A Lesson You’d Think Evangelicals Would Have Learned by Now
Nov 4th, 2009 | By Douglas K. Adu-Boahen | Category: UncategorizedThe lesson is this: PRAGMATISM CANNOT, HAS NOT, WILL NOT AND NEVER WILL WORK!!!!!
Here is why I feel the need to say that on a Tuesday morning. One of my favourite preachers is Dr. Albert N. Martin, retired pastor at Trinity Baptist Church, Montville, New Jersey. Around the time that the useless film The Passion of the Christ was released (and yes it was useless – some a lot of gore. I technically could have got the same thrill watching the Final Destination series. And that is not mentioning the numerous Biblical errors), Pastor Martin did a two part consideration of the movies and why, in his esteemed opinion, people really ought not to have seen the film.
Dr. Albert N. Martin
On the first part of the series, available here, (as with all SermonAudio sermons) there was a comment thread. Now, when it comes to hot-button issues, everyone has an opinion, and this was no exception. Several times on that thread, the argument was made that the film had brought more people to Christ and so Pastor Martin was in error to talk against it. (There was also the idea promulgated that the Bible is not sufficient to regulate our worship – that’s another article for another time)
Cast your mind back to 2004 – I was 13 at the time. Everyone – from Rick Warren and Bill Hybels to the Salvation Army – was singing the praises of that film. You’d have thought we were in the throes of revival! Story after story reached me – a staunch Pentecostal – about people “flocking to Christ” over this movie. Well, it’s been five years, we now know the film did zilch (and I challenge anyone to give me verifiable, sustainable proof that it wasn’t just a means for Gibson to line his pockets – which we all know it did, taking in over $80 million in its opening weekend, and to date over $611 million worldwide) – but evangelicals, like lambs to the abattoir, are still making the same stupid mistake.
Please don’t tell me that I have to remind you about the various gimmicks since then – The Prayer of Jabez, The Purpose Driven Life and its related gimmick, The 40 Days of Purpose, The Shack – all of which are supposedly bringing people to Jesus. Never mind their watered-down, and in some causes, heretical approach to the faith. Never mind that for all the gimmickry, we are the dumbest generation of Christians in history in proportion to the wealth of material we possess. Nothing of any real content matters – as long as we meet the bottom line and folks “come to Jesus”. Never mind if they later on leave the faith since you promised them one thing and they ended up with the polar opposite.
What is the one means God has ordained for getting his work done? Read 1 Cor 1:20-25 – it’s PREACHING. Not some useless movie, not some dungheap of a gimmick like The Prayer of Jabez – P.R.E.A.C.H.I.N.G!!!! Evangelicalism – you’d think – would have learned that lesson, but clearly it hasn’t, and so we soldier on, like lambs to the slaughter – only thing is we are hooked to the abattoir.
Related posts:
- Weekends in the Word – “The Saviour’s Benefits for His People” It’s Saturday, which can only mean one thing – it’s...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Douglas,
Quote of the year: dungheap of a gimmick
It explains a lot of today's evangelicalism.
Well said, and nicely put, Doug. I'll also second Stan on that being the quote of the year!
When the film came out I was 19. I was one of those guys who thought that the movie was a powerful was to show the love of Christ. I was currently at a very strict school that wouldn't allow any students go to theaters. I was so convinced that this is what my friend needed to see to come to know the LORD that I pleaded with the Dean to let me take my cousin simply for evangelistic purposes. He gave me approval. My friend picked my up from college and we talked for about 3 hrs. about perfections of God.
The next day we saw the film. We both cried. We went back to his girlfriend's house and by the coercion of his girlfriend and me he said the prayer. Immediately after that he and his girlfriend did some hour long bible studies with me. I was taking through 1 John.
After a month I could not for the life of me get either of them to do Bible studies or go to church. They both refused baptism and went on living their lives. The two got married. My friend who supposedly got saved was enslaved to some horrendous sins which lead to a divorce.
After all of this he contacted me. I came into town and spent over 12 hours going through the Bible with him. Explaining the gospel over and over again. two things came up in the conversation.
One, "Bob, I thought you had already made a profession of faith, what really happened?" His response, "I knew you had been trying to get me saved for years. I also knew my girlfriend wanted me to get saved. I was emotional from seeing all that happened to the guy on the film and so I 'got saved' by saying the prayer." He later told me,"nothing really at all changed in who I am from that day I simply wanted to do what seemed right at the time."
