They like Jesus but Not the Church, by Dan Kimball, is based on the premise that we live in a post-Christendom culture. To be sure the States are not nearly as post-Christendom as Europe and Australia, yet you can hardly deny “The American culture no longer props up the church the way it did, no longer automatically accepts the church as a player at the table in public life, and can be downright hostile to the church’s presence” (pg. 18).
Speaking in generalities (not taking the list point by point) the issue is that of perception and image. Kimball “repeatedly heard in all the interviews for this book that we are people who pick out all of the negative things of the world and then protest them” (pg. 98). To be sure, there are negative things to be protested, but Kimball’s point is that Christians are known more for what we oppose (often politically) than what we stand for spiritually. One online review of this book illustrated this point famously by pointing out that one of those he interviewed was a lesbian – since none of those he used as case studies were believers one wonders why this is relevant. Well, we all know why it was relevant to the reviewer, and that proves Kimball’s point.
Kimball does point out that the positive impression of Jesus held by those he interviewed is often based on partial knowledge. He calls this the Pop Culture Jesus. “This Jesus is a friend who stands up for the poor and needy and is a revolutionary for the oppressed. This Jesus focuses his message on love not hate” (pg 55). These impressions are true as far as they go. But as Kimball points out they are biblically lacking – and while he’s at it, Kimball gives his impressions on how many Christian groups also misrepresent Jesus.
As his solution Kimball modifies the classic Bridge Illustration. In the original there is a massive gap between God on one side and a man on the other. The gap is sin and can only be bridged by Christ. Kimball’s theology at this point is thoroughly orthodox so he is in no way messing with the “gap of sin” nor the method for crossing it. He does modify the familiar tool by adding another chasm, another gap. This time the gap separates a man and the church and the gap is our Christian subculture and projected misconceptions. In this sense there is an additional step, a step that the early church or even the Apostle Paul never faced. This step requires that we must overcome people’s negative connotations (whether correct or otherwise) before they will be willing to consider the other gap. Or as Miroslav Volf put it (although his brother-in-law Peter Kuzmic claim Miroslav got this from him) – “Sometimes we must start by washing the face of Jesus.”
This is a good book. And although I do not track with everything Kimball professes, he’s on track as he gives examples of how to interact with the emerging generations without compromising the truth. If you are interested in connecting with the emerging generation I recommend this book.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
160 Comments(+Add)
Like all premises this one is not absolute. But as believers we should not spend all our energies disproving the fact that the world “likes Jesus” and more time changing the way we misrepresent Him.
Rick,
I believe this would be Kimball’s point as well. And it assumes that misrepresenting him has consequences.
The Jesus that they love is a Jesus that is:
‘love’ I.E. He approves of all their choices
‘forgiveness’ It does not matter how you live in opposition to His Word or Will, he will forgive you if you will just ask
‘grace’ see forgiveness above, this gives license to live any way you want
Not judgmental- He would never send anyone to Hell be cause He loves and forgives.
The Jesus the love is like the Isa of Islam- It is a false Jesus that does not exist.
I dismiss the premise of this book. I agree that culture likes Jesus- it is a Jesus of their own imagination. These folks have the Bible, creation, and the true Jesus. However, as the Bible teaches, they are dead in trespasses and sins, and need to be quickened. They have a veil over their eyes, they need the veil removed.
Unfortunately, this is something that can only be done by the Spirit of God. That is why I share the Gospel, because I do not know who God has prepared to hear His message. I must share with everyone the truth of who Jesus is, including a message about their stance before God.
*Rob Bell was not mentioned in this post
Here’s a tip. What’s the biggest church in the USA? Why?
Why do people flock there? Self-help, a positive message, no confrontation, no discipleship. It caters to the flesh. More than ever, this is the age we’re living in. People are lovers of their own selves, more than lovers of God. Especially in the West.
Now, would this church be so big if it preached discipleship? I think we all know the answer.
It’s simply a reflection of the age we live in.
Don’t forget Canada, your increasingly secular neighbors to the north.
My guess? Read: white, middle-class, urbanites who like Starbucks.
And often people fail to forget that the church is just people – the church is a hospital where people are growing. Noah’s daughters-in-law could have claimed that the ark stunk with all the animals in it, but what was the alternative?
The church will always be a growing organism. Fully imperfect.
Ouch. True say.
My thoughts are that we need to change, but I sense the problem is more a matter of unchanged lifestyle while outwardly professing a faith in Christ. This is the disconnect. This is what people smell a mile away.
I just think it’s too convenient of a meme to say, “oh, we’re small because we preach discipleship” or “we scare people away cause we’re so hardcore”. The truth is that Joel Osteen is a convenient whipping boy, but he doesn’t really have anything to do with most of us.
The largest congregation on the planet is Yoido Full Gospel Church in Seoul, South Korea. They have over 800,000 members. Now I’ve heard some of the pastors from this church speak, and most of us would not say they preach easy-believism. In fact, most of us would probably consider them legalistic. But yet they are huge. I don’t know all the reasons, but I think we need to be careful correlating anything from the sheer size of a congregation.
I suppose it does not matter to you that this is pretty much what Kimball says as well – but without the massive chip on his shoulder…
@#5
It’s a balancing act for sure… I’ve heard far to many pastors claim they were ridding the flock of tares (to mix the metaphors) while they drove people away.
It’s like a lot of things… sure Jesus (and Paul) promised opposition and maybe even persecution – but that’s no excuse to glory in acting like an ass.
No particular references in mind – mind you.
This is rich – how can you dismiss the premise of a book based on personal experience?
People tell Kimball they like Jesus but not Christians and you reject this?
Phil – I agree he is a convenient whipping boy, but I think we shouldn’t easily dismiss the correlation between the message he preaches and the crowds he gathers. Do you?
And you are correct: to run to the other end of the spectrum to justify our “smallness” isn’t better. I am not for this at all.
My point is that when you survey a bunch of 20-something-cafe-latte drinking white urbanites (as Neil tells us) the chances are you’re going to get a very warped view. Especially when you go out to prove a point (which Kimball probably does).
I think a church like Osteen’s is simply a reflection of the time we’re living in. Strip away discipleship, create a Jesus that suits you (even with some biblical stuff), and of course people will find appeal in that.
Yes. But last I checked South Korea is not a part of North America.
The world into which he has been called.
Hmmm… now you are joining the ranks of those able to discern motives?
