What Is Essential to 'The Message'?

From a JD Greear article at The Gospel Coalition:

"I want to say this to church leaders in America: Don't make it hard for Republicans or Democrats to find God. Don't make it hard for black or white seekers, or for brown or Asian seekers. Don't make it hard for police officers or for public-school teachers. Preach the whole counsel of God, but don't make it hard for anyone turning to God by encumbering the message with things not essential to the message."

I appreciate his call to 'not make it hard' for anyone based on some important aspect of who they are (their skin color, their job, etc). If a church is making it hard for someone based on something other than their human being-ness, they're doing it wrong.

It's that last line though, that kind of begs a question. "don't make it hard for anyone turning to God by encumbering the message with things not essential to the message."...what is essential to the message?

What Is Essential to the Message?

I love the places in Scripture where the imperatives are simple and direct. Micah 6:8 for example, "He has shown you, o mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." That is just two simple sentences, but it is packed with meaning and it's direct. Jesus makes several of those kinds of statements too:

John 5:

Jesus is in Jerusalem observing a Jewish festival and visits the pool called Bethesda. He comes across a man who has been paralyzed for 38 years. Jesus asks him, "Do you want to get well?" "Sir," the paralyzed man replied, "I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred. While I am trying to get in, someone else goes down ahead of me." Then Jesus says to the man, "Get up! Pick up your mat and walk." He is healed. Then an interesting follow up a few verses later..."Later Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, "See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you."

Let's Talk About Salvation

The topic of 'once saved, always saved' came up again recently in my world and it got me thinking. It made me wonder about the word 'salvation' itself...more specifically, what are we being saved from and what did an ancient Hebrew, or even a 1st century disciple of Jesus, think of when they thought of salvation?

Much of the messianic expectation that developed in the intertestamental period had to do with the messiah delivering the Jews from their oppressors (the Romans), as in a political or militaristic way. This was, in the end, one of the central reasons why many of the Jewish leaders rejected Jesus as messiah, because he didn't do one of the main things they were expecting a Messiah to do. If a messiah figure didn't do that, their logic goes, he wasn't the messiah. On this side of Jesus' death, we have the benefit of understanding what they could not see, both in the words of Jesus recorded in the Gospels, but also explicitly laid out by the writer of Hebrews who says, "so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin, but to save (or 'bring salvation to') those who are eagerly waiting for him." (Hebrew 9:28)

I want to share some of the insights I've read from others in attempting to understand the Hebrew/1st century understanding of salvation and then examine how that might be different from our modern understanding of it.

A Mob of Reasonable People

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - First Amendment, US Constitution

"He's [Charlie Kirk] been one of the most divisive, especially divisive younger figures in this, who is constantly pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups. And I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions. And I think this is the environment we are in. You can't stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place. And that's the unfortunate environment we are." -- Matthew Dowd, MSNBC, September 10th (he was fired later that day)

In the wake of Charlie Kirk's assassination, the 1st Amendment is back center-stage. Many people have lost their jobs because of public comments they've made on social media celebrating Kirk's murder, and are crying 'foul' as a result. They are saying that a 'right-wing mob' has come after them and are getting back on social media to tell the world why they think it's unjust that they've been fired from their employment. Some of them are saying that the 1st Amendment affords them the Right to say whatever they want. This is false.

It's Time for Social Media To Go

It's time for social media to go. I think at this point, we've run the experiment long enough to find out that what little benefit it provides is far out-weighed by its detriments. I don't know him very well but John Podhoretz had a fantastic thread on X (yes, I see the irony) discussing this very topic. He writes,

"Here's the danger of social media. It allows people to publish their internal monologues. Our internal monologues and fantasies are often incredibly ugly. People go to therapists because they feel so guilty about them, and one of the tasks of therapists is to explain that thoughts are not actions. You can rage in your thoughts about your brother, or someone at work, even fantasize about them dying -- but you have done nothing and are guilty of nothing, and you need to forgive yourself and learn how to calm yourself down. [...] Since 2007, people have a means of externalizing that interior monologue and this means something. A researcher at MIT saying, rather than thinking, "I really want to see that video of Charlie Kirk dying again because it works better than my anti-depressant" has become a public act. I see it. I am affected by it. This public discourse is too. My sense of how the world works and what people are really like undergoes a change. I become rageful, and believe people who think this way are evil. It's likely they are not. They just have a means of externalizing the parts of them that no one ever saw.

But another human tendency, the tendency to extrapolate from individual samples to the whole, kicks in as well I will assume that anyone and everyone like that MIT researcher is an enemy of everything good and is unsalvageable. In that way my world shrinks. The part of him that dehumanizes Charlie Kirk and turns his assassination into a joke then threatens to dehumanize me in a way. And seriously, before social media, I would never even know he existed, or that he thought what he thought, and that was better for him and me."

