Hi Clint,

_________________
Robert Wurtz II

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.

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

If 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!”

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

Here 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.

At 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.

Sometimes 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.

The 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.

The 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]

This 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.

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. ([i]The Pursuit of God[/i], pp. 62-63)

_________________
Mike Balog

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.

_________________
Robert Wurtz II

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."

_________________
Christopher