Only Read If You Generally Agree With Me

[Adammi]

That is something.

 

[Gold Dragon]

You need to get out more... this has been the rallying cry of CCM for 20 years now.

Interesting. I've never associated contemporary Christian music with anti-preaching sentiment.

I have been in several threads in the Contempory Music forum that argue (and I use the words they use) that we don't need preaching we need "positive messages". We shouldn't "shove God down people's throats" (which noone has ever defined for me) or "get in anyone's face". In fact, there was a #1 CCM hit by Jaci Valasquez that said exactly this.

I've spent countless hours with CCM bands trying to convince them that a 30-second gospel message is a good thing! I have been arguing with them since 1996 over this. "Preaching turns people off" etc. These people want TPOTC to do their evangelism for them. They have no intention of preaching the gospel.

I sympathize with the sentiment that sometimes Christians do "shove God down people's throats" and "get in people's faces." However, I feel that has more to do with ones attitude than their methods.

Some Christians are so concerned with telling others the lines they've memorized as the "gospel message" that they end up shoving God down people's throats. They speak at non-Christians instead of to them. Part of that is an inability to dialogue and listen. Part of it is a product of how people have traditionally communicated to others "lecture" style.

However, some would say that this current generation has a different way of communication that is not necessarily as receptive to "lecture" style preaching as previous generations. Partly due to education styles that are moving away from lecturing towards discussion and dialogue.

That doesn't mean we don't preach, but that we preach differently. Dialogue and listening is important. Experience and visceral things like song, dance and image can support the words and make them concrete. Preaching doesn't have to be from the stage/pulpit, but then it needs to happen on a personal level in the form of dialogue and discussion.

Maybe lecture style preaching is still effective for some, but I don't think we should get caught in a rigid mold of evangelism that doesn't listen to the person receiving the message.

 

[bleechers]

Some Christians are so concerned with telling others the lines they've memorized as the "gospel message" that they end up shoving God down people's throats. They speak at non-Christians instead of to them. Part of that is an inability to dialogue and listen. Part of it is a product of how people have traditionally communicated to others "lecture" style.

Well, I don't see this currently as a "problem". Heck, I can't get anybody to preach the gospel it seems. I had a campus tract ministry for 3 years. We did just as you said, we engaged in dialogue with the students, but we never left them without telling them the gospel. Our biggest problem? The campus Chrsitian organizations who harrassed us...

I'd like to see what being too much in someone's face looks like. Not that I support yelling at anyone, but you'd think from what we hear in CCM, there are people getting screamed at on a regular basis. In my experience timidness is a far greater problem in the church.

Interesting. I've never associated contemporary Christian music with anti-preaching sentiment.

Oh my. This the central of creed of a huge contingent of CCM. I am in this battle on a regular basis. I even blogged it once.

That doesn't mean we don't preach, but that we preach differently. Dialogue and listening is important. Experience and visceral things like song, dance and image can support the words and make them concrete. Preaching doesn't have to be from the stage/pulpit, but then it needs to happen on a personal level.

No problem with any of this so long as the gospel is preached. I play CCM because that is what I can do, but I always give a gospel message. Do a dance, do a play, but always be sure that the gospel message is clearly understood at some point.

 

[FreeinChrist]

That's the point. It wasn't my argument, it was yours.
It was you who argued that the Spirit "can use a lot of things" as a justification for the film.

Sorry - but you brought DaVinci Code into it out of the blue. The DaVinci code protrays a Christ who wasn't successfully crucified and who went on to maary Mary mag. How in the world does that relate?

And Yes, - the Holy Spirit can use alot of things to reach the lost. what is that verse...God uses the foolish things of the world to confound the wise.

I'm saying that the Spirit can choose what He will, but we've been instructed as to how God wants us to spread the gospel. Paul preached the gospel plainly and not with "excellency of speech" or with cleverness.

And i never claimed the gospel shouldn't be preached. In fact, I beleive the way Christ wants us to reach others is through our personal witness and life.

Very true, but the pronouncement of the "greatest evangelistic tool" came from men like Greg Laurie and similar too.

? I don't know Greg Laurie. I can't help that some folks (fallible humans) made grand claims such as he did.
Doesn't rule out the possiblity that the Holy Spirit used the film.

I don't want to digress into another thread on the film, but the film absolutely did NOT have the gospel in it. How could it, since its maker doesn't believe the gospel?

I saw it. Did you read when Christ is praying and Satan is challenging Him, "Do you really think you can take the sins of the whole world?" I saw a Christ who sufffered and did not defend Himself. And He arose at the end.
Our church had special meetings, or casual talks, regarding the film and encouraged people to take friends who were unsaved to the film and then to the coffee talk. I know at least one who was reached in that manner. I have no idea how many were or were not.

