1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Powerful Video!!

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by JerryL, Apr 1, 2008.

  1. dan e.

    dan e. New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    0
    gotcha.:thumbs:
     
  2. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's fine. But you should consider it, and pay special attention to the arguments about culture and its affect on presentation and meaning in communication.

    How do you know? How do you know that it isn't your preference that has clouded your judgment on this?

    I realize that. The question is about the propriety of the means and the accuracy of the picture. This falls short in both categories.

    So utilitarianism is a good argument? I don't think so, not in moral matters. When it comes to the gospel, we are not to ask "What works" but "What does Scripture tell us to do?" And as we have seen, no one as yet has pointed out a scriptural basis for either the presentation or the content of this.

    I am not opposed to drama. I am opposed to bad drama that communicates a bad message.

    So Dan, you give no evidence that you have thought much about this. Have you ever read something like Neil Postman in Amusing Ourselves to Death, or Richard Weaver in Ideas Have Consequences? What about Allan Bloom in The Closing of the American Mind? Anything by Tozer? Eliot? Myers? What is your background in theology and culture that allows you to be so dogmatic that this is an acceptable way to communicate the gospel?
     
  3. dan e.

    dan e. New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    0
    Postman: yep
    Weaver: nope
    Bloom: nope
    Tozer: of course!
    Eliot: I don't remember, so must have not been that great if I did.
    Myers: nope

    Forgive me if I've come off dogmatic. I guess my "dogmatism" is a response to my similar opinion of your view....dogmatic. Ironic, eh?
     
  4. dan e.

    dan e. New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    0

    I'm so anxiously awaiting your perfect way of presenting the gospel. I'll bet it never fails!

    Still waiting......don't keep all the good info. to yourself!
     
  5. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes it is ironic. But the great problem is that you have given no basis for your dogmatism other than "it works." That's not a good reason. You have not yet given any scriptural basis for your judgment that I have seen. We have no way of knowing why you think this method of presentation (little clarity and much triviality) is compatible with the glorious gospel of Christ. How can we judge whether or not your judgment is to be trusted.

    I have said that this type of presentation does not measure up to the picture of passages like Isaiah 6:1ff and Rev 1. I have said that there is little clarity about the gospel here (and you and Amy proved that by disagreeing on what this was even about). I have said that this is a trivial presentation of a very serious subject by comparing it to the methods of the prophets, Christ, and the apostles, and noting the lack of any biblical evidence for this type of presentation.

    I have already said I don't have a perfect way. But that doesn't mean that the Bible says nothing at all about it. Remember 1 Cor 1 and 2 and 2 Cor 4 where Paul talks very plainly about the preaching of the gospel. This type of presentation seems in direct contradiction to what Paul declares to be the appropriate way of presenting the gospel.
     
  6. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    If anyone can show me where Jesus used a sound system, then I think it's OK to use it. Otherwise, toss yours out.

    Can anyone show me where Jesus used the Gospels (as in Matthew, Mark, Luke or John) or the rest of the New Testament? If so, then it's OK to use it - otherwise ditch it.

    Did Jesus ever use stories to get His point through to those who couldn't understand it otherwise? Then it's OK to use stories.

    Did Jesus ever use or condone using a baptismal rather than a body of water? Then we know the answer as to whether that is right or wrong.
     
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    These types of questions are a little bit humorous in that they illustrate that you have completely missed the point, which always makes for bad discussions.

    Sound systems are not moral issues that deal with the manner in which the gospel is communicated. If anything, this argument works against the use of this type of communication since the idea of a sound system is to make more intelligible and clear the message, whereas this type of video makes the message less clear.

    To your second point, the Gospels were ordained by Jesus to be used in preaching the gospel. So that clearly fails your point.

    To your third question, Jesus did use stories, though some were intended to hide the message so that people would not understand it, not help them understand it. And there is no problem with using stories to help people understand something.

    Using a baptismal rather than a body of water is non-distinction. A baptismal is a body of water.

    So on all four questions you have failed to contribute anything.

    The issue here is very simple: Does the Scripture say we should use unclear and trivial means to communicate the glorious gospel of Christ? Yes or no?
     
  8. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    No, I have not failed to contribute anything, thank you very much.

    It is your OPINION that it makes the Gospel unclear and trivial. I have seen it as very different. Have you ever been involved in using this method? Have you ever communicated to the youth of today? Have you been a tool in changing lives through the artistic talents that God has given others? I have.
     
  9. queenbee

    queenbee Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    312
    Likes Received:
    0
    If this drama is so scripturally unsound, the music is inane and it's of no social redeeming value according to your long-studied conclusion, how 'bout letting the rest of the world in on your secret as to what is the correct drama that should have been presented since you've taken pains to tell us that you're not quick to 'bash' methods and also have no problem with using stories to help people understand something.
     
  10. standingfirminChrist

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,454
    Likes Received:
    3
    annsni,

    You think the gospel is presented clearly in that video, I know it is not.

