Posted on 07/10/2007 4:28:22 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Huh? Your question is non-sequitur; it doesn't relate to a method by which the love of God might be communicated to people in our modern culture.
Don't stop at rap music — why not Christian strippers, too?
I can't tell whether you're being insulting, childsh, or both, but if I responded with just a sarcastic "Nice", would you mischaracterize that as condoning such activity??
The best way to introduce people to Jesus is by taking them to a mass, then pointing at the Host and Chalice and saying "There He is! Right there in front of you!"
IF the Spirit of God has got it in His mind to have them see the Risen Christ in the sacrament, and you have His direction that that's His plan for that person, then, yeah, that's the best way to introduce Jesus to that person. In general, however, the best way to introduce people to Jesus is to BE living examples of His love and grace and testify to the lost that our lives are what they are because we have a relationship with Jesus. In general, the lost will not see Jesus in the sacrament until they've seen Jesus in our hearts and lives; they will not seek a relationship with Him, until they've seen the fruit of our relationships with Him.
As the song in the video says, "Paul wouldn't use that anyways".
That comment was in reference to paraphrased versions of the bible, not, as you seek to use it, in reference to particular methods of explaining and communicating biblical principles.
But let me get to the bottom of this...
It is a contradiction wrought of sinful flesh that, despite the fact that God chose to supersede Law and legalism with the Ultimate expression of His love and grace by sending Jesus to the cross, so many in The Body are STILL STUCK in the same old legalistic attitudes fostered by the Law.
There's nothing doctrinally wrong with using a comedy bit to teach scriptural principles. There's nothing doctrinally wrong with using contemporary music to convey the love of God. But people here are getting all fired up and crashing this guy's case over his use of those kinds of things; as if using them is, of itself, some grave sin.
It isn't, and that's the end of the matter.
Unfortunately, there's a WHOLE lot of condemnation being lavished upon the ritual forms being employed at that church, accusing them of being empty, or worse, simply because of their outward appearance. To that I strenuously object.
Hopefully you won't be as argumentative and sarcastic as you have been judging from all your lengthly posts, to me and others on this forum.
My arguments, and their length, and even the sarcasm, arise from the fact that people are accusing somebody -- probably a brother in Christ -- of sin, when he isn't demonstrably guilty of any. They've taken issue with his use of skits and comedy bits in church, because that offends their flesh, and they've ranted and railed against the man over it. But, since when is it scriptural to accuse one among the brethren -- or even an unbeliever for that matter -- of sin JUST because he does something that offends our flesh? Besides, are we not more mature in Christ than that?
Still, If some want to go down that road, I can employ sarcasm to great spiritual gain, for does not the cross, itself, offend our flesh? After all, what could be more offensive that someone subjecting his own innocent son to such a horrific and bloody death? Yet, this is our God we're talking about, here! If some would castigate this pastor for his choice of communicative methods, perhaps they ought also rant and rail against God for chosing the method of the cross to communicate His love toward us? Perhaps The Almighty Creator ought to have chosen a less offensive method; one we'd like more. If words can be found to criticize a man -- again, likely a brother in Christ -- for using comedic sketches and contemporary music to communicate the love of God in a church service, surely some verbiage can be dredged up with which to condemn God's choice to to use the tortuous stigma of a criminal's cross to effect our salvation.
I engage this stinging sarcasm -- desparaging the view, mind you, not the ones who espouse it -- because it drives my point to the very hilt: castigating methods as sinful that are not inherently sinful, is, at the very least, scrupturally unsupported, and is, in some cases, wholly infernal.
No believer in his or her right mind can condone what God condemns. I have found the Way, the Truth and the Life. I am a Believer. You don't have to sell to me or bully me into believing exactly as you do.
True, but believers, most all in their right minds, frequently condemn what God condones, because we are yet imperfect in our flesh, and prone to such errors. Still, we must resist doing that, and my exhortations to cut it out are not properly construed as "bullying", although they may be somewhat accurately classifiable as "selling', to the extent I'm trying to get people to buy into the idea of extending the same grace they've received in Christ Jesus instead of making those errors.
Precisely how is this pastor "conforming" the gospel to the culture? As I see it, he's presenting the unaltered gospel using vehicles that are culturally normal to his community; demonstrating love for his neighbors by employing a technique that missionaries to all cultures have been using for hundreds of years.
In it's proper place humor is a wonderful tool to use in preaching the word of God. Verbal communication needs the attention of the audience. Using humor as an introduction to a larger, important point not only gets the listener's attention but also helps in the message being remembered. It need only be brief and not mean spirited. Whatever you think of TV Pastor John Hagee, I think he does use humor very effectively to set up the various parts of his sermons.
Agreed. But I think we've got to be sensitive to context, as well, which is what P_4_TX alludes to.
A dose of humor in an evangelical church service doesn't sound the discordant note that the same humorous experssion would if it came in the middle of a "high church" (formal, liturgical) service.
And that's what I'm hearing among some of those who're objecting to the stuff this guys doing over there at "Momentum". They can't imagine it being "proper" to ever do those things in the context of their usual liturgical worship experience, and they're quite right about that part, but they go too far in extrapolating from their experience to assert an absolute judgment that those things (skits, comedy bits, &c.) are not appropriate to any church service.
