THE MENACE OF THE RELIGIOUS MOVIE by A.W. Tozer

THE MENACE OF THE RELIGIOUS MOVIE
by
A.W. Tozer
(1897-1963)

from
[url=http://www.biblebb.com/files/tozermovie.htm]The THE MENACE OF THE RELIGIOUS MOVIE[/url]

When God gave to Moses the blueprint of the Tabernacle He was careful to include every detail; then, lest Moses should get the notion that he could improve on the original plan, God warned him solemnly, "And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was shown thee in the mount." God, not Moses, was the architect. To decide the plan was the prerogative of the Deity. No one dare alter it so much as a hairbreadth.

The New Testament Church also is built after a pattern. Not the doctrines only but the methods are divinely given. The doctrines are expressly stated in so many words. Some of the methods followed by the early New Testament Church had been given by direct command; others were used by God's specific approval, having obviously been commanded the apostles by the Spirit. The point is that when the New Testament canon was closed the blueprint for the age was complete. God has added nothing since that time.

From God's revealed plan we depart at our peril. Every departure has two consequences, the immediate and the remote. The immediate touches the individual and those close to him; the remote extends into the future to unknown times, and may expand so far as to influence for evil the whole Church of God on earth.

The temptation to introduce "new" things into the work of God has always been too strong for some people to resist. The Church has suffered untold injury at the hands of well intentioned but misguided persons who have felt that they know more about running God's work than Christ and His apostles did. A solid train of box cars would not suffice to haul away the religious rubbish which has been brought into the service of the Church with the hope of improving on the original pattern. These things have been, one and all, positive hindrances to the progress of the Truth, and have so altered the divinely-planned structure that the apostles, were they to return to earth today, would scarcely recognize the misshapen thing which has resulted.

Our Lord while on earth cleansed the Temple, and periodic cleansings have been necessary in the Church of God throughout the centuries. Every generation is sure to have its ambitious amateur to come up with some shiny gadget which he proceeds to urge upon the priests before the altar. That the Scriptures do not justify its existence does not seem to bother him at all. It is brought in anyway and presented in the very name of Orthodoxy. Soon it is identified in the minds of the Christian public with all that is good and holy. Then, of course, to attack the gadget is to attack the Truth itself. This is an old familiar technique so often and so long practiced by the devotees of error that I marvel how the children of God can be taken in by it.

We of the evangelical faith are in the rather awkward position of criticizing Roman Catholicism for its weight of unscriptural impedimenta and at the same time tolerating in our own churches a world of religious fribble as bad as holy water or the elevated host. Heresy of method may be as deadly as heresy of message. Old-line Protestantism has long ago been smothered to death by extra-scriptural rubbish. Unless we of the gospel churches wake up soon we shall most surely die by the same means.

Within the last few years a new method has been invented for imparting spiritual knowledge; or, to be more accurate, it is not new at all, but is an adaptation of a gadget of some years standing, one which by its origin and background belongs not to the Church but to the world. Some within the fold of the Church have thrown their mantle over it, have "blessed it with a text" and are now trying to show that it is the very gift of God for our day. But, however eloquent the sales talk, it is an unauthorized addition nevertheless, and was never a part of the pattern shown us on the mount.

I refer, of course, to the religious movie.

For the motion picture as such I have no irrational allergy. It is a mechanical invention merely and is in its essence amoral; that is, it is neither good nor bad, but neutral. With any physical object or any creature lacking the power of choice it could not be otherwise. Whether such an object is useful or harmful depends altogether upon who uses it and what he uses it for. No moral quality attaches where there is no free choice. Sin and righteousness lie in the will. The motion picture is in the same class as the automobile, the typewriter, or the radio: a powerful instrument for good or evil, depending upon how it is applied.

For teaching the facts of physical science the motion picture has been useful. The public schools have used it successfully to teach health habits to children. The army employed it to speed up instruction during war. That it has been of real service within its limited field is freely acknowledged here.

Over against this is the fact that the motion picture in evil hands has been a source of moral corruption to millions. No one who values his reputation as a responsible adult will deny that the sex movie and the crime movie have done untold injury to the lives of countless young people in our generation. The harm lies not in the instrument itself, but in the evil will of those who use it for their own selfish ends.

These pictures are produced by acting a religious story before the camera. Take for example the famous and beautiful story of the Prodigal Son. This would be made into a movie by treating the narrative as a scenario. Stage scenery would be set up, actors would take the roles of Father, Prodigal Son, Elder Brother, etc. There would be plot, sequence and dramatic denouement as in the ordinary tear jerker shown at the Bijou movie house on Main Street in any one of a thousand American towns. The story would be acted out, photographed, run onto reels and shipped around the country to be shown for a few wherever desired.

The "service" where such a movie would be shown might seem much like any other service until time for the message from the Word of God. Then the lights would be put out and the picture turned on. The "message" would consist of this movie. What followed the picture would, of course, vary with the circumstances, but often an invitation song is sung and a tender appeal is made for erring sinners to return to God.

Now, what is wrong with all this? Why should any man object to this or go out of his way to oppose its use in the house of God? Here is my answer:

1. It violates the scriptural law of hearing.

The power of speech is a noble gift of God. In his ability to open his mouth and by means of words make his fellows know what is going on inside his mind, a man shares one of the prerogatives of the Creator. In its ability to understand the spoken word the human mind rises unique above all the lower creation. The gift which enables a man to translate abstract ideas into sounds is a badge of his honor as made in the image of God.

Written or printed words are sound symbols and are translated by the mind into hearing. Hieroglyphics and ideograms were the first symbols used to represent ideas. These ideograms were, in effect, not pictures but letters, and the letters were agreed-upon ideas. Thus words, whether spoken or written, are a medium for the communication of ideas. This is basic in human nature and stems from our divine origin.

It is significant that when God gave to mankind His great redemptive revelation He couched it in words. "And God spake all these words" very well sums up the Bible's own account of how it got here. "Thus saith the Lord" is the constant refrain of the prophets. "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life," said our Lord to His hearers. Again He said, "He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life." Paul made words and faith to be inseparable: "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." And he also said, "How shall they hear without a preacher?"

Surely it requires no genius to see that the Bible rules out pictures and dramatics as media for bringing faith and life to the human soul.

The plain fact is that no vital spiritual truth can be expressed by a picture. Actually all any picture can do is to recall to mind some truth already learned through the familiar medium of the spoken or written word. Religious instruction and words are bound together by a living cord and cannot be separated without fatal loss. The Spirit Himself, teaching soundlessly within the heart, makes use of ideas previously received into the mind by means of words.

If I am reminded that modern religious movies are "sound" pictures, making use of the human voice to augment the dramatic action, the answer is easy. Just as far as the movie depends upon spoken words it makes pictures unnecessary; the picture is the very thing that differentiates between the movie and the sermon. The movie addresses its message primarily to the eye, and the ear only incidentally. Were the message addressed to the ear as in the Scriptures, the picture would have no meaning and could be omitted without loss to the intended effect. Words can say all that God intends them to say, and this they can do without the aid of pictures.

According to one popular theory the mind receives through the eye five times as much information as the ear. As far as the external shell of physical facts is concerned this may hold good, but when we come to spiritual truth we are in another world entirely. In that world the outer eye is not too important. God addresses His message to the hearing ear. "We look," says Paul, "not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal." This agrees with the whole burden of the the Bible, which teaches us that we should withdraw our eyes from beholding visible things, and fasten the eyes of our hearts upon God while we reverently listen to His uttered words.

"The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach." Here, and not somewhere else, is the New Testament pattern, and no human being, and no angel from heaven has any right to alter that pattern.

2. The religious movie embodies the mischievous notion that religion is, or can be made, a form of entertainment.

This notion has come upon us lately like a tidal wave and is either openly taught or tacitly assumed by increasing numbers of people. Since it is inextricably bound up with the subject under discussion I had better say more about it.

The idea that religion should be entertaining has made some radical changes in the evangelical picture within this generation. It has given us not only the "gospel" movie but a new type of religious journalism as well. It has created a new kind of magazine for church people, which can be read from cover to cover without effort, without thought---and without profit. It has also brought a veritable flood of religious fiction with plastic heroines and bloodless heroes like no one who has ever lived upon this well known terrestrial ball.

That religion and amusement are forever opposed to each other by their very essential natures is apparently not known to this new school of religious entertainers. Their effort to slip up on the reader and administer a quick shot of saving truth while his mind is on something else is not only futile, it is, in fact, not too far short of being plain dishonest. The hope that they can convert a man while he is occupied with the doings of some imaginary hero reminds one of the story of the Catholic missionary who used to sneak up on sick people and children and splash a little holy water on them to guarantee their passage to the city of gold.

I believe that most responsible religious teachers will agree that any effort to teach spiritual truth through entertainment is at best futile and at worst positively injurious to the soul. But entertainment pays off, and the economic consideration is always a powerful one in deciding what shall and what shall not be offered to the public---even in the churches.

Deep spiritual experiences come only from much study, earnest prayer and long meditation. It is true that men by thinking cannot find God; it is also true that men cannot know God very well without a lot of reverent thinking. Religious movies, by appealing directly to the shallowest stratum of our minds, cannot but create bad mental habits which unfit the soul for the reception of genuine spiritual impressions.

Religious movies are mistakenly thought by some people to be blessed of the Lord because many come away from them with moist eyes. If this is a proof of God's blessing, then we might as well go the whole way and assert that every show that brings tears is of God. Those who attend the theater know how often the audiences are moved to tears by the joys and sorrows of the highly paid entertainers who kiss and emote and murder and die for the purpose of exciting the spectators to a high pitch of emotional excitement. Men and women who are dedicated to sin and appointed to death may nevertheless weep in sympathy for the painted actors and be not one bit the better for it. The emotions have had a beautiful time, but the will is left untouched. The religious movie is sure to draw together a goodly number of persons who cannot distinguish the twinges of vicarious sympathy from the true operations of the Holy Ghost.

3. The religious movie is a menace to true religion because it embodies acting, a violation of sincerity.

Without doubt the most precious thing any man possesses is his individuated being; that by which he is himself and not someone else; that which cannot be finally voided by the man himself nor shared with another. Each one of us, however humble our place in the social scheme, is unique in creation. Each is a new whole man possessing his own separate "I-ness" which makes him forever something apart, an individual human being. It is this quality of uniqueness which permits a man to enjoy every reward of virtue and makes him responsible for every sin. It is his selfness, which will persist forever, and which distinguishes him from every creature which has been or ever will be created.

Because man is such a being as this all moral teachers, and especially Christ and His apostles, make sincerity to be basic in the good life. The word, as the New Testament uses it, refers to the practice of holding fine pottery up to the sun to test it for purity. In the white light of the sun all foreign substances were instantly exposed. So the test of sincerity is basic in human character. The sincere man is one in whom is found nothing foreign; he is all of one piece; he has preserved his individuality unviolated.

Sincerity for each man means staying in character with himself. Christ's controversy with the Pharisees centered around their incurable habit of moral play acting. The Pharisee constantly pretended to be what he was not. He attempted to vacate his own "I-ness" and appear in that of another and better man. He assumed a false character and played it for effect. Christ said he was a hypocrite.

It is more than an etymological accident that the word "hypocrite" comes from the stage. It means actor. With that instinct for fitness which usually marks word origins, it has been used to signify one who has violated his sincerity and is playing a false part. An actor is one who assumes a character other than his own and plays it for effect. The more fully he can become possessed by another personality the better he is as an actor.

Bacon has said something to the effect that there are some professions of such nature that the more skillfully a man can work at them the worse man he is. That perfectly describes the profession of acting. Stepping out of our own character for any reason is always dangerous, and may be fatal to the soul. However innocent his intentions, a man who assumes a false character has betrayed his own soul and has deeply injured something sacred within him.

No one who has been in the presence of the Most Holy One, who has felt how high is the solemn privilege of bearing His image, will ever again consent to play a part or to trifle with that most sacred thing, his own deep sincere heart. He will thereafter be constrained to be no one but himself, to preserve reverently the sincerity of his own soul.

In order to produce a religious movie someone must, for the time, disguise his individuality and simulate that of another. His actions must be judged fraudulent, and those who watch them with approval share in the fraud. To pretend to pray, to simulate godly sorrow, to play at worship before the camera for effect---how utterly shocking to the reverent heart! How can Christians who approve this gross pretense ever understand the value of sincerity as taught by our Lord? What will be the end of a generation of Christians fed on such a diet of deception disguised as the faith of our fathers?

The plea that all this must be good because it is done for the glory of God is a gossamer-thin bit of rationalizing which should not fool anyone above the mental age of six. Such an argument parallels the evil rule of expediency which holds the end is everything, and sanctifies the means, however evil, if only the end be commendable. The wise student of history will recognize this immoral doctrine. The Spirit-led Church will have no part of it.

It is not uncommon to find around the theater human flotsam and jetsam washed up by the years, men and women who have played false parts so long that the power to be sincere has forever gone from them. They are doomed to everlasting duplicity. Every act of their lives is faked, every smile is false, every tone of their voice artificial. The curse does not come causeless. It is not by chance that the actor's profession has been notoriously dissolute. Hollywood and Broadway are two sources of corruption which may yet turn America into a Sodom and lay her glory in the dust.

The profession of acting did not originate with the Hebrews. It is not a part of the divine pattern. The Bible mentions it, but never approves it. Drama, as it has come down to us, had its rise in Greece. It was originally a part of the worship of the god Dionysus and was carried on with drunken revelry.

The Miracle Plays of medieval times have been brought forward to justify the modern religious movie. That is an unfortunate weapon to choose for the defense of the movie, for it will surely harm the man who uses it more than any argument I could think of just offhand.

The Miracle Plays had their big run in the Middle Ages. They were dramatic performances with religious themes staged for the entertainment of the populace. At their best they were misguided efforts to teach spiritual truths by dramatic representation; at their worst they were shockingly irreverent and thoroughly reprehensible. In some of them the Eternal God was portrayed as an old man dressed in white with a gilt wig! To furnish low comedy, the devil himself was introduced on the stage and allowed to cavort for the amusement of the spectators. Bible themes were used, as in the modern movie, but this did not save the whole thing from becoming so corrupt that the Roman Church had finally to prohibit its priests from having any further part in it.

Those who would appeal for precedent to the Miracle Plays have certainly overlooked some important facts. For instance, the vogue of the Miracle Play coincided exactly with the most dismally corrupt period the Church has ever known. When the Church emerged at last from its long moral night these plays lost popularity and finally passed away. And be it remembered, the instrument God used to bring the Church out of the darkness was not drama; it was the biblical one of Spirit-baptized preaching. Serious-minded men thundered the truth and the people turned to God.

Indeed, history will show that no spiritual advance, no revival, no upsurge of spiritual life has ever been associated with acting in any form. The Holy Spirit never honors pretense.

Can it be that the historic pattern is being repeated? That the appearance of the religious movie is symptomatic of the low state of spiritual health we are in today? I fear so. Only the absence of the Holy Spirit from the pulpit and lack of true discernment on the part of professing Christians can account for the spread of religious drama among so-called evangelical churches. A Spirit-filled church could not tolerate it.

4. They who present the gospel movie owe it to the public to give biblical authority for their act: and this they have not done.

The Church, as long as it is following the Lord, goes along in Bible ways and can give a scriptural reason for its conduct. Its members meet at stated times to pray together: This has biblical authority back of it. They gather to hear the Word of God expounded: this goes back in almost unbroken continuity to Moses. They sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs: so they are commanded by the apostle. They visit the sick and relieve the sufferings of the poor: for this they have both precept and example in Holy Writ. They lay up their gifts and bring them at stated times to the church or chapel to be used in the Lord's work: this also follows the scriptural pattern. They teach and train and instruct; they appoint teachers and pastors and missionaries and send them out to do the work for which the Spirit has gifted them: all this has plain scriptural authority behind it.

Now, for the religious movie where is the authority? For such a serious departure from the ancient pattern, where is the authority? For introducing into the Church the pagan art of acting, where is the authority? Let the movie advocates quote just one verse, from any book of the Bible, in any translation, to justify its use. This they cannot do. The best they can do is to appeal to the world's psychology or repeat brightly that "modern times call for modern methods." But the Scriptures---quote from them one verse to authorize movie acting as an instrument of the Holy Ghost. This they cannot do.

Every sincere Christian must find scriptural authority for the religious movie or reject it, and every producer of such movies, if he would square himself before the faces of honest and reverent men, must either show scriptural credentials or go out of business.

But, says someone, there is nothing unscriptural about the religious movie; it is merely a new medium for the utterance of the old message, as printing is a newer and better method of writing and the radio an amplification of familiar human speech.

To this I reply: The movie is not the modernization or improvement of any scriptural method; rather it is a medium in itself wholly foreign to the Bible and altogether unauthorized therein. It is play acting---just that, and nothing more. It is the introduction into the work of God of that which is not neutral, but entirely bad. The printing press is neutral; so is the radio; so is the camera. They may be used for good or bad purposes at the will of the user. But play acting is bad in its essence in that it involves the simulation of emotions not actually felt. It embodies a gross moral contradiction in that it calls a lie to the service of truth.

Arguments for the religious movie are sometimes clever and always shallow, but there is never any real attempt to cite scriptural authority. Anything that can be said for the movie can be said also for aesthetic dancing, which is a highly touted medium for teaching religious truth by appeal to the eye. Its advocates grow eloquent in its praise---but where is it indicated in the blueprint?

5. God has ordained four methods only by which Truth shall prevail---and the religious movie is not one of them.

Without attempting to arrange these methods in order of importance, they are prayer, song, proclamation of the message by means of words, and good works. These are the four main methods which God has blessed. All other biblical methods are sub-divisions of these and stay within their framework.

The whole preach-the gospel-with-movies idea is founded upon the same basic assumptions as Modernism, namely, that the Word of God is not final, and that we of this day have a perfect right to add to it or alter it wherever we think we can improve it.

A brazen example of this attitude came to my attention recently. Preliminary printed matter has been sent out announcing that a new organization is in process of being formed. It is to be called the "International Radio and Screen Artists Guild," and one of its two major objectives is to promote the movie as a medium for the spread of the gospel. Its sponsors, apparently, are not Modernists, but confessed Fundamentalists. Some of its declared purposes are: to produce movies "with or without a Christians slant"; to raise and maintain higher standards in the movie field (this would be done, it says here, by having "much prayer" with leaders of the movie industry); to "challenge people, especially young people, to those fields as they are challenged to go to foreign fields."

This last point should not be allowed to pass without some of us doing a little challenging on our own account. Does this new organization actually propose in seriousness to add another gift to the gifts of the Spirit listed in the New Testament? To the number of the Spirit's gifts, such as pastor, teacher, evangelist, is there now to be added another, the gift of the movie actor? Instead of the Holy Spirit saying, "Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them," these people will make use of what they call a "Christian talent listing," to consist of the names of "Christian" actors who have received the Spirit's gift to be used in making religious movies.

Thus the order set up in the New Testament is openly violated, and by professed lovers of the gospel who say unto Jesus, "Lord, Lord," but openly set aside His Lordship whenever they desire. No amount of smooth talk can explain away this serious act of insubordination.

Saul lost a kingdom when he "forced" himself and took profane liberties with the priesthood. Let these movie preachers look to their crown. They may find themselves on the road to Endor some dark night soon.

6. The religious movie is out of harmony with the whole spirit of the Scriptures and contrary to the mood of true Godliness.

To harmonize the spirit of the religious movie with the spirit of the Sacred Scriptures is impossible. Any comparison is grotesque and, if it were not so serious, would be downright funny. Try to imagine Elijah appearing before Ahab with a roll of film! Imagine Peter standing up at Pentecost and saying, "Let's have the lights out, please." When Jeremiah hesitated to prophesy, on the plea that he was not a fluent speaker, God touched his mouth and said, "I have put my words in thy mouth." Perhaps Jeremiah could have gotten on well enough without the divine touch if he had had a good 16mm projector and a reel of home-talent film.

Let a man dare to compare his religious movie show with the spirit of the Book of Acts. Let him try to find a place for it in the twelfth chapter of First Corinthians. If he cannot see the difference in kind, then he is too blind to be trusted with leadership in the Church of the Living God. The only thing that he can do appropriate to the circumstances is to drop to his knees and cry with poor Bartimaeus, "Lord, that I might receive my sight."

But some say, "We do not propose to displace the regular method of preaching the gospel. We only want to supplement it." To this I answer: If the movie is needed to supplement anointed preaching it can only be because God's appointed method is inadequate and the movie can do something which God's appointed method cannot do. What is that thing? We freely grant that the movie can produce effects which preaching cannot produce (and which it should never try to produce), but dare we strive for such effects in the light of God's revealed will and in the face of the judgment and a long eternity?

