Is this over the line?

The only description Paul used was "in power and demonstartion of the Spirit". These words you refer to above are the adhoc of modern terminology that nowhere in the Bible will you find these describing preaching.

Why is it you ask a question and it's stated that you already know the answer? Is it a "trap"?

 

But nobody's talking about doing that. That is excatly what programs are that differentiate from the true account, Jesus never dressed as a clown on the Cross. It gives the false impression He did to the little minds that know no difference.

I don't think that's necessarily true.

"Uncle Tom's Cabin", "The Grapes of Wrath", and several of Charles Dickens' works had major impact on the social climate of their times because they made people see things in a different light, one that they could understand. Of course it is, besides, I read those two "classics" that fail to give the full perspective to the theme they were to represent.

I don't see how you can equate the two. Of course you don't, you fail to see things from the proper perspective. You throw out holiness and invite in every antic and mechanism of the world for the sake of entertaining people to attempt to get the gospel across. It's the same reasoning that proves what I'm saying to why the people flock in to see the singing group, then most leave when the preaching starts, all they want is entertainment, money, prestige, popularity.

Or maybe they're laughing at us because God is dropping opportunities in our lap and we scoff at them. No, they laugh us top scorn because they know so many are bringing in their methods of entertainment. God chose the "foolishness" of preaching to save them which believe, not gimmicks that please the crowds looking for entertainment and the chance to entertain. I don't have any problem with those programs that clearly relate the Gospel, but to use a clown to demonstrate Christ? Get REAL!

But when someone does try to carry out th Great Commision, you condemn them becasue they're not doing it the way you think they should. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't. Oh, yeah? And if I preach the Gospel as demonstrated by Jesus Christ Himself, you'll "damn" me for not accepting every other way you approve. Follow Christ's example, sir. Follow the world's example if you wish.

Do you believe that Christians can make art simply for the sake of making art?

What is the responsibiliy of a Christian artist to incorprate the gospel into his art? Just as it is the responsibility of anyone to incorporate the Gospel, TRUTH!

Why would it be a bad thing to have a Christian alternative to MTV? </font>[/QUOTE]The closest I've ever seen would have to be "The Gospel Singing Jubilee". But to use the antics as the "MTV" crowd would be yoking up with belial, sir.

 

And God was never a sheep farmer with two sons, one of whom ran off to the city and wound up a bum. This didn't stop Jesus from telling the story of the prodigal son in order to illustrate the gospel.

People aren't nearly as stupid as you assume.

You're missing the point.

No, I fail to see them through your perspective and it tears you up to know that there are others who's ideas are valid, too.

Not at all. I'm all for holiness. I just happen to believe that holiness, grace and spreading the gospel in a culturally relevant way are not mutally exclusive.

I was involved in CCM for several years and never saw this happen.

I disagree. I think they laugh at you Luddites out there.

Why not a clown?

Brilliant rubuttal.

Not at all.

I try to. I would suggest the same to you.

So then, Christian artists can use their art to sare the gospel, so long as it's not entertaining or innovative?

[qb]

Which is why I specifically said "a Christian alternative".

 

""I was involved in CCM for several years and never saw this happen.""

Since you incorporate insult into you "rhetoric" I'll not lower myself to do the same. You have only proven that you are not so departed from the dilluded thinking of the CCM crowd. By the way, I'm not the Luddite you so quickly label me as. I'm an old time Christian, sir, something you know very little about. I'd rather be an old time Christian than anything I know, or DON'T KNOW!

 

Okay, I'm excessively tired today, so please forgive me for not reading through the two pages of posts on this thread and only addressing the opener.

I don't like the idea of my Lord being portrayed as a clown. I've seen the movie Godspell, and it was good for the time period in which it was produced. But I didn't see it in church, I saw it on T.V....and entirely different thing IMO.

Molly, I think that portraying God with Us and his deciples as a clown is inappropriate and personal offensive to me.

I understand that the gospel was adhered to, but I think that a clown of all things doesn't lend itself to respect for the awesomeness that is God. IMO

In Christ,
Laurenda

P.S. as far as what I would think was appropriate, I haven't been offended by anything in my church yet, as far as illustrations go. So, I really don't know how to answer this honestly. ( so tired, sorry)

 

I beg to differ. What member among us has never turned from God the Father and wallowed in the pig pen, eating the filth of this world?

 

Paul is talking about the proclamation of the gospel. This is done by all believers. I didn't mean to imply that someone has to stand behind the pulpit for this (although that is certainly the prescribed method during corporate worship according to the pastoral epistles).

I don't think any style of preaching is what he was talking about. He was talking about both the message and how it is delivered.

Btw, I was specifically talking about the God-ordained/sanctioned method that is clearly taught and indicated.