It is a case study. “They” are clearly defined in the book. What make their view warped?
If these are not the type of people you have in your town -fine… but this is no reflection on the validity of the book
I agree.
But I would propose that many in the emerging generation can see through that as easily as you do… and it only adds to their dislike of the church.
I dismiss the premise of the book in this:
The like Jesus: They like the Jesus of their imagination, which is likely not the Jesus of the Bible. It is Jesus stripped of His role as righteous Judge, and almighty God. They like a characiture of Jesus.
But not the Church: They dislike the institutional church, much of which is filled with dead orthodoxy and a form of godliness without the power. They would not likely love the true church either, for if we have not Christ we do not truly love His people.
I’m less concerned about the crowds he gathers than I am about the fruit that these people produce. Ultimately, that is the only test.
I don’t personally know anyone who’s a member at Lakewood, so I guess honestly I can’t comment as to their fruit.
#10: So really, the title of his book should have read:
“Why 20-something-caffe-latte-white-urbanites who like skinny jeans and MACs, who like to wax philosophical about things they’ve only seen in movies like Jesus but not the church.”
I kid
Yes, I do. And they need to be reached with the gospel as well. Please don’t take my comments the wrong way.
Neil, come on. Just like any movie, news broadcast or article, there are always underlying motives or hypotheses that are built around. I’m not discounting the validity of his book to a certain degree and would be among the first to say we need to really change our ways (that’s what I’ve been arguing).
Which is what Kimball says in the book, and I pointed out in my review. So you are simultaneously agreeing with Kimball AND rejecting his premise.
Yes, clearly, if we’re not hated something’s wrong…
They may dislike the dead institutional church… but they also dislike much of the hypocrisy of the true church… our double-standards, etc…
The true church is free of double standards. Hypocrisy is lying, a sure sign of false conversion.
Why didn’t he title it “They like a false Jesus and they Hate his bride”
OK – he describes the process in the book. He met these people, heard their stories, and asked them if he could write a book using them… i saw no – “Especially when you go out to prove a point (which Kimball probably does).”
If they are guilty of having an incomplete picture of Christ, than you are as well. Christ was fully God and fully man. You simply cannot treat the human Christ described in the Gospels as some sort of addendum. Yes, Christ is the righteous judge, but He is also the compassionate savior who comforts the broken and heals the sick.
I’ve been thinking about this the other day. I really think that on a whole the western church has forgotten the wonder of the Incarnation. It seems we don’t have much of a problem thinking of Christ as God, but we have a big problem in thinking of Him as fully human. The good news isn’t simply that God the Father has chosen to not kill us sinners, but it’s that Christ came down to be with us because of our weakness.
God’s word to humanity is not one a wrathful, vengeful tyrant, but that of a loving Father. Somehow, though, many in the church prefer first. Perhaps it’s so we can convince ourselves that God really hates everyone we do.
There are large and growing churches that teach discipleship.
I think it is dangerous to assume that small = faithful. This can lead to dangerous conclusions, such as, “See how many people hate me? I must be more like Jesus than all of you!”
OR, it could just mean you are an ass.
So true believers cannot display hypocrisy? Do you really wanna take take that position?
Sometimes you amaze me – even after all these comments… whether through ignorance or stubbornness, I cannot tell… but you have clearly chosen to ignore Kimball’s point and instead create some kind of adversarial scenario in which YOU get to be the righteous one and they are the deserving enemy.
Who said they hated the bride of Christ – other than YOU?
Actually, you should write “They like a false Jesus and they Hate his bride.”
In it you can lambaste all those who are Christian in a manner disliked by you and your ethnocentrism.
“This can lead to dangerous conclusions, such as, “See how many people hate me? I must be more like Jesus than all of you!”
OR, it could just mean you are an ass.”
There are three examples in these sentences that are examples of why sinners don’t like Christians.
OK – post 24 was one that Rick would call nothing more than an irritant.
I apologize.
“God did not elect any sinner because He foresaw that he would believe, for the simple but sufficient reason that no sinner ever believes until God gives him faith, just as no man sees until God gives him sight.” – A.W. Pink
Those like you and Kimball will have to account for asll the time you waste in fruitless “conversation”
25- rick, I don’t follow
I know. Let’s just say two examples are directed at PB. The third sentence is directed at PB as to the reason sinners do not like Christians, however the phraseology reveals another reason as well.
#24:
actually, i’d just call that naming crap and calling people on it.
Sadly, this site and this site got different memos.
Neil – again, not to play down the work the church needs to do in actually reflecting Christ, but consider…
In the days of the early church, Paul warned a number of times about “another Jesus” and “another gospel”. He also mentions that the devil himself is basically preaching a version of Jesus.
That was 2000 years ago.
Come this side, and you see many Jesuses and gospels held up all over the place – in churches. It’s worth considering that if such deception has likely increased, what accuracy might unsaved people have in terms of weighing what Jesus is and isn’t like?
It’s kind of like polling ungodly people and asking them why they don’t go to church, then building your church around these stats in order to cater to them.
You get all sorts of rubbish from the church that just comes across as cheap: “God hates religion!” “The church sucks!”
I do want to emphasize the fact that we need to deeply love Christ ourselves, examine ourselves, preach the good news and endeavor to reflect Christ where we are.
Well, Neil…the Church is the bride of Christ. They make it into a wicked place where hateful people dwell that turn them off because of their judgement.
They don’t like the real Jesus, and they don’t like His bride.
And we all know that Christians have never been judgmental non-Christians… Seriously, PB, can you be intellectually honest about anything?
Some of the most hurtful things I have ever seen done by person being to another have been within the walls of churches. Seriously. I’ve seen people say things about pastors or other members that would have been enough to had them fired or even put in jail in a secular workplace.
But, yeah, it’s probably better to pretend it never happens and that everyone who’s sitting in a pew acts just like Jesus would act all the time…
in a similar vein:
http://www.esquire.com/features/best-and-brightest-2009/shane-claiborne-1209
I haven’t read it all so I can’t endorse it completely. Something to discuss.
#33 I am sorry that you have seen such things happening in the dens of demons that some people call the church.
The church is the invisible bride of Christ, contained in all sorts of buildings, homes, and underground- even in prisons around the world. That which you are speaking of unfortunately has the name church, just like a lot of fakers wear the name Christian.