7. I am against the religious movie because of the harmful effect upon everyone associated with it.

First, the evil effect upon the "actors" who play the part of the various characters in the show; this is not the less because it is unsuspected. Who can, while in a state of fellowship with God, dare to play at being a prophet? Who has the gall to pretend to be an apostle, even in a show? Where is his reverence? Where is his fear? Where is his humility? Any one who can bring himself to act a part for any purpose, must first have grieved the Spirit and silenced His voice within the heart. Then the whole business will appear good to him. "He feedeth on ashes; a deceived heart has turned him aside." But he cannot escape the secret working of the ancient laws of the soul. Something high and fine and grand will die within him; and worst of all he will never suspect it. That is the curse that follows self-injury always. The Pharisees were examples of this. They were walking dead men, and they never dreamed how dead they were.

Secondly, it identifies religion with the theatrical world. I have seen recently in a Fundamentalist magazine an advertisement of a religious film which would be altogether at home on the theatrical page on any city newspaper. Illustrated with the usual sex-bate picture of a young man and young woman in tender embrace, and spangled with such words as "feature-length, drama, pathos, romance," it reeked of Hollywood and the cheap movie house. By such business we are selling out our Christian separation, and nothing but grief can come of it late or soon.

Thirdly, the taste for drama which these pictures develop in the minds of the young will not long remain satisfied with the inferior stuff the religious movie can offer. Our young people will demand the real thing; and what can we reply when they ask why they should not patronize the regular movie house?

Fourthly, the rising generation will naturally come to look upon religion as another, and inferior, form of amusement. In fact, the present generation has done this to an alarming extent already, and the gospel movie feeds the notion by fusing religion and fun in the name of orthodoxy. It takes no great insight to see that the religious movie must become increasingly more thrilling as the tastes of the spectators become more and more stimulated.

Fifthly, the religious movie is the lazy preacher's friend. If the present vogue continues to spread it will not be long before any man with enough ability to make an audible prayer, and mentality enough to focus a projector, will be able to pass for a prophet of the Most High God. The man of God can play around all week long and come up to the Lord's Day without a care. Everything has been done for him at the studio. He has only to set up the screen and lower the lights, and the rest follows painlessly.

Wherever the movie is used the prophet is displaced by the projector. The least that such displaced prophets can do is to admit that they are technicians and not preachers. Let them admit that they are not God-sent men, ordained of God for a sacred work. Let them put away their pretense.

In conclusion

One thing may bother some earnest souls: why so many good people approve the religious movie. If it is an evil, why have not these denounced it?

The answer is, lack of spiritual discernment. Many who are turning to the movie are the same who have, by direct teaching or by neglect, discredited the work of the Holy Spirit. They have apologized for the Spirit and so hedged Him in by their unbelief that it has amounted to an out-and-out repudiation. Now we are paying the price for our folly. The light has gone out and good men are forced to stumble around in the darkness of the human intellect.

The religious movie is at present undergoing a period of gestation and seems about to swarm over the churches like a cloud of locusts out of the earth. The figure is accurate; they are coming from below, not from above. The whole modern psychology has been prepared for this invasion of insects. The Fundamentalists have become weary of manna and are longing for red flesh. What they are getting is a sorry substitute for the lusty and uninhibited pleasures of the world, and it saves face by pretending to be spiritual.

Let us not for the sake of peace keep still while men without spiritual insight dictate the diet upon which God's children shall feed. The religious movie represents amateurism gone wild. Unity among professing Christians is to be desired, but not at the expense of righteousness. It is good to go with the flock, but I refuse mutely to follow a misled flock over a precipice.

If God has given wisdom to see the error of religious shows we owe it to the Church to oppose them openly. We dare not take refuge in "guilty silence." Error is not silent; it is highly vocal and amazingly aggressive. We dare not be less so.

Thank you for posting this powerful article. After reading this, one can only sit back and marvel. Simply too many outstanding snippets to put in the limelight here. This is a highly volatile issue - Christians and the movie theatre - and I think Tozer writes with great conviction and spiritual understanding. In fact, I totally agree with this whole article, and I believe most believers would also be forced to agree once they strip back the thin veneer of man's intellect and the artistic gloss which so often paints the outside of a less-than-flaming gospel.

An image comes to mind of "Greased Lighting", a car with flames painted on it. [i]Painted fire[/i] - the very idea, the very concept itself is just absurd! You can have the image of fire without the dangerous heat, the allusion of flaming velocity without the actual speed. And then my mind turns to Hollywood movies about God, about the sufferings Christ, contemporary Christian songs full of "I" and "me" and calling God "you". Tozer poses the question:

One thing may bother some earnest souls: why so many good people approve the religious movie. If it is an evil, why have not these denounced it?

And he answers:

The answer is, lack of spiritual discernment. Many who are turning to the movie are the same who have, by direct teaching or by neglect, discredited the work of the Holy Spirit....Now we are paying the price for our folly. The light has gone out and good men are forced to stumble around in the darkness of the human intellect.

Who can, while in a state of fellowship with God, dare to play at being a prophet? Who has the gall to pretend to be an apostle, even in a show? Where is his reverence? Where is his fear?

In order to produce a religious movie someone must, for the time, disguise his individuality and simulate that of another. His actions must be judged fraudulent, and those who watch them with approval share in the fraud. To pretend to pray, to simulate godly sorrow, to play at worship before the camera for effect---how utterly shocking to the reverent heart! How can Christians who approve this gross pretense ever understand the value of sincerity as taught by our Lord?

And this, perhaps, the most succinct:

the taste for drama which these pictures develop in the minds of the young will not long remain satisfied with the inferior stuff the religious movie can offer. Our young people will demand the real thing; and what can we reply when they ask why they should not patronize the regular movie house?

to me what upsets me is the tendency to replace this thing for the sermon or for the bible study.
it is a powerful article!

Brother, I've never liked religious dramas, I always disapprove when my church does a re-enactment of the crucifixion around Easter or anything that involves someone portraying Christ or the apostles or John the Baptist. To me, it just epitomizes how far we've actually fallen from the Book of Acts - now we have to [i]act it out[/i] the Spirit-filled before the unbelievers? (Churches employ dramas primarily as an evangelistic tool)

Brother, I've never liked religious dramas, I always disapprove when my church does a re-enactment of the crucifixion around Easter or anything that involves someone portraying Christ or the apostles or John the Baptist. To me, it just epitomizes how far we've actually fallen from the Book of Acts - now we have to act it out before unbelievers (we invite people to our church to watch these dramas).

I agree

Ravenhill said somewhere in one of his books (I think it's in "Revival - God's Way") that no church right with God would put on a passion play, and no pastor or deacon coming from the prayer closet with the fire of eternity blazing in their eyes would talk about their church's bowling league.

(edit) I found it!

"No preacher is going to skip into the pulpit with the "good news" that his church won the top honors in the interchurch bowling league if he has come from the closet of prayer with eternity blazing in his eyes."

Religious movies, by appealing directly to the shallowest stratum of our minds, cannot but create bad mental habits which unfit the soul for the reception of genuine spiritual impressions.

I read this article years ago and gave a copy of it to others to read. Although I had made no comment on it other than to hand it to them they scoffed at me saying it was too overboard.

Since then, some have come back and said that there was something to it.

I like the quote by Ravenhill that goes something like this: "Entertainment is Satan's way of trying to replace the joy of the Lord. The more of the joy of the Lord we have, the less need for entertainment we have."

Thanks for the article...it had been some time since I had read it.

In His service,
Steve

Interesting perspective here. It was during a passion play that I trembled under great Holy Ghost conviction and returned to the Father's house in 1991. ;-)

It may surprise some of you, but I am reading some works that shun every last aspect of modern day Christianity including Sunday church and preaching. That's right, even Sunday morning preaching is pagan to some among us. It was as a child that I was taken to Sunday School and learned the first truths about God.

I think one of these days God is going to take His belt off and whip the holy fire out of some of us that are so spiritual that they mock at means that He has been known to use to reach a lost and dying world. I would fear to mock at anything that God might use to bring the first glimpse of light into a darkened soul. when I hear these thin gs I do not think these men are the more spiritual. I question everything I have ever heard them say.

Hi Robert,
While God may have used entertainment to recapture your heart, there is an endless number of souls that are being held in bondage by its captivating and hypnotic capabilities – many, if not all of them, under the false illusion that there is no harm in it. There is an elderly lady that I know, that less than a year ago almost died twice – but in both cases Jesus stepped in and she was supernaturally healed. As she lay in piles of tubes, white as a sheet, scripture verse after scripture verse flowed from her lips. She poured forth with praises to her Lord to all that came near. . . . Sadly, she now quotes Dr. Phil – and the praises have stopped.

Sigh, my heart is sinking, why are we so full of religious extremes?

When looking at the religious scene one must obviously conclude that there is so much going on only to provide entertainment in the church and to meet the little carnal needs of the people.
Plus, there is no piercing message.

But why then, do we again have to throw out the baby with the bathwater?

I know powerful dramas that wonderfully illustrate strong truths in a very convicting way.
Is that entertainment?

Is it wrong to use parables ?

We have to be careful and discerning before we put a general condemnation upon a thing that God very well can and will use.

You would have to condemn for example:
the early Salvation Army, lead by William Booth with their loud music on the street to gain attention,
Nicky Cruz for using a Gangster HipHop Band to reach subcultures
and yes, TimesQuareChurch!
They use dramas and modern music in their youth ministry.
Do you know Steiger? They have an evangelistic band called "No longer music". It is awful music, hehe, but they have gained entry into concert halls of Terrorist Organisations in Spain (I believe) and preached the gospel.
They are reaching places and people you would never reach. They are playing in heavy metal concert halls with satanic people and are on a direct confrontational course with the powers of darkness through their ministry.
And the message has nothing to do with entertainment.
Is that wrong?
I do not believe they enjoy being spit in their faces by people who hate God while they are on stage.

Of course the most important thing, the heart of the issue, is to preach the word of God, anointed and empowered by the Holy Spirit.
Outward means can never be the foundation.

But please, let us be discerning.
Daniel

As she lay in piles of tubes, white as a sheet, scripture verse after scripture verse flowed from her lips. She poured forth with praises to her Lord to all that came near. . . . Sadly, she now quotes Dr. Phil – and the praises have stopped.

I understand. But the same can be said of the Internet. The internet is far and away the most [i]potentially[/i] dangerous means in the history of the Church and the most dangerous place 'to be' or 'to partake of 'spiritually in the history of humanity. It is a spiritual minefield to be navigated very carefully as one wrong step could spell disaster like no other. But here we all are. ;-)

Wilkerson once told Ravenhill that the TV was of the devil, etc. Ravenhill responded to the effect, "I know where the knobs are" (controls in the modern sense).

In the same sense preaching is deceiving multitudes into bondage and so is the printed page.

The solution for [i]abuse[/i] is not 'non-use' it is [i]right[/i] use. I shuttered to think that my father saw his first light upon his soul watching John Hagee and listening to Hank Hanagraff. Do I advocate these men? Certainly not. Why? they are both way too dogmatic and intolerant of other folks views. But who am I to withstand God as He has saw fit to use these men in these circumstances?

My point is and was that extremism is killing us. It is driving people away from forums like these as they weary themselves at such extreme views that are more like the pharisees than Jesus. I mean, how far would we travel to make a proselite that was just exactly like we are? And how long will it be before we mature and realize that our youthful zeal gave rise to positions on things that we ours and not God's?

Hi Robert,

Brother, I understand your concerns here, and I share in them. Can you isolate some quotes from the Tozer article you specifically [i]disagree[/i] with (that is, the things you believe need to have the "holy fire whipped out of"), and from there we can take them to task. I somewhat agree with your perspective, yet at the same time I very much agree with Tozer's assesment. I wonder: can both these share a mutual validity?

Hi Paul and everyone,

The 'holy fire' comments are based more on some of the things coming out in print form that are so radical, I almost need a tylenol after each page to get my temperature back down. ;-)

As far as Tozer goes, understand that I admire the man greatly. He is buried near Canton you know, oddly enough just a couple miles from where I stayed in my hotel. Too bad I found that out after the conference. Anyway, I listen to more Tozer than probably any (edit. of the other speakers) here on SI. So I have a great admiration. But like many people that touch our lives, there are areas of strong disagreement.

In the article there is an undertone that suggests, as certain writings of our day, that God does not move on hearts when men employ means that:

1) may not be expressly stated in scripture
2) may have a parallel in pagan society
3) may draw attention to an individual
4) may cause some sort of 'emotional' response
5) etc. etc.

It is odd that today the Church is constantly being challenged to be 'relevant' to sociaty. I wonder if anyone ever stated that the bible was pagan because moveable type was not in scripture and the hard efforts and sweat and toil of writing the manuscripts by hand were over? In fact they have. Some have complained that the proliferation of the scriptures has de-valued them in the eyes of men. :-? Finney talked about the importance of bringing Christ before the eyes and minds of the people. When one means looses it's effectiveness we have to move on in order to keep a fresh presentation of Christ, uncompromised before the eyes of men. If we do not- we lose a generation.

The terribly sad thing is that Satan dupes believers, even the most spiritual of believers, into grasping their old traditions and pet-peeves to the place where they can write for days justifying them. They feel that if "you spent as much time alone with God as I have- you would know He would never approve of such." this is arrogance in my ears. My response is, and I speak as a fool, when you have spent as much time as I have looking into the faces of the lost and dying that need God you would see His face in theirs. When you have watched the heart monitor flat line you will feel the urgency to use what ever means God will use to save the last that He died to purchase with His own blood. You would be more inclined to pray and get about the work of visiting the lost than criticize every means God will emply either pragmatic or foolish.

Jesus spoke on hell? Yes? Do a study of why so many were cast into hell. It was all too often for what they did NOT do. A lot of people are doing things that are being criticized. They are trying to obey God. Their hearts break for lost souls. I would rather be in that camp any day than in a thousand trances trying to find God in a closet some place. In as much as you have done it unto the least of these my brethren- you have done it unto me. THAT, my friends, is fellowship with Christ.

God Bless,

Robert

My point is and was that extremism is killing us.

You are right brother.

For what it's worth, if you do a search here on this title from Tozer, you will find a couple of previous posts. One of them was presented around the time The Passion was coming out and drew out many ... expressions if I could put it somewhat understated.

The solution for [i]abuse[/i] is not 'non-use' it is [i]right[/i] use.

Yes. Think it is far easier to lump matters categorically than to deal with the inherent tensions of recognizing the extremes and ... just plain honest dealing with them.

Something else to take into consideration is the times. The time, setting, circumstances that might have been surrounding events at the moment Tozer wrote his article. Much of it we are not completely privy to. Some of it would be fairly extracted I would suppose by comparison to other works and those things he saw coming down the pike so to speak.

I wonder if we do not sometimes take these things and try to make them stand on all fours.

I wonder if we do not sometimes take these things and try to make them stand on all fours.

No doubt, brother. You know, when we speak of "extremism" we really need to understand it's a relative term, influenced by a myriad of factors - the most prominent being our own experiences. The definition of "extremism" can be influenced by our denominational leanings, our understanding of scripture, or our affinity for a certain style of preaching. Someone overindulging in Finney, for example, may (or may not) feel the same temperature of extreme as one who has a propensity for Spurgeon, and indeed their interpretations of Holy Scripture may be "extremely" at odds. How is this reconciled?

Easily, to me. Let each one be fully persuaded in his own mind, and not feel the need to press his or her own ideals of "extremism" (in relative terms, again) unduly upon the consciences of others, as the Holy Ghost is more than able to do this Himself in God's timing. In contrast to what Robert wrote earlier, sometimes I [i]do[/i] believe the factor of maturity and hearing from God is a valid reason for seeing different levels of extremity in personal conviction - and, yet, in other times it may not. It would certainly be arrogant to use this as a defense in a public forum - and for this I agree with him!

I do know that God doesn't change, and in times past - and even to this day - He is able to accomplish more effectively and soundly without the artistic underworkings of men and the golden inlays of casings we feel so impelled to enshroud the gospel. Which in no means states that He can't [i]use[/i] our embellishements - for He does - and at times with great effect. But some of us who are more purist in conviction and leaning tend to frown upon the brazen casings and ivory statues fashioned by the hands of man [i]overlaying[/i] the gospel in the attempts to make it, perhaps, more palpable to a spurned populace. In the construction of the Tabernacle of Meetings, if you recall, God wanted the dirty badger skins on the [i]outside[/i] and the intricate weaving and beautiful tapestries on the inside - and this tells me much about the gospel and its presentation, as corroborated in the New Testament by the writings and testimonies of Paul, who certainly hung the badger skins on the outside of all he did, both aesthetically, philosophically and oratorically.

Brother Paul

I was thinking this morning about how Jesus would speak in parables to the people. These were fictional stories with fictional characters (usually starring 'a certain man' ;-) ) designed to reveal a spiritual truth.

Not a reply to anyone in particular. Just rambling…

Paris Reidhead preached a sermon entitled, “God’s Work to be Done God’s Way” in which he points out that just because something seems to be working does not mean we are to employ that method. He uses the story of Uzza and the ox cart. It was making progress on wheels, but when the people of God started to use the ox cart method it stumbled, resulting in the death of Uzza, who, with good intentions, was simply trying to stabilize it.

God’s way was to carry it on poles. They had tried to use the method the world was using, and though it had made some progress, a high price was to be paid for not following instructions. Uzza should have known the Scriptures and had nothing to do with such an unbiblical way of moving the ark.

Having said that, I once watched a Passion play in Spearfish, South Dakota. It was freezing cold. I was unsaved and not very interested in attending. That was fifteen years ago and I will never forget that night…it was as if those people were engaged in worship. It was like God was using their passion for Him…to show His Passion for me. It would be some years before I was saved, but a seed had been sown.

I have also witnessed some very sad and disturbing “dramas” that still vex my spirit.

I certainly do not have all the answers, but I think there is something to be said for using Biblical methods…and avoiding those that are not.

To movie, or not to movie? Glad I am not the judge.

Just rambling.

I was thinking this morning about how Jesus would speak in parables to the people. These were fictional stories with fictional characters (usually starring 'a certain man' ) designed to reveal a spiritual truth.

Brother, and we do this also, for didactic purposes, and Puritan literature and Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" are replete with such allegorical truths.

But are these one and the same? Allegory and acting? The hypothetical and the hypocritical? God uses both - and hence our dilemma. I would rather not split hairs over this, but just live and preach the gospel without being a stumbling block to others.

Hello...

Although I agree with the spirit of what Brother Tozer was saying, I might point to a slight disagreement. A movie, in and of itself, is not necessarily a [i]sinful[/i] thing.

I have traveled deep into the rugged Sierra Madre Occidental mountains of southwestern Chihuahua, Mexico. The indigenous Tarahumara speak a language that has never fully been deemed a "written language" -- particularly since nearly 100% of the people are illiterate. These people live in caves and small huts that are far away from any sort of modern influence. Most of the Tarahumara do not speak Spanish. In fact, many of them are unaware of the existence of Mexico. Most of these 120,000-160,000 people are confined to the dense ranges that surround their villages.

One of the most powerful tools for bringing the Gospel was through the "Jesus Film Project." This old film about the life of Christ has had a considerable impact in the region. I have seen the tears when these "animists" (believers in multiple souls and gods) come to a realization that there is one god who created all things. When they see that this God came to Earth and walked amongst us only to be killed by the people that He loved -- they are cut to the heart.

Such films are not used to [i]entertain[/i]. They are used to educate and enlighten. I might add that the films (for this is what they are) of great sermons that are included here at SermonIndex have helped me immensely.

If I remember correctly, Brother Leonard Ravenhill mentioned watching the birth of a giraffe (or some sort of animal) during his [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=1702]interview[/url]. It was as if the documentary served as a parable that spoke about the agony of the birthing process. How is this different from the writings of John Bunyan in his allegorical [i]Pilgrim's Progress[/i] story?

I suppose that the consideration might be our motives for such things. Are we watching merely to [i]pass the times[/i] -- times that are very valuable and cannot afford to be wasted? Are we learning something from what we watch -- something that is heightened or augmented from mere words? Television (like the internet) certainly has the potential of being a time-waster. But it can also serve as a means of education. I might never have been able to attend a Carter Conlon sermon, but technology has made it a possibility. This is wonderful since so much of a sermon is perceived by what is unsaid -- when you can see the message in the mannerism and expressions of the speaker.

