I'm saddened by this front page article in the Wilson Daily Times today. A church in my city is going to make the gospel "clearer" by abandoning the preached Word. Instead of preaching the Word (clearly commanded in Scripture), they are going to feature a drama (not commanded in Scripture and arguably forbiden in Scripture).
Here is a quote:
"I think for too long the church has not really preached the gospel story that people can understand in a very practical way," Bell said. "I believe that this is more impacting than pulpit preaching."
It is a sad day when we reject God's appointed means of building His church and communicating the gospel in favor of what we think will impact people. Since when do we get to decide what is best for the public gathering of God's people?
Be assured that I am writing this while examining my heart. I am not condemning this church (or any other church that thinks in this way). I would think the same way if I had not been taught the centraility of preaching in the life of the church. I'm simply trying to draw us back to being faithful to God and His Word.
A church will look like Christ as it listens to Christ (through His Word).
4 comments:
I have an entire category on my blog titled "Jesus' examples." He provided the examples for living the Christian life, and told his disciples to imitate those. The very first time Jesus preached, he commanded his audience to "repent and believe the gospel."
I'm with you 100%. Here's what the Bible says about preaching: "How can they believe expept they hear, and how can they hear without a preacher? And how can one preach except he be sent?"
The "seeker sensitive" movement has tried to remove everything potentially offensive from our church services, including images of the cross and references to the crucifixion. We need to preach the gospel, and guess what. The gospel is offensive.
Justin, this mindset was almost universally expressed with the evangelical endorsement and defense of Gibson's Passion of the Christ.
Do you think drama or other artistic expressions of the faith are unhelpful an perhaps unbiblical? Or is the criticism only of the replacement of the preached word with the enacted drama? When you say, "arguably forbidden in Scripture," would you argue that it is forbidden in Scripture? I have heard some point to the example of Ezekiel who enacted the siege of Jerusalem as justification for "creative ministries" in the church.
Joshua,
Great questions.
I hold to the regulative principle, which means I don't believe we should corporately worship God in ways that are not commanded in Scripture. If leaders are going to require people to participate in acts of worship (listening/observing included), they better have Biblical warrant to do so.
So, my main criticism is replaced the commanded with the not commanded.
However, I wouldn't have a problem with a drama on a Friday night as an outreach.
When I mentioned "arguably forbidden" I was thinking of the second commandment not to create a likeness of God for the purpose of worship. I don't have a problem with pictures or movies about Jesus. I have a problem with pictures or actors for the purpose of worship in the corporate gathering of the local church.
I've never heard the Ezekiel argument.
Lots to think through. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Justin, I also agree with the regulative principle. I would agree with you that there are venues where art is effective in communicating Truth. I've always been skeptical of the use of drama to reenact the life of Christ, because dramatizing an event requires interpretation of many details that we are not privy to.
Post a Comment