One of the great conversations that I had while passing out free water at Gasparilla was with two couples who asked me why I was giving water in the first place.  Whenever people asked, I took it as an invitation to share the concept of God's no-strings-attached love and the way I believe God desires to show people His kindness.

In a tongue-in-cheek sort of way I said, "If Jesus were here today, I guarantee He would be out giving away water!"  One of the guys had a quick and witty response: "No, Jesus would be turning it into wine."  That little give and take was all we needed to chip away the awkwardness of a stranger with a canvas bag of water bottles over his shoulder.  "So what denomination are you from?" was the next question.  I tried to explain, but neither of the denominations that we're associated with are large or well-known enough for these people to have any frame of reference.  So the next question was, "So do you believe in 'born again' stuff?" 

As soon as I said that we did the other guy piped up.  "Oh, so you're against beer!"  Isn't it funny how people immediately associate Christians with what they stand against?  These people had already decided (or maybe it had been decided for them) that they don't fit in with those "born again" people.  I surprised myself with my answer to his exclamation.  I have been meditating on what I said ever since because it was totally spontaneous and un-premeditated.  My conclusion up this point is that it was Spirit-inspired, but I have not put it to a full "scholarly test" yet.  I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

My response went something like this:  Jesus had basically two messages as He traveled the earth.  The first message was to the religious crowd, and He told them to change the way they think and to change the way they treat people (repent).  His message to the rest of the non-religious world was essentially, "Hey, God is not really like all these religious people say He is."  So I feel like the church people around today have, for the most part, confused Jesus' messages.  Church people today try to convince everyone that they are the only ones who know what God is like and that everyone else needs to change  to fit the image they have created for Him.

From my original audience of the two couples on their way to Gasparilla, this drew the greatest line of the day.  One of the young ladies said, "See, now that makes me almost not want to hate you."  I laughed out loud!  "Well, as long as people almost don't hate me, I'll feel like this was a successful day."

But I knew exactly what she meant.  What I just said to them was about as contrary as anything could possibly be to the message they had come to expect from Christians.  I'm not certain, but I think I'm on to something important here.  To whom was Jesus' message of, "Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand" directed?  It's difficult to tell in the context of Matthew 4 where we first see it, but I think a pretty good case can be made for applying it to the already-religious.  Think of it in terms of the famous repentance passage from the Old Testament, 2 Chronicles 7:14.  "If My people, who are called by My Name..."  I also think about it based on Peter's repentance message of Acts 3.  That message was definitely directed to a religious crowd outside of Solomon's Porch.

I'm certainly not saying that "the rest of the world" doesn't need repentance.  I am saying that it doesn't seem to be Jesus' style to rub their faces in it.  How about the "Woman at the Well," from John 4.  Jesus could not have been more direct with her, but He never even insinuated that she should change her ways.  He just let her know, that He knew.  And what about Romans 2:4?  Paul's rhetorical question, "Is it not the kindness of God that leads a person to repentance?"  Or Ephesians 2, when Paul is specifically referring to our lives "before Christ" and explaining the way salvation appeared to us.  In verse 7, he says that it was God's plan to reveal grace to us through the kindness of Jesus Christ.

There is clearly a lot more work to be done in order to flesh this thought out, but I think it is worthy of investigation.  Has the church taken a completely wrong tack in trying to bring change to the last several generations?  Why else would people immediately associate us with what we stand against when our Lord and Savior was actually accused of being a drunkard and a glutton because of the people He was around the parties He attended?