 

I'm not sure I see what was insulting about that.

Thank you.

I don't know about old time or contemporary. I just follow Jesus.

 

But He's not being portrayed as a clown. Like I said, there's a world of difference between portraying Him as a clown and using clown imagery to tell the gospel story.

Why?

Very little about Jesus' life did.

 

You're missing the point.

The argument is that Godspell is inappropriate because Jesus was not a clown. Jesus told the story of the prodigal son portraying the Father as a rancher.

God, to my knowledge, has never been a rancher, nor did He have two sons.

 

But He's not being portrayed as a clown. Like I said, there's a world of difference between portraying Him as a clown and using clown imagery to tell the gospel story.

Why?

Very little about Jesus' life did. </font>[/QUOTE]#1 I don't see the difference
#2 Do you expect T.V. to be the same as what you get in church? I don't, I belong to an I.F.B....that's why.
#3And? What's your point?

Christy, normally you and I see pretty much eye to eye on everything. I don't think this is too big of a deal. My church experience is pretty traditional. And this is just how I feel...besides...Clowns are just creepy!!

[ April 26, 2003, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: Wisdom Seeker ]

 

Feeding Sheep or Amusing Goats

An evil is in the professed camp of the Lord, so gross in its impudence that the most shortsighted can hardly fail to notice it. During the past few years it has developed at an abnormal rate, even for evil. It has worked like leaven until the whole lump ferments. The devil has seldom done a cleverer thing than hinting to the church that part of their mission is to provide entertainment for the people, with a view to winning them. From speaking out as the Puritans did, the church has gradually toned down her testimony, then winked at and excused the frivolities of the day. Then she tolerated them in her borders. Now she has adopted them under the plea of reaching the masses.

My first contention is that providing amusement for the people is nowhere spoken of in the Scriptures as a function of the church. If it is a Christian work why did not Christ speak of it? Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.' That is clear enough. So it would have been if He had added. "And provide amusement for those who do not relish the gospel." No such words, however, are to be found. It did not seem to occur to Him. Then again, it was He who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ might be built up...." Where do entertainers come in? The Holy Spirit is silent concerning them. Were the prophets persecuted because they amused the people, or because they refused? The concert has no martyr roll.

Again, providing amusement is in direct antagonism to the teaching and life of Christ and all His apostles. What was the attitude of the church to the world? You are the salt of the earth," not the sugar candy - something the world will spit out, not swallow. "Let the dead bury their own dead. . ..". He was in awful earnestness!

Had Christ introduced more of the bright and pleasant elements into His mission, He would have been more popular when they went back, because of the searching nature of His teaching. I do not hear him say, "Run after these people, Peter, and tell them we will have a different style of service tomorrow, something short and attractive with little preaching. We will have a pleasant evening for the people. Tell them they will be sure to enjoy it. Be quick. Peter, we must get the people somehow!" Jesus pitied sinners, sighed and wept over them, but never sought to amuse them. In vain will the Epistles be searched to find any trace of the gospel of amusement. Their message is, "Come out, keep out, keep clean out". Anything approaching fooling is conspicuous by its absence. They had boundless confidence in the gospel and employed no other weapon. After Peter and John were locked up for preaching, the church had a prayer meeting, but they did not pray "Lord grant unto thy servants that by a wise and discriminating use of innocent recreation we may show these people how happy we are." If they ceased not for preaching Christ, they had not time for arranging entertainment. Scattered by persecution, they went everywhere preaching the gospel. They turned the world upside down. That is the only difference! Lord, clear the church of all the rot and rubbish the devil has imposed on her and bring us back to apostolic methods.

Lastly, the mission of amusements fails to effect the end desired. It works havoc among the young converts. Let the careless and scoffers, who thank God because the church met them halfway, speak and testify. Let the heavy laden who found peace through the concert not keep silent! Let the drunkard to whom the dramatic entertainment had been God's link in the chain of their conversion, stand up! There are none to answer. The mission of amusement produces no converts. The need of the hour for today's ministry is believing scholarship joined with earnest spirituality, the one springing from the other as fruit from the root. The need is biblical doctrine, so understood and felt, that it sets men on fire.

(Attributed to Charles H. Spurgeon.)

submitted for your consideration...

ask yourself...would Jesus approve of being portrayed as a clown...


Y'Israel...

 

hmmm...Mike...it is apparent...that you have some problems with rightly understanding the Bible...

Jesus came from the Tribe of Judah...as was foretold...and is referred to as the Lion of Judah...Jesus is also known as the Stem or Rod of Jesse...what would you make of that?...bet you interpertation would be interesting...

I will give you a clue...

Rod and staff...

