Charity Promotion Becomes Surprisingly Thorough Analogy for Responses to the Gospel

At my work, we have a promotion where people can make a small donation to a charity, and receive an item to present at any future purchase for the rest of the year and receive a free food item with their purchase. Some of the responses have struck me as really lacking, as far as good excuses go, and after enough of these, it provoked me to analogize these excuses to people's rejections of the Gospel.

There are three categories. Some people have no 'promo item' and don't want one. Others don't, and do. Others have them, and either want more or don't want more. These represent, metaphorically, rejection of the Gospel, acceptance of the Gospel--and thereby salvation, and acceptance or refusal of ongoing sanctification by the Holy Spirit.

The free item represents salvation, the small donation represents the cost of repentance and submission to Christ, and the further donations represent sanctification and deeper intimacy with God.

Rejection of the Gospel

-- no, I'm suspicious of the word "free." Nothing's really free. (this person doesn't understand the nature of a free gift, thinks there's something he has to do for it, and can't appreciate the gift)

--no, I'm suspicious of charity donations I don't choose myself. (this person thinks religion is personal and doesn't appreciate the absolute truth of divine revelation. He's inclined to pick a religion that feels right to him, rather than the true Gospel)

--no, I'd rather not incur the cost (this person doesn't want to give up whatever's standing in between them and their salvation--sin)

--we don't really come here that often/don't have [Restaurant] near where we live (this person can't see how a relationship with God will benefit them, so they're not interested. They're selfish. They see some benefit, but want more than they expect to get.)

--I don't really eat those (related to the above one. This person doesn't see any benefit at all, because the benefit he wants is contrary to the gift that he's offered)

--I got one of those before but never used it/lost it. (this person 'tried religion,' and it didn't work for him, so he figured it was worthless)

--I've already donated on my own time (religious. Thinks he's done enough work and deserves his reward without the cost of repentance)

--not today, another time (this person wants to keep on sinning, and thinks they'll have time later on to repent)

--I don't have the money with me (this person wants the reward, but thinks that there's other things in their life that distract them, that they think they need to be concerned with, more than salvation)

--good sales pitch, but no thanks (this person inexplicably refuses even though he clearly understands the offer and sees the benefit of it)

Salvation

--well, it's for a good cause

--yes, anything for that charity!

--free for a whole [time span]? (appealing benefit: eternity)

--for just such-and-such a price? (appealing benefit: low personal cost)

--sure. 

--(smile) sure. (based on sales presentation)

Responses to Sanctification

--I already have one (person doesn't understand that sanctification is a continual process and they're never done growing)

--I have one with me, but I don't want to use it (why wouldn't you want God to sanctify you?)

--I have one, let me use it now (person responds willingly to discipline or other sanctification)

--I do have one, and let me get another (person gladly looks forward to the refining fire of sanctification)

--yes, I got one last promotional season, and let me get another this time

--let me get several, to give to my kids or grandkids


I think minimal interpretation makes most sense; everybody can draw the most out of reading this by considering it with their own mind.

~ Rak Chazak

A Parable: History Channel Does a Reagan Documentary

Imagine that I'm a movie producer.

I really love president Ronald Reagan. I want to honor his contribution to American politics and to the world by filming a dramatic documentary featuring him. It's going to cover his personal life, his journey to the White House, the events of his presidency, and finally end with his death and funeral.

So I set about doing research so that I'll do my best job representing Reagan as who he was. First, I need to consult historical experts. I decide to ask the governments of Russia and Iran for their historical analysis of his contributions. Furthermore, I interview Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama, for their insight into the presidency. I go to other famous documentary filmmakers such as Michael Moore and Oliver Stone to see what I can learn from them. Naturally, I consult with Matt Damon, Ricky Gervais and George Clooney, whom I might consider inviting to play a key acting role in the film.

Now that I'm ready to film, I decide that the best location would be Johannesburg, South Africa. I film exclusively there. While there, one of our crewmembers gets shot in the butt, since South Africa has the world's highest violent crime rate--2,000 per 100,000. We interpret this as a miraculous occasion, since Reagan was also shot by someone but survived.

While filming, we present Reagan as a transgendered Japanese orphan growing up in a cardboard-and-sheet-metal "house" in the slums outside the city. He was forced to become a member of an underground boxing ring to earn money to feed his family. One day he meets the King of France, Genghis Khan, who takes him back to Brazil in his rocket ship to be his personal servant. Reagan grows and learns to maneuver through Brazilian politics, and eventually becomes a successful leader of a drug cartel. This is how he eventually gets to America. Reagan then becomes elected to the White House, and while president, invades Russia and nukes Iran. Minor details, it's called artistic license. Get over it. Eventually Reagan leaves the white house and dies by getting shot by a Tea Party maniac wielding an AR-15 while he was attending a pro-Obama rally during the 2012 election campaign.

Wait, wait, wait, you say. You've got all the details wrong. This isn't the real Reagan. Sure, he was president of the US, but all the facts are wrong. Who he is, where he came from, what he did and why he did it. Everything is changed in your movie.

But my supporters respond by saying, well, shouldn't you be happy that at least someone had the nerve to do a documentary about Reagan in the first place? Think of all the people that could become Republicans as a result!


It's like that with History Channel's The Bible.  It's the Bible in name only, but all the details are wrong. Which Jesus do you follow? The one who came to "change the world," or the one who came to SAVE the world?

~ Rak Chazak