Two, when I was explaining to him what the gospel was he was shocked! He responded with, "I have never heard this before!" That's ironic a guy who supposedly got saved by watching "The Passion" had never heard or understood what the gospel even was.
It was only through the teaching and preaching of the Word that my friend Bob was informed in what the gospel was and so therefore was able to be regenerated and believe in the Gospel for the first time.
P.S.
When asked what had the most profound impact on him that weekend we went and saw the passion, his response was quick and easy, "the long talk we had about what God is like." Interesting even an unbeliever is profoundly effected in some way by hearing what God is like more than watching a Jesus film.
films may or may not be useful in helping people connect with God in a new way – but we should never expect a film or something like that to 'save' anybody. they are merely tools that should bring about discussions of faith/what it means to follow Christ, etc.
lool at it this way, Stephen Wilcox – the film became a catalyst for a discussion that was very meaningful to your friend. be thankful for the discussion. Some may not have liked that movie – but i'd hardly call it useless. if it brought about meaningful conversations, then that is a good thing.
we should look to build relationships with the lost so that we can be a witness to them. how they respond is not in our control.
in the end, who cares about current 'evangelistic' trends. care about relationship building.
p.s. – don't discount the power of film: the original Jesus movie has been translated in to thousands of languages and has been shown on the mission field for years – with great response. thankfully, missionaries have stayed behind after viewings to live with and minister to various people groups around the world. God can and will use any method possible to get our attention. don't discount that.
All I have to ask is this: Are films the means that God, through the vehicle of Scripture, have appointed? I fail to see any evidence for anything other than the preached Word…
God spoke to Balaam through an ass. spoke to Moses through a burning bush. Elijah through a gentle whisper.
narrow minded to think that God can only speak to people, even reach people through only ONE way.
Let’s see – all such examples were when? During the days of the Old Covenant. What does the New Testament itself say about how God is speaking:
God speaks to us on this side of Calvary in the person and work of Jesus – and how is that person and work proclaimed?
God, in this New Covenant era, has commissioned the Word PREACHED as the means. Call it narrow-minded, but if that is what God ordains as His “recommended” (and that’s a light way to put it) means, who are we to add our own means to that? That is being presumptous…
you seriously believe that Christ can only be proclaimed through actual spoken words?
St Francis said 'preach often. if necessary, use words.'
jesus said Love God. love people. love your enemies. how does one show love? through actions. words mean nothing without action to back them up.
John tells us to 'walk like Jesus.' read 1 John 2. it's all about action.
James 2 is all about action, too. not just words.
Call it narrow-minded, but if that is what God ordains as His "recommended" (and that's a light way to put iti must have missed it when God said "i recommend you PREACH and PREACH only." is that what you are really saying? God can't enable us to reach people through other measures?
by the way – do you discount the power and testimony that has resulted from the showing of the original Jesus movie around the world?
secondly, you missed my entire first point to Stephen: relationship building can/will bring opportunity to speak Christ and SHOW Christ.
you should read Yancey's Finding God in Unexpected Places or Seeing God in the Ordinary: A Theology of the Everyday by Frost.
God's using of a film or whatever else does not mean God condones that means to be what the church makes practice. I know people saved from cults but that doesn't mean we should start them in order that people can be saved.
Thank you – just because it exists and it's been milked doesn't make it right!
just because it exists and it's been milked doesn't make it right!
and it doesn't make it wrong, either. i'm not supporting bad products or cheesy 'trends' – but the creative arts have largely been ignored or underused by the church and that's a shame.
you have one scripture from 1 Corinthians and that's how you come to your conclusion?
poor Bully Graham had it all wrong. he must be a heretic. after all, him and his association made over 30 evangelistic films.
Acts 2:42-47: the fellowship of believers did more than just 'preach' the word. they lived the word. and the Lord added to their number daily.
Let's see – all such examples were when? During the days of the Old Covenant.that doesn't make them any less true. look at you, saying what God can and can't do. you're putting God in a box. you should let him out.
If it’s not rooted in the example of Scripture, then it’s not Biblical – seems simple for me.