    I challenge you to show a lost person that video, don't tell them anything about it, don't say that man represents God, don't discuss it before or after the video.

    I guarantee a lost person will walk away just as lost after watching it. It is in no way communicating the gospel.
     
  11. dan e.

    dan e. New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have.

    Except you're missing the point. It definitely needs to be coupled with actually explaining the gospel. This is nothing but a picture, or portrayal (nobody said a perfect, or the best one) of the gospel.

    No big deal to use it. No big deal not to use it. But it is ridiculous to condemn the method and those who use it.
     
  12. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, you didn't contribute anything meaningful since all four of your questions were either irrelevant to the issue at hand, or supported my position.

    but did you see it rightly? If you have, then please show us the clear and serious presentation of the gospel. If you do, you will be the first.

    No.

    Yes.

    Not sure what you mean by this.
     
    #72 Pastor Larry, Apr 3, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 3, 2008
  13. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have given several resources to get started, and have presented my objections many times, which has not been responded to in any serious fashion. There is no secret here. We need only look at the methods and results of communication theory, and the scriptural teaching on the communication of the gospel.
     
  14. standingfirminChrist

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,454
    Likes Received:
    3
    I agree.

    Too many of late have adopted an attitude of 'Win the lost at any cost.' Yet Scripture is clear, we are not to compromise the gospel or water it down to win them.

    When the lost are won, what are they won to? The ways of the world in a church setting?
     
  15. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    When using this sort of media to communicate the Truth to people, it is not the only thing we use. We will have a speaker too - to bring it all together. But we live in an age where the young people are not just auditory learners - but visual learners. Honestly, they will not listen to you unless you grab their heart first. And once you grab their heart, they are open and ripe for the Gospel (if God has softened them to it - if He hasn't nothing and no amount of anything will reach them).

    Again, I've seen results from this and other forms of media. So it's worthwhile for something.
     
  16. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    4
    Folks, it's just a dramatic presentation. No one is saying it's the "be all, end all" gospel presentation.

    There was nothing presented in that video that is untrue.

    God draws, God saves, people fall into the sins of the world, God draws them back to Him.
    It's not a deep theological presentation.

    Lighten up. :saint:
     
  17. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    Pastor Larry - What I am addressing is the idea that we can't use "worldly" things to bring the Gospel to the lost. SFIC asserts that we cannot and if we cannot, then we cannot use ANYTHING of the world including the printed Word (which is of course worldly), electronic media (which is very worldly - even 'gasp' satanic rock groups use them!), or anything else that the world uses.

    I disagree with that. The Gospel is not watered down. It doesn't change. It is still - "You are a sinner headed for hell. Jesus Christ left heaven, came to earth as a baby born to a virgin, lived, ministered then was murdered to silence Him (so they thought - but we know the true purpose of the death) - yet He rose in victory over death. He has ascended to heaven and has paid the cost for the sins of the world. He has paid the cost for us and He wants a relationship with us - and wants to save us. Nothing we can do on our own will save us - and nothing we can do on our own can earn our way into heaven. Mother Theresa without Christ is just as hell-bound as Jeffrey Dahmer without Christ. Yet with Christ, we are able to become children of God - children who stand to inherit what God has for us - eternal life".

    That message is given in a wonderful, visual way in the skit. Of course, it needs more and not once have we or anyone else that I've seen used a skit or anything like that without giving the gospel to the audience, had the opportunity for those in the audience to respond and come to an individual who would then privately continue the Gospel presentation and maybe, just maybe, be a tool to lead a person to Christ.

    Again, without having had experience with this sort of thing, it's easy to miss what truly happens when this sort of art is used.
     
  18. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    Why does it have to be a Gospel presentation, anyway? I keep hearing that Church is for the believer, and that drama clearly is dealing with the wayward Christian in a setting of believers.
    I teared up because it gave me a picture of my life wrapped up in a couple minutes. I was that girl at one point (shut up Amy :laugh:). It was a powerful presentation of Christ's love for His bride.
     
  19. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not sure what SFIC has said or what he means by it. So don't confuse my arguments with his. We cannot use things of the world to bring the gospel to the lost. That is forbidden in 1 Cor 1-2 and 2 Cor 4, among other places. The printed word, electronic media, stories, etc are not wordly. Don't confuse things here.

    None of which is in that video in any remote form. Furthermore, the very medium of cheesy, trite psuedo-ballet undermines a serious presentation of those facts.

    Not in that skit, it's not. There was nothing of the incarnation, of sin, or belief and repentance, of Christ's death and resurrection in there that I could see.

    Not being tied to it means that I can be more objective about it, I think. And that seems missing here.
     
  20. dan e.

    dan e. New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is your opinion. I actually agree that the dancing is pretty cheesy, but I'm not in to dancing...others, particularly dancers, would probably take it more seriously than you or I. The version I am more familiar with does not have the dancing...but is the same skit.

    It's a skit, not a five act play!
     
Loading...