#34 typical Shane Claibourne. Compelling points, but very legalistic, universalist, and downright snarky to the brand of Christianity emergents love to hate.
troy – no offense but one glance at his mugshot on that article and I was convinced he was of the devil. I refrained from reading even a single line.
Now you’re just being purposely obtuse. You know full well that Kimball is using the term “church” as any average person would – to refer to the institution at large, not in the sense you’re using.
And actually, even with the Church in the sense you are talking about, there are people who have done much harm. Just because someone hurts someone else, that doesn’t automatically mean they’re apostate – it just means they’re human. Unfortunately, it’s attitudes like yours that make it impossible to have any honest discussion about the actual issues within the church.
I’d be willing to be that you’ve unintentionally hurt plenty of people with your “evangelistic” efforts. Of course, your too ignorant to admit it, but it doesn’t change the fact that damage has been done.
You are correct – as if I did not know the difference.
STOP -with the Claibourne derailment now!
No offense, Paul, but between this comment and the one you made about Starbucks earlier, I’d say you focus too much on people’s exterior appearance… Really, what makes him look like devil?
The “church” is within us; how we let it be manifested is the challenge. We are jesus in a sense, the body of Christ. As He is so are we in this world.
Please - do not follow Pastorboy’s diversion.
We all know the difference between the visible church and the invisible church.
We all know this difference between the universal church and local churches
This is a red-herring… a diversion… it is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
It is not about THEM!
It is about US!
It is about what true, born-again believers, participants in the Bride of Christ have done to dirty the name of Jesus…
Are you actually saying that true believers cannot be hypocrites and unrighteously judgmental?
Re 31
Paul C.,
Once again I will say, Kimball makes a distinction in the book between the Pop Culture Jesus that these people have in mind and the biblical Jesus we follow.
You are correct that they have an incomplete view of Jesus. A point Kimball agrees with and makes.
As far as I can tell, PB ascribes to a form of Christian perfectionism, while simultaneously claiming to be the “chief of all sinners.”
How this works is a mystery.
Thanks Neil.
Phil – regarding Claiborne, i was just kidding. Completely in jest. In a joking mood today.
It is sorta like saying….well I like Neil, but his wife is a __________ I hate her.
So, can they like Neil and hate his wife? What would their relationship be like with Neil if they hate his wife?
This comment betrays so much.
It betrays the willingness to set up an adversarial relationship with those you have never met – with people who are lost – with people who have been truly hurt by Christians.
It betrays the fact that you are more concerned with making ecclesiological distinctions (parsing who are the real Christians) than you are about the fact that terrible things have been done in the name of Jesus – by true and false believers.
It betrays the fact that you are unwilling to consider the sins of the Bride of Christ – instead you twist this into something about them.
#46 not even close, MG.
But these people paint a characature of Jesus, and do the same for the church. People who feel comfortable living in sin, and make a lifestyle of sin are not really Christians, are they? Because one or two jerks attend a church meeting does not mean the body of Christ is a bad place.
Non-Christians hate the church, no matter how wonderful it is to us. Just like my wife has flaws (very few) I still love her despite those flaws. Of course they like their misconception of Jesus, and they hate their misconception of the church.
One of the biggest things is they transfer the foolishness of the apostate Roman Catholic Church, with all her failings, and believe that is the body of Christ. It isnt! (why do all the hollywood movies with a christian character portray them as a priest- like Omen, Exorcist..etc.) Many of the public failings of the church have been the RC church, or the mega-(false) churches like Haggards. You mean to tell me these are Christians, and they behave like the bride of Christ? give me a break.
Well, on the most basic level – yes. I know people who have a significant other whom I really dislike.
But that’s not the point. The average non-Christian person does not get that the church is the bride of Christ. In fact, they would have no real understanding of what that statement even means. Either you’re just purposely being facetious to prove some point, or you’re just incapable of stepping away from your Christianese context.
The point is the church has for a large part done a very poor job of representing Christ on earth, so rather than doing the job of reflecting His image, we have actually just made ourselves irrelevant to people. Many people have some knowledge of Christ, whether it be from pop culture, literature, or whatever, and their attitudes towards Him based on this limited knowledge are generally positive. It’s not a complicated point.
I think I will call my 10-month old nephew up this evening and try explaining some trigonometry to him. It will probably be less frustrating than trying to explain this to PB. I probably have a greater probability of success, also…
If anyone was curious, a characature is a exaggerated portrait of someone created with preserved meat products, such as bacon, ham or sausage.
Kidding.
First off, he said they do not like the Church – your use of “hate” is unnecessarily inflammatory.
And the use of “wife” as an illustration has a parallel – but it is weak since a) it is possible to like me and not my wife, and b) it is a false distinction given the fact that real sins against real people have been committed by real members of the bride of Christ.
people who are lost already have an adversarial relationship with Christ, even though He still loves them. Since He loves them, I am commanded to do so as well. I demonstrate that by warning them.
I agree. See comment 50- but I have to question those who do terrible things consistently- if they are part of the church!
the sins of the Bride of Christ have been washed away (in the spiritual) and they have become new creatures. When converted, we are supposed to be made different by the grace of God.
I still say that these coffee shop people (I witness to these people frequently) are angry at the church because their pet sin has been confronted and exposed, and they translate that as hate.
On the other hand – this illustrates Kimball’s point brilliantly – thanks Pastorboy!
They do not have a relationship with me. They have a Pop Culture caricature of me, but they have no relationship with me. At the same time, they do not like my wife because she sometimes is a ________.
Translation – I can be the biggest ass in the world, but when people get ticked off it’s never my fault. They’re just convicted.
In one of these threads, Scotty brought up the point that PB is the same person here as he is when he preaching on the street. That is he’s never wrong, and his actions are always completely justified in his mind. That really is a very salient point.
I think my pet hamster has more self-awareness…
Let us not be blind to the many caricatures that the visible church has created. The prosperity Jesus, the hate filled Jesus, the angry Jesus, the gay hating Jesus, the “I only died for a very few” Jesus, the “anything goes” Jesus, the “feed the poor and be saved” Jesus, and on goes the list.
Seriously Pastorboy – did you even read the review? I truly believe you are just arguing against the book irrespective of what it actually said.
Operative word – supposed to be made different.
All to often we do not act like it.
You speak from ignorance. And by that I simply mean you speak without enough knowledge. If you were to actually read the book (and at this point I must add) and read it honestly – you would see that this statement is not a good description of these people.