There is a plethora of evil available via television (and the internet). But there is also the potential for education, news, and encouragement. While the great majority is useless -- I personally enjoy watching educational programs. While I agree with Tozer's urgency in this issue, we might consider that such absolutes are rarely true in every circumstance. There are other questions to ask ourselves before we go about watching a program or film. First of these should be the spiritual benefit or the benefit that can be brought to the Kingdom of God in regard to these things.

:-(

One of the most powerful tools for bringing the Gospel was through the "Jesus Film Project." This old film about the life of Christ has had a considerable impact in the region. I have seen the tears when these "animists" (believers in multiple souls and gods) come to a realization that there is one god who created all things. When they see that this God came to Earth and walked amongst us only to be killed by the people that He loved -- they are cut to the heart.

This is wonderful, brother. Do the Tarahumara have a Bible in their own language?

But are these one and the same? Allegory and acting? The hypothetical and the hypocritical? God uses both - and hence our dilemma. I would rather not split hairs over this, but just live and preach the gospel without being a stumbling block to others.

This is a good question. I think the issue involves 3 things:

1) What is God leading us to do as we sincerely seek Him for direction?
2) What is the character of the men and women involved?
3) What is the purpose in doing a theatrical presentation to begin with?

Finney once stated that he believed that preachers should be made to go to acting school because they take something that is true, real and lively and make it look dead an unrealistic. Actors take something that is 'made up' and make it come to life.

I believe God can and has goven direction to folk to put on programs for the sake of presenting the Gospel or some message that people need to hear. Few people read. Fewer people can handle a lecture. I like to read and I like to lecture. I cannot impose these preferences on others and look on them with disdain because they do not receive things as I do. it's tempting, but out of respect for peoples differences and makeups- I have to view the goal as God, by revelation, revealing Himself to the person.

Information is not revelation. Sometimes information is presented in a theatrical way and God, by revelation, reveals Himself to the person. The reality is, not everyone reads all the time and meditates on God's word all the time. Some people cannot read at all. Some learn better by watching than by hearing a lecture, etc. Some people learn in a mutimedia environment. I cannot shun the means if God desires to work through it.

Parables force us to do the acting on a mental level. We imagine the prodigal son asking for the inheritance. We imagine him in the hog pen. We imagine him walking home. We imagine him getting the shoes, the robe and the ring. Theatre walks a person the thr process in a way that, to me, can free up the mental resources enough so that God can speak to them or reveal Himself. It can, in my mind, help facilitate the process. Again, it depends on what God is saying to do. But certainly, in my circles theatre has to remain on the table.

i guess my main question is...

*why do we need it??

really, what is our main reason as for why we need it? is it to teach and show something that you cannot really convey speaking (like a map).

i am not against showing something for the sake of illustrating a point/diagram or something like that. but most of the time, what i see is not just a slight illustration, but a mere reliance upon video or skits to make a point that we feel cannot be made without it. and for that i disagree. what i see (and participated in) in a lot of the churches was a reliance upon the visual to do the work that only the Holy Spirit can do through prayer and preaching the word.

it is not my place to judge the hearts of men or places that use dramas and stuff to reach out or for sermons, but i can feel it in my heart when it is being used to entertain the crowd and set the stage for a sermon instead of being serious-minded and prayerful. and to me, that is the big culprit. we can easily begin depending on skits and dramas to do what only God can do, ya know?

i don't know, that's just what i see with this issue.

ps. if we didn't care as much to be entertained ourselves (tv, sports, hobbies), we wouldn't have half as much garbage in the church as we do now..:-(

phil

Hi Paul...

This is wonderful, brother. Do the Tarahumara have a Bible in their own language?

The Mexican Government typically underreports the population and conditions of the Tarahumara. For the government, the Tarahumara are nothing more than a revenue generating "tourist attraction." Visitors from around the world are attracted to this unreached people's group. There is an expensive train that travels the length of the Sierra Madre, and the Tarahumara are the main "attraction." The government doesn't want anyone "modernizing" the Tarahumara. The Mexican Government has made it difficult for missionaries to work with these groups. It is a rugged area, and no roads can take you to most Tarahumara villages. I have traveled by 4x4s along walking trails that lead to large Tarahumara villages (which are typically a set of huts and caves spread out over a local mountain range). Most of these villagers have never seen a Spanish speaking mestizo, let alone a "gringo."

Like the Tarahumara, however, there are many groups of people around the world who lack a basic ability to read and write. As a result, the Jesus Film Project film is a valuable tool to missionaries. I have seen firsthand the powerful effect that the film has had on both Spanish speaking Mexicans and the Tarahumara. In addition to the Jesus film, a Spanish version of the the film [i]The Cross and the Switchblade[/i] has been shown in certain urban areas. It has also been well-received during our trips.

While I agree with the essence of what Tozer says, there are reasons in which a film could actually have a profound spiritual benefit. When we realize how large the illiteracy rate is in most Third World nations, we can understand the advantage of a "visual" Bible.

:-)

i am not against showing something for the sake of illustrating a point/diagram or something like that. but most of the time, what i see is not just a slight illustration, but a mere reliance upon video or skits to make a point that we feel cannot be made without it. and for that i disagree. what i see (and participated in) in a lot of the churches was a reliance upon the visual to do the work that only the Holy Spirit can do through prayer and preaching the word.

I don't think it has to be 'either' preaching or drama or 'only' preaching and drame- it needs to be both. One need not be a rocket scientist to see that the world is capturing the attention and imaginations of our children and youth via the use of multimedia and other modern methods of [i]communication[/i]. It would be the highest tragedy and greatest victory for the enemy for the Church to abandon these means. Men do not weild swords in battle these days. Are they any less warriors because they use modern weapons? How insane would it be for the Church to forsake the great marketplaces of ideas and communication? We may forsake them but you can rest assured the enemy has no points to prove and no agenda to maintain. He is in the business of damning the masses. Should we not be salt and light wherever we find our enemy?

Here is something I wrote awhile back:

Anything that we love more than God is an idol. There are many things in this world that people are unwilling to give up. It is things that have such a grip on us that we are unwilling to give them up that in reality are our idols. If God was the only “thing” that had a hold on us – if He were the only “thing” that we were unwilling to let go of – we would have no idols. The degree of reaction that one has to the idea of giving something up is in itself a barometer of how much that thing has a hold on that person. I remember how at one point in my life I had considered not watching television: – “what would I do with my time!” Now that God has taken away my desire for television, I find that He has wonderfully filled that imagined resulting void. There is no comparison between spending time with Him to spending time on anything else. Once we taste Him, everything else is tasteless. All other activities become duty (duty to whom or what becomes the question) and I find myself seriously contemplating the necessity of it all. Of course if it is His will, then it is necessary and is no longer duty for it is in His will that we find our delight.

en-ter-tain – 1. to hold the attention of pleasantly or agreeably; divert; amuse 3. to admit into the mind, consider 6. to receive (engage)

There is nothing more pleasant or agreeable than God. The find the necessity to divert or amuse the mind with something other than God would indicate an absence of God, for with Him such things are not necessary. Man’s attempt at amusement is shabby and hollow and most times cruel – it is usually at the expense of another – and participation brings ones mindset down to the same level which is invariably away from God. More often than not, if we would stop scurrying about long enough to take a look, we would find that in this seemingly harmless entertainment, we have opened our mind to all sorts of un-Godly notions. Like a sponge that has soaked up foul water, we have soaked up foulness that becomes a part of our being – integrated into our heart and our mind and then displayed in our actions and reactions. Our witness for Christ will necessarily be affected because we have filled a part of our self with something other than Him. Others will notice for it is easier to see the evil in others than ourselves - and this works both ways. If we identify ourselves as being a Christian, and at the same time display this foulness that we have absorbed, we are telling others that this is the nature of Christ.

God purifies, Satan pollutes.

If we identify ourselves as being a Christian, and at the same time display this foulness that we have absorbed, we are telling others that this is the nature of Christ.

I am understanding what I am hearing and have a great deal of sympathy with the points. However, to what degree is a Christian to sentence himself/herself to a life void of anything that would generate any real pleasure?

I believe it to be a serious error to think that because we are Christ's our lives are to stop unless we are either engaged in the work or are praying or studying, etc. It is the same mentality that says that sugar and salt ought not be eaten lest the Christian find pleasure. This is not Christianity it is [i]asceticism[/i].

One of the first pictures we have of the life of Christ was His attendance at a wedding. Weddings, for the Jews, we of tremendous celebration and enjoyment. Noones chins touched the floor and noone looked like they had been baptized in prune or lemon juice. One of the first lessons we get is, "It is OK to have a good time and enjoy yourself." Now I know we may be too spiritual to partake of such worldly pleasures, but Jesus extended the party right at the point when many would have thought God had made a way of escape by drying up the wine supply.

Understand that I am still trying to purge my mind from years of unhealthy teaching. Most of these teachings were passed off as 'holiness' or 'spiritual'. These were exercises in 'will worship 'that exalted one against the other because the one led a more miserable existence than the others. It is bondage. It is the book of Galatians all over again. Touch not, taste not, handle not, etc..

I know what it is to nearly 'burnout' from such a life. I have been more exceedingly zealous of most all things ministry than many around me. Oh for a little wisdom and balance! Would to God that someone had gotten in my face and said some of these things to me. I wonder how many husbands and wives of folk with these radical ideas are ready to snap or walk out of the marriage? I know sin and compromise has destroyed a lot more homes; but when it happens in your house statistics will not matter. I have known this to happen to people. Radical extremisms are turning off sons, daughters, moms, dads, husbands, wives, friends and foes.

What of we started loving [i]radically[/i]? What if we started a radical movement on showing compassion for sinners and the backsliders? What if we were so radical in our expression of love that the world began to see the difference between the Church and every other religion? Radical asceticism will win no one to Christ. A true expression of the love of God shed abroad in our hearts will win many.

And lets stop slamming folk who minister in ways we think are 'invalid'. There may well be people that recently came to Christ by some of these means. Would to God that Christians would stop shooting themselves in the foot. You be you- I'll be me and let God be God. Live and let live. Assist folk in their ministry. Don't be a source of discouragement. If correction needs to come do it lovingly and not in a condescending way. We could go on and on and on...

to what degree is a Christian to sentence himself/herself to a life void of anything that would generate any real pleasure?

It is the same mentality that says that sugar and salt ought not be eaten lest the Christian find pleasure.

One of the first lessons we get is, "It is OK to have a good time and enjoy yourself."

If only I could show you my heart - then maybe you could see . . . please pray for me, that He would shine forth. I will pray for you, that He will heal your wounds . . .

Hello RobertW,

my question is: what is your definition of extremism? In another thread you adviced to stay away from 'radical preaching' like the plague.

Now, what is 'radical preaching' in that sense?
I have read that you have ministered with Andrew Strom ( was that you? ). He definetly preaches a very strong message, so when is it radical in an unhealthy sense ?
Please share some wisdom here, thank you very much!

Daniel

One of the first lessons we get is, "It is OK to have a good time and enjoy yourself."

HeartSong wrote:

YES! but only in Him. Nothing is truly good or enjoyable without Him - it all fades and becomes meaningless.

Hello Heartsong,

I totally agree that without Christ and his fragrance in my soul everything is empty and grey. I do not believe RobertW is suggesting that we should seek fullfillment outside of the Lord.

But that does not mean that we are not to enjoy that what God has given us to enjoy with thanksgiving.
That may be the simple blessings of life, for example friends, enjoy the fellowship, going eating together and enjoying the nice chinese food at the restaurant down the street.

There is a kind of holiness guy out there who feels himself to holy to open the newspapaer and to holy to touch this and that. It is this holier-than-you attitude which drives people away from the true Jesus who is full of "GRACE and TRUTH".

True holiness comes only from a surrendered heart which lives in deep fellowship and intimacy with the Lord Jesus. Out of that flows LIFE.

No one is suggesting lasciviousness here.

Daniel

YES! but only in Him. Nothing is truly good or enjoyable without Him - it all fades and becomes meaningless.

As regenerate believers we are 'In' Christ. This is a constant abiding made possible by the Holy Spirit. If I go to a ball game then I am still 'In' Christ. If I watch a wholesome movie I am still 'In' Christ. If I go to an amusement park I am still 'In' Christ. I do not leave Christ at the gate of any of these things.

Now, what is 'radical preaching' in that sense?

Andrew and I have ministered together on a number of occasions. We labored together in revival meetings as well as homeless ministry. Andrew is a dear brother and I believe a great man of God. There are some aspects of his message that are radical to me concerning the reformation of certain practices within the mainstream Church. I understand his position, but do not share his zeal in trying to reform them. I believe God will work these things out in due time.

If we focus on radical reformation of the Church, even in the same way Viola and Barna are doing, then we run the risk of turning off a lot of pastors to the message of repentance. I have seen this happen on a large scale. I believe reformation will come in the midst of a God sent revival. God will strike the metal when it is hot to form the design He desires. But, someone has to sound the clarion call and these men have done this. My eyes are open to it and so are others. But, I believe God will send revival before He brings about a reformation.

As for the primary 'radical preaching' I am referring to. It is preaching that makes everything a sin or everything that is not expressly a Christian act 'compromise'. When folk start preaching their own personal convictions then we run the risk of shutting all of our lives down to a complete standstill. I believe that is what this thread is about. I respect Dom and Paul's views on the matter. Yet I believe an alternate view has to be added or impressionable folk will pick these things up because of the influence that good and respected men wield. Young people that are full of zeal for God (and thank God for them) can be very radical in their views. They view 'strict' with spiritual and they are two very different things.

A.W. Tozer obviously does not like the Theater for Christian purposes. His arguments, to me, are very weak. It is his conviction. He has a right to it. He has a right to defend it. The trouble he has is trying to convince a person like me that this means is not ordained of God in [u]some[/u] situations. I have seen God move and inspire folk with pointed messages to drive a point home through the use of drama. No means is any good to God without the unction of the Holy Spirit.

People criticized Charles G. Finney for so called "new measures". He utilized the anxious bench that eventually led to the modern day altar call. Writers who censor Finney for this do so because they have only a modern corrupt use of such a practice. I doubt we have ever heard preaching as Finney preached. I know the man struck at the heart a blow like no other. But Finney on the one hand is labeled as a compromiser because of the "new measures." Turn that around and realize that Finney thought eating for pleasure was a sin. To me, that is a personal conviction and is a manifestation of his desire to get closer to God. it's an "I'll do anything to get close to God" mindset. But this is [u]not[/u] how one gets close to God.

Strict ascetic living does not bring revival. when God starts moving and folk come into personal revival they will often discard many things that they used to do because of their focus on God; however, often they will also neglect good things. Some may be in revival and stop going to the ball game; then they start preaching against the ball game to people that are not on that level. The ball game is not sin to begin with. It is a [i]revived state based personal conviction[/i]. It gibes rise to "holiness or hell" preachers and historically the backslide because they cannot maintain that standard.

Honestly, when is someone going to start preaching on some real issues? We have messages on theater- where are messages on fornication and the plague upon our lands cause by sexual immorality and such? When is someone going to cut loose on the fact that millions of fatherless and widows are sitting lonely with little or no fellowship with believers to the point where some of them wonder of God even cares any more? There are people right now dying without God and near to flat lining and we find the time to nit pick and all over petty stuff. That's what I mean when I say "I wonder when God is going to take His belt off and whip the holy fire out...", etc.

God Bless,

Robert

well said robert w, thank you for being a voice to give balance and wisdom in situations like this.. i appreciate it.

phil

Good morning, Robert!

A.W. Tozer obviously does not like the Theater for Christian purposes. His arguments, to me, are very weak.

Again, may I ask you to isolate these "very weak arguments" in quotations so we can take them to task here before the brethren? If you are countering this article by what you feel are "unconvincing convictions" on the part of Tozer:

It is his conviction. He has a right to it. He has a right to defend it. The trouble he has is trying to convince a person like me that this means is not ordained of God in some situations.

May it not then be said that your convictions are coming into play here as well?

I have seen God move and inspire folk with pointed messages to drive a point home through the use of drama.

No doubt. And I know God can use Christian heavy metal bands as a gateway also for some folk. Brother, did you know that Jesus first impacted my life during a marijuana high I was on back in 1989? The guy I was smoking with just began quoting scripture while we were stoned, as we sat on a roof and watched a sunset. My heart was pierced that evening, I kept asking him "What else did Jesus say? What else did Jesus say" and I went home that night and wept, knowing Jesus was Lord.

Well, it was the Word of God that struck me like lightning - even through my misty, stoned-out stupor - but this "lightning strike" in no way gave credence to my marijuana high or the heavy metal bands or some of the religious dramas where people "act" the part of Paul or Christ and pretend to be someone they are not in the hopes that the lightning might flow through them. Why not just exercise the time-honored and most effective means necessary by faith alone and just [i]preach[/i] the Word of God without leaving an earthly residue on the message? This is my conviction, in any case. I left the roof that day in 1989 knowing Jesus was Lord, but not very convicted of my pot smoking; I saw the herb as natural, something God brings forth from the earth. And besides, God spoke to me through it (or so I thought)! The pipe the Word flowed through that evening was stained with THC, and it seasoned the gospel accordingly. I think Tozer's convictions are very powerful actually, and they are shared by many mature believers. I do, however, understand your concerns, brother - and share them. This is precisely why I wouldn't preach on such a topic from the pulpit; this is an area that requires great sensibility and discernement in the Holy Spirit. I don't consider it my job to drive this conviction home in the life of a believer, anymore that I would try to teach physics to a second grader. God is able to grow His children; God is able to bring conviction in His time without a preacher banging down the door.

Ah, Paul! I have much to add here being of such like ... past experience. Just cut a whole bit in reply that seemed to start off alright and then got disjointed. Short on time and will return but indeed as a once professional stoner and professed metal head not at all an odd thing to me that the Lord would use the 'devil' himself, Ozzy Osbourne and his guitar player Zakk Wylde's little side band effort to cement the words "Oh, sweet Jesus, where did I go?" the night I truly repented in a drug induced stupor and incredible invasion of the Holy Spirit ...

Ah, for more time right now ... Brother thank you, think there is much to consider from all these perspectives, your's, Robert's, perhaps mine own and indeed Tozers.

Sincerity ... That section was where I had begun to launch off from. Much to consider brethren.

Hi Paul,

May it not then be said that your convictions are coming into play here as well?

Certainly. However, what we are dealing with here is a commonly used means of presenting the Gospel in our times. It is indeed my firm conviction that when God has seen fit to use some new measure or means of presenting the Gospel not found in the scriptures, that charity and wisdom are in order. We must use caution lest we be found even to fight against God. For this cause I have held my peace on the use of several means of ministry that I personally am not fond of. I have chosen deliberately to distinguish between my own personal preferences and what may in fact be God's preferences.

The subject is as old as the church. I would refer you to Finneys lecture on the promotion of revivals (Lecture 14). Rather than isolate Tozer's words and give an alternate view, I will offer an alternate view from Finney which I think will establish my basic position.

Here is an excerpt:

From Measures To Promote Revivals
C.G. Finney

II. I am to show that our present forms of public worship, and everything, so far as measures are concerned, have been arrived at by degrees, and by a succession of New Measures.

1. I will mention some things in regard to the ministry.

Many years ago, ministers were accustomed to wear a peculiar habit. It is so now in Catholic countries. It used to be so here. Ministers had a peculiar dress as much as soldiers. They used to wear a cocked hat, and bands instead of a cravat or stock, and small clothes, and a wig. No matter how much hair a man had on his head, he must cut it off and wear a wig. And then he must wear a gown. All these things were customary, and every clergyman was held bound to wear them, and it was not considered proper for him to officiate without them. All these had doubtless been introduced by a succession of innovations, for we have no good reason for believing that the apostles and primitive ministers dressed differently from other men.

But now all these things have been given up, one by one, by a succession of innovations or new measures, until now in many churches a minister can go into the pulpit and preach without being noticed, although dressed like any other man. And when it was done in regard to each one of them, the church complained as much as if it had been a Divine institution given up. It was denounced as an innovation. When ministers began to lay aside their cocked hats, and wear hats like other men, it grieved the elderly people very much; it looked so "undignified," they said, for a minister to wear a round hat. When, in 1827 I wore a fur cap, a minister said, "that was too bad for a minister."

When ministers first began, a few years since, to wear white hats, it was thought by many to be a sad and very undignified innovation. And even now, they are so bigoted in some places, that a clergyman told me but a few days since, in travelling through New England last summer with a white hat, he could perceive that it injured his influence. This spirit should not be looked upon as harmless; I have good reason to know that it is not harmless. Thinking men see it to be mere bigotry, and are exceedingly in danger of viewing everything about religion in the same light on this account. This has been the result in many instances. There is at this day scarcely a minister in the land who does not feel himself obliged to wear a black coat, as much as if it were a divine institution. The church is yet filled with a kind of superstitious reverence for such things. This is a great stumbling block to many minds.

