BSBKJVWEBYLTASVBBEWMBT4TDBY|HymnsMusicDonate
Menu
General

Entertainment in the Pulpit

S
SimpleLiving Feb 16, 2008

There are a series of five, short video clips on You Tube about entertainment in the pulpit. This link leads to [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn0vVzEbF1s]Clip #1.[/url] They're done by a group called White Horse Inn. (I'm unfamiliar with them.)

I expected the clips of today's churches doing things like this, but then they go back to classic preachers and show how the church helped bring this trend of entertainment in the pulpit about. Even then, I wasn't surprised... until I got to [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-npT3c_zpDg&feature=related]Clip #2[/url] where they lay into Charles Finney, saying that he came into town the same way the circus did and was quite a showman. So much so that churches started to mimic his "performances."

Being new to this, I wanted to know what others thought of these clips. Who is "White Horse Inn"? Are these things true about Charles Finney? I just have a really hard time grasping this.

T
tjservant Feb 16, 2008

Being new to this, I wanted to know what others thought of these clips. Who is "White Horse Inn"? Are these things true about Charles Finney? I just have a really hard time grasping this.

Have not watched clips, but...

The White Horse Inn is a nationally syndicated radio talk show hosted by Michael Horton, Rod Rosenbladt, Kim Riddlebarger and Ken Jones. On the air since 1990, the show features a regular roundtable discussion of Christian theology and apologetics.(taken from site)
Highly regarded…especially among the Reformed theological crowd.

As for Finney...

He catches a lot…from a lot of people. I’m sure others with far more knowledge than I will have something to say about him.

Grace and peace brother

G
ginnyrose Feb 16, 2008

Keith,

Thanks so very much for posting this link! I had no idea entertainment in popular churches is this bad...it just about makes me sick. Presently, I am too upset to post any more rational thoughts on the subject.

Hope this info gets a broader audience and perhaps in the process convict some...

Blessings,
ginnyrose

sermonindex Feb 18, 2008

I had no idea entertainment in popular churches is this bad...

It's really bad. A recent trend lately is to give "sexual satisfaction" center stage, and this is meant to attract people to come to church.

Ask my wife... I'm not a prude when it comes to marriage, and a God honoring relationship between a husband and a wife... but what is happening in the church today is way out of line.

For instance:

CHARLOTTE SOUTH FELLOWSHIP IN MATHEWS, NORTH CAROLINA, featured a five week series in February 2007 called "Sex Crazy." Two of the messages were "Single and Sexually Satisfied" and "Raising Sexually Satisfied Kids."

In February-March 2007 EASTLAKE COMMUNITY CHURCH IN KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON, had a "Thank God for Sex" campaign. Sermons titles included "Sex is Good" and "Learn Some New Moves."

ROCKY RIVER COMMUNITY CHURCH IN CONCORD, NORTH CAROLINA, had a "Desperate Sex Lives" campaign in February-March 2007. They fretted that "the only time most churches talk about sex is when they speak against it" and promised to "bring sex out of the dark and into the light."

REVOLUTION CHURCH IN CANTON, GEORGIA, also got into the sex campaign business. To accompany the sermon series they used secular rock, including "Feel Like Making Love" by Bad Company and "Your Body is a Wonderland" by John Mayer. In his message on "Creative Sex" Pastor Gary Lamb said things that cannot be quoted here.

GRANGER COMMUNITY CHURCH IN GRANGER, INDIANA, had a "My Lame Sex Life" campaign featuring billboards with two pair of feet in a very suggestive configuration. One sermon title was "The Greatest Sex You'll Ever Have."

CORNERSTONE CHURCH IN CHANDLER, ARIZONA, had a "Bringing Sexy Back" campaign in August -September 2007. One of the sermon titles was "Greatest Sex Ever."

THE GATHERING IN SEVIERVILLE, TENNESSEE, had a "Red Hot Sex" campaign in October 2007. It claimed that a "red hot sex life empowers every part of marriage." One sermon title by Pastor Gene Wolfenbarger was "God has designed you for sex and how to make it hot."