The God is a Republican Jesus…
The God is on America’s side Jesus…
The Jesus who loves Israel and hates Palestinians…
the Jesus who protests homosexuality but accepts divorce, materialism, greed…
20??? ??? ? ???.?? ????.???_ ??.??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??.??.??? ???? ?? ???, ?.?? ?? ?.???.??? ?? ??.?? ??.???·
That is why they hate the church- and in reality, hate Jesus as well
whoops….this does not understand Greek font…sorry
20For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.
that is why people hate the church, and, in reality, hate Jesus as well.
I suppose it all comes down to these twin truths:
1) They are spiritually dead, it is completely up to God, and nothing I do will can drive them farther from God; and
2) Being lost they are adversaries of God so I can treat them that way!
These overly simplistic truths lead to the ability to absolve one from any responsibility in behavior.
These overly simplistic truths allow some to call unbelievers “drunk whores” and call it ministry.
These overly simplistic truths allow some to share truth with others while systematically driving them from the truth with their behavior.
These overly simplistic truths create a false dichotomy that allows any objections they have to our behavior to be written off as some attempt to justify their love of sin.
You speak from ignorance. And by that I simply mean you speak without enough knowledge. If you were to actually read the book (and at this point I must add) and read it honestly – you would see that this statement is not a good description of these people.
the ‘we are bringing the kingdom to earth’ Jesus, the ‘everyone is going to be reconciled and restored in the end’ Jesus the ‘Allah and Isa and Buddah are all just different names for god’ Jesus….
Whoops….thats the one people like…
Funny,
I read the book.
I wrote the review.
I have followed Kimball’s blog.
I have read similar books.
No one mentioned hate until you came along, Pastorboy.
Yes, PB, I agree. There are Christians who curse and drink to excess and commit adultery etc.. And yes, many have created a “Jesus” that is not according to Scripture.
But I would contend that your credibility is deficient since you believe that Ingrid Schlueter projects Christ. That, my friend, is as absurd as it gets.
Yet, according to Pastorboy, they cannot be hypocrites or liars.
70
No, I am saying that if they have a lifestyle that is marked with sin more than that of being marked with Christ, they are likely not Christian. If their lifestyle displays sin more than the fruit of the Spirit, they are likely not converts, rather, false converts.
May God comfort every new Christian or struggling Christian who happens to meet PB. Talk about being driven to despair.
RE 71:
Well, I’m glad that’s settled – yet, that is a different topic, and not relevant to Kimball’s book.
While it is true, some of the sins of the church at large can be attributed to this distinction it does not serve as an rebuttal to Kimball’s thesis.
71
So there are scales and as long as my sins weigh less than my fruit, I’ll be okay…Sound like a works based religion to me
Kimball seems to be suggesting that we as Christians in the west have invented a model of Jesus that seems profoundly absent from the gospel narratives.
Rick,
I think that is a bit too strong. What he is saying is that we have obscured the Jesus of the Gospel narratives with our lack of compassion, political alliances, inconsistent opposition to sin, and the like.
Neil – Exactly what I meant. The doctrine issues are usually “in house” discussions, but the Jesus expressions are what have been smeared.
Chad, I would venture to guess that you would consider just about anyone a Christian, even if they bore no fruit in keeping with repentance. You believe in universalism also, so it does not matter to you if they like a caricature of Jesus and not the church, because they all will be reconciled and redeemed anyhow, right?
May God save anyone who hears your teaching and believes they are alright believing any old thing they want to.
#74 You know that is not what I mean. Anyhow, that distinction is up to God. We are saved by grace, salvation is proved by works, not earned by works. Silly emergent….words have meanings!
I suppose it all comes down to these twin truths:
1) They are spiritually dead, it is completely up to God, and nothing I do will can drive them farther from God; and
2) Being lost they are adversaries of God so I can treat them that way!
These overly simplistic truths lead to the ability to absolve one from any responsibility in behavior.
These overly simplistic truths allow some to call unbelievers “drunk whores” and call it ministry.
These overly simplistic truths allow some to share truth with others while systematically driving them from the truth with their behavior.
These overly simplistic truths create a false dichotomy that allows any objections they have to our behavior to be written off as some attempt to justify their love of sin.
As far as I can tell it doesn’t matter much to you either – as long as it can be blamed on them!
PB-
No you are not right. In fact, you are absolutely wrong.
This does not surprise me, or probably anyone reading.
With all due respect, PB, there is not a soul here who has maligned the English language more than you. You traffic in nothing more than platitudes and bromides. The only way you manage to disagree with people is to either dismiss them as unbelievers or to call their statements “strawmen.” Considering the range of inconsistent positions you hold, you are practically a textbook case of cognitive dissonance.
I apologize, but the irony was too much.
Always nice to have a whipping boy to fall back on when you can’t make a lick of sense otherwise
I Pet.2: 9 -But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light;
Let the followers of Jesus Christ be different and peculiar in this generation. Army doctors who knew Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, said he was “belligerent, defensive and argumentative in his frequent discussions of his Muslim faith”. They also remarked that “his behavior, while at times perceived as intense and combative, was not unlike the zeal of others with strong religious views”.
It is profoundly sad that many unbelievers who read that description of Hasan would equate him with some Christians they know. It is true that we can isolate certain events in the life of Christ and formulate a depiction of His approach and demeanor centered on those events. But it also true that the overwhelming essence of the life of Jesus was one of grace, humility, and redemption. One only read the Sermon on the Mount to be presented with major principles of self sacrifice and self denial.
Who are we? Are we moral warriors or cross bearers? Are we called to fight for our earthly rights or are we called to suffer persecution? Look around and listen as professing believers write scathing articles about “liberal” politicians and support their aggressiveness with a bold face lie that suggests America is a gift from God. Listen as they murmur and complain about anything and everything that does not go their way from the President to healthcare to taxes. And if you are honest, how can that be considered compliant with the New Testament commandments for a disciple of Jesus Christ? It is not.
We are called to a peculiar life that seems at odds with the hustle and bustle of earthly issues and battles. Our humility should make us vulnerable in a world of defensiveness and aggression; however the weapons of the Spirit go against the wisdom of this world. The caustic venom spewed by some believers is counterproductive to any genuine manifestation of Christ. We should never allow the darkness to choose the field of engagement, but we should live a life of brilliant salt that shines redemption high atop a mountain called Calvary and not Sinai.