-- Isaiah 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:

Do you know who Jesse is?...


what the gentlemen meant...with the comparrison of the Word to a lion...is quite simply this...

all one would have to do is let a lion loose...and watch what it does...it is powerful...all by itself...

the Word of God...needs no fancy trappings...no clowns...no jugglers...no baseball games... etc...like the lion...

it just needs to be let loose...

but it has to be the True Word of God...rightly divided...rightly understood...

 

Why not? If God uses the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, then why not? </font>[/QUOTE]Excuse me, but you are saying that the "foolish things of the world" pertain to bozo's in clown suits pretending to be the SAVIOUR of the world?

Perhaps you do not share the conviction of the apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 4:10 "We are fools for Christ’s sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised."

 

I think we need to concentrate on the title of the piece - than the overall subject of what is and what is not "proper" entertainment in the church. Sheep come to church to be fed - pretty simple! If a godly singing troupe take a portion of the service to sing spiritual songs - that is still food for the saints. Music ministers.

But what of the goats? The goats, as I understand it, are not sheep because they are unwilling to submit themselves to the authority of the Word of GOD - they are lost people. These are the people, in my opinion, that sit in the church with the arms folded and say, "OK, entertain me!" These are the ones that complain that "All the preacher ever does is preach the same message all the time!" It isn't the same message - but it is the same subject - JESUS. A good preacher, like Paul, has decided to know nothing save JESUS and Him crucified - so every message he preaches is designed to lead men to the cross.

The pastor, as I believe Spurgeon would have a mind to say, only has a responsibility toward the sheep and the unsaved seeker. He is not to cater to the goats. He isn't to be against them - unless they start acting like goats (or their nearest relative - wolves), but he is to continue ministering the Word. He prays for them - and he asks the HOLY SPIRIT to somehow break their hard, cold hearts - but he is a minister to those who are the heirs of salvation.

This even speaks to the pastor that would be tempted to lower his standards, just a little, so as to build a huge church at the expense of doctrinal purity. Many churches across America is more goat than sheep. Pastors must beware that their services do not attract those who are merely seeking to be . . . uh, entertained.

 

Y'Israel writes:

"It does not need entertainment to make it effective...It is the Word of God...

Did Jesus and the Disciples...sponsor plays and baseball games to draw crowds...No!!! ...did they dress up like clowns and strut about...NO!!!The Word will draw a crowd on it's own...and Who is the Word?...Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior...He is the Word...."


Amen!

About the only entertainment that these great and mighty men of GOD provided was fodder for the crowds that watched them being stoned for their faith, burned as wickes to provide light for Nero's nighttime games, impaled on spikes, and fed to the beasts of prey.

You know, that entertainment brought some people to CHRIST - a might bit more effective than clowns parading on stage.

godspell (uncapitalized on purpose) a gospel presentation? I watched godspell as a lost teen - and had a good time laughing at the homosexual that pretended to be the sinless LION OF JUDAH!

 

AMEN DANIEL DAVID!

Hey, if all of your 2,000 + posts are presented with such authority and boldness, I'm afraid that I've lost a blessing by not hanging around.

To tell you the truth, when I saw the weak stance on the Blessed Book when I first came here, I felt that I wouldn't get much from baptistboard.

I trust there are others that share your convictions and will look forward to reading their words as well.

 

SBCbyGrace writes:

"And my question is this: if your reasoning is true regarding both the content and method (and all other methods being illegitimate), to what type of preaching method is Paul referring?

Expository?
Topical?
Textual?
Historical?
Narrative?

What is the one and only prescribed method? I will bring this point full circle when this question is answered."

PP:

Uh, that would be the CROSS and the BLOOD!

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." and ". . .it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."

You know, those two subjects are not preached very often in the modern churches. The cross is foolishness and the blood is no longer politically correct. Too bad, it's the only thing under heaven that can save.

 

You're missing the point.

The argument is that Godspell is inappropriate because Jesus was not a clown. Jesus told the story of the prodigal son portraying the Father as a rancher.

God, to my knowledge, has never been a rancher, nor did He have two sons. </font>[/QUOTE]PP:

Mike

Where in the parable of the Prodigal Son do you even remotely find the Personage of the LORD JESUS CHRIST? I am a Son of GOD. If you are saved, you are a Son of GOD. The sons and daughters of GOD often find themselves in the dregs of this world as our sister Diane showed a few posts above.

I don't get a real strong warm fuzzy from your biblical exposition.

 

I just want to state that I've changed my Screen Name to Baptist Bible Believer. I held the name Pilgrim's Progress for a very long time as a weak and defeated Christian - but GOD did a work in my life about a year ago and gave me a new name - so this is the one that I will use from now on.

Just informing you all so that no one thinks that I am posting between two different names.