healing aren't important, but I don't think that it was arbitrary that God prompted St. Paul to use that illustration.
Think about another thing. If you lost both eyes you could fall back on your ears. If you lost both eyes and ears, you could still even read in Braille and you could get around with a cane. However, if you lost your hands and feet, even if you kept your eyes and ears, you would have a seriously difficult time just taking care of yourself.
Another thing about Spiritual gifts. I have heard it said that if someone prays for me and I am not healed that it is my lack of faith which prevented the healing. I have trouble seeing how that holds up when you compare it to the gift of helps. If I need help painting the church, and no one shows up to help me, or if when they do show up, they stand around and drink coffee rather than paint, it is obviously not my lack of faith that prevented the church from being painted.
I know what you are thinking ... St. Matt 13:53-58 says that, in his home town even Jesus could not do many miracles because of their lack of faith. If that lack of faith prevented Jesus from doing miracles, then how can Benny, Oral, or whomever be expected to do any more?
Well, I have another thought on that. Jesus said that he did nothing on his own (St. John 8:28-29), but only spoke (and did) what the Father (God) taught him. Isn't it at least a little bit plausible that when it says that Jesus "couldn't" do miracles where there was no faith had less to do with his inability and more to do with his mission. After all, if you believe that Jesus was Almighty God in human form, then not only could he have done miracles in the face of a lack of faith, he could have done miracles if the only thing around him were the demons of hell opposing his works. However, if the Father told him, "don't waste your limited time in this place, they will not believe you even if you raise people from the dead," then in order to be obedient to God the Father, he "couldn't" do much there.
[Next time I hear some preacher say that the lack of healing was due to the other person's lack of faith, I would love to say, "gee, preacher, I have the gift of giving, but due to your lack of faith, you ain't getting anything this week!"]
When St. Paul talks about the use of Spiritual gifts, specifically the gift of speaking in tongues, he states that the gift is subject to the giver. What does that mean? It means that the giver has control over the use of the gift. If someone has the gift of tongues, then he has the choice of whether to speak in tongues in the church service. God does not put him into a trance and take over his voice so that he cannot stop. God has the choice not to give that person the words to speak or not, but once God has done that, the person still has the choice whether to speak them or not. The same goes for every other gift. If God does not give me the money, I cannot use the gift of giving to pass it on to others; if God does give me the money to help others, I still have the choice of whether to give it to them or not. If God does not empower me physically (i.e. if I am flat on my back in the hospital), then I cannot help others with the gift of helps; if he does give me the health, I can still refuse to help someone else. Finally, if God does not chose to heal someone, then I cannot, in my own power, use the gift of healing to heal that person; again, if God does give me the ability to heal someone, I still have the choice to say no. However, notice that in these instances, it is God not providing the power through his chosen instrument that prevents the gift from being used, or the instrument refusing to carry out his wishes. It has little to do with the recipient.
An illustration that I heard long ago was that Spiritual gifts are like water flowing through a pipe into a bucket. God is the source of the water and I am the pipe. If the source stops (i.e. if it is not God's will in this instance) or if the pipe is clogged (i.e. if there is some sin in my life that prevents God's power from flowing through me) then the water does not come through the pipe. But, the condition of the bucket will not prevent the water from coming through. The bucket may not be able to handle the water, but the bucket cannot stop the water.
Buz
St. Paul talks about the gifts of the Spirit and compares the Church (full of people with various gifts) to the human body. He compares some to eyes and others to feet.
I figure that healing has to be one of those "eye" gifts. Everyone wants that one. Not only do we all see the importance of the eye, but we also hold it to be very precious. Wouldn't want one poked out. As a matter of fact, that is one of the fears our mothers pile on us ... "if you do that, you'll poke your eye out!" No one worries that much about toes. Mothers never say, "watch out or you'll cut off your toe."
There is another gift that, unless you've heard sermons about or done studies on gifts, you have probably heard seldom about ... the gift of helps, or helping. Those are the people who joyfully set up tables, lock up after church services, trim the church grounds, etc. Mostly a lot of work that nobody ever notices. You're never going to see Benny Hinn or Oral Roberts on TV Sunday morning sweeping the stage or fixing the podium. I've heard a lot of people praying for the gift of speaking in tongues or healing. I can't remember ever hearing someone praying for the gift of helping.
It must be one of those "toe" gifts. But, you know what? You have 10 fingers and 10 toes, but only 2 eyes. So the necessity of people with "mundane" gifts must be 10:1 for those with "flashy" gifts. Not that things like healing aren't important, but I don't think that it was arbitrary that God prompted St. Paul to use that illustration.
Think about another thing. If you lost both eyes you could fall back on your ears. If you lost both eyes and ears, you could still even read in Braille and you could get around with a cane. However, if you lost your hands and feet, even if you kept your eyes and ears, you would have a seriously difficult time just taking care of yourself.
Another thing about Spiritual gifts. I have heard it said that if someone prays for me and I am not healed that it is my lack of faith which prevented the healing. I have trouble seeing how that holds up when you compare it to the gift of helps. If I need help painting the church, and no one shows up to help me, or if when they do show up, they stand around and drink coffee rather than paint, it is obviously not my lack of faith that prevented the church from being painted.
