| Poster | Thread | daniel-
Member
Joined: 2005/8/25
Posts: 130
Germany
| | Re: | | Quote:
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
_________________
Daniel Sahm
|
|  2008/2/29 4:09 | Profile | RobertW
Member
Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri
| | Re: | | Quote:
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.
_________________
Robert Wurtz II
|
| | 2008/2/29 6:58 | Profile | RobertW
Member
Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri
| | Re: | | Quote:
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
_________________
Robert Wurtz II
|
| | 2008/2/29 7:28 | Profile | LoveHim
Member
Joined: 2007/6/14
Posts: 562
Indiana, US
| | Re: | | well said robert w, thank you for being a voice to give balance and wisdom in situations like this.. i appreciate it.
phil |
| | 2008/2/29 8:17 | Profile | PaulWest
Member
Joined: 2006/6/28
Posts: 3405
Dallas, Texas
| | Re: | | Good morning, Robert!
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
_________________
Paul Frederick West
|
| | 2008/2/29 9:46 | Profile | crsschk
Member
Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA
| | Re: Sincerity. | | 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.
_________________
Mike Balog
|
| | 2008/2/29 10:25 | Profile | RobertW
Member
Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri
| | Re: | | Hi Paul,
Quote:
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.
_________________
Robert Wurtz II
|
| | 2008/2/29 10:28 | Profile | PaulWest
Member
Joined: 2006/6/28
Posts: 3405
Dallas, Texas
| | Re: | | 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
_________________
Paul Frederick West
|
| | 2008/2/29 12:05 | Profile | deltadom
Member
Joined: 2005/1/6
Posts: 2359
Hemel Hempstead
| | Re: | | 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
_________________
Dominic Shiells
|
| | 2008/2/29 12:33 | Profile | Tears_of_joy
Member
Joined: 2003/10/30
Posts: 1554
| | Re: | | Quote:
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 Gibsons 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 Christs 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 producers 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 Gods 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]Dont 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 Christians 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 dont 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 Gods direction about the latest movie. [b]Consider some of Tozers 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]
|
| | 2008/2/29 12:54 | Profile |
|