No it’s not – they had creative arts in the first-century church and yet we don’t see them mandated there either. We see Paul using the communication technology of his day – parchments and the Roman roads – (and not any different to us using DVDs, CDs, TV, the Internet, etc.) but not using the Greek orators or the actors of the day. Nope – he stuck to the God-ordained means of preaching.
Well, Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:15-20, Luke 24:46-48, Acts 2:14-39, 4:8-12,
1 Cor 1:20-25(OK, I’ve worn that one out a little…) and 2 Tim 4:1-4 inform my view that proclamation is the means God has blessed and appointment for His Gospel to go forth.“Poor Billy Graham had it all wrong. he must be a heretic. after all, him and his association made over 30 evangelistic films.”
Actually I’d say he’s a heretic for advocating the nonsense that people can be saved without even knowing the name of Jesus for opening his arms to accept as Christians those who compromise the pure Gospel. Even if he were not, doesn’t make it right. (video proof here and here)
I actually found this claim humourous when I went and read the text – what we find in the community of Acts 2 were indicative of their fruits as Christians and I rejoice in those distinctives including doctrine (something completely missing in evangelicalism today), but those were FRUITS of the Gospel’s work in the lives of the converted. The LORD added to the Church those who should be saved, because He is the One who initiates salvation. The text is not saying that those deeds were the catalyst for people being saved. We see what that was throughout Acts – it was the public, bold, unashamed proclamation of the Word which did that…
Granted – but then if there is no difference between the Old and New Covenants, why aren’t you wearing tassels on your clothes or why aren’t you going up to Jerusalem to observe the three feasts yearly? This isn’t the forum for discussing the immense difference between the Covenants, so I will refer you to Hebrews 1:1-3 and 8:7-13.
Apologies for sounding a little sarcastic, but He’s not my kid for me to order him about. He is God who could, if He so desired (and I am sure there is reason enough), blast me off the face of the earth. Do you honestly think that I, an 18-year-old Journalism student, can honestly tell Him what to do?
Well, it took umpteen comments but the usual accusation finally reared its annoying head. If I knew nothing about God and had nothing to go by, yet I began shouting the odds about Him, then your accusation would hold weight…but He undertook the painstaking effort to reveal something of Himself in the person of Christ (John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:15 and Hebrews 1:1-3) and in the pages of Scripture (2 Tim 3:15-21, 2 Peter 1:16-21). Therefore, I test everything claiming to be of God by the Book (1 John 4:1-3, 1 Thessalonians 5:21) and if it doesn’t fit, then we drop it. We don’t make excuses for it, we don’t attempt to justify it – we…drop…it.
Tim,
I think you are really missing the point being made in this discussion. Sure, you are right, God can use whatever means that please Him to accomplish his purpose and goal. Mind you, this does not always mean that the purpose and goal is for the ultimate benefit of the person. It could be, in fact, for the further condemnation of said person.
The plain reality is that there is only one God-ordained means upon which the gospel is offered. The arts being rejected (as you assert) is an historically erroneous statement. The reformers were very concerned with the arts (as they were with every aspect of life seeking to bring all of life under the authority and headship of Jesus Christ). Look it up. It is a fascinating study.
Now, lets get back to the "Passion of the Christ" movie that was the centerpiece of the conversation. First of all, this movie violates both the 1st and 2nd commandments. Now whether you want to admit this or not or even consider this reality does not change this plain fact. Second, the movie portrayed Christ's "passion" as his agony physically speaking. However, I think the argument can be sustained that the "passion" was not the physical agonoy but the reality that the Son of God would face a break in fellowship with the Father for the first time in eternity. This is the real "passion" my friend. This is what the Lord Jesus Christ really suffered.
Yes, God often uses means (other than the preached word of God) in spite of ourselves to bring people to true saving faith. However, that is not the ORDINARY means upon which the gospel is to be proclaimed and it does not therefore allow for any old way as long as it works. Pragmatism is not the issue here. Obedience to Christ and the apostles teaching is the main issue.
I really do not think it is possible for you to sustain this argument. The overwhelming evidence of the Scripture is that the Word of God is proclaimed by a preacher. The apostles were commissioned to this end and the aposltes later appointed elders to this end. The simplicity that is "preaching the Word of God" is the ordinary and God ordained means upon which the Holy Spirit changes hearts, driving men to repentance, and a true possession of faith that saves.