So, in like manner, when ministers laid aside their bands, and wore cravats or stocks, it was said they were becoming secular, and many found fault. Even now, in some places, a minister would not dare to be seen in the pulpit in a cravat or stock. The people would feel as if they had no clergyman, if he had no bands. A minister in this city asked another, but a few days since, if it would do to wear a black stock in the pulpit. He wore one in his ordinary intercourse with his people, but doubted whether it would do to wear it in the pulpit.

So in regard to short clothes; they used to be thought essential to the ministerial character. Even now, in Catholic countries, every priest wears small clothes. Even the little boys there, who are training for the priest's office, wear their cocked hats, and black stockings, and small clothes. This would look ridiculous amongst us. But it used to be practised in this country. The time was when good people would have been shocked if a minister had gone into the pulpit with pantaloons on. They would have thought he was certainly going to ruin the church by his innovations. I have been told that some years ago, in New England, a certain elderly clergyman was so opposed to the new measure of a minister's wearing pantaloons, that he would on no account allow them in his pulpit. A young man was going to preach for him, who had no small clothes, and the old minister would not let him officiate in pantaloons. "Why," said he, "my people would think I had brought a fop into the pulpit, to see a man there with pantaloons on, and it would produce an excitement among them." And so, finally, the young man was obliged to borrow a pair of the old gentleman's clothes, and they were too short for him, and made a ridiculous figure enough. But any thing was better than such a terrible innovation as preaching in pantaloons. But reason has triumphed.

Just so it was in regard to wigs. I remember one minister, who, though quite a young man, used to wear an enormous white wig. And the people talked as if there was a divine right about it, and it was as hard to give it up, almost, as to give up the Bible itself. Gowns also were considered essential to the ministerial character. And even now, in many congregations in this country, the people will not tolerate a minister in the pulpit, unless he has a flowing silk gown, with enormous sleeves as big as his body. Even in some of the Congregational Churches in New England, they cannot bear to give it up. Now, how came people to suppose a minister must have a gown or a wig, in order to preach with effect? Why was it that every clergyman was held obliged to use these things? How is it that not one of these things have been given up in the churches, without producing a shock among them? They have all been given up, one by one, and many congregations have been distracted for a time by the innovation. But will any one pretend that the cause of religion has been injured by it? People felt as if they could hardly worship God without them, but plainly their attachment to them was no part of their religion, that is, no part of the Christian religion. It was mere superstition. And when these things were taken away they complained, as Micah did, "Ye have taken away my gods." But no doubt their religious character was improved, by removing these objects of superstitious reverence. So that the church, on the whole, has been greatly the gainer by the innovations. Thus you see that the present mode of a minister's dress has been gained by a series of new measures.

2. In regard to the order of public worship.

The same difficulties have been met in effecting every change, because the church have felt as if God had established just the mode which they were used to.

(1.) Psalm Books. Formerly it was customary to sing David's Psalms. By and by there was introduced a version of the Psalms in rhyme. This was very bad, to be sure. When ministers tried to introduce them, the churches were distracted, people violently opposed, and great trouble was created by the innovation. But the new measure triumphed.

Afterwards another version was brought forward in a better style of poetry, and its introduction was opposed with much contention, as a new measure. And finally Watt's version, which is still opposed in many churches. No longer ago than 1828, when I was in Philadelphia, I was told that a minister there was preaching a course of lectures on psalmody to his congregation, for the purpose of bringing them to use a better version of psalms and hymns than the one they were accustomed to. And even now, in a great many congregations, there are people who will go out of church, if a psalm or hymn is given out from a new book. And if Watt's Psalms should be adopted, they would secede and form a new congregation, rather than tolerate such an innovation. The same sort of feeling has been excited by introducing the "Village Hymns" in prayer meetings. In one Presbyterian congregation in this city, within a few years, the minister's wife wished to introduce the Village Hymns into the female prayer meetings, not daring to go any further. She thought she was going to succeed. But some of the careful souls found out that is was made in New England, and refused to admit it. "It is a Hopkinsian thing, I dare say."

(2.) Lining the Hymns. Formerly, when there were but few books, it was the custom to line the hymns, as it was called. The deacon used to stand up before the pulpit, and read off the psalm or hymn, a line at a time, or two lines at a time, and then sing, and the rest would all fall in. By and by, they began to introduce books, and let every one sing from his book. And what an innovation! Alas, what confusion and disorder it made! How could the good people worship God in singing, without having the deacon to line off the hymn in his holy tone, for the holiness of it seemed to consist very much in the tone, which was such that you could hardly tell whether he was reading or singing.

(3.) Choirs. Afterwards another innovation was carried. It was thought best to have a select choir of singers sit by themselves and sing, so as to give an opportunity to improve the music. But this was bitterly opposed. Oh, how many congregations were torn and rent in sunder, by the desire of ministers and some leading individuals to bring about an improvement in the cultivation of music, by forming choirs of singers. People talked about innovations and new measures, and thought great evils were coming to the churches, because the singers were seated by themselves, and cultivated music, and learned new tunes that the old people could not sing. It did not use to be so when they were young, and they would not tolerate such new lights and novelties in the church.

(4.) Pitchpipes. When music was cultivated, and choirs seated together, then the singers wanted a pitchpipe. Formerly, when the lines were given out by the deacon or clerk, he would strike off into the tune, and the rest would follow as well as they could. But when the leaders of choirs begun to use pitchpipes for the purpose of pitching all their voices on precisely the same key, what vast confusion it made! I heard a clergyman say that an elder in the town where he used to live, would get up and leave the house whenever he heard the chorister blow his pipe. "Away with your whistle," said he. "What! whistle in the house of God!" He thought it a profanation.

(5.) Instrumental Music. By and by, in some congregations, various instruments were introduced for the purpose of aiding the singers, and improving the music. When the bass viol was first introduced, it made a great commotion. People insisted they might just as well have a fiddle in the house of God. "Why, it is a fiddle, it is made just like a fiddle, only a little larger, and who can worship where there is a fiddle? By and by you will want to dance in the meeting house." Who has not heard these things talked of, as matters of the most vital importance to the cause of religion and the purity of the church? Ministers, in grave ecclesiastical assemblies, have spent days in discussing them. In a synod in the Presbyterian church, only a few years ago, it was seriously talked of by some, as a matter worthy of discipline in a certain church, that they had an organ in the house of God. This within a few years. And there are many churches now who would not tolerate an organ. They would not be half so much excited to be told that sinners are going to hell, as to be told that there is going to be an organ in the meeting house. Oh, in how many places can you get the church to do anything else, easier than to come along in an easy and natural way to do what is needed, and wisest, and best, for promoting religion and saving souls! They act as if they had a "Thus saith the Lord," for every custom and practice that has been handed down to them, or that they have long followed themselves, however absurd or injurious.

(6.) Extemporary Prayers. How many people are there, who talk just as if the Prayer Book was of divine institution! And I suppose multitudes believe it is. And in some parts of the church a man would not be allowed to pray without his book before him.

(7.) Preaching without notes. A few years since, a lady in Philadelphia was invited to hear a certain minister preach, and she refused, because he did not read his sermons. She seemed to think it would be profane for a man to go into the pulpit and talk, just as if he was talking to the people about some interesting and important subject. Just as if God had enjoined the use of notes and written sermons. They do not know that notes themselves are an innovation, and a modern one too. They were introduced in a time of political difficulties in England. The ministers were afraid they should be accused of preaching something against the government, unless they could show what they had preached, by having all written down beforehand. And with a time-serving spirit, they yielded to political considerations, and imposed a yoke of bondage upon the church. And, now in many places, they cannot tolerate extempore preaching.

(8.) Kneeling in Prayer. This has made a great disturbance in many parts of the country. The time has been in the Congregational churches in New England, when a man or woman would be ashamed to be seen kneeling at a prayer meeting, for fear of being taken for a Methodist. I have prayed in families where I was the only person that would kneel. The others all stood, lest they should imitate the Methodists, I suppose, and thus countenance innovations upon the established form. Others, again, talk as if there was no other posture but kneeling, that could be acceptable in prayer.

3. Labors of Laymen.

(1.) Lay Prayers. Much objection was formerly made against allowing any man to pray or to take a part in managing a prayer meeting, unless he was a clergyman. It used to be said that for a layman to pray in public, was interfering with the dignity of ministers, and was not to be tolerated. A minister in Pennsylvania told me that, a few years ago, he appointed a prayer meeting in the church, and the elders opposed it and turned it out of the house. They said they would not have such work, they had hired a minister to do the praying, and he should do it, and they were not going to have common men praying.

Ministers and many others have very extensively objected against a layman's praying in public, and especially in the presence of a minister. That would let down the authority of the clergy, and was not to be tolerated. At a synod held in this State, there was a synodical prayer meeting appointed. The committee of arrangements, as it was to be a formal thing, designated beforehand the persons who were to take part, and named two clergymen and one layman. The layman was a man of talents and information equal to most ministers. But one doctor of divinity got up and seriously objected to a layman's being asked to pray before that synod. It was not usual, he said; it infringed upon the rights of the clergy, and he wished no innovations. What a state of things!

(2.) Lay exhortation. This has been made a question of vast importance, one which has agitated all New England, and many other parts of the country, whether laymen ought to be allowed to exhort in public meetings. Many ministers have labored to shut up the mouths of laymen entirely. They overlooked the practice of the primitive churches. So much opposition was made to this practice nearly a hundred years ago, that President Edwards actually had to take up the subject, and write a labored defence of the rights and duties of laymen. But the opposition has not entirely ceased to this day. "What! A man that is not a minister, to talk in public! it will create confusion, it will let down the ministry; what will people think of us, ministers, if we allow common men to do the same things that we do?" Astonishing!

But now, all these things are gone by, in most places, and laymen can pray and exhort without the least objection. The evils that were feared, from the labors of laymen, have not been realized, and many ministers are glad to have them exercise their gifts in doing good.

4. Female Prayer Meetings. Within the last few years, female prayer meetings have been extensively opposed in this State. What dreadful things! A minister, now dead, said that when he first attempted to establish these meetings, he had all the clergy around opposed to him. "Set women to praying? Why, the next thing, I suppose, will be to set them to preaching." And serious apprehensions were entertained for the safety of Zion, if women should be allowed to get together to pray. And even now, they are not tolerated in some churches.

So it has been in regard to all the active movements of the church. Missions, Sunday Schools, and everything of the kind, have been opposed, and have gained their present hold in the church only by a succession of struggles and a series of innovations. A Baptist Association in Pennsylvania, some years since, disclaimed all fellowship with any minister that had been liberally educated, or that supported Missions, Bible Societies, Sabbath Schools, Temperance Societies, etc. All these were denounced as New Measures, not found in the Bible, and that would necessarily lead to distraction and confusion in the churches. The same thing has been done by some among the German churches. And in many Presbyterian churches, there are found those who will take the same ground, and denounce all these things, with the exception, perhaps, of an educated ministry, as innovations, new measures, new lights, going in their own strength, and the like, and as calculated to do great evil.

5. I will mention several men who have in Divine providence been set forward as prominent in introducing these innovations.

(1.) The apostles were great innovators, as you all know. After the resurrection, and after the Holy Spirit was poured out upon them, they set out to remodel the church. They broke down the Jewish system of measures and rooted it out, so as to leave scarcely a vestige.

(2.) Luther and the Reformers. You all know what difficulties they had to contend with, and the reason was, that they were trying to introduce new measures--new modes of performing the public duties of religion, and new expedients to bring the gospel with power to the hearts of men. All the strange and ridiculous things of the Roman Catholics were held to in the church with pertinacious obstinacy, as if they were of Divine authority. And such an excitement was raised by the attempt to change them, as well nigh involved all Europe in blood.

(3.) Wesley and his coadjutors. Wesley did not at first tear off from the Established Church in England, but formed little classes everywhere, that grew into a church within a church. He remained in the Episcopal church, but he introduced so much of new measures, as to fill all England with excitement and uproar and opposition, and he was everywhere denounced as an innovator and a stirrer up of sedition, and a teacher of new things which it was not lawful to receive.

Whitefield was a man of the same school, and like Wesley was an innovator. I believe he and several individuals of his associates were expelled from college for getting up such a new measure, as a social prayer meeting. They would pray together and expound the Scriptures, and this was such a daring novelty that it could not be borne. When Whitefield came to this country, what an astonishing opposition was raised! Often he well nigh lost his life, and barely escaped by the skin of his teeth. Now, everybody looks upon him as the glory of the age in which he lived. And many of our own denomination have so far divested themselves of prejudice as to think Wesley not only a good but a wise and pre-emiently useful man. Then almost the entire church viewed them with animosity, fearing that the innovations he introduced would destroy the church.

(4.) President Edwards. This great man was famous in his day for new measures. Among other innovations, he refused to baptize the children of impenitent parents. The practice of baptizing the children of the ungodly had been introduced in the New England churches in the preceding century, and had become nearly universal, President Edwards saw that the practice was wrong, and he refused to do it, and the refusal shook all the churches of New England. A hundred ministers joined and determined to put him down. He wrote a book on the subject, and defeated them all. It produced one of the greatest excitements there ever was in New England. Nothing, unless it was the Revolutionary War, ever produced an equal excitement.

The General Association of Connecticut refused to countenance Whitefield, he was such an innovator. "Why, he will preach out of doors and anywhere!" Awful! What a terrible thing, that a man should preach in the fields or in the streets. Cast him out.

All these were devoted men, seeking out ways to do good and save souls. And precisely the same kind of opposition was experienced by all the ecclesiastical bodies, obstructing their path and trying to destroy their character and influence. A book, now extant, was written in President Edwards' time, by a doctor of divinity, and signed by a multitude of ministers, against Whitefield and Edwards, their associates and their measures. A letter was published in this city by a minister against Whitefield, which brought up the same objections against innovations that we hear now. In the time of the late opposition to revivals in the State of New York, a copy of this letter was taken to the editor of a religious periodical with a request that he would publish it. He refused, and gave for a reason, that if published, many would apply it to the controversy that is going on now. I mention it merely to show how identical is the opposition that is raised in different ages against all new measures designed to advance the cause of religion.

6. In the present generation, many things have been introduced which have proved useful, but have been opposed on the ground that they were innovations. And as many are still unsettled in regard to them, I have thought it best to make some remarks concerning them. There are three things in particular which have chiefly attracted remark, and therefore I shall speak of them. They are Anxious Meetings, Protracted Meetings, and the Anxious Seat. These are all opposed, and are called new measures.

(1.) Anxious Meetings. The first that I ever heard of under that name, was in New England, where they were appointed for the purpose of holding personal conversation with anxious sinners, and to adapt instruction to the cases of individuals, so as to lead them immediately to Christ. The design of them is evidently philosophical, but they have been opposed because they were new. There are two modes of conducting an anxious meeting, either of which may effect the object of them.

(a.) By spending a few moments in personal conversation and learning the state of mind of each individual, and then in a address to the whole, take up all their errors and remove their difficulties together.

(b.) By going round to each, and taking up each individual case, and going over the whole ground with each one separately, and getting them to promise to give up their hearts to God. Either way they are important, and have been found most successful in practice. But multitudes have objected to them because they were new.

(2.) Protracted Meetings. These are not new, but have always been practised, in some form or other, ever since there was a church on earth. The Jewish festivals were nothing else but protracted meetings. In regard to the manner, they were conducted differently from what they are now. But the design was the same, to devote a series of days to religious services, in order to make a more powerful impression of divine things upon the minds of the people. All denominations of Christians, when religion prospers among them, hold protracted meetings. In Scotland they used to begin on Thursday at all their communion seasons, and continue until after the Sabbath. The Episcopalians, Baptists, and Methodists all hold protracted meetings. Yet now in our day they have been opposed, particularly among Presbyterians, and called new measures, and regarded as fraught with all manner of evil, notwithstanding they have been so manifestly and so extensively blessed. I will suggest a few things that ought to be considered in regard to them.

Brother, this is an excellent Finney article, and I'm fully sympathetic of the contents he presents, though I have trouble finding a spiritual common ground between the issues Finney brings and those Tozer is asserting. I think an Isaac Watts hymn is a far cry from a Hollywoodesque passion play baptized in Christian vernacular - though we've already established God can use both. The things Finney brings up here, however, are many of the same issues the Wesley brothers dealt with a century earlier - particularly concerning laymen ministers. Also, keep in mind that Finney himself is a highly controversial figure (particularly in these forums...as you well know :)) and one whom I would exercise great caution with when calling to the witness stand.

Can't you isolate one "very weak" conviction of Tozer's and present it here for us? I only persist in this because I publically stated that I found the content very powerful and convincing, and you have publically stated the article to be, at least in some parts, the complete opposite: weak and unconvincing. I would only take this to task for edification of all on SermonIndex, to see, perhaps, if both our views can converge at some point to create a unified whole.

Brother Paul

We are delaing with a time in which Passiveness in the Church is almost killing it.
We have a church that is dying because it is sitting idly by as many people are going to hell.
Are we raising men up to be gods? Celebrity Christians in whom no accountablity is possible.
To me bible study is an example , people do not think any more they idly sit by an listen to someone and not have to do any work for themselves.
If we can mass produce bible studies on dvd's in which the actual person never actually picks up a bible.
People do not think any more as David Wilkerson said that we have a blink Generation.
I have done studies from sources that to the degree people sit down and watch tv that is the degree that people do not read.
We have a generation that does not think.
In church we sit by idly by, by many famous teachers who do not require of the audience anything. So one course goes on from another course and people turn into course addicts who pay their dollar or pound in the collection plate.
If course like this take the place of praying and reading scripture and praising, their is something wrong.
I love audio sermons but not as much as I love my bible I do not want to see a generation that has lost the past wisdom.
To me also I also want to see new preachers greater than Ravenhill, Finney even Peter the Apostle, JOhn the Apostle, PAul.
I do not want our churches to degrate into second class theatre cinema rooms in which evangelism and the bible are second rate.

I love people like Art katz and others on this site, I love teaching but I dont want it to become more prevalant that the bible

PaulWest wrote:
I think an Isaac Watts hymn is a far cry from a Hollywoodesque passion play baptized in Christian vernacular - though we've already established God can use both.

Some time ago I read an article by Denny Kenaston in [url=http://www.charityministries.org/textonly/May-June-2004-remnant.pdf]The Heartbeat of the Remnant[/url] about this very subject. The article is about the movie Passion of Christ, and he is also suggesting the article of Tozer from this thread. I would like to share this:

American Christianity is buzzing with questions, debates, and reviews about Mel Gibson’s latest blood and guts movie.
Many are asking, “Should I go to see it, or is it right to go to the theater and watch this movie?” I myself have been quite intrigued with the “conservative Christian” response to this movie. I have been shocked at how many Christian leaders have gone to see the movie, so they can “answer all the questions” that come to them. I think that most of our readers already know how I feel about such a sacrilegious display of the holiest scenes in human history. However, it seems like a fitting time to pay my respects to movies, and the dangers of drama one more time.

I too have been bombarded with questions about the right and wrong of this movie, and whether a sincere God fearing Christian should go to it. We on the editorial staff found this [b]old article written by A W Tozer over fifty years ago[/b], and thought its content is worth reading in 2004. [b]Tozer was right on, fifty years ago, and much more so today.[/b] We have selected a few pages out of the entire article and placed them below for your meditations.

[i]I read an article recently that said preachers must make the multi-media adjustments to their ministries, or they will soon have no people listening to their sermons. [b]Oh, how far we have fallen[/b]. I for one agree with John Wesley who said, “If the preacher is full of the fire of God, then people will gather just to watch him burn.” [/i]

Maybe my thoughts are too late for some of you, but I feel moved by the Lord [b]to sound the alarm[/b] anyway. If you are still halting between two opinions, here are my thoughts about the movie.

The Passion of the Christ is not an accurate scriptural account of Christ’s passion recorded in any of the translations of the Bible. Christ was not beaten all the way to Calvary. Simon and Jesus did not jointly carry the cross. Mary did not wipe up the blood of Christ after He was beaten. Moreover, Jesus did not pray because he was afraid to go to the cross, He prayed in agony. All these things and more were added, to make the movie more interesting. Drama has to do this to make a “good” movie.

