Almost 2 weeks ago, Jefferson Bethke posted a video on YouTube in which he confronted the self-righteous and proclaimed Jesus and his life-changing grace.
And sixteen million people listened.
The response was absolutely staggering--and strangely alarming.
Millions took to their blogs, Twitter accounts and Facebook. Among them so did the Christians. And sides formed very rapidly.
Outspoken Christian leaders were quickly and publicly critical of Bethke, his poem, his words, even his motivation. Even in my small Christian community present on Facebook, the majority of comments were surprisingly negative.
Outspoken Christian leaders were quickly and publicly critical of Bethke, his poem, his words, even his motivation. Even in my small Christian community present on Facebook, the majority of comments were surprisingly negative.
The only saving grace in what ensued, strangely enough, was Bethke’s own response to it all. He was thankful, humble, teachable, willing to listen, and not at all quick to defend. In fact, he didn’t.
In less than 2 weeks, roughly 16.5 million people watched his video. Several major news networks ran his story, and some even aired his video. Chalk up on another couple million viewers. (CBS’s Morning Show alone captured some 2.75 million viewers last week according to Neilsen’s ratings, can you guess how many of them were watching today’s interview with Jefferson Bethke?)
Here’s the point. Semantics aside, Jefferson Bethke proclaimed the good news about Jesus--that Jesus, alone, saves sinners. That Jesus loves sinners. I mean, read his conclusion for yourself:
It seemed clear to me that this was Bethke’s heart. He seemed to yearn for people to come face to face with the real Jesus, and not just a an imitation. And listening to him talk about Jesus in the ensuing spotlight proved as much.
Before you criticize, stop and think about the implications. Some 18 million people heard the Good News about the real Jesus--the one that transforms sinners. (I know, there were some points blurry and missing altogether for many theologians, but examine Paul’s sermon in Acts 16:31 and note all of the soteriology also missing from his Spirit-filled effectual proclamation of the Gospel.)
With God at work, I am confident there were a few out there who heard about Jesus and repented. And how mind-blowing is that!
But many people didn’t. Many more reacted. Many attacked. (And some perhaps shouldn't have)
If words were stones, this guy would have been killed on the spot. Oddly, it might have been fitting--uh, historically, that is. (c.f. John the Baptist, Jesus, Stephen, and Martin Luther--to mention a few) That’s how religious people responded to those who opposed them thousands of years ago. Is today any different? At least today we merely blog about them instead of stoning them.
Sadly, many devout, orthodox Christians were among them. Many whom I respect.
But why?
Here’s my question: Was this reaction beneficial?
Pastor Kevin DeYoung, was your reaction beneficial? Laura Ortberg Turner, was your reaction beneficial?
I mean, the corrupt news anchor on a cable news network was “moved” while the orthodox theologians were “angry.” Sound familiar? Recall Jonah, pouting outside Nineveh quite angrily, all because God unorthodoxly pardoned the wicked, vile heathens. Recall the religious dinner guests of Jesus who were so put off because 1) a slut openly washed Jesus’ feet with the tears of her repentance, and 2) she was forgiven.
Paul the Apostle has words for the church that seem to connect to how the church should respond to prophets, prophecies, and those who would preach Jesus.
Take a listen:
James, who also mentions religion in his letter, also added this:
And finally, to only highlight one more of many others, here's John:
I’m not prooftexting my point. I’m simply asking if perhaps we should have reacted a little more beneficially. There are so many important things worth defending to the death. But then there’s those things that aren’t--and especially not when the other person actually agrees with you.
In less than 2 weeks, roughly 16.5 million people watched his video. Several major news networks ran his story, and some even aired his video. Chalk up on another couple million viewers. (CBS’s Morning Show alone captured some 2.75 million viewers last week according to Neilsen’s ratings, can you guess how many of them were watching today’s interview with Jefferson Bethke?)