I fear Christianity has dwindled down to written theologies that are resolute in their effort to remain Biblically accurate, but continue to drift further away in its personal reflection of Jesus Himself through the living epistles who profess His name. But we are called to BE different, not just believe differently. And this difference should not be microscopic; it should be profound and startling in its observation. I continue to struggle much more in my manifestation of Him than I do with my statement of faith, and none of us should feel content with that situation.
Wonderfully said, Rick (since words matter and all).
While we try so hard to be “biblically accurate” we often miss the Gospel completely.
The one thing that strikes me after reading through all these comments is that what PB really believes isn’t that far off from what the Pharisees believed. The Pharisees believed that thing God cared about was that they were doing the right thing, or maybe more accurately doing the right thing in the way they prescribed. What Jesus said on the Sermon on the Mount was, though, that to God, the thing that mattered was their hearts. If He didn’t have their hearts, then it’s all rubbish.
So, really, that’s why I think PB going on about “pet sins” is so telling. It’s not as if God is angry at people who have no relationship with Him for sinning. I believe He see their lives and mourns the fact that they are destroying themselves, but it’s not as if God is so petty that He simply throws lightning bolts when He doesn’t get His way. Even when Christians sin, I don’t believe God’s primary response is anger – yes, there is an element of righteous judgment we need to take heed of – but, I think the Father sees His children through the eyes of loves and His heart breaks when we don’t live as we should.
So when we portray God as the great moralist in the sky, we are really misrepresenting Him. And I think this is a big reason why people have a dislike of the church. The church has not been the bearer of good news. We have been the one telling them they’re wrong and damned to hell.
Rick, good statements. The scripture that comes to mind is when Jesus said to the religious, “You search the scriptures and in them you think you have life, yet they testify of me.”
The point was missed. Here’s the thing.
When Jesus came, Isaiah describes him as a “root out of a dry ground.” What did man see on a trip to Jerusalem? A vibrant religion chock full of sacrifice, dedication and ritual.
But what did God see? A barren waste heap. A parched desert.
I honestly wonder what the Lord sees when he looks down today and if we are all that different. The Pharisees were masters at outwardly embracing God while inwardly rejecting him altogether.
An important statement that often gets lost on all of us…
It is true that God is longsuffering beyond anything we can imagine. He sends his rain on the just and the unjust which gives us some insight into His nature. Yet, a day is coming when He will judge and it will be too late for many.
Here’s a testimony from the weekend. I spoke on the plan of salvation in simplicity. One of the scriptures we used was the Sunday school favorite: Prodigal Son.
There’s a line in there that says, “When the father saw him afar off, he ran to him, fell upon his shoulders and kissed him.”
I explained that God is not indifferent and elaborated on that point for some time.
That is the single statement that stuck with my brother and caused him to conclude “that God is not something out there or far away. He is not indifferent at all! I’d like to get to know him and follow him.”
“So when we portray God as the great moralist in the sky, we are really misrepresenting Him.”
God is not interested in changing your morals, although that should be a by-product, but He is in full throttle redemptive mode. And possibly the most ludicrous thing is when believers gather information of sin and castigate that sin as something that is ruining the culture. It is MUCH WORSE than ruining some cultural construct – it is spiritual death.
The answer is not politics or the words of Moses – the answer is JESUS!!!! Lifting up Jesis in thought, word, and deed is the message the church should be communicating. Every step into another venue of confronting sin other than Jesus and His redemption/forgiveness is a step back into death.
We must deal in Jesus and not deal in death.
Wait, wait, wait…you mean there are people who like my wife but dislike me?!?!?!?!?!
I’m not cool with that.
They’re called your in-laws…
In the movie “Consipracy” Dr. Wilhelm Kritzinger objects to the Final Solution, the holocaust. He tells General Heydrich this story:
A man had grown up loving his mother dearly. But his father was extremely abusive and this man grew up to hate his father. His mother died when he was 30 but the man did not weep for her, he just treasured her memory. Ten years later his father died and this same man wept uncontrollably.
You see, the man had let his hatred for his father almost become his motivation in life and now that motivation was gone. His life was now empty.
Here’s a link to an article that is offered as a direct response to Shane Claiborne’s article in Esquire:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2009/11/24/deyoung-on-the-new-gospel-vs-the-old-gospel/
From the post:
Interesting observations…
I don’t have time to do a point by point rebuttal to DeYoung’s points, which sadly come down to “Hey! He isn’t Reformed like me!”, but I always find it funny when people like DeYoung get so offended by a message which they are claiming is too inoffensive… weird.
Heaven forbid anyone take some “food for thought” from someone like Claiborne. By the way, does DeYoung believe that “baptism saves”? If not, he’s not preachjing the gospel and perhaps the Pirate Radio will confront him on it!
It is offensive, Phil, because it is not the Gospel. It is just a moralizing social program. It does not talk about the real Jesus, the divine lover of our souls who is also a judge.
Having read the Claibourne article and the DeYoung response (if it really was a response) I think this comment by a guy named Chris pretty much reflects my reaction.
He wrote:
Rick, I think that card has been somewhat overplayed, though there is always room for self-examination.
People have tried to distance themselves, often genuinely from religion, and that’s fine. Jesus did the same (in John, virtually every miracle was anti-religion from the wine in jugs used for purification on forward). Often, it just comes across as convenient (though I have no doubt Claiborne is genuine in his motives).
This article was just another perspective. I honestly have no idea who DeYoung is (first time reading anything he wrote).
But I do think these observations are interesting:
So he is not talking about Jesus because of what he does not say? But, what of the things he does say about Jesus.
If I describe someone, how does what I not say, mean the things I do say are not….
Oh, never mind. the sky is green – OK?
#100 Actually, in reality, the sky is clear.
an incomplete Jesus is not the true Jesus. A partial Jesus is a lie.
Well, then the Gospels must be a lie because even John admits that there was a whole lot more that he could have written about Jesus. As it is, we only have a part of the picture, maybe 2.5-3 years at the most.
I agree. Whenever I describe Jesus I am sure to describe each and every aspect ever mentioned in the Bible.
I agree.
#102 – It depends which parts are left out.
we know everthing that we need to know about Jesus.
What we do not know we will find out when we become like Him.
(1) I think that any article, book, sermon, etc. that anyone writes or speak will at best be partially true. Try as we might, none of us can ever possess the whole truth.
(2) Oddly enough, DeYoung’s whole article is largely a strawman of Claiborne’s article.