There is no preaching in the movie. It seems to me, if the producer’s burden was to reach the lost, he would have found a creative way to put a clear gospel presentation in it. We all know that this kind of activity will cut way down on the Box Office figures. [b]Let us remember God’s heart has not changed, “It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” (I Cor. 1:21b) [/b]

Hollywood is Hollywood. It is rotten to the core. Satan has used the movie industry to defile generations of Americans as well as others in the rest of the nations. [b]Don’t give Hollywood a dollar of support even if one movie has some good in it.[/b] You will see more movies like this one, because the producers are learning [b]they can lure the conservatives into the theaters with “[u]good movies[/u].”[/b] Money is the name of the game. Let us remember the foundation of Hollywood is sex, rape, murder, and violence, [i]we Christian’s should have nothing to do with any of it. [/i]

The movie is packed full of emotions, but has very little conviction which comes as the Spirit of God convicts people of their need of repentance. Many people come out of the theaters weeping, but remember, [b]they do the same thing with every other touching movie.[/b] Emotions are deceitful. They make you feel very spiritual, but if the will does not change, the life will not change. [b]We need some good old fashion discernment.[/b] [i]Many Christians today are calling emotional feelings “the Spirit of God.”[/i] [b]This is a very dangerous deception. [/b]They are doing it in the worship service as well. Lots of mushy songs of “I love you Lord” bring deep feelings of emotion. However, that is not the Spirit of God.

The world is running after this movie in mass. It is making multiplied millions for all who are involved. This spells danger to me. That which is highly esteemed among men is an abomination to God. Why does the world enjoy something that is supposed to be so spiritual? Maybe it is not as holy as we think it is. If this movie were a holy, heavenly anointed presentation of the passion of Christ, it would convict people of their sin, rebellion, and unbelief. If the movie did in deed convict them, they would not want to go there, just like they don’t want to go to church.

Drama is drama. It is playacting. The people involved in the movie are living and acting out lies. They are playing parts, that are absolutely not who they are in real life. This is the greatest problem with drama. It is unreal people acting out hypocrisy. In the case of “The Passion of the Christ,” it is the ultimate hypocrisy. Who would dare to play the part of our Holy God dying for the sins of humanity? This is sacrilegious.

This movie is causing sincere conservative Christians to compromise, and step over the threshold of the movie theater for the first time in their life. Multitudes have done this. I know they had twinges of conviction as they walked through the door, and sat down in the seats for the first time. This is probably the greatest grief to me. They have soothed their crying conscience by saying it is a “good movie about Christ.” Preachers have done this. Good men who have stood for right many years are doing this. They are justifying their actions by saying they need to know how to answer the many questions that come.

[b]I fear this movie will make the multitudes love another Jesus with a fuzzy kind of love that does not require repentance or commitment. If the whole worldly world and the religious world are “in love with this Jesus” this can easily prepare the way for another Christ whom the Bible calls the [u]Anti-Christ[/u]. [/b]

Lastly, the movie opens the door for more ecumenical activities between Catholics and Protestants. Where is our discernment? So Mel Gibson is a “Conservative Catholic,” he is also a Hollywood producer who has filmed hours of sex, violence and rebellion. Would the real Christians please get some clear discernment about these things?

Well, there are many other points that could be added to these nine points, but I think this is enough for anyone who is sincerely seeking God’s direction about the latest movie. [b]Consider some of Tozer’s thoughts written fifty years ago.[/b]
Bro Denny

Yes, and let us not forget that Tozer wrote this fifty years ago. I can't imagine what kind of movies were there, but surely this man had a prophetic voice of this generation!

About the question, can God use movies or theaters, of course, He can use even donkey. The question is, is this the way of the Lord and should we do it. Here is one practical example how God can use theaters:

Many years ago in a Moscow theater, matinee idol Alexander Rostovzev was converted while playing the role of Jesus in a sacrilegious play entitled Christ in a Tuxedo. He was supposed to read two verses from the Sermon on the Mount, remove his gown, and cry out, "Give me my tuxedo and top hat!" But as he read the words, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted," he began to tremble. Instead of following the script, he kept reading from Matthew 5, ignoring the coughs, calls, and foot-stamping of his fellow actors. Finally, recalling a verse he had learned in his childhood in a Russian Orthodox church, he cried, "Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom!" (Luke 23:42). Before the curtain could be lowered, Rostovzev had trusted Jesus Christ as his personal Savior.

[i]J.K. Johnston, Why Christians Sin, Discovery House, 1992, p. 121.[/i]

Brother, this is an excellent Finney article, and I'm fully sympathetic of the contents he presents, though I have trouble finding a spiritual common ground between the issues Finney brings and those Tozer is asserting

This is because Finney died in the late 1800's and could only speak to the history of the Church in its implementation of new measures and innovative means up to his death. I know great men of God that can trace the history of 'change' from the 1930's until today and the pattern is the same. No instruments in the church. No amplification. No singing with a background tape. All these things at one time were "of the devil" and 'evil'.

Every generation has to battle the folk who want to maintain what they believe is a biblical approach to ministry. This is a commendable attitude, but what Finney shows is that God did not give us a real approach to how we present the Gospel.

If you get a chance to read [i]Pagan Christianity[/i] by Frank Viola and George Barna you will see that there are men that would and do censor Wesley, Finney, and others because they preach sermons. That's right, preaching is Pagan. They give their 'evidence' that such a practice is not only unbilical, but it is Pagan in origin. They vent their contempt for sermons. That's right, sermons. This is Tozer's viewpoint taken to it's ultimate conclusion. When taken to it's ultimate extreme- it drags him down into the same pit. Because where there is a Tozer crying foul for the theatre, there is a Viola that is crying foul of Tozer's preaching sermons, any sermon at all. So on and so forth until we are all shards and ruins.

I pray we can all work through this in the right spirit and with the mind of Christ. With that being said, let me thank brother Kire for enhancing our discussion with the Kenaston article (which I've never seen). A few points stuck out which I could readily identify with. I, too, was on the bandwagon of promoting Mel Gibson's "Passion" when it came out. A few brothers and myself even stood on the street corner and offered tracts to people leaving the movie house after viewing it.

Well, I saw it. Twice. And, of course, wept during the scourging: It was a powerful, soul-throttling experience. In fact, the college girl next to me was weeping also, and so was the guy behind me.

The movie is packed full of emotions, but has very little conviction which comes as the Spirit of God convicts people of their need of repentance. Many people come out of the theaters weeping, but remember, they do the same thing with every other touching movie. [b]Emotions are deceitful[/b]

"Emotions are deceitful" - this truth cannot be highlighted enough. I also cried when I saw E.T. and I always cry when they shoot King Kong off the building. This may infuriate some people here, but I solemnly believe that fake Hollywood movies like the "Passion" and many of our church dramas do more damage than good. For every one person who may genuinely come to God through them, there are one hundred others who are assured of a false security by virtue of their emotional experience, equating, in essence, tears to salvation. The "Passion" movie brought much tears but no repentance because it was not birthed in a soul-hot womb, as many dramas and religious spectacles in our Western, persecutionless church are. They are seasonal; put into production during the Christmas and Easter seasons by default without much tears in the making. Note, when I say "soul-hot" I don't mean screaming, ranting, prancing, hankerchief-fluttering hellfire and brimstone; I mean the result of ministers saturated in prayer and in God's Word and living clean, holy lives before the Lord and fellow man. For the bulk of these dramas, the words are there, the wigs, the fake robes and penciled-in facial hair, the fake cross with fake blood with a fake christ festooned on it - and with a little help from some dramatic music, people begin weeping like they weep listening to a religious Country-Western song about having "Jesus in the heart" and little puppy dogs going to heaven. I'm being overly dramatic here, and painting with broad strokes to get my point across, so please forgive me.

What comes from the soul easily produces tears, for tears are the outward result of an inner emotional conflict; but what comes from the Spirit of God produces genuine repentance unto holiness and a death to this world. The death here is immediate, though the [i]revelation[/i] that you have died to it is progressive, gradual, and in God's timing. If you are soundly saved and filled with the Holy Spirit and immersed in God's Word and thirsting in prayer...there soon comes the day where such things that before had a great glow of godliness and practibilty begin to dim and gradually become engulfed by the simple "foolishness of preaching" alone with no training wheels, flotation devices, or candy wrappings necessary.

At least, this has been my experience, and the experience of many a reputable minister of grace.

Brother Paul

Some of A.W. Tozer's concepts on Theater to consider:

Surely it requires no genius to see that the Bible rules out pictures and dramatics as media for bringing faith and life to the human soul.

This is impossible. Scripture as we have the printed page is a 'picture' of words. They are not the very words themselves. This is no different than an unrealistic emphasis on 'hearing' the word of God- as if 'reading' is not the same as 'hearing'.

Dramatics is found in the pulpit of many preachers. Billy Sunday was one of the most dramatic preachers ever. I personally believe that when God anoints a person to minister He will bring the word to life through them. They are the vessel He will use. This often looks like 'acting' but it is not in that sense. God can anoint a person to demonstrate a truth even if the person is not in or has ever been in that situation. It is a tremendously important aspect of communication. Lecturing is not necessarily the highest for of preaching.

The plain fact is that no vital spiritual truth can be expressed by a picture. Actually all any picture can do is to recall to mind some truth already learned through the familiar medium of the spoken or written word. Religious instruction and words are bound together by a living cord and cannot be separated without fatal loss. The Spirit Himself, teaching soundlessly within the heart, makes use of ideas previously received into the mind by means of words.

I do not agree with this at all. God brings to our remembrance all sorts of things to bring [i]revelation[/i] to our heart. God can teach you spiritual truth through a trial in your life. Information is not revelation. Words are essential to that. Pictures and memories of experiances can aid in God bringing a revelation to bear upon our hearts. The false assumption here is that it must be 'either' words or pictures. I affirm that it can be [u]both[/u] words and pictures, and drama, and theatre, or whatever else God desires to bring to bear upon our minds to give us [i]revelation[/i] of Himself. As a preacher and teacher who loves to preach and teach and write... I can say with certainty that God frequently brings more to bear upon mankind than simple words. A picture, as the old adage says, can be worth a thousand words. Images are powerful. This is how the enemy has snarred the masses. Why? They often have a much more lasting effect upon the mind than teachings or words.

Dear Robert,

Since Finney has been brought up, we should also note that he penned another article on "Amusements" which is also a good, balanced read and offers an interesting counterpart to the article you posted.

Hi Paul,

I pray we can all work through this in the right spirit and with the mind of Christ.

Just so everyone knows, I love all you guys and gals and by no means am offended at our differences, etc. I hope to be received also with charity and as one that has found mercy. :-) I have a tendency to write my thoughts down a little too straight at times, please bear with me. I may need my helmet before this is all over... :-P

God Bless,

Robert

Hey, good brother, I wrote that as a reminder for myself! I constantly try to keep myself in check, clear my mind of any biased thoughts, angry impulses, prideful seeds. I'll address your legitimate Tozer concerns in a few hours; I'm about to take a practice test here at the college, got to strap the helmet on also.

:-)

Wonderful blessings upon you and your precious wife in Jesus' Name!

Brother Paul

Since Finney has been brought up, we should also note that he penned another article on "Amusements" which is also a good, balanced read and offers an interesting counterpart to the article you posted.

Yes, I have been involved in some pretty hairy threads over some of Finney's and Wesley's views on fun and pleasure, etc. But, I think they were sincere and loved God. I pulled an excerpt from Finney to give folk an idea of the 'extremism' I am referring to.

Innocent Amusements Excerpt
C.G. Finney

That none but benevolent amusements can be innocent. Fishing and shooting for amusement are not innocent. We may fish and hunt for the same reason that we are allowed to eat and drink--to supply nature with aliment, that we may be strong in the service of God. We may hunt to destroy noxious animals, for the glory of God and the interests of his kingdom. But fishing and hunting to gratify a passion for these sports is not innocent. Again, no amusement can be innocent that involves the squandering of precious time, that might be better employed to the glory of God and the good of man. Life is short. Time is precious. We have but one life to live. Much is to be done. The world is in darkness. A world of sinners are to be enlightened, and, if possible, saved. We are required to work while the day lasteth. Our commission and work require dispatch. No time is to be lost. If our hearts are right, our work is pleasant. If rightly performed, it affords the highest enjoyment and is itself the highest amusement. No turning aside for amusement can be innocent that involves any unnecessary loss of time. No man that realizes the greatness of the work to be done and loves to do it can turn aside for any amusement involving an unnecessary waste of time. Again, no amusement can be innocent that involves an unnecessary expenditure of the Lord's money. All our time and all our money are the Lord's. We are the Lord's. We may innocently use both time and money to promote the Lord's interests and the highest interests of man, which are the Lord's interests. But we may not innocently use either for our own pleasure and gratification. Expensive journeys for our own pleasure and amusement, and not indulged in with a single eye to the glory of God, are not innocent amusements, but sinful. Again, in the light of the above rule of judgment, we see that no form of amusement is lawful for an unconverted sinner. Nothing in him is innocent. While he remains impenitent and unbelieving, does not love God and his neighbor according to God's command, there is for him no innocent employment or amusement; all is sin.

I wonder if there is a single person on SI that will agree with this excerpt without reservation? It is a perfect recipe for burnout. ;-)

Brethren,

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread and the goodhearted and yet sincere comments seeking for balance on both "sides?" of the discussion.

Just for a look at what at one time was considered a very conservative church pastored by the late Adrian Rodgers, I just found this article and thought it quite amusing that it came out at this time... for what it is worth you can read what Bellvue is doing [url=http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=68705]now.[/url]

And btw I have been in a church that used whatever means to reach the lost... but to be quite honest I have yet to see anyone last that was not reached in the old-fashioned way, that is the preaching of the Gospel. Some may be brought through the doors, and that may be good. But if they are saved, it is still the foolishness of preaching that gets the job done... and I am not saying that because anyone is arguing otherwise.

Very good commentary on all sides of the issue... keep it going Paul and Robert for the edification of all :-) .

Clint

Hi Robert, Here are some thoughts:

A picture, as the old adage says, can be worth a thousand words.

Images are powerful.

This is how the enemy has snarred the "masses.

I remember awhile back you wrote a really good article on conscience - about how God uses our conscience to show us things that He wants us to "see". While we may use a picture of something to get everyone to "see" the same thing, it seems to me that Holy Spirit uses one word to get many people to see different things - things that would apply specifically to them individually. If we add pictures or graphics to His words are we not actually blocking information that He is putting forth? Directing others to "see" things as we "see" them, rather than trusting the He we tell them what He wants them to know?

An interesting thing happened when I quit watching television - it was as if words became amplified - a whole new world of word pictures. What was once ordinary conversation become hilarious - or horrifying. It really took some getting used to as sometimes I would burst out laughing or my jaw would drop in horror. Somehow all of the pictures and noise on television is clogging our "receptors" or dulling our senses - so that we are missing the information that God is sending. There is so much static and noise - yet we are surrounded by His purity and peace - but no one seems to see Him . . .

Somehow all of the pictures and noise on television is clogging our "receptors" or dulling our senses - so that we are missing the information that God is sending.

I think this is true. This is why I don't often watch TV (As Ravenhill would say ;-)). But, while we have stopped watching or slowed down to a small amount the world has continued to be influenced by media. People have a very very short attention span these days and have been conditioned towards media. They no longer have the imaginations in many cases that people once did. Nothing is left to the imaginations- special technologies and special effects dumb down the imagination (in my opinion).

For some years now I have taken a similar very hard nose approach towards teaching and preaching. Almost as if to say that the people will listen my way or I will hair lip the devil getting them to! But I question this attitude. I am watching as a whole generation of people are slipping away and the traditional means of reaching them is not working. The problem is not the message. The message must be the same as it has always been.

What will evangelism look like in the next 50 years? If we say that pictures don't work then what shall we do with modern day Gospel tract ministries? Tracts almost always have some pictures even Ray Comfort's stuff. I think of what Paul said in I Corinthians 9:

[color=000066](1 Corinthians 9:20-23) And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by [u]all means[/u] save some. [/color]

Hi Clint,

And btw I have been in a church that used whatever means to reach the lost... but to be quite honest I have yet to see anyone last that was not reached in the old-fashioned way, that is the preaching of the Gospel.

I believe also (as a point of clarification) that the Gospel must be preached. Not just preached, but preached rightly. Not just preached rightly, but preached with unction. Drama is never an end in itself. I believe it can be useful for the ministry.

Preaching without power and truth is just as worthless as a worthless entertaining drama. So i believe it is the content of the message and the Spirit of God making it effectual in the hearts and minds of people that they by revelation in this media saturated age will see the Gospel in "their language." (as it were)

Hello brethren,

While we may use a picture of something to get everyone to "see" the same thing, it seems to me that Holy Spirit uses one word to get many people to see different things - things that would apply specifically to them individually. If we add pictures or graphics to His words are we not actually blocking information that He is putting forth? Directing others to "see" things as we "see" them, rather than trusting the He we tell them what He wants them to know?

I think this is an excellent observation; it's certainly a thought that warrants some good consideration. Have you ever wondered why, in non-liturgical Protestant churches, there is a noticeable absence of crosses, icons, frescos, murials, stained-glass images, paintings of Christ, etc.? Have you wondered why it is that most mature, born-again Christians (I speak here with trepidation, praying this will be understood correctly) do not wear crosses around their necks or dangle them from the rearview mirrors in their cars? Why they do not have paintings of Jesus in their homes, or golden icons on the wall bathing in the flickering light of sanctimonious candles? Why the utter absence of [i]images[/i]?

I say [i]non-liturgical[/i] churches, because if you walk into a liturgical church you'll quickly see that [i]imagery[/i] dominates. You see statues, candles, stations of the cross, crucifixes, frescos of lambs and cherubs. Go into some of the baroque and rococco Mexican churches and you'll see some spooky effigies of impaled saints (some of the wooden statues are actually wearing wigs) and horrible, bloody depictions of Jesus. Well, where did all this religious imagery originally come from? Who hosted the first passion play? Who scheduled the very fist bogus reenactment of the crucifixion? Surely not the original apostolic church. They were too busy actually [i]living it[/i] to have time to write a screenplay about it.

Who was the first man to put on a wig and dare portray Jesus Christ publically, and react the most holy event in all of history as a staged performance? Am I thinking too lofty to dare ask this question, too [i]holy[/i] for my own good to criticize such an undertaking? I propose here that the original idea for these religious images, dramas, passion plays, re-enactments did not come from the same Spirit that drove Paul and Timothy and James and John and Peter; I propose that such was a result of a spiritual degeneration that gradually occured over time; Jesus Christ no longer dwelling purely in the hearts of men by faith, He must now be [i]externalized[/i] through icons, crosses, replicas, effigies, stage performances, etc.

Scripture as we have the printed page is a 'picture' of words.

Yes, brother. Words conjure images, but the images are tailor-made depending on our past association to the word in question. I can say the word "Golgotha" and someone might see a skull. Another person might see a cross on a hill but no skull at all. These pictures, I mean to say, are all relative - and I don't think this a bad thing. However, when I impose my own visual imagery upon others - using the written Word of God as a backdrop - I can usurp the role of the Holy Spirit and burn my own interpretation into the conscience of the beholder. I believe this is the Holy Spirit's job, and not ours...though God may use our interpretation as a gateway into His own realm of influence.

Lecturing is not necessarily the highest for of preaching.

I don't know if I can agree with this, brother. I believe the spoken Word is the highest, most pure way, hands down. It is the proclamatory form we see demonstrated exclusively in the Bible, asseverated by the very words of Paul, we see no dramas, no staged performances, no fashioning of imagery; in fact, God tells us [i]not[/i] to make any such depiction of heavenly things...and I take that to mean liberal art-wise as well. But, of course we do, and just say "I've been lead to write a drama" or cast so-and-so from our church as Jesus (Fred looks like Jesus - he's got the beard and long hair and blue eyes and everything else!) Well, if you ask me, Fred is a carciature, and I am offended. I am offended that we don't take the Eternal Son of God, the Holy King of Glory more seriously and with fear and trembling. I've seen dramas with the stupid "dancing Jesus" beating up demons; I've seen dramas where Jesus is depicted as a fawning, obsequious lover. And you look around at all the people crying, the music is tender, and their souls are touched.

After the perfomance, though, what do we see? These same people who were crying, are they now repenting and changing by the power of God? Very, very few, if you are honest. They go back to their normal condition once the soul regains its optimal temperature and life goes on at the same miserable rate. Everything is the same, except for the testimony: "Wow! That was really an [i]awesome[/i] drama!" or "Wow! That Mel Gibson's Passion movie was [i]powerful![/i] I cried and cried and cried..."

