Sugar-coating the Bread of Life

Sugar coating: originally a process in the food industry whereby sugar or syrup was applied in some fashion to the surface of a food product, making the product sweeter and thereby more delectable. Often used in conjunction with food that was less tasty or desirable in order to increase its consumption; e.g., the breakfast cereal industry, or as in the song in Mary Poppins.

Why would the salvation wrought by Christ need to be sugar-coated? In itself, of itself, it already promises knowing our Creator personally, living forever without disease, decay or death, and being free from doing stupid things we will rue but do regardless (among other things). Could there be a sweeter deal? Salvation is an absolute dream come true, but being a disciple of Christ comes at a cost even though it is truly free.

Salvation entails the saved acknowledging that they don't run the show and so they bow to the leadership of Jesus.

In this day where willfulness is celebrated and self is elevated, the temptation is to assume that most of the people we're trying to coax into the Kingdom of God won't buy into such an arrangement. So, repentance is soft-pedaled, sin and judgment is back-pedaled, and continuing on in life as it was with Jesus merely added is floor-pedaled. Can such a vitamin supplement approach to the gospel actually cleanse the conscience or ready the soul for a welcome in the age to come?

It's not those who call Jesus, "Lord" who are saved but those who actually do as he says.

Buying into the gospel means selling everything else we had before the gospel came into our lives and going full-bore after Jesus. Families may ostracize or desert us. Riches may have to be abandoned. Sexual pleasures will not be guaranteed to us. Just because we had a dream doesn't mean that God has that same dream for us or is bound to help us to achieve it. This the price of Jesus being Lord.

A gospel that doesn't stop us in our tracks is not going to get us on the right track.

I like toast with breakfast. As a kid, I particularly liked cinnamon toast. When mom made it, most of the sugary coating was shaken off back into the bowl. When I got my hands on it, I usually found a way to load those tasty slabs of cinnamon goodness with more sugary sweetness. If mom ever saw what I was doing she would never have stood for it, but then she cared about my health and wanted me to enjoy having teeth for the rest of my life. 

Making adjustments to the gospel makes what is adjusted no gospel at all. If we truly care for those we try to win with the gospel and want them to be whole throughout all eternity, we need to stick to the truth that sets sinners free. Coming to grips with who and what Jesus is and following him exclusively is food and drink indeed. If we want to feed the folk we preach to something that can nourish them eternally, we need to stop sugar-coating the Bread of Life, and start preaching Jesus as Lord straight up.

Communicating the Gospel

What does it take to communicate the Gospel? The message is rather simple: God came to earth in the form of a man named Jesus, lived sinlessly as that man, willingly accepted the weight of every other man's sins upon his own shoulders, died the death that was due that sin, and then rose from the dead on the third day thereby demonstrating that he'd overcome that sin and the death due it. To everyone that believes that good news and thereby embraces Jesus as Lord (and follows him), the victory over sin and death he achieved is shared with them.

Now a lot of effort has been and is made to analyse, criticize, synthesize and publicize what makes communication successful. That is particularly true in regard to the Gospel, because it accomplishes nothing if it's not shared. As would be expected in a venture that is so reliant on communication, the church world is up to its eyes in books, conferences, magazines, blogs, and courses on effective, relevant communication. Are those efforts misplaced? 

I find it remarkable that Jesus, our prime example, at the critical moment in extending his ministry, did not commission communicators to help him fulfill his vision. He neither relied on the instruction of experts in the field, nor enlisted those so instructed to do his bidding. Instead, gasp, he chose friends to help him, and not even well-spoken ones at that! That is counterintuitive at best, not at all what a wise leader should do--so why did Jesus do it?

Obviously, the quality of communication is not what converts sinners. Could it be that a church's true evangelistic success (that is on people actually becoming born again) depends more on whether or not Jesus has friends in that congregation than on how well that church markets its message? Is this not a Spirit thing after all? If his friends are not capable of communicating the gospel message with effect, and the onus seems to be on their bad technique, it may well be that it's not the gospel they are actually trying to communicate.

Let Me Take Your Order

... all things should be done decently and in order.  1 Corinthians 14:40 (ESV)

Today, I align the cross hairs of my hermeneutic scope squarely on the congregation-squelching, Spirit-emasculating, glory-blocking concept of order. Not order as the word envisions it, but all that which man puts in place in the name of order and which only serves to quench the Holy Spirit. That kind of thing is thought good in many quarters, while that which would let the Spirit move is called indecent. Good is called evil, and evil, i.e. that which is unscriptural, is called good-- what a state!

Are we that afraid to follow the Word and let the Spirit direct us?

What was the Apostle Paul calling for in this verse? Orders of Service? Lectionaries, liturgies, and canons? Does it serve as the excuse for minister-orchestrated meetings, for sergeants-at-arms  to enforce adherence, or emcees to keep the show moving? I don't think so, considering he's spent all of Chapter 12 establishing that a congregational meeting is about participation, not observation, and that more spontaneous than prepared.

Paul attempted to teach a middle road which allowed the fullest possibility of participation, without having the loudest or the strongest take over to everyone else's detriment. In other words, our services should be arranged (κατὰ τάξιν), so ordered, with full participation in view. Participation should be offered in good form (εὐσχημόνως), so decently. Ordered for participation done decently, that's what the Apostle was trying to convey.

Paul was not telling us to substitute the direction of our meetings by the presiding officer for the leading of the Holy Spirit in the congregation.

I'm beginning to wonder whether or not that is what we're most comfortable with. God in charge means mystery, uncertainty-- the possibilities that our hearts will be laid bare with no place to hide except in the love of Christ. We might not get out in time to get a table at our favorite restaurant! Along those lines: when the Holy Spirit moves into our meetings and takes our order, he isn't there to serve our appetites but to glorify Christ.