Modern Evangelization: "Bait-and-Switch," or just "Bait"?

[fide]

I previously posted on modern programs for evangelization - questioning if any are Marian (that is, including Mary as “intrinsic to Christian worship” as in Catechism #971).

I’m wondering now if any are really faithful to the truth of the Gospel as proclaimed by Jesus and the early Church - or are they like the “bait-and-switch” salesmen who advertise a product for XX dollars (a very low cost) but when you go to buy, you discover that “no, that item is out, but look at this”: an item that is much much more expensive.

Much of modern evangelization that I hear these days is summed up with this: “God really really loves you, and He really really wants to just shower you with gifts and blessings and happiness!”

What I don’t hear, is the necessity of the Cross.
The necessity of denying oneself and taking up that cross.
Or the blessedness of suffering for the sake of Christ.
Or the blessedness of persecution, and the rejection by men, and the incompatibility of serving God with the servitude of Mammon/this world.

Is anyone selling what Jesus preached? Which of necessity includes:

Luk 6:20-26 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
"Blessed are you that hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. "Blessed are you that weep now, for you shall laugh.
"Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, on account of the Son of man!
Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets.
"But woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation.
"Woe to you that are full now, for you shall hunger. "Woe to you that laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep.
"Woe to you, when all men speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.

 

[BartholomewB]

Your observation reminds me of the opening paragraph of Edwin Hatch’s last book, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church.

It is impossible for anyone, whether he be a student of history or no, to fail to notice a difference of both form and content between the Sermon on the Mount and the Nicene Creed. The Sermon on the Mount is the promulgation of a new law of conduct; it assumes beliefs rather than formulates them; the theological conceptions which underlie it belong to the ethical rather than the speculative side of theology; metaphysics are wholly absent. The Nicene Creed is a statement partly of historical facts and partly of dogmatic inferences; the metaphysical terms which it contains would probably have been unintelligible to the first disciples; ethics have no place in it.

https://archive.org/details/influenceofgreek00hatc/page/n27

 

[fide]

Thank you BartholomewB - concerning Dr. Hatch’s perceptions, which are interesting and inviting of more time, but my immediate concern is (to borrow a phrase from the above), there is “a difference of both form and content between the Sermon on the Mount and” sermons in the churches and teaching sessions on how-to-evangelize today. Both the Sermon on the Mount and modern sermons and teachings “assume beliefs” - but what beliefs? Whose beliefs?

The verbalized foundational sense of reality is important - I don’t depreciate creeds. Creeds can be received in ways dangerous to those truths they seek to formulate and state, however: they can be interpreted and understood in a natural way, and not in the supernatural way that those truths by essence require. But that is another issue, another thread.