Well, whatever happened to apostolic preaching that radically changes men [i]without[/i] the besmudging fingerprints of man's intellectual and earthly artistic capacity? Why, dear brethren, do we feel the insatiable need to help God's message seem more culturally relevant by adding our own intellectual spices, our artistic adornments, and psychological bells and whistles? If you ask me, this website is a perfect demonstration of the efficacy of God's preached Word of old [i]without[/i] using modern drama and hip musical embellishments and programs and jarring screenplays as crutches.

Brother Paul

(edit) I am speaking at this point of evangelism, and not the edification and discipling of those already saved.

They give their 'evidence' that such a practice is not only unbilical, but it is Pagan in origin. They vent their contempt for sermons. That's right, sermons. This is Tozer's viewpoint taken to it's ultimate conclusion. When taken to it's ultimate extreme- it drags him down into the same pit. Because where there is a Tozer crying foul for the theatre, there is a Viola that is crying foul of Tozer's preaching sermons, any sermon at all.

Well, my answer to this objection is simply that Tozer is right and Viola is wrong.

:-P

Seriously, most discerning Christians even vaguely familiar with the Word of God can counter the so-called pagan inception of the sermon by a simple reference to Matthew 7. To shoot down Tozer, however, one would require a "Drama on the Mount" which I'm still looking for...and I don't see Paul doing a mime or a phony crucifixion reenactment on Mars Hill either. The foolishness of preaching, brother. In the midst of intellectual giants, cultural titans, philosophical wizards, surrounded by the artistic masters of prose, theatre, politics, and engineering, I have a hard time imagining Paul consulting a Greek playwright to make the "crucifixion story" more palpable to Greek culture. It wouldn't be [i]foolishness[/i] anymore; it would be the enculturation of the gospel by virture of man's wisdom.

"Emotions are deceitful" - this truth cannot be highlighted enough. I also cried when I saw E.T. and I always cry when they shoot King Kong off the building.

:)

This thread is quite a bit of "fresh air" for me. I remember when my kids were young, I approached my "pastor" with my concern of Sunday School movies..Valentine "jesus"..that sort of material, I was told that I was being too extreme, and how "God" can use anything to preach the gospel..while others thought I was being too critical. However,they didn't succeed in changing my view/conviction.

Reading all of your thoughts and views here has really blessed me with a great sense of "like-mindedness". Brother Robert, I couldn't agree with you more as well.

Especially in light of rearing children towards God.I think that it is rather important to introduce The Lord as a solemn and holy Being, reverence should precede entertainment. Children, however small, should be taught that rather than seeing The Lord as some animated character, in one minute, He's portraited as some effeminate cartoon character, the next minute, He almost resembles Snow White...A loving God does not have to be, and must not be viewed as some goofy-looking or nice-looking image before the eyes of our children.

By saturated young minds with pictures, movies and false images will only defeat the purpose of teaching them the basic Truth, GOD is Spirit. To undermine the unction and power of the Holy Spirit Himself in witnessing Christ and The Father to our children, is in a way, I think, short changing both God's glory and our children's inate ability to receive this important Truth. Spiritual Truth is to be received by our spirit, not our flesh.

Sir Robert Anderson, in his book written many many years ago about the reverence of God's Name points out that, before long, our children would treat The Lord as nothing more but Donald Duck..just one of those characters on the entertainment media. Beware, the lust of the eyes, I gather, will only reap corruption in the end. For children or adults alike.

In Christ, thanks brethren.
mamaluk

Sir Robert Anderson, in his book written many many years ago about the reverence of God's Name points out that, before long, our children would treat The Lord as nothing more but Donald Duck..just one of those characters on the entertainment media.

I'm going to get clobbered here, but how about as a bunch of talking, adventure-seeking vegetables? I can show you Puritan children's prayers from 300 years ago that would drop you to your knees in exaltation of God, prayers that are so rich in depth and devotion and reverence. Prayers that reference hell, grace, death, judgment, sin, love, and the cleansing blood of Christ. This was way before multimedia and talking salads.

Please understand that I am not one to always brood over the past and wish for the former days - for such is not wise - but when I do happen to walk into a Christian book store and see some of the goofy stuff geared for youth groups and children's church nowadays, I shake my head in bewilderment. I can do this because I know the capacity children have in terms of spirituality, in terms of knowing God, and they can hold much more than what we give them credit for. They can pray with understanding and anointing, and they can know God as the Holy Father He is without being taught by a talking brocoli dressed up like a pirate. But who will teach them?

You have to first know God as holy and marvellous yourself if you are to teach a child the same with a special anointing for them to understand, and it is much easier to turn on a DVD than it is to do the other.

Thought I would add some excerpts of excerpts if you will from;

[i]A.W. Tozer on Worship and Entertainment[/i]

[u]From the Foward;[/u]

"The explosive material to which I refer consists of the long-out of-print Tozer essay, [b][i]The Menace of the Religious Movie[/i][/b]. Some of my editorial colleagues have given to me the honorable privilege of defending A.W. Tozer’s radicality. They ask, “Is Tozer `off the wall’ on this one?” Maybe, but I still think we need “this” Tozer, especially since religious movies are passé, since television has become so pervasive and since evangelicals are now attending the secular movie venues by the millions.

A.W. Tozer needs to have his say. Ever since the New Testament writers used “play actors” for the word that is translated [i]hypocrites[/i], there has been a tension between every form of drama and the Christian message. Through the centuries the struggle has been ongoing between the Christian Church and the passions of weaker believers for pageants and spectacles.

\tThat is why the final essay in this book is a tiger of sorts.

\tIf Tozer was correct, and I argue that he may well have been, then by republishing this essay I have turned the tiger loose. If this tiger proves toothless and old and no longer relevant, he will die a natural death. But if this tiger finds prey, sinks his fangs into errant Christians and raises uproars which change evangelical behavior toward godliness and holiness, then I am happy he’s loose."

K. Neill Foster

[u]The Preface;[/u]

Toward the end of his ministry Dr. A.W. Tozer commented that the war was lost, referring to the atrocious invasion of the world into the church. He objected to anemic Christianity. “In many churches,” Tozer complained, “Christianity has been watered down until the solution is so weak that if it were poison it would not hurt anyone, and if it were medicine it would not cure anyone!”

\tA radical statement, but reading this book will clarify just what Tozer meant.

\tHere in one volume is a collection of Tozer’s thoughts on the vitally important subject of worship — and its corruption by what he referred to as “the great god Entertainment.” I have culled from my extensive library of some 500 tape-recordings of Tozer preaching to his Chicago congregation, camp meetings, conventions, his denomination’s General Council and his last years at the Avenue Road Church in Toronto. One thing I noticed from his sermons was the consistency of his convictions on this subject. The year might be 1954 or 1962 but there was a harmony of thought. His were not mere off-the-cuff remarks.

\tAt the end of this book is the essay [b][i]“The Menace of the Religious Movie,”[/i][/b] which cost Tozer some friends. It has long been out of print and not many are anxious to bring it to light. However, following the logic of his conviction he does make sense. You may not agree, but you will recognize that he knows what he believes and why he believes it.

\tSometimes a preacher can get carried away in his preaching and say things he really does not believe. This was never the case with Tozer. Throughout this book you will notice that the excerpts from his messages — and they are verbatim — are quite similar to what he allows in print.

\tThe extensiveness of the quotations precludes any accusations of unscrupulous editing. After reading this book, you will have a clear picture of Tozer’s convictions on these subjects. Again, you may not agree, but it should give you something to think about considering the decadent condition of the contemporary church.

\tThe only hope for modern Christianity, Tozer contends, is in the individual. In this vein he speaks and writes, always on the lookout for people to join his Fellowship of the Burning Heart. If one person would come into the light by his preaching or writing that was reward enough for Dr. Tozer."

Rev. James L. Snyder

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[b]Entertainment Is a Symptom[/b]

\tThis is the cause of a very serious breakdown in modern evangelicalism. The idea of cultivation and exercise, so dear to the saints of old, has now no place in our total religious picture. It is too slow, too common. We now demand glamour and fast flowing dramatic action. A generation of Christians reared among push buttons and automatic machines is impatient of slower and less direct methods of reaching their goals. We have been trying to apply machine-age methods to our relations with God. We read our chapter, have our short devotions and rush away, hoping to make up for our deep inward bankruptcy by attending another gospel meeting or listening to another thrilling story told by a religious adventurer lately returned from afar.

\tThe tragic results of this spirit are all about us: shallow loves, hollow religious philosophies, the preponderance of the element of fun in gospel meetings, the glorification of men, trust in religious externalities, quasi-religious fellowships, salesmanship methods, the mistaking of dynamic personality for the power of the Spirit. These and such as these are the symptoms of an evil disease, a deep and serious malady of the soul. ([i]The Pursuit of God[/i], pp. 62-63)

Just as a point of reference let me restate my basic position that I do not believe that drama will replace preaching or is 'superior' to preaching and teaching. I believe drama is profitable for the ministry in certain circumstances and to certain audiences. No means is any better than the person employing them and no means (preaching, teaching, tracts, drama, theater, etc.) are of any value without the direction and unction of God.

My original argument was that theater is [i]not[/i] a 'menace' to the Church any more than any other abusable means or new measure. Preaching is greatly abused in our times. The solution to abuse is not non-use it is [i]right[/i] use.

Moreover, I would argue in the power of images just as we see them on this website. It is not theater, but it is media. It helps draw attention to the subject- repentance and revival. Personally, I would hate to come to this website and see only 'text'. Again, my point in not to overstate my defense of the use of theater and media. I have said that it can be profitable to the ministry. It has represented less that 1/2 of 1% of ministry that I have been associated with. I do not believe that theater and drama in and of themselves are a menace to the ministry. I have seen God move, [i]not in spite[/i] of the drama or theater (as would be the case with God using drugs, alcohol, secular music, etc.) but within it- very much in the same was as preaching or teaching.

Preaching does not convert everyone. People walk away from sermons on repentance every day. Even anointed sermons where there is heavy conviction. It is a perplexing reality. I have watched folk week after week walk away from street ministry and street preaching. The same can be said of all forms of preaching.

In closing on this post let me say (speaking as a fool) that in my circles I am in reputation for being every anti-movie house. Very resistive of sports and other activities that folk try to promote within the churches. I am very no-nonsense. It has made me quite unpopular overall. and yet from my vantage point I look to the one side and see a generation pressing for a lot of things that in the measure they seek them would likely destroy them. I look to the other side and see a people that view the very means of communication, learning and culture being considered a menace so as not to utilize them at all. I lament the fact that an unwillingness to make any real concession has created a great gulf affixed between the messengers and the hearers. If we continue to refuse to speak to a generation in their own 'language' what are we any different than the holy, sanctified, religious priesthood that held the church captive to Jerome's Latin Vulgate bible from 405 until the days of John Wycliff? If the language of the people would some day rest on a media drama type form; would we decry it unbiblical for a Wycliff or a Tyndale to rise up and speak to them on their level? Just a question that comes often to mind. Because in many cases we are already very much out of touch with how youth communicate today.

In closing on this post let me say (speaking as a fool) that in my circles I am in reputation for being every anti-movie house. Very resistive of sports and other activities that folk try to promote within the churches. I am very no-nonsense. It has made me quite unpopular overall.

Dear brother Robert,

I think both of us agree on way more than we realize, with the barrier of writing our thoughts down and the internet hampering perhaps a more lucid understanding between us. In any case, I've never doubted your heart for God, your discernment, your wisdom and outstanding character. I thank God that we can discuss a topic as potentially rift-causing as this one with great maturity and love and respect. I've seen people tear each other's eyes out over movies and music and how art should relate to Christianity.

How wonderful it is to express one's thoughts without fear of angry reprisals. I repeat: I know we are in agreement over much of what we're discussing, much more more than is what is immediately apparent by reading our posts. My spirit bears witness to this, dear brother, and this is all I can say.

Brother Paul

The tragic results of this spirit are all about us: shallow loves, hollow religious philosophies, the preponderance of the element of fun in gospel meetings, the glorification of men, trust in religious externalities, quasi-religious fellowships, salesmanship methods, the mistaking of dynamic personality for the power of the Spirit. These and such as these are the symptoms of an evil disease, a deep and serious malady of the soul. (The Pursuit of God, pp. 62-63

Toward the end of his ministry Dr. A.W. Tozer commented that the war was lost, referring to the atrocious invasion of the world into the church.

.. let the LORD do that which is good in his sight. 1Ch 19:13

"And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

"Wherefore [b]come out[/b] from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord...."

In Christ,
mamaluk

Hello…

Is this article saying that [i]all[/i] “religious” films are wrong and, in effect, evil? What would Tozer have thought about the Jesus Film Project? It is the most watched film in the history of the world – having been shown in 228 nations and in over a thousand languages. While one might ask where all of the true converts are after having been shown around the world – there is a book entitled [i]I’ve Just Seen Jesus[/i] that includes accounts of heart-stirring conversions and miracles as a result of this film. Would this also fall under Tozer’s warning? It is, after all, a [i]religious[/i] film.

It is my opinion that it would be far more helpful to swing at the root than at the leaves. What is the root behind Tozer’s warning? Is it the films themselves? Or is it a branch of a much larger variety of sin? What is the purpose of a religious film? Is it to entertain? Is it to make money? Is it due to the fact that this generation (including much of the Church) has such a small attention span? Is it because religious films require acting (pretending)? Is it because it is a time waster in a day where time is short? Is it all of the above?

In my opinion, there are things that can be just as deplorable time-wasters as religious films. The Internet, by far, is the greatest time-waster in the world today. I have known individuals who literally spend several hours online every single day. While most believers tend to limit their online use to beneficial things (such as online Bibles and SermonIndex forums), some also use the Internet as a tool for learning or reference. Yes, the Internet is literally FILLED with obvious filth (such as pornography, lies, violence – and nearly every other thing that can fall under the “lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes and the pride of life.” But there is still some good. The important thing is that we recognize the difference between the two.

Are [i]all[/i] films bad? Film is just made of transparent celluloid and acetate coated with chemicals (usually). Today, film can be found in the form of pixels. There is nothing “sinful” about such material. It is in the intention and use of this material that makes it “sinful.” But remember, the same points that are made in this article can be applied to other forms of media, such as the Internet, music, paintings, etc… Are all of these things [i]absolutely[/i] evil in and of themselves? Can nothing good come from them? Is money bad – since the love of it is the root of all kinds of evil?

SermonIndex is a fine example of how the Lord can take three types of medium (the Internet, audio and visual recordings) that are undoubtedly dangerous and sinful in most forms and, in turn, be used to bring about God’s glory. Yes, the vast majority of what is found on the Internet is pornographic, sensual, ungodly time-wasting material. But a true believer shouldn’t waste his time on such things. Just as Brother Ravenhill told Dave Wilkerson that he knew where the knob on his television is, we know where the knob is in our minds. We don’t have to burn down the house where drugs or prostitution was sold. It is just a house. We simply need to have the drugs and prostitution moved from the house itself, or otherwise avoid that particular house.

My point is this: Wouldn’t it be more beneficial to simply turn our focus upon the root of sin rather than by declaring absolutes in regard to such questionable output?

:-(

As crazy as it might sound, I have seen the finger pointed at the Internet as a whole with some believers questioning what business a "ministry" has to be on a medium that is so "obviously sinful."

The Bible says, Faith comes by HEARING...not seeing.

This is true. However, God has certainly used 'visual' means of revealing himself to man.

Was it Luther that said that the "ears are the [u]only[/u] organs of a Christian"? This concept does not take into account the printed page as the primary means that the word of God has been distributed in the last 300-400 years.

Can we say that faith comes by "reading" - reading the word of God. the reality is- faith comes when God quickens the word of God to our heart. hearing is not just with the ear- but hearing is in the sense of comprehending and responding to what was communicated.

The Bible says, Faith comes by HEARING...not seeing.

I just had a thought. If faith can only come by literally hearing with your ear, then a deaf person can't have faith. right?

Chris's: Is this article saying that all “religious” films are wrong and, in effect, evil?

I believe it can only be understood to condemn the Theater all together. Consider this quote:

Indeed, history will show that no spiritual advance, no revival, no upsurge of spiritual life has ever been associated with acting in any form. The Holy Spirit never honors pretense.

These are the kind of unnecessary 'stretches' that good and wise men make to make a point. Einstein's oscillating universe is a case in point. Public speaking beyond mere lecturing in a monotone voice or reading from pre-prepared notes can be said to be 'acting'. If public speaking does not include drama then it is dead talk.

The Holy Spirit is said not to honor pretense. I would argue that the Holy Spirit will anoint an individual to speak in a way that is far and beyond his/her personal ability and experience. If my intellect and ability are all that are driving my discussions of a Spirit filled life then indeed it is pretense. But when God is back of the man and has birthed and anointed the words, then surely God has made Himself known among us.

I believe God can, has and will empower people to dramatize the message of the Gospel or some other important message in certain situations.

I just had a thought. If faith can only come by literally hearing with your ear, then a deaf person can't have faith. right?

There are several deaf people on my wifes side of the family. Her brother is 100% deaf. She learned to 'sign' to him from a child. There is a lot of drama involved in signing. It is how a person communicates emotion. They have no way to 'soften' their answers, so their hand gestures and facial expressions (all visual) communicate not just the words, but the emotions of the expressions.

The more I think on this subject I wonder of I have been guilty in the past of worshipping preaching itself. I truly wonder if I have spited God in my love for the oratory. Could I have better communicated a message to a people not keen on listening to drawn out lessons and messages? Have I idolized with some self love a talent to speak? The Greeks did that stuff. Did Paul really just rely on words? then what shall we make of this?

[color=000066](1 Corinthians 2:4) And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:[/color]

Is it possible that the things of the world that we put with the Word is like sowing the seeds of tares amongst the wheat?

Hi Katy-did…

I am not referring to the film [i]The Passion of the Christ[/i]. I must confess that I [u]did[/u] watch the film. I must also admit that I was emotionally moved during the film. But I must also admit that I watched the film with complete and honest scrutiny. But this thread isn’t about [i]The Passion of the Christ[/i], [i]Ben Hur[/i], [i]The Robe[/i] – or any of the films that are obviously biased with Catholic or other counterfeit doctrines. We are talking about a question of whether or not [u]every[/u] religious film is evil.

The Bible says, Faith comes by HEARING...not seeing.

For teaching the facts of physical science the motion picture has been useful. The public schools have used it successfully to teach health habits to children. The army employed it to speed up instruction during war. That it has been of real service within its limited field is freely acknowledged here.

While I share the same feelings toward religious films that are meant as substitutes for the quiet contemplation that comes from reading or hearing the Word of the Lord, I am hesitant to embrace an absolute prejudice against all religious films. What if a film was simply a dramatization of one of the Gospels (with nothing added or taken from the Word)? This is, from what I understand, the intention of the Jesus Film Project. It was a dramatization of the Book of Luke. Can a religious film result in religious education? Can it be a form of audio/visual Sunday School?

While “faith comes by hearing” – are there some things that can be seen that can provoke an increase in our faith? Are not the eyes the “windows” of the soul? My faith is strengthened every time I walk through nature. I notice the clouds, the trees, the blue skies, and the stars. They speak of the magnificence of God. Likewise, are not parables and “sermon illustrations” a form of visualization? While we do not “see” such things with physical eyes, we do “see” them with our minds.

Please understand that I am not taking a position one way or the other. I just feel that there is cause to caution against making such broad absolutes. Like I said before, I feel that we too often lay the axe at the leaves and branches than at the root of such issues. Tozer, in his logic includes each of the following in his rationale for his position:

1.\tIt violates the scriptural law of hearing.
2.\tThe religious movie embodies the mischievous notion that religion is, or can be made, a form of entertainment.
3.\tThe religious movie is a menace to true religion because it embodies acting, a violation of sincerity.
4.\tThey who present the gospel movie owe it to the public to give biblical authority for their act: and this they have not done.
5.\tGod has ordained four methods only by which Truth shall prevail---and the religious movie is not one of them.
6.\tThe religious movie is out of harmony with the whole spirit of the Scriptures and contrary to the mood of true Godliness.
7.\tI am against the religious movie because of the harmful effect upon everyone associated with it.

I suppose that the greatest danger with religious films is with Tozer’s 7th point. Most religious films are created with at least some sort of conjunction with the people and industries of this world. Actors, directors, writers, cameramen, etc… -- they are typically employed in endeavors to produce religious films. This raises the question of “unction” that is often felt is needed for such projects. Are films [i]tainted[/i] by the world even if the motives are pure?

