Pimping Jesus: consumerism and the red-light gospel

[ageofknowledge]

http://www.outofur.com/archives/2006/03 ... sus_c.html

Jesus' image can now be found on every imaginable commodity from t-shirts to poker chips. But has our material culture made Jesus' invitation to "new life" itself into a consumable product? Jonathan Yarboro, a church planter from Boone, North Carolina, explores the influence of consumerism on our understanding of the gospel and conversion.

I was standing before 200 people at church when I said it: "Salvation is not a walk down the aisle, a prayer, and wham bam, thank you ma'am, you're done." Jaws dropped; some faces turned white; some turned red. I was clueless, so I just kept teaching. It turns out that the phrase, "wham bam, thank you ma'am," meant something different to me than it did to the rest of the world. Afterward some of my listeners enlightened me. I was embarrassed. I didn't intend to equate one's conversion experience to some sort of sexual encounter in the red light district.

Over the last few years, I have pondered the statement, and despite the fact that I originally meant nothing so profound, I believe the statement to be true - we are tempted to turn conversion into something of an act of prostitution. We are the consumers, and we might as well say it - we've turned Jesus' invitation into a seductive, greasy, trick-turning lifestyle. Doesn't that make your blood boil?

The Bible, especially the Old Testament (see Hosea), is full of prostitution language. But don't make the mistake of thinking that I am calling the Jesus of the Bible, the Jesus who ate and drank with sinners, the Jesus who was executed on a Roman cross, and the Jesus who rose on the third day, a whore. There is another Jesus, one we have created, who is a seductive, slick-talking, trick-turning object of our self-pleasure. This is the Jesus that I, along with countless others, assumed I'd met when I was 14 years old. But it was only a wham bam, thank you ma'am gospel.

When you get past the initial response of derogatory disgust, the phrase can shed light on how our consumerist culture has even changed how we think about the gospel. We have changed the life-changing act of introducing people to the real Jesus into an act of prostitution.

We've all seen it numerous times. The guy walks into your worship gathering. His life is falling apart. He has no meaningful relationships. He has given his life to foreign substances. He is in touch with nothing good. He comes to your community because he has nowhere else to go. He is looking for something. He begins to reveal the horrible hell he has been living through. He knows his life is going nowhere, and that's when we speak up.

"Say this prayer and you'll be saved." He may continue to live in hell, but at least he won't die in hell. He can't believe it's so simple. He can't believe it's so quick. He jumps at the opportunity. He says the prayer/incantation and walks out thinking his life is transformed. Wham bam, thank you ma'am, he's done. Everyone feels better. He's finally gotten his big break, and you've just brought another one into the Kingdom. Or have you? What if you just sold him a false gospel? What if the reason he couldn't believe it was so simple and quick was because it's not? What if you just pimped out Jesus, a false Jesus that you brought out to provide a quick answer?

Prostitutes fulfill a need. It's a primal need. It's not something that we've made up. They are a solid, sure answer to a real longing. The customer wants sex; the prostitute gives sex. The wham bam, thank you ma'am gospel does the same thing. Someone comes with a real longing: a new life of forgiveness, belonging, purpose, absolution, strength, or sympathy. We pimp out a fake Jesus to meet the need. The problem is that it is the wrong answer.

There is an underlying need for intimacy behind the need for sex, and the need for intimacy can't be met with a casual, impersonal romp. There has to be something more. Specifically, there has to be relationship and commitment. A prostitute doesn't want intimacy, she wants you to give her the cash, and get back to your life. The wham bam, thank you ma'am gospel wants the same thing. Make your confession, say your prayer, and maybe pay some dues, then get back to your life.

While we've been pimping out the gospel, the real Jesus is weeping because he wants a lifelong relationship that includes joy, forgiveness, brokenness, hardship, and intimacy.

When I was 14, I had a need - I was afraid of spending eternity in hell. So, I paid my dues, I recited the prayer, but I was essentially just paying for a service--a service of self-protection. It wasn't a real relationship. It was the Jesus created by a gospel of consumerism. The real Jesus isn't so cheap. He will not accept a one-time payment for his services or cater to my consumer needs. He makes real demands, and he wants nothing less than an eternal relationship. The red lights have no more allure now that I've found the real Jesus - the Jesus who has called me into his eternal Kingdom.

[B. W.]

This kind preaching does well as it shakes people up and out of apathy...

Much of the Gospel has been waterdown. We must recall that we have been purchased out of sin and now have a choice to either live in sin or be free from it. As the NIV says in Titus - We can say NO to sin...

It is not all come to Christ and you are done - there is a walk ahead. Churches should be helping with that walk ahead and how to say No to sin and live the 1 John 1:9 way in a way that sets a believer free from what is enslaving them. We were brought at a price - let's not be found pimping the gospel...

