There are no two words in the English language more incongruous than "celebrity" and "pastor," but as we all know, these are very incongruous times. One of the latest red carpet-trotting "celebrity pastors," Rich Wilkerson, was just profiled here on TheBlaze.

[mattwalsh-social-instory]

Pastor Rich is a young guy who dresses in skinny pants and deep v-neck tees, poses for photo ops, takes Instagram selfies with Justin Bieber, and shies away from "controversial" subjects like gay marriage and abortion, because, as he explains, he wants people to like him. Pastor Rich brags of being "great friends" with Kanye West, and even officiated his wedding a few years ago.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with befriending a sinner -- we're all sinners, to be sure -- but maybe a pastor ought to exercise some prudence. It might be wise to avoid creating scandal among your flock by publicly hobnobbing with a blasphemous egomaniac who claims to be God and made his fortune rapping about getting high and having sex with hookers. But Pastor Rich is super cool, and super cool people are supposed to hang out with famous rappers. Remember, a good Christian must always be awesome, fun, and trendy, no matter what. As Jesus proclaimed, "The only rule in life is have fun, don't be boring, and dress cute wherever you go."

Screengrab

Sorry I think that was actually Paris Hilton. It can be easy to get those two confused, depending on which church you attend.

The preview for his new reality show (of course) intersperses clips of Pastor Rich cavorting on the beach with his scantily clad wife with footage of him shouting self-help cliches -- "Nothing will be impossible!.. We're gonna do life together!" -- to a mosh pit of cheering fans at a rock festival. Er, I mean, a congregation of Christian disciples at "church." At one point, Rich reveals to the viewing audience his insightful pastoral motto: "I don't think people are interested in a bunch of religion -- like, yo, tell me what I can and can't do -- but I think people are interested in a relationship with a higher power. " In the article, he explains that the Gospel does not demand "behavior modification." Because, yo, we shouldn't have to, like, modify our behavior or, like, you know, do stuff. Just remember that old Christian saying, yo: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." Sorry I think that's actually the official slogan of Satanism. Again, some churches make it easy to conflate the two.

Unfortunately, the heresy Rich represents is not in the least unique to him. After all, Rich is just like any of the countless Christian apostates who profess a particularly comfortable, stylish, hip, fun perversion of the faith. [sharequote align="center"]Churches increasingly cater to Christians who hate Christianity but still want to be "spiritual." [/sharequote] These days, churches increasingly cater to Christians who hate Christianity but still want to be "spiritual." These people desire the feeling of fulfillment and purpose found in devout religious practice without any of the actual practice, nor for that matter the doctrines, teachings, constraints, discipline, obedience, observance, challenges, commandments, suffering, or sacrifice. They want the appearance of the dish but none of the ingredients whatsoever. What they end up with, then, is a meal similar to the kind my 2-year-old daughter serves after she's "made dinner" in her Fisher-Price kitchenette: a colorful plate filled with plastic fruit and imagination. I think the phrase "personal relationship with Jesus" (or "a higher power," as Pastor Rich so fashionably put it) has been especially useful to the practitioners of Plastic Fruit Christianity. Now don't get me wrong, although the saying appears nowhere in the Bible, there is a deep and important truth to it. Yes we should desire an intimate connection with Our Lord, we should know that He loves us each individually, and we should recognize and give thanks that He died for all of our sins. We should develop a "personal relationship" in that we should be affected and changed personally by Christ. We should come, personally, to believe in Him and follow Him. Our Lord himself is "personal" in the sense that he is not detached from the world. He is not a Lord who sits off at a distance, nor is He some kind of pantheistic, amorphous blob of energy composed of all of the elements of the universe, like a Kabbalist or Buddhist or Joel Osteen might talk about. So, yes, Jesus is "personal" and we must come to know Him, love Him, and serve Him personally. But if we're using "personal" in this context, it's redundant. Of course we have to love and follow Jesus personally. Of course loving Jesus isn't a cumulative task where each member of the world contributes a percentage. We must, individually and personally, believe in Christ and obey his commandments. Definitely. This is self-evident. Photo credit: Shutterstock But this "personal relationship with Jesus" thing is very often applied like Pastor Rich and other trendy Christians apply it: as a means to strip the faith of its moral demands and reduce it down to anemic ambiguity. When many people speak of a Personal Jesus, what they really desire is an Adjustable Jesus. They want to be disciples on their own terms; to calibrate their religion to a more relaxing, luxurious setting; to throw out the difficult, challenging aspects of Belief and put something customized and convenient in its place. When these folks say "my personal relationship with Jesus," all that really registers is the "my." Their "personal relationship with Jesus" is only individualistic, rejecting the imperative communal dimension of faith (Ephesians 4:16). They keep it contained only in their heart, but they ignore the necessity of the church, which is Christ's body (1 Corinthians 12:27). They render their faith dormant, but it should be a light for the Earth (Acts 13:47). I am not suggesting you should have no "personal relationship with Jesus," I'm just saying that nearly every Christian who wishes to justify their dormant, hidden, individualistic, private, convenient, customized, contained "faith"; nearly every Christian who wants to find an excuse not to go to church; nearly every Christian who wants to pretend their faith should have no bearing on their lifestyle or their sexual habits; nearly every Christian who wishes to minimize the moral characteristic of their religion, utilizes that catchphrase in doing so. In any case, the real direct heresy proposed by Wilkerson and myriad others is that the Gospel has no message of "behavior modification," and that Christianity should be a Faith that appeals to people who "don't want to be told what they can and can't do." This is by far the most popular modern revision of Christian doctrine, and it couldn't be further removed from the Gospel itself.

It's true that the Bible is not merely an instruction manual like some kind of spiritual IKEA assembly guide. And it's true that we can't just do good things, acquire Salvation Tokens, and cash them in for a ticket to heaven. Clearly, it doesn't work that way. We cannot earn salvation through our own merits, and whoever says otherwise is repeating a retro heresy called Pelagianism, which was condemned about 1600 years ago.

We are saved by God's grace, not by giving to charity and holding the door for strangers. Salvation is a gift given by God and ultimately accepted through faith. We cannot bargain for or purchase it. Christ already paid the price on the cross. But if we are to truly accept the gift of salvation, then we must have faith, and our faith must be living, vibrant, active, and functional. It cannot be just an emotion felt or a refrain repeated. I think this is the part many of these trendy, comfortable churches miss.