I don't deny the Holy Spirit's ability either. Again, that is not the point. The point is that God has made His choice. He specifically tells us that He has chosen "the foolishness of preaching" to save people.

Scripture?

1Cr 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

1Cr 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

Again (try and follow this), The Last Temptation of Christ may have led some agnostic to search for the true Christ (i.e. the Holy Spirit may have used that film), but that does not justify supporting the film.

And I didn't bring up The last Temptation of Christ. It is a very different movie from the Passion.

I was moved by It's A Wonderful Life, but that is not the standard by which we judge doctrine or truth.

Agreed - and I NEVER claimed that movie or the Passion were the standards to judge scripture by.

I think you are putting words in my mouth, bleechers.

Perhaps you are upset with The Passion because it is distinctly from a viewpoint that adds events to the story - like Mary mopping up the blood where He was whipped, and the crow plucking out the eyes of the unrepentent thief, etc. Howvever, I believe that 'upset' may be coloring how you are reading my posts....???? I agree that those things are not in scripture, and I would have liked a clearer presentation of the gospel message for sure. But I believe the film had it's uses.

 

[bleechers]

Sorry - but you brought DaVinci Code into it out of the blue. The DaVinci code protrays a Christ who wasn't successfully crucified and who went on to maary Mary mag. How in the world does that relate?

And Yes, - the Holy Spirit can use alot of things to reach the lost. what is that verse...God uses the foolish things of the world to confound the wise.

Sorry, but you don't understand the rules of philosophy or logic. I brought in the Da Vinci Code as a legitimate response to the argument that " God can use anything". Follow this... if that is our "justification" for supporting anything to do with Jesus regardless of the scriptures, the TDC and even The Last Temptation are "justified". Again, the argument that "God can use anything" was not my argument, it was his.

As to the "foolish things" the context there is people, not "foolishness".

And i never claimed the gospel shouldn't be preached. In fact, I beleive the way Christ wants us to reach others is through our personal witness and life.

This doesn't affect my argument in this regard. Now, if you are stating that your life will save anybody (like some people teach... the nonsense of "preach the gospel and if necessary use words") or is better than preaching the gospel, then you are mistaken. There is no scripture to back such an assertion. Should our lives back-up our preaching? Absolutely. Paul said that since he preached the gospel, he would not want that diminished by being a castaway.

Doesn't rule out the possiblity that the Holy Spirit used the film.

You are continuing to confuse God prerogative with His commands to us. As stated, God can use The Da Vinci Code to get an agnostic to search for the true Jesus, but that does not mean that we endorse the book. Again, God used adultery in the line of the Messiah, but He never condoned it.

Scripture?

1Cr 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

1Cr 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

Both of these verses are in the context of people. Are you suggesting we open up houses of prostitution to reach the lost? That's a "base" thing. What God means here is that the religious and the men of position are confounded when they see God save prostitutes and the poor. It has nothing to do with us being purposely foolish.

Proverbs 24
9a The thought of foolishness is sin...

Mark 7
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

These things are rejected of God. God's uses the word "foolish" in your selection as a description of man's assessment not God's. To the lost, the poor are "foolish" and the gospel is "foolishness". It is a contrast.

1 Corinthians 1
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 2
14a But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him:


God has chosen His method for saving people:

1 Corinthians 1
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Titus 1
2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
3 But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;

Romans 10
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

And I didn't bring up The last Temptation of Christ. It is a very different movie from the Passion.

You keep missing the logic. If you argue that the justification for something means that we only need to show that God "used" it in some way, then we can justify anything. In this case, I heard REPEATEDLY that the errors and unbiblical imgery in TPOTC was OK because "it got people talking about Jesus" etc. If that is the argument the TLTOC also fits the logic.

Agreed - and I NEVER claimed that movie or the Passion were the standards to judge scripture by.

Please try and follow the logic.

It was argued that TPOTC "moved" you. It is that "standard" to which I referred. That is, just because something "moves" us doesn't mean its scriptural. By extension, you were putting forth the argument that TPOTC was "moving" and therefore, on some level, it was justified in being unscriptural and gospel-less. Again, your assertion, not mine.

Perhaps you are upset with The Passion because it is distinctly from a viewpoint that adds events to the story - like Mary mopping up the blood where He was whipped, and the crow plucking out the eyes of the unrepentent thief, etc. Howvever, I believe that 'upset' may be coloring how you are reading my posts....???? I agree that those things are not in scripture, and I would have liked a clearer presentation of the gospel message for sure. But I believe the film had it's uses.