I like to tell people: Do you believe - know for certian - that Christ is more than able to keep you saved (delivered, free, rescued)?

As is your faith so be it...
-
-
-

[Jac3510]

Why must people assume that whever they don't see progressive sanctification, there must have been no justification? Amazingly, such people never stop to apply the same standard to themselves, for if they did, they would see either of the only two possible conclusions are despairing: 1) I would believe that my progressive sanctification is "up to snuff," showing just how terrifyingly arrogant and completely unaware I am of my own sin (cf. Lk 18:11-12); or 2) I would see the absolute desparation of my lack of progressive sanctification, given Christ's standard, and be forced to conclude that I myself have not been justified, either.

Yet no one does this. No one judges themselves by the same standard they judge others. And therein lies the real problem. They want a Jesus who demands--and exacts--from everyone but themselves. "he wanted to justify himself, so he asked . . ." (Lk 10:29)

[ageofknowledge]

Excellent comments guys. I was just trying to get my mind around this article to be honest. I can see what the author is saying and it makes sense to me but how to quantify it further? Your insights help quantify this article. I'm kind of struggling with some of this at my new church. They really stress an intimate life long spiritual relationship with Christ and I'm kind of an analytical so tend to sit in the back and critically process everything while everyone else rushes forward seeking more of Jesus. I'm a Christian allright but still have questions and haven't got over a couple of intellectual humps yet. I tend to want things my own way. I value healing over prophecy and deliverance and purity over tongues. I find it hard to push in for those gifts when I value the practical more. As long as God doesn't lose patience with me and helps me over these humps I think I'll eventually get over them but it may take time. You each get an applause for your responses. Thank you.

[B. W.]

Well said Jac,

I do not think Age or myself is saying what you seem to be implying —

How should one handle the biblical injunctions of Titus 2:11, 12 and Titus 3:4, 5, 6, 7, 8?

Or 2 Timothy 2:22, 1 Timothy 6:11, 2 Corinthians 13:4, 5 as well as 1 John 1:8, 9, 10?

What happens after ones becomes Born Again because they first believed?

Much of what is passed on in modern American Christendom is platitudes. No gospel specifics are given — only gospel platitudes. Please understand, I do not teach that a gospel of works is needed to stay saved but rather — do you believe that Christ Jesus will keep you saved, rescued, delivered?

From this, a person who does not die prematurely seconds after believing, but like the rest of us live years afterwards, cannot live on platitudes alone — we need to know what to do and expect during our personal Christian thing…

That is what seems to be conveyed here — the specifics: Like - How it is by God's Grace we can say NO to sin and live free from bondage. If a person does not want too — that is between them and God alone. Jesus came to set the captives free as he stated in John 8. The Apostles all wrote and challenged and provoked people to new heights with Christ — why cannot we? Why do we settle for platitudes?

I make no bones about teaching people that they can be free from sin — one sin at a time — that they can say NO to Sin and can Live free because they first believed! My God, who's Spirit did Christ give with us? Do we have power or not over the things that enslave us? Can we, given the time of learning imposed upon us by the Holy Ghost, shed our sins — one sin at a time or not?

This has nothing to do with first believing. All I can ask - is what was first believed? We all have sin in our lives and Christ is at work in us — cleaning us up and teaching us many diverse things in an omni-personal way to each individual believer in Christ preparing and shaping into our lives a new character and nature in us. I do not teach sinless perfectionism and works to stay saved.

Sure you can come to Christ and remain a slave to sin. Your life will be miserable and eventually I bet such a person will walk away from Christ as the bible teaches. Why this so - by being always force-fed platitudes instead of the pure milk and steak of God's word.

I have seen so few having the guts to declare the Good news that Christ can indeed set you from what enslaves you (Thank God for those that have the nerve). It may and can indeed take time and many lessons of learning till you surrender ones enslavement in exchange for the freedom God has. From this, you learn faith in the grace in which you stand.

Let us draw on Christ and have His courage to declare His Good News — not mindless human centered platitudes that appeases one be certain of being bound to sin's enslavements, addictions, with no hope of any overcoming and no living freedom from any this side of eternity and expect to enter heaven. At a certian time, there are sheep and goats that will stand before the Lord. Let's provoke and challenge the sheep to refuse to be platitudically feed goats.

God's grace does teach us specifics. It is his grace alone that leads us to His throne…

Baaaa (sheep noise in the back ground) Baaaa
-
-
-

[Echoside]

I see a lot of what that article talks about on campus almost every day. Some people say they have accepted Christ or converted, but as stated it looks to me that it was just a "quick fix" to their problems. I cant help but feel that after making such a life-changing decision someone would try to act differently than the sinful, average college guy behavior that seems to surround big universities like this. Works may not necessarily cause a person to be saved, but when they are absent in a Christian's life I cant help but wonder if they simply received a "wham bam, thank you ma'am gospel" and haven't truly considered what it means to live a life in Jesus' footsteps.