I know what you are thinking ... St. Matt 13:53-58 says that, in his home town even Jesus could not do many miracles because of their lack of faith. If that lack of faith prevented Jesus from doing miracles, then how can Benny, Oral, or whomever be expected to do any more?
Well, I have another thought on that. Jesus said that he did nothing on his own (St. John 8:28-29), but only spoke (and did) what the Father (God) taught him. Isn't it at least a little bit plausible that when it says that Jesus "couldn't" do miracles where there was no faith had less to do with his inability and more to do with his mission. After all, if you believe that Jesus was Almighty God in human form, then not only could he have done miracles in the face of a lack of faith, he could have done miracles if the only thing around him were the demons of hell opposing his works. However, if the Father told him, "don't waste your limited time in this place, they will not believe you even if you raise people from the dead," then in order to be obedient to God the Father, he "couldn't" do much there.
[Next time I hear some preacher say that the lack of healing was due to the other person's lack of faith, I would love to say, "gee, preacher, I have the gift of giving, but due to your lack of faith, you ain't getting anything this week!"]
When St. Paul talks about the use of Spiritual gifts, specifically the gift of speaking in tongues, he states that the gift is subject to the giver. What does that mean? It means that the giver has control over the use of the gift. If someone has the gift of tongues, then he has the choice of whether to speak in tongues in the church service. God does not put him into a trance and take over his voice so that he cannot stop. God has the choice not to give that person the words to speak or not, but once God has done that, the person still has the choice whether to speak them or not. The same goes for every other gift. If God does not give me the money, I cannot use the gift of giving to pass it on to others; if God does give me the money to help others, I still have the choice of whether to give it to them or not. If God does not empower me physically (i.e. if I am flat on my back in the hospital), then I cannot help others with the gift of helps; if he does give me the health, I can still refuse to help someone else. Finally, if God does not chose to heal someone, then I cannot, in my own power, use the gift of healing to heal that person; again, if God does give me the ability to heal someone, I still have the choice to say no. However, notice that in these instances, it is God not providing the power through his chosen instrument that prevents the gift from being used, or the instrument refusing to carry out his wishes. It has little to do with the recipient.
An illustration that I heard long ago was that Spiritual gifts are like water flowing through a pipe into a bucket. God is the source of the water and I am the pipe. If the source stops (i.e. if it is not God's will in this instance) or if the pipe is clogged (i.e. if there is some sin in my life that prevents God's power from flowing through me) then the water does not come through the pipe. But, the condition of the bucket will not prevent the water from coming through. The bucket may not be able to handle the water, but the bucket cannot stop the water.
Buz
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Could it happen again?
I was listening to a sermon on Palm Sunday and Good Friday last Sunday and it got me to wondering ... if Jesus came today, lived the same perfect life he did 2000 years ago, would we be any different than they were back then?
Let me state what I consider the response was "back then".
The common people felt ill used by the politicians (the Pharisees) and the press (the scribes). They (the people) perceived that those who were in power over them used their (those in power) positions to control the peoples lives, while exempting themselves not only from their own petty laws, but the "real" law handed down from the ancient times.
They (the people) saw Jesus as someone who not only cared for their well-being and went out of his way to help them, but also as someone who had the potential to depose those leaders who made their lives miserable, AND who had already demonstrated the courage to do it (driving the money changers out of the temple for cheating people).
They (the leaders) saw Jesus as a threat. Not only did he did not support their elitist lifestyles, he showed no interest in building up his own power structure. Had he simply been someone who wanted power on his own, they probably could have struck a deal with him, allowing him to be a popular figurehead as long as he supported their positions. I am sure that most of them would have been satisfied with a compromise that kept them in power, especially if, through him, they could have ultimately achieved an even greater hold over the people.
However, since he would not support them, and they couldn't control him or compromise with him, their only alternative was to have him executed. They bought off wittnesses and brought him up on false charges, took him to the highest court in the land and used their political influence to have him condemned. The judge of that high court knew that he was helpless to fight the politics, so he appealed to the common people.
Now let's pause and think about that. Not too long ago, Jesus had held a great feast and fed everyone from just five biscuits and two fish. And less than a month from his trial he had raised a man from the dead. For about three years he had healed anyone and everyone who was brought to him, not asking for any donations or political alliegence. With him as their leader, the people would have someone who (1) cared about them at a personal level, (2) could wipe out hunger without ever taking a penny for taxes, (3) was the perfect health care system again without any taxes, and (4) could even wipe out death. Less than a week before his trial all the people wanted to make him the king. They lined the street to watch him come in with his entourage. They waved at him and went so far as to throw their coats in the street to pave his way ... sort of an early "red carpet" treatment.
These were the people that the judge asked to over-rule his verdict and free Jesus.
And what was their response?
"Crucify him!" ... or as we would say to day, "hang him."