(3) So what? Really, if you’ve spoken in front of people long enough, it doesn’t take long that when people want to, they can take anything you say and almost make it mean anything they want in their own minds.
(4) I really don’t know what he means by this. If by “manageable”, he means that it doesn’t beat people down so they feel like worms, than so be it.
(5) What is wrong with a message being inspirational? Positive motivation beats negative anytime in my book.
(6) I already noted the irony in this. Oddly enough, the way that Claiborne’s message is offensive ti DeYoung is actually more in line with the way the Gospel was originally offensive. The Gospel is offensive because it tells us that despite what we think, we don’t have God figured out. He is not ours to manipulate. He wants to work in and through the people we don’t particularly like that much. The Gospel has always been offensive to those who see themselves in a place of spiritual authority.
Since we are placing things under a microscope, let me interject this:
Pilgrim’s Progress was a fictional narrative, filled with metaphors, and presenting the gospel in storybook fashion.
Also, John Bunyan promoted the concept that believers who were not baptized still should be allowed to receive communion. What a liberal!
uhhh… yeah… and this is relevant how?
“We know everything we need to know about Jesus.”
That’s such a weird statement to me. It’s like Jesus is a series of facts that we can memorize. Isn’t the point being in relationship with Jesus? And if so, then is there ever a point where we know everything we need to?
Do tell! Lead me to Christ PB.
What does it look like to become like Him? Dead, risen, and returning again? Born of a Virgin? Seated at the right hand of the father? All of the angels under are command? hmmmmm….So many questions.
I understand what PB is saying, and there are places that teach a different Jesus, as there were in Paul’s day. The question is what are the non-negotiables in the gospel presentation of Jesus Christ? (This is not to preclude the possibility that the Holy Spirit can and does reach sinners through a flawed presentation.)
* What if a person who is weighted down by debt comes forward to embrace the Kenneth Copeland Jesus based in large part to her understanding that Jesus wants toprosper her?
* What if a person embraces Christ after hearing Peter Rollins and feeling she isn’t doing enough for poor people?
* What if a person with terminal cancer embraces Jesus because Oral Roberts said He wants to heal her?
* What if a person embraces Jesus because he wants to cover all afterlife bases?
* What if a person rejects Christ because the devil has convinced him he is not elect since he heard a Calvinist preacher teaching it?
* There are many, many more examples of these.
I would wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving if I celebrated it, which I do not. And since we have been discussing literal interpretations of Genesis, I would ask PB if he observes Thanksgiving in direct violation of the literal interpretation of Paul’s admonition not to observe days.
What say ye PB??
And since the word “day” means 24 hour, does PB celebrate Christmas Day anytime before or after the actual 24 hour December 25th day? (Shopping, church serves, lights, and anyn other observance activity over and above the 24 hour literal observance)
That statement gets back to the whole “Vampire Christian” thing that Dallas Willard talks about – people who want Jesus for His blood but not much else.
Would someone ever say, “I know everything I need to know about my wife”? I hope not. Even people who have been married for 50 years would probably say they don’t know everything they need to know about their spouse. There’s always a desire for more intimacy.
Certainly it is possible that people have wrong ideas about Jesus, and there are portrayals of Christ from popular culture and whatnot that simply wrong (something which Kimball notes in his book, btw), but to say we know all we need to know is missing the point.
As we discussed in another thread, we should get past the tangential complaints and continued bemoanings of those who dislike everything except their preferred model.
I’d like to hear how fellowships you have been involved with (or know) have endeavored to “wash the face of Jesus.” What was done? Why did you think it necesarry? How did the lost and confused respond?
Well, in the campus ministry I was involved previously, we did several things. The space we rented downtown was right beside a bar, and it was also on the route from campus to frat row. So during the winter, we gave away hot chocolate and cookies and would simply remind people that God loved them. We would get into different conversations this way.
We also had a biweekly coffeehouse with an open mic where anyone was welcome to perform. I’d say on a given week, probably half of the people who came to perform or just watch and hang out were non-Christians. Many of these people we are still in contact with in some way or another.
At the risk of being accused of fraternizing with heretics, here is what I consider “washing the face of Jesus”.
Hey Chris L. – You scooped Inrgid with this!
But here is a question I have for you: How can a professing believer post that “financial misery if only God was in charge” complaint, and then post this?
Spiritual schizophrenia? And we wonder why the darkness is confused about the different light shows.
Neil, #117
I wouldn’t normally offer such things, but as I feel I’m among friends here goes:
, but it is much needed. There are several shelters in town for women, battered women, young children, and St. Joseph’s for homeless men; but there was no place for FAMILIES (wife, husband, and older children) to stay together as a family.
I’m spending the night tonight at my local church with a few families that need a place to stay. I’m not sure what the “program” is called IFH family promise (or something like that). Probably something started by bleeding heart liberals
There is a rotating group of churches of multiple denominations (imagine the horror) that switch out on a weekly/biweekly basis. My parish usually covers the holidays. Congregations provide breakfast and evening meals, place to sleep, and transportation to work/school in the morning and there is a day center for those that don’t go to work or school. Families are in this situation for a VARIETY of circumstances and this is a way for them to safely transition together to get back on their own.
Truth be told I’m not really in the mood, because I was looking forward to sleeping late in my own comfy bed in the morning and my kids have been sucking the energy out of me lately. But my wife had morning shift Monday and the saintly deacon’s wife who runs the program was having trouble finding help with everybody out of town. Since my bedroom is about 200 yards away from the church it’s hard to say no. My wife is a natural at this type of ministry because strangers are just friends she hasn’t met yet. Night duty is easy for me because I’m more or less a security guard.
My calling is more of teaching and preaching the Bible/catechism to smart-ass catholic kids during the day in these same rooms where people “sleep over” at the church. But I confess I was glad to be there one night when I stayed up late watching movies with a teenage girl and heard about her favorite movies and books she like to read. She was a fascinating young lady that just wanted somebody to listen to her. Call me a traitor is you will, but I didn’t preach the gospel to her and I believe that Christ is still the King.
So is there a difference between outreach ministries, compassion ministries, and washing the face of Jesus?
Neil,
#122
I don’t think what you call it matters, but the motive.
#122 – That brings up an interesting thought. If we as believers are only called to do acts of kindness and benevolence when it is clearly attached to a gospel presentation, then I ask you these questions:
* Why does God give breath to those He knows will be eternally lost?