[Jac3510]

I was responding to the article, BW--not you or AoK. Much of what you say I agree with. We should teach that people are free from their sins. For the record, I don't think people can live up to that freedom unless they KNOW that they are eternally secure. Anything less leads to a terrified sort of obedience in which one is always trying to please an unpleasable God. But I digress . . .

So we agree here. My point then, as now, is that these kinds of articles are dangerously close to the very Pharisaicalism Jesus condemned in that they judge others by a standard by which they refuse to judge themselves. I reject any notion that we can judge a person's salvation (including our own) based merely on actions or even attitudes. If they were, then all of us would fail that test, as I'm sure you completely agree. Those who believed they passed the test would be showing their own arrogance.

I thank God that the offer of salvation is as free as free can possibly be. I am grateful that Jesus places NO demands, contrary to the author, on a man if he were to be saved beyond to simply place his trust in Him. The life after that? The free life to which you refer? That's another story. That's a matter of discipleship and walking by faith on a daily basis. I simply wish that people would stop confusing issues of sanctification with those of justification. And with that, again, I'm sure you and I are in complete agreement.

[ageofknowledge]

Paul emphasized in II Corinthians 8:1—2, how the grace of God that was bestowed on the churches in Macedonia resulted in their generosity. Then he challenged the Corinthians, “God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work” (II Corinthians 9:8). Peter urged the believers to “grow in grace” (II Peter 3:18).

Jac's correct that being a Pharisee is out. But B.W.'s right that growing in grace is in. Scripture is clear that working out your own salvation isn't done in bars with a drink in hand, gambling on sporting events, while smoking a blunt and engaging in sexual immorality just as it isn't done by judging everyone who does these things (their deeds are already judged just as your own are).

This article makes a strong point. As Echoside pointed out, whom do you serve? Choosing God, as Joshua declared, is supposed to challenge the convert, in fact every Christian, to cut off everything that is not what God wants for us; not just become comfortable in it because now we don't have to worry about the spiritual consequences of doing evil.

But as B.W. pointed out, this is a life-long process for most. So grace abounds. But let's be clear. Scripture teaches that choosing God is not like choosing what you want to eat for breakfast and then having something different for dinner. I'll have morning scripture with a side of prayer and for dinner wine and fornication or a bottle of Wild Turkey and four hours of internet porn.

Does God's grace cover the Christian caught in these things? Yes. Jac is right about that. But B.W.'s right in that this very grace provides the space for Godly conviction to do it's work on a heart born again leading them out of their sin toward an ever more sanctified life. It certainly has worked that way for me over time.

I read this article and see the author asserting that the Christian life is much more than a "wham, bam, thank you Ma'am" decision but a complete change of direction toward God in Christ. To me, the author isn't saying stop asking people if they want to accept Christ but encouraging the church to go beyond that and disciple, educate, and bring the new convert into the Christian community faciliating transformation toward the image of Christ.

Personally, I can say with an open heart that I would have saved myself a lot of trouble and been a lot farther along sooner if someone had walked me through a Christian life-changing 12 step program when I first got saved rather than saying that's it you're in.

[Jac3510]

the Christian life is much more than a "wham, bam, thank you Ma'am"

This is 100% true. All I am saying is that we should not confuse "the Christian life" with "being saved" as this author borders on doing. AGAIN, I 100% agree that there should be a change in our lives and that we are both free and expected to do so. My objection is not with the intent of the article. Good and theologically pure intentions all the way! My objection is with the very real possibility that all of this talk about living the Christian life can get read into what a person must do to be saved. The author implies that if a person has a "wam, bam, thank you ma'am" relationship with Jesus, then they are not saved. THAT is what I object to. Such a person MAY NOT be saved, but they MAY be as well. What we should all be able to agree on is that Jesus expects a lot MORE than such a "relationship." He wants our total lives. THAT is what He saved us for. THAT is what He wants from us. THAT is what will make us happy, because THAT is what we were created for.

[B. W.]

I was responding to the article, BW--not you or AoK. Much of what you say I agree with. We should teach that people are free from their sins. For the record, I don't think people can live up to that freedom unless they KNOW that they are eternally secure. Anything less leads to a terrified sort of obedience in which one is always trying to please an unpleasable God. But I digress . . .

So we agree here. My point then, as now, is that these kinds of articles are dangerously close to the very Pharisaicalism Jesus condemned in that they judge others by a standard by which they refuse to judge themselves. I reject any notion that we can judge a person's salvation (including our own) based merely on actions or even attitudes. If they were, then all of us would fail that test, as I'm sure you completely agree. Those who believed they passed the test would be showing their own arrogance.