Bacon has said something to the effect that there are some professions of such nature that the more skillfully a man can work at them the worse man he is. That perfectly describes the profession of acting. Stepping out of our own character for any reason is always dangerous, and may be fatal to the soul. However innocent his intentions, a man who assumes a false character has betrayed his own soul and has deeply injured something sacred within him.

In the end, I just feel that a little hesitation should be used when making such absolutes. If someone wanted to, they could make the same sort of claims as Tozer made about things like the Internet. Yet here we are. If one was transparent enough, there would be someone somewhere who would point the finger of absolute sinfulness at us. I’ve had people point the finger at me for driving a Ford Escape – because Ford was created by Henry Ford who sympathized with fascism and eugenics. I imagine that if someone was meticulous enough, they would point the finger even at the Amish attempt at holiness.

:-)

Chris's: Does it have anything to do with the fact that few people were literate enough to read and write during the first century? Few people owned scrolls and even fewer could read them. Jews traveled each week to synagogues in order to hear the Word read by those rabbis who could read it and learn it through memorization.

This is a good point. It is very hard to imagine life before the printing press. I often try to imagine how believers would have 'grown' in the Lord before the scriptures were readily available. For some 1000 years the bible was locked up in a dead language that only a few could understand.

Please understand that I am not taking a position one way or the other. I just feel that there is cause to caution against making such broad absolutes.

This is particularly true when people in the world got their first glimpse of Gospel light from some form of drama or a Jesus film type means. It is also too dogmatic a statement. I personal know God has used these means to effect spiritual change in my life. I also know that it was the intentions of those that ministered (i.e. the passion play where I repented).

If one was transparent enough, there would be someone somewhere who would point the finger of absolute sinfulness at us.

One of the more challenging questions I ever heard came from a Messianic Jewish Rabbi that questioned why Christians often identify themselves in terms of what they are [u]not[/u] rather than what they are; what they [u]don't[/u] do rather than what they do.

Sister Katy-did...

I know you keep bringing up this movie. Laying this one aside, can you name just one other Movie you would endorse?

Let me make this clear: I am not endorsing religious films (or television) in general. This is certainly a matter of conscience and personal discernment rather than something that is clearly spelled out in the Word of God (no matter how much one would like to claim that it is). But isn't this the case with most doctrinal disputes? One person has an apparent "epiphany" of inarguable "truth" and "discernment." When someone doesn't share this -- it becomes a point of contention.

I might turn this around: What fault do YOU find in the [i]Jesus Film Project[/i]? Does it meet up to doctrinal scrutiny? The article that you provided claims that the film or the producers embrace "Ecumenism." Personally, I didn't see ANYTHING in the film that would suggest such a thing! I didn't see anything that would make me see this as a "charismatic" film anymore than I saw anything that would make me believe that it was Baptist or Catholic. I'm not sure who wrote the article (or the motives), but I have seen such articles in the past that criticized everything from David Wilkerson to Leonard Ravenhill (imagine that!). The objection of a single guy (who seems to attack charismatic doctrine more than the actual Jesus film) just doesn't hold much weight.

Personally, I have witnessed the good that came from showing the [i]Jesus[/i] film. We showed the film in a remote Tarahumara village – in the native tongue of the Tarahumara. Before the film, there were only a small handful of believers. After showing the film, the Church in the mountainous village now numbers about 750. We have returned several times, and the congregation is steady and active. The meetings typically do not resemble what we see in most Sunday meetings in the West. They are probably more similar to the meetings in Hebrew synagogues in the first Century, where the Word of God is translated to a people who cannot read or own a Bible. There is also prayer, worship and some explanation of the Scriptures – but not in any particular sort of order. But the local pastor has clearly explained that the village became introduced to and interested in the Lord because of the film.

Whether it's Passion of the Christ, the Robe, or whatever.....even the Jesus Film Project, is it PURE in Truth? PURE in motive? Sound Doctrine?

Many were as deceived by the Passion as possibly the Jesus Movie Project. Pastors were taking busloads by the thousands to see it...including John MacArthur.

Although now I'm sure they are quite embarrassed by their endorsement.

But again – this topic isn’t about [i]The Passion of the Christ[/i] or even the [i]Jesus Film Project[/i]. This article and thread is about declaring an absolute “menace” about all religious films. Is it proper to claim that all religious films are a menace? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to lay the axe to the root rather than at the limbs? What would the root be? Would it be the things that you pointed out (motive, factual or doctrinal purity)? Sadly, I know people who criticize things that they have never even seen or heard. Why? Because they are opposed to the very idea itself.

Be careful what you endorse. Chris, I do say this in Love.

:-)

So some of this rationalization is nonsense!

Katy, sister, I am leaning mostly to your side in this discussion, but I must say that if you want to get your point across more empathetically here...try to refrain from using quip comments like the one above. Nobody likes to be told their well-meaning rationalizations are "complete nonsense" - especially our brothers and sisters in the Lord whose hearts are in the right places. We simply have differences in convictions. Win them to your side with loving, graceful speech, seasoned with salt.

Brother Paul

Chris, you have the target in mind with the root. And if anyone recognizes Tozers efforts across his ministry that aspect is almost always what he is after. I share that completely, it is always to somehow get past the surface level or the effects and out-workings and try and grapple with just what it is 'back of them' to use his own phrase.

For some reason I keep shelving the same reply, adjusting it, attempting to make better sense of it ... express the shared dangers of my own experience and present them for consideration, not 'doctrine' as the leap it is we often might make of them. I fear the same is possible even with Tozer's concerns, to couch things in the terms of 'all' may be overshooting and becomes the focus of our attention rather than the root of concern that brings out the effects, efforts, etc.

Why is he so concerned over this matter?

[i]They may be used for good or bad purposes at the will of the user. But play acting is bad in its essence in that it involves the simulation of emotions not actually felt.[/i]

May be one key here; [i]the simulation of emotions not actually felt[/i].

Sincerity is another, reality even more so, but to go on a bit more first;

[i]Religious movies are mistakenly thought by some people to be blessed of the Lord because many come away from them with moist eyes. If this is a proof of God's blessing, then we might as well go the whole way and assert that every show that brings tears is of God. Those who attend the theater know how often the audiences are moved to tears by the joys and sorrows of the highly paid entertainers who kiss and emote and murder and die for the purpose of exciting the spectators to a high pitch of emotional excitement. Men and women who are dedicated to sin and appointed to death may nevertheless weep in sympathy for the painted actors and be not one bit the better for it.[/i]

And [i]be not one bit better for it[/i]. "Emotional excitement".

[i]The emotions have had a beautiful time, but the will is left untouched. The religious movie is sure to draw together a goodly number of persons who cannot distinguish the twinges of vicarious sympathy from the true operations of the Holy Ghost.[/i]

"The will is left untouched". Am still drawing just some aspects.

[i]The religious movie is a menace to true religion because it embodies acting, a violation of [u]sincerity[/u].[/i]

This is where the concerns really begin to get at the roots.

[i]Without doubt the most precious thing any man possesses is his individuated being; that by which he is himself and not someone else; that which cannot be finally voided by the man himself nor shared with another. Each one of us, however humble our place in the social scheme, is unique in creation. Each is a new whole man possessing his own separate "I-ness" which makes him forever something apart, an individual human being. It is this quality of uniqueness which permits a man to enjoy every reward of virtue and makes him responsible for every sin. It is his selfness, which will persist forever, and which distinguishes him from every creature which has been or ever will be created.[/i]

This is important to what follows;

[i]Because man is such a being as this all moral teachers, and especially Christ and His apostles, [u]make sincerity[/u] to be basic in the good life. The word, as the New Testament uses it, refers to the practice of holding fine pottery up to the sun to test it for purity. In the white light of the sun all foreign substances were instantly exposed. So the test of sincerity is basic in human character. The sincere man is one in whom is found nothing foreign; he is all of one piece; he has preserved his individuality unviolated.

Sincerity for each man means staying in character with himself. Christ's controversy with the Pharisees centered around their incurable habit of moral play acting. The Pharisee constantly pretended to be what he was not. He attempted to vacate his own "I-ness" and appear in that of another and better man. He assumed a false character and played it for effect. Christ said he was a hypocrite.[/i]

"In character with himself". "Moral play acting".
"appear in that of another and better man. He assumed a false character and played it for effect."

What I gathered from these things is the primary issue. They are internal things first before they become outward expression and effects. Still, it is only the shell;

[i]It is more than an etymological accident that the word "hypocrite" comes from the stage. It means actor. With that instinct for fitness which usually marks word origins, it has been used to signify one who has violated his sincerity and is playing a false part. An actor is one who assumes a character other than his own and plays it for effect. The more fully he can become possessed by another personality the better he is as an actor.

Bacon has said something to the effect that there are some professions of such nature that the more skillfully a man can work at them the worse man he is. That perfectly describes the profession of acting. Stepping out of our own character for any reason is always dangerous, and may be fatal to the soul. However innocent his intentions, a man who assumes a false character has betrayed his own soul and has deeply injured something sacred within him.[/i]

" ... one who has violated his sincerity and is playing a false part." [i]"Stepping out of our own character for any reason is always dangerous, and may be fatal to the soul.[/i] The soul. This is the seat and the matter that has my concerns stressed. " ... [i]a man who assumes a false character has betrayed his own soul and has deeply injured something sacred within him[/i]". Apologize if this is a rather annoying way of going about things, dicing it all up and adding or excerpting ... [i]"has betrayed his own soul.[/i]". By assuming a false character, [i]deeply injured something sacred within him.[/i]

Just to chew on these words, think them through. The internal life of a Christian. Authenticity. Character. Integrity. Truth. The Spirit of Truth. The disillusionment of things false, compromised, half truths, partial truths, things embellished to stretch the truth, pragmatism ...

[i]No one who has been in the presence of the Most Holy One, who has felt how high is the solemn privilege of bearing His image, will ever again consent to play a part or to trifle with that most sacred thing, his own deep sincere heart. [b]He will thereafter be constrained to be no one but himself, to preserve reverently the sincerity of his own soul.[/b][/i]

Good, bad, indifferent. Honest. Sincere. Faults, difficulties ... 'warts and all'. It's the absence of [i]pretense[/i]. The distaste for it, the conviction [i]of[/i] it when it is recognized. This is the realm of matters that to my ... preference of opinion is what made Art Katz so great a studier of men hearts in light of scripture. It drew me in to similar observations and concerns even as I began to come out of so much ... [i]pretense[/i] that is of a make up in WOF constructs and their like, not to mention just the overall modernization effects of a commercial, polished Christendom to use the derogatory term. "Cheap." "Plastic". Were words he would use often. Things that are false or flippant, irreverent and irrelevant. "Unnecessary" is not a stretch to apply to both men, it is something Tozer is stressing but I do not truly believe to the point of extremes, or exclusivity ...

[i]In order to produce a religious movie someone must, for the time, disguise his individuality and simulate that of another. His actions must be judged fraudulent, and those who watch them with approval share in the fraud. To pretend to pray, to simulate godly sorrow, to play at worship before the camera for effect---how utterly shocking to the reverent heart! How can Christians who approve this gross pretense ever understand the value of sincerity as taught by our Lord? What will be the end of a generation of Christians fed on such a diet of deception disguised as the faith of our fathers?[/i]

Forget the avenue of approach for a minute, a movie or a play just to hear those words;

[b]To pretend to pray, to simulate godly sorrow, to play at worship before the camera for effect---how utterly shocking to the reverent heart![/b]

At the dinner table, saying 'grace', however one does it. I am often convicted of it being something almost trite, "going through the motions". Did I [i]mean[/i] it, [i]sincerely[/i]? It's not to be absurdly didactic, generally am most thankful, even in the repetition of the same words, I do indeed mean it. But the other times ... An example also is in recalling mens bible study. Going around the room to pray. The felt impulse to have to say something, regardless if I had any true expression to bring forth. All of a sudden there is a ... pretense and whatever is said is exactly that. It's not from the heart and the gut but giving over to a sort of subtle intimidation, unspoken yet .. it is still of this same substance' "Play acting". I'm digging here.

[i]The plea that all this must be good because it is done for the glory of God is a gossamer-thin bit of rationalizing which should not fool anyone above the mental age of six. Such an argument parallels the evil rule of expediency which holds the end is everything, and sanctifies the means, however evil, if only the end be commendable. The wise student of history will recognize this immoral doctrine. The Spirit-led Church will have no part of it.[/i]

Taking this in sequence and am drawing off the interior aspects even beyond or maybe even before those ties to the issue(s) at hand, entertainment, movies, etc.

"Expediency". One of the most startling and even more so now in the quiet overlooking of it is the message that was sent in the very first days of establishment of the church;

[i]But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?[/i] Act 5:3

The severity! In essence, God killed them both on the spot. For what? Pretense. For lying. For hypocrisy and duplicity. For holding back? No, they were free to do so as they pleased, even Peter addressed that much. But for sham and false appearance, for not being truthful first inwardly, for not being authentic and having integrity and all the other reasons and I take this to mean ultimately that the church was to be established on that basis. It caused a great fear that this was to be no trifling matter and yet look at the church now. To draw attention to it is enough to bring the charge of legalism or the excuse of expediency, of pragmatism, the very things that got Tozer into so much hot water with even just this article. The tendency is to hear that cry of "Well, you know ... times have changed. Let's not be so ... " What? Demanding? Fundamentalist? Orthodox? Apostolic?

Can we see that aspect is largely lost within the confines of present day Christianity? That there is a smoothing over of things and a ready acceptance that is so embedded that to even look at it is to .. overshoot it? To latch on to the externals without looking at the internals of what it all might mean? It is where looking at this from the perspective of 'reaching' those with their own methods or preference's as was mentioned here maybe not such a good idea after all? Trust I can allow that agreement amongst everyone who has greatly contributed to this, that I still find much to consider, that this is all not just so simple as I might make it sound.

Sometimes I wonder if it is not helpful to try and imagine ourselves distanced somewhat from what we might know of this life. It's a difficult thing to do and I am not talking about going back to experimentation of the old ways that we have now forsaken. The mindset of the unsaved. Of course it would vary like the clouds, but I am thinking back to my own supposed constructs of what a Christian was as I was brought out of the darkness into ever increasing light. What I supposed and what I found where almost completely different, so different that it still causes me to often shake my head at it in wonder. Subtly or expressively, the notion somehow was latched on to that a 'show' had to be put on. Not that I [i]was[/i] a new creature but that I had to live [i]as if[/i] I was. It was a forward looking pretense, something that I would have to do and eventually the rest of me would catch up. Quit this, quit doing that, quit swearing, ... look the part, [i]play[/i] the part. I had this tremendous fear that I was going to have to become 'weird', it is the essence of what Tozer stated earlier;

"[i]He assumed a false character and played it for effect.[/i]"

Now there is a whole course of difficulties with this, because there was still the elements of sins that I did not want to give up, the matter of pride, the matter of pleasing men rather than God, so it was mixed. Yet along came the teachings that threw me even into more of a tail spin and often went along the lines of; "Christianity is not a list of "Do's and Dont's". And I thought, are you kidding? Sure reads that way to me, the sermon on the mount seemed to be stating quite otherwise. What I began to recognize far much later on was that for the truth of a statement like that to be effectual was to hone in more at the core of matters and usually the explanation left it hanging in suspension, unfinished. It never got down into the core of sincerity and truth, into the heart, into the soul, the spirit, the 'thoughts and intents of the heart' ... was it the dulling of the blade, perhaps and surely not intentionally.

"Be not conformed to this world."

What does this almost always conjure up, quickly to the mind? Entertainment certainly would be a fast avenue to latch on to. The overt things, the easy things, no longer hanging out in bars and going to parties, the whole long laundry list of things that we wouldn't be caught dead in for the most part. But isn't that just it, that we gravitate to to the external aspects even if we might know better, that this means something altogether other and different at it's core?

Keep losing my train of thought with this as it seems other considerations keep wanting to make inroads. What is the trouble with this 'world' after all? Is it not ultimately that it is based on false premises and false promises? That it cannot deliver because it is incapable of doing so. The 'spirit' of this present 'world', the ruler of this 'world' .. I am want to say that it is a internal matter, a spiritual matter but that it reveals itself in practical ways. It still causes all the disruptions that we have even here in this forum, not getting our [i]facts[/i] straight, a pragmatic approach that will allow stretching the truth for the expediency of a greater one. That makes it 'alright'. Close enough. Maybe what it really boils down to is this repulsion of things that are false.

Embellishment. It is something I launched off on earlier and never posted after all. It's a word to consider but will move on;

[i]It is not uncommon to find around the theater human flotsam and jetsam washed up by the years, men and women who have played false parts so long that the power to be sincere has forever gone from them. They are doomed to everlasting duplicity. Every act of their lives is faked, every smile is false, every tone of their voice artificial. The curse does not come causeless. It is not by chance that the actor's profession has been notoriously dissolute. Hollywood and Broadway are two sources of corruption which may yet turn America into a Sodom and lay her glory in the dust.[/i]

"Doomed to everlasting duplicity." The "power to be sincere." Maybe the question to all this is, can we by using those means that are already so entrenched and we seemed forced to accept (here meaning the movie or play, what have you) break up this monotony. Will it work? [i]Does it[/i] work? This seems to be the difficulty I am having with it.

In fact I have so much more to say that it feels like it is only being touched on. I pray this much makes the sense I would have it to make. But there is a whole lot more to this matter of the soul, "soulishness' as some have put it, that has to do with the emotions, the tweaking of them, the manipulation of them, the danger in it all. Music another, television, advertising, commercials. Core things. Root matters.

Mike...

Very good points. Like I said in regard to Tozer's seven points in the article, the seventh and final point is the most thought provoking. This gives me something to "chew on" and "digest" for the day. Thanks!

:-)

To pretend to pray, to simulate godly sorrow, to play at worship before the camera for effect---how utterly shocking to the reverent heart!

At the dinner table, saying 'grace', however one does it. I am often convicted of it being something almost trite, "going through the motions". Did I mean it, sincerely? It's not to be absurdly didactic, generally am most thankful, even in the repetition of the same words, I do indeed mean it. But the other times ... An example also is in recalling mens bible study. Going around the room to pray. The felt impulse to have to say something, regardless if I had any true expression to bring forth. All of a sudden there is a ... pretense and whatever is said is exactly that. It's not from the heart and the gut but giving over to a sort of subtle intimidation, unspoken yet .. it is still of this same substance' "Play acting". I'm digging here.

The severity! In essence, God killed them both on the spot. For what? Pretense. For lying. For hypocrisy and duplicity. For holding back? No, they were free to do so as they pleased, even Peter addressed that much. But for sham and false appearance, for not being truthful first inwardly, for not being authentic and having integrity and all the other reasons and I take this to mean ultimately that the church was to be established on that basis. It caused a great fear that this was to be no trifling matter and yet look at the church now. To draw attention to it is enough to bring the charge of legalism or the excuse of expediency, of pragmatism, the very things that got Tozer into so much hot water with even just this article. The tendency is to hear that cry of "Well, you know ... times have changed. Let's not be so ... " What? Demanding? Fundamentalist? Orthodox? Apostolic?

In fact I have so much more to say that it feels like it is only being touched on. I pray this much makes the sense I would have it to make. But there is a whole lot more to this matter of the soul, "soulishness' as some have put it, that has to do with the emotions, the tweaking of them, the manipulation of them, the danger in it all. Music another, television, advertising, commercials. Core things. Root matters.

