reference to “Jerk Essays”

I want to clarify again, what my intent is with the Jerk Essays.  They are only my rough around the edges thoughts.  They are conversations that I believe many people want to have but won’t go there because they will sound like a jerk.  So I have taken the liberty to do just that.  They are unrefined and maybe anti climatic, but hey, iron sharpens iron.

So here is a preview of possible contents:

If you have been around well meaning evangelical Christians, you may of heard the phrase “Take up your cross!”  I really wonder if those who say it, or try to, really understand what that means.  I know many who have said it to me, myself included, and really mean to say, “just get over yourself!”  If that is what you really want to say and wrap up in a serious statement that Jesus said, we are doing a great dis-service to the potency of that statement.  I have also heard it used to counsel someone to get over a self-control issue, like quit smoking, or don’t believe that, or act a certain way, etc. etc.  Once again, I think that is a misuse of the statement.  I do think those who say it mean well, but I am not so convinced that those sentiments are at the heart of that statement Jesus told his disciples.

Gospel Credibility…

How do we make the Gosple credible to a post-modern world? In the last post, I ventured into what is the Good News and wondered if it includes a culture beyond “coming to Jesus for Salvation only.” It does… to kill the suspense of the question. Jesus always paralleled the good news with a kingdom. That kingdom is political because it deals with a new people residing in a earthly realm, that kingdom has different values and morals, and the people of that kingdom are all considered to be ambassadors of the King. To live out, to proclaim, and to administer the good news, which that King (Jesus) did thousands of years ago. So, this begs the question, why isn’t Jesus’ Gospel credible anymore? I think this is a bad question to ask. Maybe it is better to ask, why doesn’t the church/Christians prove that the gospel is credible anymore? Or maybe we should be thinking how to make the post-modern world credible to the Gospel?

Within the good news of the Kingdom of God, a culture is formed. The sad news of this fact, only two types of cultures can be developed: The authentic culture of the Good News or man’s implied interpretations of Jesus’ good news. It doesn’t take much to see that is the later that is observed more than Kingdom culture. This is why the Gospel has little credibility to influence change in society for the better. This is why the church is slowly dying of a selfish disease and more and more people are getting a sour taste in their mouths about Christianity. The church has lost its influential voice in America (also in the main 1/3 of the world), and I’m willing to bet it is because we have adopted our own interpretations of Jesus’ Gospel (this is not a profound opinion, it is an obvious fact).

What Gospel…

What is meant when we say “Gospel”? “Oh yes! it is God’s good news for us poor sinners.” “Jesus died so that you may live.” “You need to give your life over to Jesus, confess your sins, and then live for Him.” Is this all there is? Not to sound too cold. Did God send His one and only beloved Son, to come down to earth to simply die so that we can then live for Him (whatever that really means…could this be the answer?). Does this limit the good news? Can the news only then be good if you confess your sins and then live for Him? Is it that conditional? I think that people need to look at again at the four letters that were passed on to us that show the Life of God in Jesus in order to understand the full Gospel, the why to coming to earth.

In most fundamental or evangelical churches today, the Gospel is usually presented in a half-watered down version. What I mean by this is that they explain the means for salvation and stop there. That is Good News! Do not get me wrong. But it is only half of the Good News. Every now and then, you will hear or read a message about the other half, but it slowly fades into a rumor (a debateable one if that). What is the other half?

Tension

It is a silent distinction that runs through our churches that segregate people. The most damaging segregation that occurs is that between the church and those outside the church. These distinctions are so audibly silent. Doctrine. Politics. Traditions. All are necessary. All are excellent. All appear to be a necessary evil. Can a church survive without doctrine? Can a church survive without being on the left or being on the right. Is being on the right right? Is being on the left evil? What traditions are excellent and right? Do they matter? Why do they exist? Where do some originate? Are the things that are coming to the surface only youthful rebellion in the church (emerging vs. emergent)? Why do fundamental churches clash so violently against the liberal churches? It is doctrine. It is politics. It is traditions.

My heart aches over this situation. I look at the American church as it presently stands and it breaks my heart. This tension exists. Are you a conservative or a liberal. From here many would then peg you as a Christian or a non-Christian even if you say you are one. It is more the political. I just watched a video of a lady (soon to be on this blog) blasting the emerging movement because it tends to be lead by Calvinist’s (a specific church doctrine). It was a very intolerant message. I look at the Full Gospel that Jesus gave us and these distinctions never came into being. In fact, He never spent anytime on them. Why? Because it brings in segregation…the whose in and whose out mentality. Can a woman who has had an abortion be a Christian? Can a homosexual be a Christian. Can a Calvinist be a Christian? Can an Arminian be a Christian? Can a democrate or a republican be a Christian? When we ponder these ridiculous questions we quickly form the distinctions of whose in and whose out?