I thank God that the offer of salvation is as free as free can possibly be. I am grateful that Jesus places NO demands, contrary to the author, on a man if he were to be saved beyond to simply place his trust in Him. The life after that? The free life to which you refer? That's another story. That's a matter of discipleship and walking by faith on a daily basis. I simply wish that people would stop confusing issues of sanctification with those of justification. And with that, again, I'm sure you and I are in complete agreement.

Yes we agree and I did not want to sound like I was impugning you jac either (sorry if I came across like that) and you are correct - people cannot live up to that freedom unless they KNOW that they are eternally secure.

That is what the verb from of believe consist of…
-
-
-

[cslewislover]

I see a lot of what that article talks about on campus almost every day. Some people say they have accepted Christ or converted, but as stated it looks to me that it was just a "quick fix" to their problems. I cant help but feel that after making such a life-changing decision someone would try to act differently than the sinful, average college guy behavior that seems to surround big universities like this. Works may not necessarily cause a person to be saved, but when they are absent in a Christian's life I cant help but wonder if they simply received a "wham bam, thank you ma'am gospel" and haven't truly considered what it means to live a life in Jesus' footsteps.

Yeah, I was just reading 1 Peter. In chapter 4, he says:

1Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because he who has suffered in his body is done with sin. 2As a result, he does not live the rest of his earthly life for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God. 3For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. 4They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation, and they heap abuse on you. 5But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. 6For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.

Here, Peter says that our behavior will be observably different from the pagan culture around us (and we may be despised for it, or worse). Not to say that we still aren't saved when we do things wrong - that will happen - but rather that we will generally live for God's will.

[Jac3510]

Peter says that our behavior will be observably different from the pagan culture around us

"Will" or "should"?

You do go on to note that Christians, in fact, can live like everyone else, at least at times. So how do we distinguish between someone "generally" living according to God's will and someone who is just backslidden? On the other hand, it does seem to me very easy to distinguish between one who is living according to God's will and who isn't . . . if we take it as "should" rather than "will", yes?

[B. W.]

Peter says that our behavior will be observably different from the pagan culture around us

"Will" or "should"?

You do go on to note that Christians, in fact, can live like everyone else, at least at times. So how do we distinguish between someone "generally" living according to God's will and someone who is just backslidden? On the other hand, it does seem to me very easy to distinguish between one who is living according to God's will and who isn't . . . if we take it as "should" rather than "will", yes?

How does 1 Peter chapter 4, say to "distinguish between one who is living according to God's will and who isn't?"

1 Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because he who has suffered in his body is done with sin. 2 As a result, he does not live the rest of his earthly life for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God. 3 For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. 4 They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation, and they heap abuse on you. 5 But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. 6 For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.

Also how does Paul answer this say in Romans Chapter 8?

Romans 8:5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

Romans chapter 6 as well...

Then there is John 8:31, 32
-
-
-

[Jac3510]

Hey, way to take me out of context, BW!

Look again at what I said:

So how do we distinguish between someone "GENERALLY" living according to God's will and someone who is just backslidden?

THAT is the question that I don't think can be answered. But the part YOU quoted and answered was this:

On the other hand, IT DOES SEEM TO ME VERY EASY to distinguish between one who is living according to God's will and who isn't

But funny that you left out the part I put in caps . . .

Obviously, both Peter and the texts you mention do the very easy task of distinguishing between who is living according to God's will and who isn't. I'm very OBVIOUSLY not disputing that. My words were very clear. Those texts do not, however, distinguish between one who is, to use CSLL's word, "generally" living according to God's will rather than those who are merely backslidden. That goes back to my "will" vs. "should" question.

I know you don't like to me taken out of context, my friend. I appreciate the same courtesy.

[B. W.]

Ah no Jac - don't missunderstand me - this is Philosophical Discussions thread so I was opening up the discussion on what other people may think about what CSLewislover stated about 1 Peter by comparing to other other scriptures and then see where the discussion goes from here my friend - that is all

Since this is a Philosophical Discussion - how would you tell the difference?

-

Hey, way to take me out of context, BW!

Look again at what I said:

So how do we distinguish between someone "GENERALLY" living according to God's will and someone who is just backslidden?

THAT is the question that I don't think can be answered. But the part YOU quoted and answered was this:

On the other hand, IT DOES SEEM TO ME VERY EASY to distinguish between one who is living according to God's will and who isn't

But funny that you left out the part I put in caps . . .

Obviously, both Peter and the texts you mention do the very easy task of distinguishing between who is living according to God's will and who isn't. I'm very OBVIOUSLY not disputing that. My words were very clear. Those texts do not, however, distinguish between one who is, to use CSLL's word, "generally" living according to God's will rather than those who are merely backslidden. That goes back to my "will" vs. "should" question.

I know you don't like to me taken out of context, my friend. I appreciate the same courtesy.