The Church Meeting in Jesus’ Name
602 Oak Knoll Dr.
San Antonio, TX 78228
Epistle
January 2025
2025 Event Calendar
JANUARY 17 & 18
- México Pastors’ meeting in Leon, GTO
APRIL 4-13
- Revival Meeting with David Spurgeon
APRIL 26
- Women’s Meeting
JUNE 16 – 20
- Vacation Bible School
JULY 20 – 27
- Mission Conference
OCTOBER 18
- Men’s Meeting
NOVEMBER 30
- Thanksgiving Sunday – Dinner on the Grounds
Take Up The Cross
21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. Mark 10
The person Jesus said this to is known to us as the “rich, young ruler.” All three synoptic gospels mention his wealth, but only Matthew describes him as young, and only Luke calls him a ruler. Mark skips these details, but includes some details about the interchange the others omit. I should point out, multiple records of the same event often provide fodder for skeptics to counter the inerrancy claim of believers, and apparently this feeds their disdain of the Bible. Of course, most differences between accounts, like these, are insignificant, and easily reconciled. But skeptics who gleefully point to discrepancies between them to make their case for unbelief should really consider the value of multiple accounts of the same event. First, if the discrepancy discovered in multiple accounts relates to an insignificant aspect of the event being described, it is insignificant by definition. The pettiness of the constant gotcha reaction ought to give skeptics pause. Another point, multiple accounts are confirmation of every detail they agree on. This makes the account more reliable, not less. And finally, even where there is a real disagreement, even a skeptic should recognize that one of the two accounts is likely accurate, and an alternate account provides real-time error correction, so that the joint account is accurate. Even a skeptic should realize that a discrepancy doesn’t prove any error in the Bible taken comprehensively. Nevertheless, I don’t give in to the temptation to doubt what any text says, simply because over the centuries hundreds of these cases have been proven to be simply a lack of understanding, and some previously unknown fact now uncovered confirmed the Bible correct in both cases.
There is clearly no contradiction here. Matthew remembered him as young and was unimpressed with his credentials. Luke’s source remembered his importance and didn’t see the relevance of his age. And then we have Mark. Perhaps Mark was an actual eyewitness of many of these events, very young perhaps, but among the followers of Jesus. One evidence of this is his eye for detail. Mark, God bless him, often remember details in the stories the others forget. Here Mark says Jesus “loved him.” Surely if Jesus had told the others that he loved this young man they wouldn’t have omitted that. So how could Mark know Jesus loved him? Did he detect some tenderness in his voice at that point in the conversation? Did he see something others missed? Apparently. Mark noticed, and remembered, and it seemed relevant when he recounted what he knew. Jesus loved a young man who trusted his own wealth more than he should have.
But that brings me to my point in this text. I don’t mean Christ’s pointed demand of him to sell his riches and give it away for treasure in heaven. That was a specific rendering of the gospel to someone whose weaknesses Jesus knew. He loved and trusted his wealth. And Jesus was not willing to take him until he was ready to give that up. But I don’t think that demand would apply to day-laborers, nor most people who heard the gospel in that day, because they weren’t rich. However Mark remembers also that Jesus demanded he take up the cross to follow him. While Matthew and Luke didn’t even remember the demand of the cross, Mark relates it as the culminating point. And it is presented as an integral demand of the gospel.
Now Jesus demands his followers take up his cross several times, usually in the context of discipleship. Perhaps that can be understood as a demand for a higher level of service. But here it is clearly a distinguishing demand of receiving eternal life. Jesus specifically demanded this man not trust in his wealth, nor love his wealth more than eternal life. But he adds the demand that he must take up the cross, if he truly wants eternal life. And when the young man saddened, Jesus didn’t waver. No exception. This young man wanted eternal life. Jesus had the power to give it to him. But Jesus didn’t make it easy for him.
Now, one thing that I can’t help but notice is that the gospel is preached in our day somewhat differently. In fact, the most common expression of the gospel is that there is no cost to it at all. Just believe. Just accept the gift. Just ask for it. There is good reason to express it like this. Many religions demand personal righteousness as the cost of salvation, or at least some pathetic substitute for true righteousness. Such is “works salvation,” zealots going about to establish their own righteousness, and not submitting to the imputed righteousness of Christ, given by faith. The apostle Paul declares the gospel to be free, all of grace, not by the law, only by faith, and not by works we do. And so gummy is the faith plus works gospel that the true gospel must be distinguished by emphasizing the free grace of God, and the gift of eternal life. Nonetheless, according to Jesus the free gift of grace comes with a cross. The gospel repudiates works as merit, but it should never be presented without an accounting of the cost.
27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.
28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?