"Has become a public act". That's the part of social media that bothers me. If God had intended for us to communicate every idea we have come through our brains, He would have created us in a way where there is no gap between brain and mouth. Instead, He created with the ability to self-censor...to self-reflect...to NOT say everything little thing that comes to mind. I believe that's intentional. Afterall, scripture says, "Likewise, the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one's life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell." And also in Proverbs, "When words abound, transgression is inevitable, but the one who restrains his words is wise. What the righteous say is like the best silver, but what the wicked think is of little value."

I'm seriously considering deleting my social media (I really only use X/Twitter at this point) and would encourage everyone else to do the same. Not only does everyone not need to hear my thoughts (especially my more reactionary ones), but I also don't need to hear theirs. It'll be better for all involved.

A Prayer For Our Nation

Lord God, King of the Universe, my heart is broken. It's been broken, or cracked rather, but today's events highlight the evil that seeks to divide, kill and destroy. I pray for the United States of America and for its people. Lord I pray that you don't leave us to our own ways. I pray for believers throughout the Country, that in this dark hour, our boldness to share the hope that we have would increase and that your Holy Spirit would embolden us to reach across divisions of politics, race and gender to bring our focus back to your Son, who gave up his own life so that we could have nearness and eternal life with you.

I pray for Charlie's wife and his two precious children; be close with them in these coming days, weeks and months. Would your lovingkindness be shown to them in ways they have never yet experienced. I pray for peace in our nation. Lord - please help us!

Another School Shooting Tragedy

I wrote this SIX years ago and I feel like I could have written it today. Very little has changed and this morning's school shooting in Minnesota is only a reminder of that fact. This shooter targeted a Catholic School, as it seems others have in recent memory (the shooting at The Covenant School in Nashville in 2023 comes to mind). It is becoming increasingly obvious that the demonic is at work - we label it "mental illness" here in modern times, but when you read the manifestos and watch the videos that these shooters create, 'mental illness' doesn't quite seem to fully explain it.

One thing that has changed is how quickly our society picks up on the same old tired arguments after these tragedies. It used to be that it took a week for those arguments to start, now they start immediately. Ban guns! This is the NRAs fault! Blah. Blah. Blah. According to Everytown for Gun Safety's 2024 report, Minnesota ranks 14th in the nation for the strength of it's gun laws. They have red flag laws, they require background checks for all gun sales, then even have laws requiring the guns be safely stored and kept away from children, and also laws that ban possession for those who have been involuntarily committed and/or have been found to be a danger to themselves or others. In other words, common sense legislation exists in Minnesota, and yet this still happened.

Banning guns is not a feasible solution. There are too many guns and the legal fight you would get if someone were to try and ban guns would last decades. So there has to be other things we could do, and that's what I spent some time talking about in this post from six years ago. It's counter-intuitive, but we need to stop covering these crimes on TV and social media. It is infamy that most of these school-shooters are after, and if there's no infamy to be had, we remove one of the primary motivators of these crimes. It may be too late even for this approach - but one thing is clear: what we've been doing, isn't working.

It's Not Guns - It's the Template

An Emotional Jesus

I had an interesting back-and-forth on X/Twitter recently and it inspired a blog post. It was an exchange around a criticism that someone expressed about The Chosen portraying a Jesus that was 'overly emotional'. Here is their criticism in their own words (aimed at The Chosen series):

"The crucifixion of Christ is not a cinematic experience meant to stir emotions, it's the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes (Rom. 1:16). It's not a moment for dramatized sorrow or performative grief. He died, was buried, and rose, defeating death and bringing eternal life. We're not meant to weep like spectators, we're called to believe and proclaim the Gospel. Emotionalism doesn't equal faith. Truth does."

Starting with what I agree with - yes, emotionalism doesn't equal faith and yes, we are certainly called to believe and proclaim the Gospel in response to what Jesus has guaranteed and secured for us on the Cross (the forgiveness of sins and eternal life)...but to suggest that emotion is not involved at any point in the story of Jesus, to me, is absurd. Not only was Jesus an emotional person but I believe the writers of the New Testament were, at least in part, engaging their own emotions when conveying the life and deeds of Jesus AND asking us, the readers, to engage ours.

An Imperfect Show

I talk about this show all the time - I think it's a wonderful show. Is it flawless? No. Do I disagree with some of their theology? Yes. Do I think they are portraying heresy? No. If I thought that I wouldn't watch, much less have my kids watch it, and I also wouldn't recommend it to anyone else. I will say - their depiction of Jesus is a little over-the-top emotional for me, but I also recognize that the New Testament gospels portrays Jesus as a man with a lot of emotions: sorrow, frustration, joy, anger, sadness, and compassion...all emotions which Matthew, Mark, Luke and John record for us to read ourselves. In keeping with that, The Chosen's portrayal of Jesus in the series is a character with a wide variety of emotions.