Problem: there is absolutely no presentation of the gospel message. That is my primary argument. It is an unscriptural movie made by a man who rejects the gospel of the free grace of God freely given through faith. Of course it has no gospel. That was never its intention.

Note: for the sake of the board and since we've covered this ad nauseum, do not ask me to recount the extra-biblical and unbiblical elements of the film. They are apparent.

 

[ZiSunka]

I guess I didn't think the point of the movie was to generate conversion experiences, but just to entertain Believers.

The movie didn't begin to explain who Christ is or why his death was more meaningful than any other death. I don't think it would have any power over a person unless they already knew why Christ died and they were just putting off accepting salvation.

 

[bleechers]

The movie didn't begin to explain who Christ is or why his death was more meaningful than any other death. I don't think it would have any power over a person unless they already knew why Christ died and they were just putting off accepting salvation.

Bingo! Excellent points.

The Romans crucified tens of thousands of people, many of whom lingered on the tree for days. You can't show deity or propitiation in a movie. The great hopes put on this embellishment were never justified or based in reality.

We call it the "Oh Dear Boy" phenomenon. In the documentary Imagine based on the life of John Lennon, there is an exchange between John and a NY Times writer concerning his outlandish "peace" antics:

JL: We don't mind being the world's clowns if it saves just one life.

NYT: Oh Dear Boy, you don't honestly believe that you've saved any lives?


The ODB-Factor nominees for "This is gonna bring a revival!":

TPOTC
Purpose-Driven franchise
Hero the musical
Prayer of Jabez franchise
"Left Behind" series
"This Present Darkness" trilogy
CCMers "crossing over"
"Positive Message" bands
POD
Touched By a Demon, er, Angel
Every TBN money-raising telethon
Every Benny Hinn crusade


2 Peter 2
3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

Keep a close eye on your purse... 'cause they are.

 

[ZiSunka]

I totally lost interest in Left Behind after I realized that not one of the "saved" characters was acting like a Christian, and that God got "left behind" in about the middle of the second book.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Sorry, but you don't understand the rules of philosophy or logic. I brought in the Da Vinci Code as a legitimate response to the argument that " God can use anything". Follow this... if that is our "justification" for supporting anything to do with Jesus regardless of the scriptures, the TDC and even The Last Temptation are "justified". Again, the argument that "God can use anything" was not my argument, it was his.

As to the "foolish things" the context there is people, not "foolishness".

Well, I disagree with you. I see a HUGE difference between the The Passion and the two things you brought up. In my original post, #2 of this thread, I said:
Well, I think the Holy Spirit can use alot of things to reach unbelievers.

You have created a strawman arguement by changing " can use alot of things" into "God can use anything". AND you are bringing into our discussion something from the outside (some friend) - I am not responsible what your friend said. I am responsible for what I say and write.


To extend your strawman arguement to it's natural conclusion, you could imply I said porn must be okay because God can use that to reach unbeleivers - but that would be a gross misrepresentation of what I HAVE said.

So I am not buying your logic at all. Throwing in the DaVinci Code, which does not teach the diety of Christ or that He arose from death, and 'The Last Temptation" which also does not show that He arose or show His diety, is simply diverting my arguement with a strawman.

This doesn't affect my argument in this regard. Now, if you are stating that your life will save anybody (like some people teach... the nonsense of "preach the gospel and if necessary use words") or is better than preaching the gospel, then you are mistaken.

Where did I state my life will save anybody??? What I said was:

And i never claimed the gospel shouldn't be preached. In fact, I beleive the way Christ wants us to reach others is through our personal witness and life.

Bleechers - reaching others does not mean I save them. What do you think "witness" means? Personal witness includes using words, as in explaining the gospel, telling people about the gospel...and living up to what you say you believe. People do look skeptically at those who say and do not do - as in 'don't walk the talk'. 'Witness and life' - that is walking (life) the talk (witness).

You are continuing to confuse God prerogative with His commands to us. As stated, God can use The Da Vinci Code to get an agnostic to search for the true Jesus, but that does not mean that we endorse the book. Again, God used adultery in the line of the Messiah, but He never condoned it.

What I said was, "Doesn't rule out the possiblity that the Holy Spirit used the film."

No I am not confusing God's perogative with his commands to us. You are ruling out God's perogative. And again, you are still argueing the strawman.


As you are going to use such tactics (strawman) which misrepresent what I am actually saying...I will leave this alone and will not address it anymore.