REVOLUTION CHURCH IN LONGBEACH, CALIFORNIA, kicked off their "God Loves Sex" campaign in July 2007 with a "sex party." The web site explained, "Nothing dirty or weird--just an opportunity to celebrate God's gift of sex and intimacy." The advertisement said, "God wants you to have great sex," and one of the sermon titles was "Leather, Whips and Whip Cream."

OAKLEAF CHURCH IN CARTERSVILLE, GEORGIA, had a "Your Great Sex Life" campaign in March 2007. The advertisement complained that "the church either ignores sex or brings down a judgmental hammer." (On December 23 this "church" is featuring "A Rockin' Christmas Eve Eve.")

Brothers and sisters, this is carnal and foolish and wicked. Bible-believing churches have always taught God's people what the Bible says about sexual relations, but there is no place for this type of thing. What about the single people who attend these campaigns? What are they supposed to do when the church focuses on great sex! In spite of the churches' claims to the contrary, these campaigns are not holy and are not faithful to God's Word. The Bible never deals with this issue in a shocking or lascivious manner.

"Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge" (Hebrews 13:4).

Krispy

N
Nellie Feb 18, 2008

May God be merciful to these people.
I didn't realize these things were being taught in Ga., but realized long ago that we aren't the Bible belt, as some would say.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
God Bless all.
Nellie

E
enid Feb 18, 2008

There is a church currently having a 30 day sex challenge.

Don't ask for links. I didn't watch the video, I just read the headline. That was enough for me.

God bless.

C
crsschk Feb 18, 2008

Tell me this isn't true ... Have re-written this a handful of times, it seems almost like something out of some fantastical imagination wanting to bring reproach on the faithful ... If only it were so!

I am just stunned, staggered ... tear the robe, sit down in dust and ashes ... weep between the porch and altar ... Oh God

sermonindex Feb 18, 2008

Sadly it is true. Our local news here in Asheville even did a piece on that church mentioned over in Sevierville TN, and the one in Charlotte. The church in Sevierville made the news because they went so far as to mail fliers out to everyone in town and rented a billboard... and people complained about it because their children saw it in the mail and on the billboard.

Isnt that pathetic? The world has to tell the church when they have crossed the line of public lewdness.

Krispy

S
SimpleLiving Feb 18, 2008

I'll be honest with you, I'm not shocked by this at all. I did, however, come out of the Word of Faith movement which is all about emotions and self. Yes, it's horrible, and yes it's wretched, but what else can we expect from the world? Even a worldly, deceived church? What I've always found particularly disgusting is how the entertainment-driven church has come to embrace the world's insults by labeling [i]themselves[/i] "Jesus Freaks." If they only knew whose name they were attaching the world "freak" to! These people are lost.

What I was hoping someone might know a bit about, is how these video clips addressed Charles Finney. In Clip 2 (previously linked to) and [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B18xXCo-TJk&feature=related]Clip 3[/url] They go into how he was quite wild and was very much a showman in his days, likening him to a circus.

This is part of what this series of clips is about: How some of the early churches helped usher in this age of entertainment in the pulpit. They talk about Aimee Semple McPherson, but I've already read about her background. If she were alive today, she'd surely be in the Word of Faith movement. But it just shocked me about Charles Finney because of his writings. When I read Finney's writings and then hear this background about him, it doesn't compute in my head. It's like two completely different people.

This post is long enough. I'll leave it with my question about Finney. I have another question that I'd like to bring up in the next post.

sermonindex Feb 18, 2008


Is this what they may be referring to?

http://greatsfandf.com/AUTHORS/CharlesGFinney.php

Katy

S
SimpleLiving Feb 18, 2008

I think most, if not nearly all, of us agree that entertainment in the pulpit is sin. So, what kinds of entertainments [i]are[/i] okay for Christians?

I'm asking this question not because I'm searching for entertainment, but because, for most of the "Christians" around me, this is all they know. This is what they were raised with. I have a friend who is part of a large team that runs the sound and light board for the "worship team" at his mega-church. He talks in entertainment terminology. They play contemporary Christian music - very loudly.