Indeed it does, say on, brother Mike, so appreciate all of this..sincerely..praise God

In Christ,
mamaluk

[b]Too Often Strangers[/b]

\tTo come to our devotions straight from carnal or worldly interests is to make it impossible to relish the deep, sweet thoughts found in the great books we are discussing here. We must know their heart-language, must vibrate in harmony with them, must share their inward experiences or they will mean nothing to us. Because we are too often strangers to their spiritual mood, we are unable to profit by them and are forced to turn to one or another form of religious entertainment to make our Christianity palatable enough to endure. [i](The Size of the Soul, p. 49)[/i]

[b]The Scramble for Popularity[/b]

\tChristianity’s scramble for popularity today is an unconscious acknowledgment of spiritual decline. Her eager fawning at the feet of the world’s great is a grief to the Holy Spirit and an embarrassment to the sons of God. The lick-spittle attitude of popular Christian leaders toward the world’s celebrities would make such men as Elijah or George Fox sick to the stomach. [i](The Next Chapter after the Last, p. 21)[/i]

\tThe secular press, which of course is always quick to sense trends and give the public what it wants, has found that religion is news. A sufficiently large number of those who buy newspapers and magazines are interested enough in religion to make it profitable to print increasingly generous amounts of religious copy. Religious books are among the best sellers. Prominent people are telling the world what they believe. Religion is woven into sports, politics, the theater. It is frequently a part of nightclub chatter, and the radio and TV comedian has learned that a serious word about prayer and churchgoing at the end of his routine will please most of his listeners. [i](The Price of Neglect, p. 82)[/i]

\tChristians have fallen into the habit of accepting the noisiest and most notorious among them as the best and the greatest. They too have learned to equate popularity with excellence, and in open defiance of the Sermon on the Mount they have given their approval not to the meek but to the self-assertive; not to the mourner but to the self-assured; not to the pure in heart who see God but to the publicity hunter who seeks headlines. [i](Man: The Dwelling Place of God, p. 96)[/i]

[b]Inner Loneliness[/b]

\tWhere God is not known in the inner shrine, the individual must try to compensate for his sense of aloneness in whatever way he can. Most persons rush away to the world to find companionship and surround themselves with every kind of diversionary activity. All devices for killing time, every shallow scheme for entertainment, are born out of this inner loneliness. It is a significant and revealing fact that such things have in these last days grown into billion dollar enterprises! So much will men pay to forget that they are a temple without a God, a garden where no voice is heard in the cool of the day. [i](The Next Chapter after the Last, p. 104)[/i]

[b]The World’s Methods or God’s?[/b]

\tMany evangelical leaders lack historic perspective and thus do not know how the Holy Spirit has worked and how He works. We lack the knowledge of God’s ways and so we substitute our own. There are three methods that are being introduced in our time which are contrary to and diametrically opposed to the methods of the New Testament. One, the methods of big business. The second the method of show business. And the third, the method of the Madison Avenue advertiser. And Bible methods are supplemented and the Holy Spirit is grieved and withdraws Himself; and we, because we are young and have a lot of animal spirits, we make up by sheer enthusiasm what we lack in the power of the Spirit, and because we lack historic perspective and spiritual discernment we don’t know one for the other. Bible methods are supplanted. You can be sure of this — that to attempt to carry on a sacred, holy work, such as the work of the Church of Christ and of evangelism and of missionary activities around the world after the methods of big business and show business and the Madison Avenue advertiser is to grieve the Holy Ghost and remain in Babylonian captivity. [i](Sermon to Youth for Christ, National Convention of YFC, Chicago)[/i]

\tThe Church has sprung a leak and the world is leaking into the Church. [i](Sermon to Youth for Christ, National Convention of YFC, Chicago)[/i]

[b]Called to Separation[/b]

\tWe believe that we are called to separation. We are called to separate from the world’s follies and the world’s pleasures and the world’s ways and the world’s values and the world’s ambitions and the world’s greed and the world’s vices and the world’s habits. There is a sharp moral antithesis which exists between the Church and the world and this can never be reconciled. It effects every Christian so that the Christian sins when he fraternizes with the world. He grieves the Holy Spirit by worldly living and stunts his spiritual growth by imitating the world. [i](Sermon, “Christian Manifesto,” Toronto, 1960)[/i]

\tWe are against the unhappy and unholy importation into Christian circles and worship at any cost. We’re against the strange fires which are being offered on the altars of the Lord. We are against the strange sacrifices which they are offering. We are against the strange gods in our sanctuaries and we’re especially against the baptized foolery and sanctified frivolity that is taking over fundamentalism. [i](Sermon, “Christian Manifesto,” Toronto, 1960)[/i]

\tAs soon as you try to turn the flock everybody says you’re against everything. Of course, I’m against the devil, I’m against sin, I’m against worldliness, I’m against the flesh and I’m against Christianity that pretends to be Christianity and isn’t. I’m against spiritual ignorance that tries to harmonize Christianity with the world. It’s absolutely futile to try to do it.

\tThere was a day when our religious leaders were made fun of and laughed at and opposed, even put in jail and driven out of town, but nowadays they are riding on the shoulders of the mobs and the multitudes because they are trying to make Christianity as much like the world as possible in order to win the world. That’s the philosophy of the present hour — trying to make Christianity like the world. Show them it’s like them only it’s a little higher, and pretty soon you’ll win them. Don’t we know that Christianity demands the impossible and secures it? Don’t we know that Christianity cuts straight across the instincts of man? Don’t we know that the message of Jesus Christ runs contrary to man and not in favor of man? [i](Sermon, “Contradictions,” Chicago)[/i]

[b]Too Much Comfort[/b]

Another reason for the absence of real yearning for Christ’s return is that Christians are so comfortable in this world that they have little desire to leave it. For those leaders who set the pace of religion and determine its content and quality, Christianity has become of late remarkably lucrative. The streets of gold do not have too great an appeal for those who find it so easy to pile up gold and silver in the service of the Lord here on earth. We all want to reserve the hope of heaven as a kind of insurance against the day of death but as long as we are healthy and comfortable, why change a familiar good for something about which we actually know very little? So reasons the carnal mind, and so subtly that we are scarely aware of it.

Again, in these times religion has become jolly good fun right here in this present world, and what’s the hurry about heaven anyway? Christianity, contrary to what some had thought, is another and higher form of entertainment. Christ has done all the suffering. He has shed all the tears and carried all the crosses; we have but to enjoy the benefits of His heartbreak in the form of religious pleasures modeled after the world but carried on in the name of Jesus. So say the same people who claim to believe in Christ’s second coming. [i](Born after Midnight, p. 134)[/i]

[b]External Appeals[/b]

\tOur trouble is that we are trying to confirm the truth of Christianity by an appeal to external evidence. We are saying, “Well, look at this fellow. He can throw a baseball farther than anybody else and he is a Christian, therefore Christianity must be true.” “Here is a great statesman who believes the Bible. Therefore the Bible must be true.” We quote Daniel Webster or Roger Bacon. We write books to show that some scientist believed in Christianity: Therefore Christianity must be true. We are all the way out on the wrong track, brother! That is not New Testament Christianity at all. That is a pitiful, whimpering, drooling appeal to the flesh. That never was the testimony of the New Testament, never the way God did things — never! You might satisfy the intellects of men by external evidences, and Christ did, I say, point to external evidence when He was here on earth. But He said, “I am sending you something better. I am taking Christian apologetics out of the realm of logic and putting it into the realm of life. I am proving My deity, and My proof will not be an appeal to a general or a prime minister. The proof lies in an invisible, unseen but powerful energy that visits the human soul when the gospel is preached — the Holy Ghost!” The Spirit of the living God brought an evidence that needed no logic; it went straight to the soul like a flash of silver light, like the direct plunge of a sharp spear into the heart. Those are the very words that the Scriptures use when it says “pierced (pricked) to the heart.” One translator points out that that word “pricked” is a word that means that it goes in deeper than the spear that pierced Jesus’ side. (How to Be Filled with the Holy Spirit, pp. 29-31)

[b]An Outward Shift[/b]

\tAll of this top-heavy Christendom that we know today was never known in the book of Acts and in the days of the apostles. Utter simplicity was at the root of everything. Faith was the power, or at least the instrument, and the Holy Ghost the power that led them on and love throbbed at the heart of their worship and purity of life was demanded of them. So they had worship and love and faith and their moral lives were pure and their whole lives simple. And then as the years passed came the shift in externalism just as had happened in the days of Israel. A shift outward from the center toward the surface. Always remember this, that it could be the easiest thing in the world to live at the center but it usually is the hardest. It’s easier to live on the surface then it is in the center. The Church shifted toward externalism and institutionalism took over. Then came form and ceremony and tradition. [i](Sermon, “The Deeper Life,” Chicago, 1956)[/i]

\tThen came a slow shift from the center out toward the perimeter. Out from the beating heart, out to the epidermis, to the outside skin of things. Then externalism took over in Israel and a good deal of the long history of Israel in the Old Testament is the history of Israel yielding to the propensity to live on the surface and the prophets of God urging Israel back to the center. Always God urges men back to the center and always men by centrical force tend to fly out to the edge of things. Always God wants men to have content and always men seek to be satisfied with words. [i](Sermon, “The Deeper Life,” Chicago, 1956)[/i]

\tThe whole problem is the externality of worship. This is the biggest problem the church faces now — the problem of externalism. [i](“The Chief End of Man,” Sermon #7, Toronto, 1962)[/i]

Wonderful snippets from Tozer, right on the head. Thank you brother Mike.

Another reason for the absence of real yearning for Christ’s return is that Christians are so comfortable in this world that they have little desire to leave it.

All of this top-heavy Christendom that we know today was never known in the book of Acts and in the days of the apostles.

I was moved to tears as a young woman when watching the movies mentioned. They served a purpose as far as catching my attention and trying to rein in to Christ a wayward heart. However, I now try to put away the things of my younger Christian days and seek after heartier fare. Thy Word, O Lord, is sufficient for me. Seems that lately I find myself very seldom reading the newspaper or watching movies or tv (I no longer subscribe to cable, as I have found better uses for my time than the "spirit of entertainment" that is often glorified there. I refuse to judge others, but I will set forth a challenge: If these truly are the final hours preceding a last great push of revival/evangelism and the end of the age, then what in the world are we doing wasting so much time? Do we really believe, and act upon, what we profess? Just food for thought, for I am beating my own body before I lash at others! Souls are at stake!

I thought it would be timely to bring this excellent thread back to the forefront. It's the Christmas season and churches all around are gearing up for their annual Bethlehem/Christmas plays.

For those who haven't yet read this thread, I believe it would be of great profit for you to do so. There are some really good posts in it by Robert Wurtz and others.

Saints, are any of your churches planning on doing a Christmas play this year? What are your thoughts concerning the efficacy of Christian dramas in general? Are they tell-tale signs of a weak church? Are they harmless? Share your thoughts.

Brother Paul

Brother Paul,

I'm sure we could fill this thread with antidotal reports ranging from the silly to the soulish regarding stage antics in our middle class churches. Just the other day I saw a video of a pastor engaging in a Glenn Campbellesque mockery of "O Holy Night" on a church platform worthy of the Ed Sullivan Show festooned with artificial snow, Christmas trees and street lamps. Anything for a laugh...

Yet, this past week I stood in my son's High School auditorium with a heart full of gratitude for the grace of God. There our community was treated to high school choir and orchestra performances of "May did you know?" and the "Hallelujah Chorus".

Were all the performers truly worshipping God? Of course not.

I believe He was glorified anyways.

The kingdom of this world
Is become the kingdom of our Lord,
And of His Christ, and of His Christ;
And He shall reign for ever and ever,
For ever and ever, forever and ever,

Merry Christmas brother, :-)

MC

I believe He was glorified anyways

"Whether their motives were false or genuine, the message about Christ is being preached either way, so I rejoice. And I will continue to rejoice" (NLT, Philippians 1:18).

Merry Christmas :-)

I'm thankful that the congregation where I serve as youth pastor is having a children's Christmas play. My daughter is learning many things that for whatever reason, she didn't retain as well from me teaching her, mind you she's barely past being a toddler. As bad as that sounds, there was something in the portrayals and acting that helped her retain it. Just today she said,

"Daddy, did you know when Jesus was on the cross it was just like the little sheep that they would cut and he would bleed?"

As infantile as that sounds to our theologically trained ears, it brought many a tear to my eyes. I've taught her much concerning the scriptures, obviously, but it is starting to really stick and take hold through events such as these. Should it be a main staple every week? Surely not - but it is almost immature of us to even have to talk about that. I praise God that my daughter, who is very dramatic, has a godly outlet for her fiesty little creative spirit. To cap that in the name of piety is sickening and anything but Christ-like. To strip children of the ability to learn of the scriptures and the gospel creatively is to waste one of the most important parts of their development. God did not create us with imaginations and talents and artistic abilities so that they could be suppressed and denied their existence. Never is this more true than in childhood. Though I'm sure there's many 'a "pickle juice baptized" saint out there who feels anything "entertaining" is soulish (which is a concept I'm still struggling to find scriptural proof for - ie "soulishness") and demonic. Bear in mind that the late great Evan Roberts (the spark and recognized leader of the 1904 Welsh Revival) was known to have a great love for the theatre. Jesus himself told stories that, although probably untrue factually, demonstrated and conveyed Gospel truths. It was not irreverent or sacreligious for Him to create fictional stories in order to convey deeper truths. How does it become worse if you simply use actors as opposed to fictional characters? Just a thought...

Now that's a childrens play and perhaps seems more harmless to some. I, however, am not opposed to adult Christmas plays either. Charles Parham, whom I have heard some of the moderator's hear defend as being a great man of God, regularly held huge and colorful "Bible plays" with elaborate costumes and whatnot. Again, certainly the seasoned believer shouldn't live or binge on such things, but I see no harm in them. In fact, beyond a lack of harm, I see the presence of effectiveness sometimes.

These are just my thoughts and probably flawed opinion...what are your thoughts on this?

-Jeff

When I was in high school I was in many plays, and when I was in college I took acting classes. One of the things we were taught was to "get into character" - the problem that I had, was getting "out" of character.

I always wondered about this, then earlier this year I listened to a sermon that talked of God giving each of us a spirit - and that by acting we take upon ourselves a different spirit. When I thought about it, repeating the lines over and over and memorizing them - well, it is like saturating ourselves in the Word - only with acting, it is not the Lord that we are taking upon ourselves - it is another spirit.

Brother Paul,
My wife and I went to a Christmas Play tonight at a Church that I have never stepped foot in before. We knew several people there and were asked to go by our neighbor because their daughter was going to be in it. Well, because we live in Idaho and in the mountain regions, it was sort of a hassle. The normals of getting the animals fed and chains on the truck to make it down the steep winding road to the highway in a snow storm, unchain and then drive 8 miles to town, which I might add is a spot in the road.
We entered into a beautiful "smaller church", and was pleasantly greeted by just about everybody. So, what to expect in a Christmas play comes to my mind as I gaze at the stage and try to anticipate what sort of rendition of a Christmas play this will be with all of the young kids, how they will dress up and trying to get a grip on just staying calm in a seat while all of this goes on and we can then dash down the road in the snow and go through the chaining up again and back up the nasty road to home.
I have to tell you Brother, I never expected to experience what was about to happen. The Children were all very young, very well rehersed and it was one of the most beautiful plays I have ever seen, and it was all about "Tell me Again The Christmas Story". Ok, now the part that just broke my heart and made me weep.
There were 2 young girls that came up front, one had a microphone in her hand and the other just stood there. The lights were dim, and one of them started singing a song about Jesus. I could not even tell you what song it was, for I was so blessed by the other girl that stood there next to the girl with the microphone, and sang that song, in Sign Language.
Without saying a word, her heart was truly penetrating the Throne Room of heaven.

Blessings,
LarryD

I could not even tell you what song it was, for I was so blessed by the other girl that stood there next to the girl with the microphone, and sang that song, in Sign Language. Without saying a word, her heart was truly penetrating the Throne Room of heaven.

Oh that our hearts would be so pure that it touches the hearts of others when we simply speak His name.

How does it become worse if you simply use actors as opposed to fictional characters?

Acting is much more likely to be an exaltation of self - be it our selves, or the extension of our selves through our children.

Acting is much more likely to be an exaltation of self

This would be a case of "The Menace of the Religious Hypocrite"; a type of character or method actor not limited to the theater or movies.

MC

My acting career, such as it was, was very detrimental in my coming to the Lord - for I had learned to love the accolades. It took much sorting and sifting to determine what was truly done for Him, and what was done for the promotion of myself.

"Putting on a show" was such a way of life, that learning to do things in the simplicity of Him, was a major struggle. It took many, many, hours of examining my motives, and I had to go through it again and again. It was very painful because it had grown to be a part of who I was - of how I dealt with life - just put on the mask, put on the show, and then they will like me. I had learned that the approval of others was very important, for this is how you get their applause.

All of our goodness is found in Him. Something that I have examined very closely is our applauding of each other. Anything that "we do" that is good, is of Him. It is Him working through us. Anytime that we take the applause unto ourselves, we are taking it from Him.

When I read "The Knowledge of the Holy" by A.W. Tozer, the thing that struck me the most, and it is an image that still comes forth often, is that there can be only one on the throne at a time - it is either Him, or it is us - for He will not share His throne. In effect, when we put our self on the throne - we are taking Him off.

These programs, while they seem innocent, and even appear to be good, are a trap designed to get your children used to the accolades - to get them addicted to the heady high of exaltation of self.

This is going to sound really bad, but from what I have observed, people go to these things because their children, or someone they know is in them. For the most part, it is not about the Lord, it is about being amused and it is about pride.

This may not be true for you, but I would ask that you examine your heart in the matter - for you may be causing your children much difficulty in their future walk with the Lord.

So the "religious movie" may not be the prime apostolic way of declaring the Gospel - but it does not negate the fact that much fruit has come as a result of it. The fact that there is potential for the exaltation of "self", pride or other such things is not sufficient "evidence" that there is anything inherently wrong with it. There is the potential for exalting onesself in preaching, singing, musicianship, painting and artistry, etc... are these things therefore wicked, vile and to be avoided simply becaue the potential for wickedness exists? Certainly not. Nowhere on planet earth does the potential for wickedness exist in a more pronounced way than on the internet. The irony? We all happen to be writing and reading posts that are on (GASP!) the internet. We are all just just a few letters and clicks away from some of the filthiest pornographic material that has ever existed. So what then? Throw the computer in the garbage? or use it responsibly and teach others to do the same? I'm casting my vote for the latter. Also bear in mind that much of Jesus' ministry took place in atmosphere's that had a high potential for falling into sin...

Because you or someone you know fell whilst involved in the entertainment industry or via entertainment is not reason enough the condemn the thing as a whole. Public speaking has been used to move the masses into frenzied demonic hysteria such as in the case of Hitler's Nazi Germany. On the other hand, public speaking has been used of God to move hundreds and thousands to true repentance as in the case of ... well the true church. Likewise, horrible movies, plays, dramas etc... have been used to drive people to lust, murder, hate, etc... yet there have been those powerful productions which have led countless men and women to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Do not get me wrong...I do understand the heart behind these posts and know them to be true and genuine. However, I think there are great dangers when we become so rigid and immoveable when it comes to things for which we have no CLEAR, ABSOLUTE, SCRIPTURAL instructions. Just my thoughts on the situation...

God bless
Jeff

It is His love that compels us to come.

Person, after person, that I meet is trapped in this thing called "entertainment." And they do not see it - but they are being held captive none the less. The evil forces behind it is incredible. It is my opinion that only a heart fully surrendered to the Lord could withstand the powers of these forces - for anyone else it would be a trap.

On the other side of things - from the perspective of the "audience" - recently it was suggested to me that I had a judgmental spirit for having difficulty watching the praise team perform before the congregation. So I examined myself. The truth is, as I sit there watching them perform, all kinds of wicked thoughts come into my mind - it is VERY uncomfortable. On the other hand, there are others that have been before me on stage that have not brought about that response at all - rather they carry me along with them into a state of worship unto the Lord. So I began to examine, why some, and not others.

When I did a search in scripture on the word "perform," I found that there are many things that are to be performed (word, promise, service, vow, covenant, commandment to name a few), but I did not find that praise was something to be performed.

When I did a search on the word "entertain" I found one verse:

"Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." (Hebrew 13:2)

"Entertain" according to Easton's Bible Dictionary:

Entertainments, "feasts," were sometimes connected with a public festival (Deu 16:11,14), and accompanied by offerings (1Sa 9:13), in token of alliances (Gen 26:30); sometimes in connection with domestic or social events, as at the weaning of children (Gen 21:8), at weddings (Gen 29:22; Jhn 2:1), on birth-days (Mat 14:6), at the time of sheep-shearing (2Sa 13:23), and of vintage (Jdg 9:27), and at funerals (2Sa 3:35; Jer 16:7).

The guests were invited by servants (Pro 9:3; Mat 22:3), who assigned them their respective places (1Sa 9:22; Luk 14:8; Mar 12:39). Like portions were sent by the master to each guest (1Sa 1:4; 2Sa 6:19), except when special honour was intended, when the portion was increased (Gen 43:34).

The Israelites were forbidden to attend heathenish sacrificial entertainments (Exd 34:15), because these were in honour of false gods, and because at such feast they would be liable to partake of unclean flesh (1Cr 10:28).

In the entertainments common in apostolic times among the Gentiles were frequent "revellings," against which Christians were warned (Rom 13:13; Gal 5:21; 1Pe 4:3). (See BANQUET.)

From what I have been able to determine, if there is truly praise in our hearts, and our voices are being raised unto the Lord, others will be lifted along with us. However, if in His name, we make a show of ourselves . . . well, this is very dangerous territory that should not be taken lightly as there are serious consequences for both the speaker and the hearer. Would it not be the partaking of the unclean thing? The eating of something sacrificed as unto idols?