* If you knew your neighbor was not elect, would God desire you to show him acts of kindness anyway?
* If God ahows acts of kindness and love to His enemies, what does that say about politics in the hearts of believers?
* When we will openly admit the mysterious incongruity of the Old Testament God and the New Testament Jesus?
* In light of that mytery, when will fully and exclusively use the New Testament as our template and not mix the revelations. (Heb.1:1)
I vary between grief and anger when I see Jesus being reinvented by some or hidden in Old Testament masks by others. We may know we have to know about Jesus to be redeemed, but to investigate and pursue Him in all His fullness is an eternal journey of wonder and glory.
Brett S.,
You are right – ultimately, i was just wondering if that plays a motivating factor for anyone…
Clearly it does for folks like Kimball and Caibourne, and I know missionaries in other countries who have to do this as well.
Rick,
it’s called selective memory.
Remember, the bad fiscal policy of Bush is excusable, it’s only the end of the world when a Democrat perpetuates the crappy policies of the “man of God” President.
Somehow debt and stupid financial decisions don’t matter when you fight gay marriage and are pro-life.
but if you’re pro-gay and pro-choice, then your economic decisions are just heinous
Um, not to get sidetracked into politics at the moment, but I don’t believe the left or the right has any moral authority at all when talking about debt at the moment. Right now, the Democrat solution for too much debt load appears to be more debt… Maybe it’s the old “fight fire with fire” thinking…
yeah, that’s my point…
but, it seems that for some people certain things are excused if you’re pro-life.
Well, yeah, that’s what happens when you approval or disapproval of someone is boiled down to one single issue.
The ironic thing is that with any single issue like that, politicians realize this phenomenon and know that all they have to do is say the right thing. Their actions generally don’t end up meaning much…
Neil, I stumbled upon this link, fresh out today, that seems to outline the balance you’re talking of: Acts 29 Network
Hopefully it’s useful.
You can be hateful, caustic, judgmental, ungracious, self righteous, but if you are pro-life you are God’s noblest of creatures.
This isn’t necessarily related to that particular article, but I had a friend who was planting a church and looked into applying to be part of the Acts 29 Network. They basically rejected his application because he wasn’t a Calvinist. The application doesn’t outright ask if you’re a Calvinist, but it asks you to affirm things like “I believe Jesus died for the elect” (my friend wrote in “yes, if by ‘Elect’, you mean everyone”).
Goodness me… I am not an Acts 29 member and I’m not a Calvanist. If what you say is true, I would probably be rejected before any of you. Just thought it would be a helpful article in light of Neil’s question.
I am beginning to see very clearly where all the lines are drawn the more I hang out here. You have to be careful what colors you sport I guess (bloods & crypts reference). My bad.
Paul – You’re view on the Trinity would exclude you immediately; as well as you affiliation with Canada.
Blindly accepting the doctrinal line of the Catholic church is identical to blindly accepting American history as taught in elementary school. Politically motivated and a means of control (ever heard of Emperor Theodosius?)
No doubt I would be excluded – hence, I would never even apply.
I wasn’t saying that the link was all wrong or anything. It’s just that when you know some things about groups, it’s hard to take other things they say seriously.
Regarding the link, I’d say I have some questions for someone who starts off an argument saying “it is NEVER enough to address people’s felt needs”. For one thing, what happens if a person your helping rejects the message you’re trying to share with them? Do you cut the aid off?
I also simply don’t like the terminology of “it’s never enough” – that really make the focus on what we’re doing our works. The only one who can really tell us what’s “enough” is the Holy Spirit. We are to be obedient, and I think there may be sometimes when we need to give physical aid silently, and times when saying something is the right thing to do.
That is what I find void in many evangelist efforts. It’s as if we are willing to put our programs and plans ahead of obeying the Holy Spirit. When, really, that’s the only thing that matters.
Jesus does not need his face washed.
The mirror of His word tells the truth about us and gives us hope that we can be saved despite the fact the mirror demonstrates how very unholy we are.
What I meant to say earlier was that everything we need to know about Jesus is clearly taught in the Bible. I no longer thirst for salvation, for that water is permanent, yet as the deer pants after water, so my soul longs after God. I am satiated yet always thirsty for more of Him.
That said, there is much that is mystery that we will not see until we are glorified.
Rick, I give thanks everyday. Thanksgiving is just another day when I have a nice day with my family resting, relaxing, eating and watching football.
I also look forward to Black Friday. Thousands of people waiting in line just to be preached to, given hot chocolate, and handed tracts to read while they wait.
When I was in Mostar, Bosnia-Herzegovina, a Muslim man pointed to a nearby mountain on top of which was a huge cross. He said, they (Christian Croats and Serbs) put their guns on that hill and shelled our children.
Of course, I could just write this off as an enemy of the bride wanting to live in the enjoyment of his sin… but I cannot.
#139 – You know, John, sometimes I think you are a jerk, while other times your evangelistic fervor shames me.
Neil – last night I watched the gospel of John (excellent, by the way). The one that struck me that doesn’t jump out as much when you read is this:
The greatest hindrance to accepting Christ was Moses.
That could get you killed, even by Christians. But the point is that religion and Christ have always been and will always at odds.
This is why Jesus said that you don’t put new wine into old win skins. The old wine skins have crystallized and are not able to accept any deviation from what they’ve conjured to be right and true.
I’m not sure it’s the responsibility of Christians to apologize on behalf of religion and all that has been done in the name of Christ. It is our job to correct misconceptions, speak out and live out our faith as close to Christ as we can.
I’m sorry, but that’s just a ridiculous statement.
The reason the Jews rejected Christ is because they didn’t properly understand what the law was teaching them. Paul says that Christ fulfilled the law – meaning He was it’s climax, or what it was pointing to.
The Old Covenant wasn’t in conflict with the New, it’s just that it served a specific purpose for a specific time. The Law itself was a good thing. It was always the hearts of the Jewish that was the issue.
Phil – my comment seems to have gone over your head. A little trigger happy I see.
My point is that religion, crystallized and formalized, is at odds with faith, a living, breathing, vibrant relationship with God and man.
Notice in John that every single miracle Jesus does is at odds with the religious establishment’s view of what is right and proper. He heals a lame man and they get upset because he’s carrying his mat! He raises Lazarus and they want to kill Lazarus because people are turning to Christ. It is blindness. And only religion can afford this level of blindness.