33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14
I believe faith in the Bible requires that we square these principles of the gospel with each other, or we risk preaching an inaccurate or incomplete gospel. It appears that preachers intentionally avoid mentioning any cost associated with conversion to Christ, ostensibly to be faithful to the grace principle, but possibly also to make it easier to “win a soul.” But this leaves people to assume there are no losses, only benefits. The fact that the gospel costs us our earthly lives in exchange for a heavenly life is ignored. This no cost gospel has left our culture saturated with “Christians” who have no evidence of having taken upon themselves anything reminiscent of a cross. Not a hint of genuine remorse, no ownership of failure, and no sense of responsibility to follow Christ’s standards. One example I noticed recently, in 2024 the top earner on the UK based subscription website OnlyFans was a soft-porn content creator, who baldly claims to be a “Christian!” I wonder what she thinks taking up the cross means?
So what does Jesus mean when he demands we take up the cross in order to obtain eternal life? A medieval monk might surmise that it means we must suffer in this life to merit mercy in the next. History is full of examples of people trying to deserve eternal life by harming themselves. They consider the sufferings of Christ to be an example for us to follow, and thereby make ourselves worthy of God’s love. I’ve seen devout Catholics in Mexico literally crucify themselves, nails and all, in an attempt to please God, and accumulate merits. But the cross of Christ is presented in the Bible as a finished, effective work, accomplished for us, not by us. Our crucifixion is with Christ, not in addition to Christ.
14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. Galatians 6
20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; Colossians 1
Several points should be made on this score. First, the cross wasn’t primarily about suffering. The point of the cross was death. It was capital punishment. If these self-immolating zealots truly want to obey the command, they would have to go the distance. If they survive the ordeal, they failed.
Second, the suffering and death of the cross is imposed by someone else, not by ourselves. We aren’t expected to orchestrate our own crucifixion. That leaves us in complete control. There is no injustice suffered. There is none of the indignity of being under the control of someone who hates you. No self-flagellation is comparable to persecution, nor is it taking up the cross.
Third, unnecessary, self-imposed suffering, as creative and astonishing as we can make it, has no value, not on earth, and not in heaven. It doesn’t pay for sins, doesn’t make us humbler, more worthy, more noble or wiser. There is no benefit to God, mankind or self. It is a gross distortion of what Christ did for us. Jesus didn’t demand we take up the cross to create a merit system of self-imposed suffering. He suffered instead of us. He was wounded for our transgressions. By his stripes we are healed.
So I think this pointed and consistent demand of the gospel to take up the cross, that Jesus mentioned many times, is three-fold, and must include an Exhange of Values, True Conversion, and Total Commitment.
In the first place, taking up the cross in this context means valuing eternal life more than this life we are living. Taking up the cross is esteeming the reproach of Christ in this life, and the praise of Christ in the next. In our Christianized cultural mediocrity the reproach of Christ is softened. There seems to be little cost to becoming a Christian. But historically, and even now in the rest of the world, this has not been the case. Adopting the faith of Christ in Muslim, Hindu or Communist cultures entails a real value choice. And there is no way to ease anyone into it. The gospel is stark.
Taking up the cross also means genuine conversion to Christ’s way of thinking. His world view is outlined in the sermon on the mount from the “beatitudes” and the disdain of “mammon,” even to the preference for cutting off your hand rather than losing your soul. Your earthly ambitions and fleshly opinions must die, crucified with Christ, and you must convert to his way of life. If you don’t experience this change of mind, you haven’t taken up the cross, and you should probably examine your faith.
And thirdly, taking up the cross means all-in commitment to Jesus. This kind of commitment includes public confession of Christ, and translates into public baptism, self-examination and confession of sin, going to church, reading your Bible, praying regularly, in short, a fanatical personal belief in him. He described it once as taking his yoke upon us, nothing less than being securely joined to him both publicly and privately. This is the demand of taking up the cross. It’s his cross. It’s going to the cross with him. Total, unambiguous, decisive acceptance of Jesus and all he is. Anything less is less than necessary.
We can’t accurately evaluate all the seemingly half-hearted conversions that have happened over these centuries in our world. Perhaps some are genuine. But many may be wishful thinking. I can’t determine whether someone truly belongs to Jesus Christ or not. But you can for yourself. And you should. The result of an incomplete gospel are incomplete decisions. Jesus mentions some who “anon with joy receive the word, but have not root” in themselves. The tragic result of preachers offering the gospel without any mention of the cross is thousands of empty people oblivious to their possibly imminent destruction. These may not be “lukewarm” Christians. They may not be Christians at all. If becoming a Christian means changing their lifestyle, their language, their friends and their habits, they may not be willing to pray that prayer. And they would be better off. Because they would know where they stand.