Skip to main content
I'm angry today. Have you seen these Scientology commercials? "You're not your fears, you're not your failures..." Or something like, "Everyone feels that void they can't explain...and it can only be filled by one thing: the truth." Do you know why I'm angry? Two reasons:

1. They're effective; and

2. They use "evangelical-speak."

Watch one; you'll see that it's hard to disagree with any of the sentiments in them. Of course, Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6) so that's infuriating. This all says to me that we evangelicals need to stop evangelizing in the manner where feelings are the primary measurement of spiritual need. Or spiritual anything. Because if the language of feelings can be so easily co-opted as we see here, we might convince someone [Crap, it's on again!] of his need, but we won't persuade anyone in terms of the objective Kingdom reality wrought by God in Jesus Christ. I suppose it's somewhat of a fine line; if you don't connect at all subjectively, noone will trust you.
But it brings home the reality of the need for first principles, natural law, and reason. All Christians want to insist that we don't do "church" so that we simply have the means to make it through life. But that's what all this therapeutic, feelings-based preaching has done. Do we know that we have made scores of people vulnerable to appeals like what Scientology is making, because our presentations of "the gospel" are either entirely composed of subjective practical appeals, or spiritualized appeals to feelings, which yields the same result. One doesn't realize it's a Scientology commercial until the end, when it gives the web address. Suppose you didn't know Scientology was a weird, New Age-y cult. For all you know, "scientology.com" is the website for the megachurch down the street! It may be a rant for another day, but apparently, "outreach" is so important that we're too cool to put "Jesus Christ" in the name of our church. We wouldn't want to scare the "seekers" away, after all! Quick, someone make sure that guy gets a latte before he goes in the sanctuary! (Now, if the Lord leads you to serve coffee for people at your church, I'm not against it per se.) Forget it, it's a top 5 list:

5 Reasons I Hate Being An American Evangelical

5. We come into worship talking about a mighty, holy God, but we try to make the whole experience as comfortable and normal as possible.

4. Jesus offended people for their sake, but we can't do that. I mean, what if they leave?!

3. Sure, worship is about God, but if the dude on piano or guitar does a killer amazing job, we have to applaud, right?! It'd be too hard to encourage him after we're done worshipping. See "Children in Worship" also.

2. Other Christians are misguided brothers with wrong theology, never mind that 85 percent of us don't know our church's theology. Catholics of course are Pharisees and idolaters. Right?!

1. We wouldn't want to do the sacraments, er, I mean ordinances, too often. We wouldn't want people getting totally lost in worshipping Christ or anything. After all, everyone with half a brain knows they're just symbols, right? Right?!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...