Here’s the point. Semantics aside, Jefferson Bethke proclaimed the good news about Jesus--that Jesus, alone, saves sinners. That Jesus loves sinners. I mean, read his conclusion for yourself:
Because he took the crown of thorns, and the blood dripped down his face
He took what we all deserved, I guess that's why you call it grace
And while being murdered he yelled
"Father forgive them they know not what they do."
Because when he was dangling on that cross, he was thinking of you
And he absorbed all of your sin, and buried it in the tomb
Which is why I'm kneeling at the cross, saying come on there's room
So for religion, no I hate it, in fact I literally resent it
Because when Jesus said it is finished, I believe he meant it
It seemed clear to me that this was Bethke’s heart. He seemed to yearn for people to come face to face with the real Jesus, and not just a an imitation. And listening to him talk about Jesus in the ensuing spotlight proved as much.
Before you criticize, stop and think about the implications. Some 18 million people heard the Good News about the real Jesus--the one that transforms sinners. (I know, there were some points blurry and missing altogether for many theologians, but examine Paul’s sermon in Acts 16:31 and note all of the soteriology also missing from his Spirit-filled effectual proclamation of the Gospel.)
With God at work, I am confident there were a few out there who heard about Jesus and repented. And how mind-blowing is that!
But many people didn’t. Many more reacted. Many attacked. (And some perhaps shouldn't have)
If words were stones, this guy would have been killed on the spot. Oddly, it might have been fitting--uh, historically, that is. (c.f. John the Baptist, Jesus, Stephen, and Martin Luther--to mention a few) That’s how religious people responded to those who opposed them thousands of years ago. Is today any different? At least today we merely blog about them instead of stoning them.
Sadly, many devout, orthodox Christians were among them. Many whom I respect.
But why?
I mean that.
Why?
Why?
To prove what? To prove there’s merit to being religious, sorta kinda? Okay, but really? To defend that Jesus was relgious, and we should be to? Huh? To defend that Christianity really is a religion? To defend that we must keep the law? (I really hope not!) To defend the faith? Against a brother?
Here’s my question: Was this reaction beneficial?
Pastor Kevin DeYoung, was your reaction beneficial? Laura Ortberg Turner, was your reaction beneficial?
I mean, the corrupt news anchor on a cable news network was “moved” while the orthodox theologians were “angry.” Sound familiar? Recall Jonah, pouting outside Nineveh quite angrily, all because God unorthodoxly pardoned the wicked, vile heathens. Recall the religious dinner guests of Jesus who were so put off because 1) a slut openly washed Jesus’ feet with the tears of her repentance, and 2) she was forgiven.
Paul the Apostle has words for the church that seem to connect to how the church should respond to prophets, prophecies, and those who would preach Jesus.
Take a listen:
“Give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. 19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not despise prophecies, 21 but test everything; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil.” (2 Thessalonians 5:18-22)
James, who also mentions religion in his letter, also added this:
“Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; 20 for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God. 21 Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.” (James 1:19-21)
And finally, to only highlight one more of many others, here's John:
“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. 4 Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. 5 They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. 6 We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” (1 John 4:1-6)
I’m not prooftexting my point. I’m simply asking if perhaps we should have reacted a little more beneficially. There are so many important things worth defending to the death. But then there’s those things that aren’t--and especially not when the other person actually agrees with you.
So, could God prophetically and gloriously use this willing, fallible, chief-of-sinners in this video (e.g. earthquake) to expose people to the Good News about his Son Jesus?
Have you asked Him to?
Some Resources:
Have you asked Him to?
Some Resources:
- “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus”
- Jefferson Bethke's Twitter feed
- Jefferson Bethke's blog
- Jesus Was Religious
- “Does Jesus Hate Religion? Kinda, Sorta, Not Really”
- 'Why I Hate Religion But Love Jesus’: To Adore or Abhor?
- CBS Morning Show: Bethke Interview
- Four Lessons I Learned from Jefferson Bethke, the "Why I Hate Religion but Love Jesus" Guy
- The "I Hate Religion but Love Jesus" Guy Answers 5 Tough Questions
No comments:
Post a Comment