On several occasions, the people swore up and down to be disciples of Moses (or children of Abraham), YET if Moses was alive they would have stoned him just as they wanted to stone Moses through the wilderness.
Today there is little doubt that if Jesus appeared today, he’d probably be crucified again by the Christian religious (on several sides).
Religion is deadly. Israel had the ability to outwardly embrace God (sacrifices, Temple attendance, Sabbath keeping, etc) while inwardly rejecting Him.
No, it’s not gone over my head. I don’t think “religion” is necessarily the problem. Religion is simply the set of liturgical and ritual observances that are laid out for people to observe. The Jews were actually commanded to observe these things. The problem was that these actions became disconnected from their hearts, and they were putting the cart before the horse. So instead of observing fasts, giving to the poor, etc. as a way to express love and gratitude to God, they became seen as a way to gain favor, keep insiders in, and outsiders out. The religious acts themselves were never the issue.
I would actually argue that the miracles were more specific prophetic acts harkening back to specific OT prophecies indicating the inauguration of the Kingdom.
Have it your way Phil.
It was specifically Jesus’ miracles that got the establishment up-in-arms. And what would you make of his taboo trip into Samaria (John 4)? He was sending a clear message that God is not interested in outward religious displays (which is really a clear message throughout the OT as well: Isaiah 1, Isaiah 58, Micah 6, etc).
This is what I mean by over your head… you’re arguing the same point I am making – but by accident. I agree with this.
To clarify. He could have just as easily healed the lame man (John 5) on another day instead of the Sabbath. Likewise the blind man in John 9. But he used their anger to teach a critical lesson about their hypocrisy and to demonstrate how their religious rules superseded what the Lord was really after.
“The greatest hindrance to accepting Christ was Moses.”
In fact, a legitimate observation. Jesus often said, “You have heard it said…but I say unto you” thereby contrasting Moses with Jesus. And the writer of Hebrews outines to the Hebrews the superiority of Christ over Moses.
Moses was a hinderance, and a misuse of him continues today.
No, the point is a Muslim man whose neighborhood was destroyed by Christians. Causing the need for other/true Christians to come in and clean up the mess, literally and figuratively, to wash the face of Jesus.
Neil, let me fix your statement in 149:
No, the point is a Muslim man whose neighborhood was destroyed by “professing” Christians.
Europe is probably the most glaring example of people doing evil in the name of Christ.
This is my point. Just putting a bike in the garage doesn’t make it car. Neither does a man carrying the banner of Christ make him a Christian. Religion vs true faith that actually, deeply and integrally changes lives.
Yes, but saying that Jesus is superior to Moses does not mean that He was at odds with him. I could say Einstein’s work surpassed Newton’s, but that does not mean that what Newton did was garbage.
On the Sermon on the Mount, when Jesus says, “You have heard it said…”, He isn’t contradicting Moses – He’s getting to the point that the Law could only be fulfilled through a renewed heart. He was not “tightening the screws”, as it were. He is making the point that from the get-go God desired His people’s hearts. Galatians 3 makes it clear that the law was not the cause of sin, but that it was given as a way to restrain it until Christ came.
The reason I am so adamant about this is that I think we need to be careful that we don’t present things as if Jesus was God’s “plan B”. God was working his plan of salvation since creation, and there were actually faithful people all throughout history who knew Him and were taking part in His plan through faith. Our choice is much the same.
PaulC.,
My comment did not need fixing, I made the distinction myself.
That said, #150 is as true as it is irrelevant. Whether it is true or only professing Christians who are smudging the face of Jesus – the fact remains.
#151 – The Jews, many to this day, place Moses over Jesus and are blind to the overall narrative. Even if deceived, it is still true. Of course Moses pointed to Jesus, but that still does not negate the fact that the Jews elevated him above Jesus.
The Jews accused Paul of teaching people that they did not have to obey Moses, which is true.
For people that claim the bible alone, some of you guys don’t stand on the word of God to well.
James 1:27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
All I’m doing is refuting Paul’s statement, “the greatest hindrance to accepting Christ was Moses.” That makes it sound like Moses himself was counter to Christ. That simply wasn’t the case. In essence, Moses was by his faith in God’s single salvation throughout history a Christ-follower.
#155 – Yes, but the Jews elevated him and made him a stumblingblock. I’m sure that was what Paul was saying.
Phil, why I say that you missed the point (twice) is that I clarified my statement (i thought adequately) that the people who were claiming Moses to be so grand would have been the same people who would have wanted to stone him.
Moses was not himself a hindrance at all and served God. you took my statement in isolation (which often happens when a person looks for picks).
The people had created their own religion that had departed from what God intended – outwardly keeping rules while inwardly as far from him in their hearts as ever.
Forgive me if I wasn’t so clear, but it appears others understood.
Actually, it goes beyond one’s stance on social issues.
Example:
And
I don’t know all that many conservative/libertarian Christians who cut Bush all that much slack for the orgy of spending, particularly from 2005-2008.
I remember something along these lines, but hey – I’m just a dumb layperson…
“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
Translation: I also look forward to Black Friday. It’s a day when I have a greater volume of folks to be an ass to, when the last thing they want to do is listen to my lips flap while I proclaim by my actions that God has a tin ear as it pertains to “love”…
Actually, for Jews, the greatest hindrance to accepting Christ was Christians – people who claimed Jesus as Messiah, but whose actions declared a rejection of God’s teaching…
Translation: I (Chris L) will either be sleeping or worshipping at the pagan god of materialism, so I do not care about the people who will be gathered outside the stores, so I break God’s commands about loving my neighbor as myself while I attack people who obey that command.
How nice, Chris. I suggest that you do whatever it is you call evangelism in line at the stores. People need the Lord, so be sure and speak about Him.
Actually, PB, I will most likely be a) with family part of the day (they will be in town, and I don’t see them very often); b) at a viewing (a friend of mine had a close family member die). Certainly it is less “efficient” witnessing via lifestyle and friendship, but discipleship is a 24/7 thing, and IIRC Jesus’ disciple-making was concentrated on 12 folks, even as he taught thousands.
Acting like an irrelevant ass (the kind that pointlessly shouts at spring-breakers that they’re going to hell, or plays bait-and-switch with Darwin) isn’t something I would call “obeying God’s command”… Certainly it strokes your ego, but it’s not something I’d call evangelism or ‘witnessing’. Just ‘chasing after the wind’…