Why? How could everyone flip so quickly? Well, you see, the leaders sent people into the crowd to "seed" the chant. And, the crowd went along. Once the "crucify him" chant got started, almost everyone joined in. It was the popular thing to do at that point.
I doubt if any of the people who had actually had their lives changed by Jesus, anyone who had a friend or loved one healed, joined in that chant. Oh, probably a lot of people who had listened to a few of his lectures joined in, maybe even a bunch who had eaten the fish and biscuits, but none who had actually seen how he treated people and defended the weak and fallen. But then, the number of people who knew Jesus was probably very small compared to the number who knew about him. And to those who only knew about him, it just wasn't all that important.
So what about today? I was listening to a "man on the street" interview where the interviewer was asking people about Jesus and about the bible. I was utterly amazed at the things that people "knew" about the bible, and even more horrified at what they "knew" about Jesus. There are a number of people who believe that Jesus had an affair with Mary Magdalene, or was married to her ... because "that's just the way people are" or because they had heard it from someone esle, there were some who even thought that it was in the bible.
So, given the same circumstances today. If Jesus did what he did, and offended the powers that be, and had the first televised trial in history ...
call 1-800-xxx-xxx1 to have him freed, or
call 1-800-xxx-xxx2 to have him executed
what do I think we would do?
Sadly, I think that the trial would presented in such a biased fashion, and also that so many would be so eager to condemn a man who spoke out against the moral infection that we call "sin", that it would be a landslide to have him executed. I think that history would not only repeat itself, but that it would be an even greated landslide than before.
Buz
Let me state what I consider the response was "back then".
The common people felt ill used by the politicians (the Pharisees) and the press (the scribes). They (the people) perceived that those who were in power over them used their (those in power) positions to control the peoples lives, while exempting themselves not only from their own petty laws, but the "real" law handed down from the ancient times.
They (the people) saw Jesus as someone who not only cared for their well-being and went out of his way to help them, but also as someone who had the potential to depose those leaders who made their lives miserable, AND who had already demonstrated the courage to do it (driving the money changers out of the temple for cheating people).
They (the leaders) saw Jesus as a threat. Not only did he did not support their elitist lifestyles, he showed no interest in building up his own power structure. Had he simply been someone who wanted power on his own, they probably could have struck a deal with him, allowing him to be a popular figurehead as long as he supported their positions. I am sure that most of them would have been satisfied with a compromise that kept them in power, especially if, through him, they could have ultimately achieved an even greater hold over the people.
However, since he would not support them, and they couldn't control him or compromise with him, their only alternative was to have him executed. They bought off wittnesses and brought him up on false charges, took him to the highest court in the land and used their political influence to have him condemned. The judge of that high court knew that he was helpless to fight the politics, so he appealed to the common people.
Now let's pause and think about that. Not too long ago, Jesus had held a great feast and fed everyone from just five biscuits and two fish. And less than a month from his trial he had raised a man from the dead. For about three years he had healed anyone and everyone who was brought to him, not asking for any donations or political alliegence. With him as their leader, the people would have someone who (1) cared about them at a personal level, (2) could wipe out hunger without ever taking a penny for taxes, (3) was the perfect health care system again without any taxes, and (4) could even wipe out death. Less than a week before his trial all the people wanted to make him the king. They lined the street to watch him come in with his entourage. They waved at him and went so far as to throw their coats in the street to pave his way ... sort of an early "red carpet" treatment.
These were the people that the judge asked to over-rule his verdict and free Jesus.
And what was their response?
"Crucify him!" ... or as we would say to day, "hang him."
Why? How could everyone flip so quickly? Well, you see, the leaders sent people into the crowd to "seed" the chant. And, the crowd went along. Once the "crucify him" chant got started, almost everyone joined in. It was the popular thing to do at that point.
I doubt if any of the people who had actually had their lives changed by Jesus, anyone who had a friend or loved one healed, joined in that chant. Oh, probably a lot of people who had listened to a few of his lectures joined in, maybe even a bunch who had eaten the fish and biscuits, but none who had actually seen how he treated people and defended the weak and fallen. But then, the number of people who knew Jesus was probably very small compared to the number who knew about him. And to those who only knew about him, it just wasn't all that important.
So what about today? I was listening to a "man on the street" interview where the interviewer was asking people about Jesus and about the bible. I was utterly amazed at the things that people "knew" about the bible, and even more horrified at what they "knew" about Jesus. There are a number of people who believe that Jesus had an affair with Mary Magdalene, or was married to her ... because "that's just the way people are" or because they had heard it from someone esle, there were some who even thought that it was in the bible.
So, given the same circumstances today. If Jesus did what he did, and offended the powers that be, and had the first televised trial in history ...
call 1-800-xxx-xxx1 to have him freed, or
call 1-800-xxx-xxx2 to have him executed
what do I think we would do?
Sadly, I think that the trial would presented in such a biased fashion, and also that so many would be so eager to condemn a man who spoke out against the moral infection that we call "sin", that it would be a landslide to have him executed. I think that history would not only repeat itself, but that it would be an even greated landslide than before.
Buz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)