So, we've all got a little bit of accommodating to do. As a person hailing from non-liturgical roots, I have to understand the nature of the church services of my liturgical brothers and sisters and agree with them that, "Yes", it really would NOT be appropriate to crack a joke in the middle of mass. They, in turn, have to understand the church services of us non-liturgical types and recognize that, "Yes", in fact a relevant joke in the middle of the sermon might work quite well to drive home a biblical precept. IOW, nothing's changed since the apostle wrote I John 4; we Christians still have to love one another. ;-)
What's key is to note that this assessment of appropriateness bears upon the environemental context, not the joke, itself (assuming, or course, that it's a "clean" joke).
Absolutely - everything in its season. Just as you wouldn't tell jokes at a funeral, nor would you dress in black and act somber at a summer Church picnic.
The hard part is that we all use the same language to describe vastly different experiences. Both liturgical and non-liturgical strands of the faith refer to their gatherings as “church services”.
So, I can say a joke is appropriate in a “church service” — thinking non-liturgical in my head — and someone from a liturgical strand of the faith reads “church service” and — thinking liturgical in their head — marvels that I could possibly consider a joke to be proper in that context.
All because the same two words “church service” communicate widely disparate things to each of us.
Maybe, in Heaven, we’ll be able to think directly to each other so as to communicate 100% of what we mean without the inherent vagaries of the spoken word.
Actually, I am a she but thats OK.
I am a member of our church’s creative arts ministry and I am the executive producer for our Sunday service and am so honored and humbled that I was chosen to help the Lord bring the gospel to the unsaved. I can’t wait to go to church each Sunday to see what God does through the Creative Arts team.
I just wished the rest of our saved brothers and sisters could understand what we understand.
The link below is a sampling of some of our service — the best is the “Confessions of an Ex-Pharisee”.
http://www.gracecommunity.com/messages/
I wonder if the Sovereign Holy God, Creator of the universe, is honored by that church........sounds like Ringling Bros. Barnum and Bailey to me!
[chagrined] D'oh! Sorry.
Thanks for the link; looks like a great place to worship.
I recently ran across this video interview with one of the grand oldtimers in the faith, Leonard Ravenhill. It's well worth hearing the perspective of a man who met and spoke with people who were preaching at the turn of the last century. A Man of God
The video is from www.sermonindex.net which I trust you'll find a treasure trove of archived messages.
Also, do not miss this Revival Hymn compilation.
All of the above is easily accessible from the "Top 25 Downloads" list in the lower portion of the left sidebar on the sermonindex.net homepage
While filling a church is great; saving souls is even greater. Pastor Hagee had some pretty uncompromising things to say about apostate churches in the last days.
The Lord warned that we can tell by the results (fruit) whether something is rotten or not. It is God, not man, who should be honored. If worship is lifted up with joy and gladness, since the news of our redemption is The Good News(!) that's terrific--just as long as the fruit is not really deception in disguise.
The Devil is a real sneak, and it's been said he paves the road to Hell with good intentions. His whole purpose is to deceive. There are some who even deny his existence...the greatest deception of them all. These are the days in which good will be called evil and evil will be made to look good.
KJV: For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Matthew 24-24
And this is the theme of the entire books of Collossians, 1 John and Jude. We can't say we weren't warned.
Are you the Pastor in the story? You seem to be spending a lot of time and words justifying him.
Thank you for articulating that so beautifully. That's exactly right.
He-heh, no. I am his brother in the LORD, and I am a tired saint; tired of people who say they love my Jesus running down my brothers and sisters who love Jesus. I'm tired of seeing the Body of Christ beat on itself; we got the left hand sockin' it to the right eye, and the right hand tearing at the left ear, and the left heel kickin' at the right knee, and all the time the mouth is proclaiming "Oh, how I love Jesus!" It's just too much.
And it's GOT to STOP!
Or do we think Jesus was just blowing smoke when he said, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another." (John 13:34) NASB
Now. You go back to all the posts rippin' this pastor a new one over the ways he's goin' about providing a culturally relevant context for folks to hear the Good News of The Kingdom, and you answer me this:
Where's the 'love one another' part? Where's the post where we love the man in Christ Jesus, instead of taking opportunity to surmise and invent all kinds of evil intent and spiritual vacancy just because his particular strategies don't meet with our fleshly approval or mesh with our preferred kind of church service?
Yeah, there are some who've given him the grace from God he's due because of the cross. But it shouldn't just be some; it should be ALL of us who name the NAME of Jesus as savior and LORD. Why? Because of Jesus' commandment to us that we love one another.
Even if we have solid biblical grounds for disagreement, that doesn't give us a pass to not love, it only necessitates that we communicate that disagreement in a gracious and loving way. In no way does it allow for some of the desparaging things that have appeared on this thread.
I tell you: it's shameful. Shameful behavior on the part of God's people who oughta know -- and DO -- better.
So, if I spend a lot of time on this thread defending the man, then -- fine. It is for the love of Christ that I do it, that His NAME would not be profaned because of a few unwise members of The Body.
I imagine you must be referring to me. Thanks for the Judgment.
I just saw that now for the first time. Thanks for the link.
Minas Flint, indeed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.