This is how the churches they know [i]are[/i]. They don't see it as wrong. After all, this is what Christian radio plays. They don't see it as performance. They don't see it as the congregation dancing like they do at nightclubs. [i]This is Christianity, and the church, as they know it![/i]

These are the same people that still go to the movies and say things like, "It wasn't that bad. There was only one sex scene and they didn't show anything. The language wasn't "as bad" as most other movies out there." We live in an age of rationalizing everything so Christians can participate in it!

Have you seen the so-called Christian movie review websites? Websites where Christian parents, and others, can go to find out how much sex, violence and vulgar language there is in a movie so they can decide if they want to go, or send their children to it. One movie the "Christian reviewer" reviewed noted that the kids in the movie were constantly using the Lord's name in vain, but there wasn't any swearing in the movie. He said, "Some may find this offensive." Some? He still ranked the movie with 2.5 stars out of 5 and said that children under 12 shouldn't see it! The Lord's name is taken in vain and he recommends this movie at all?!

Even our Christian culture encourages partaking in the world's entertainment! No wonder saints like brother Ravenhill and Washer say they'll be surprise [i]if 2%[/i] of those, in America, who profess to be Christians really are!

So, when you're asked what kinds of "entertainment" are okay for Christians, how do you respond? Here are specific things I've been asked about:

- Christian comedians like Chandra Pierce, Mark Lowry, and live performances like the Christian troupe "Triple Espresso"?

- Christian music concerts with Michael W. Smith and others who produce Godly music. "After all, you like Keith Green and he gave concerts."

- Christian movies like [i]The Gospel of John[/i], [i]The Apocalypse[/i] (with Richard Harris as John), etc.,

- Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany Georgia has gotten into movie-making to reach the lost. They made [i]Flywheel[/i], [i]Facing the Giants[/i], and are in production on their third movie, [i]Fireproof[/i], starring Kirk Cameron.

- [i]Way of the Master[/i] with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort is entertaining.

- Movies in the theatre that are rated G and PG.

- The [i]Narnia[/i] movie, based on C.S. Lewis' books. And [i]The Lord of the Rings[/i] movies were written by Tolkien, who was known to be a Christian. But these are fantasy-based movies, which are considered "bad". "God gave us imagination and creativity, too."

- Churches that have drama groups that go out and perform in other churches and other outreaches. (Actually, even John Piper's church has a drama group, now that I think about it.)

I am basically being asked where the line between sinful entertainment, right entertainment and legalism is supposedly drawn by "true Christians." I can't avoid their questions, but, being only a month old as a biblical Christian, I'm not quite sure how to respond. I have the matter in prayer, but I'm hoping for some feedback from my brothers and sisters, too. The only thing I've been able to say to these people is to pray before they do it. They either remark that they have or that we don't have to pray about every single thing we do. To which I can only respond, "Why not?"

Any insightful thoughts or wisdom you can give?

S
SimpleLiving Feb 18, 2008


Katy-did wrote:

Is this what they may be referring to?

http://greatsfandf.com/AUTHORS/CharlesGFinney.php

Katy

No, it's not. The Charles Finney mentioned in your link died in 1984. They're definitely talking about the Charles Finney who lived from 1792-1875.

E
enid Feb 18, 2008

SimpleLiving,
Concerning your entertainment question there are 2 scriptures that come to mind.

Romans 14v23, 'But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith, for whatever is not from faith is sin.'

If one has to question what they are doing, and feel guilty doing it, then they should not be doing it.

This scripture refers to food, but says also whatever, all inclusive.

Also in James 4v17 it says, 'Therefore, to him who know to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.'

That scripture speaks for itself.

Also God has given us His Spirit as a guarantee of our salvation, 2 Cor 1v22 and 2 Cor 5v5. He has redeemed us with His blood, Rev 5v9, what more do we need?

Just a few thoughts for those who ask you any more questions.

God bless.

S
SimpleLiving Feb 18, 2008

Thank you, sister.

Romans 14v23, 'But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith, for whatever is not from faith is sin.'

I can tell you now that they don't see what they're doing as sin. They're not questioning what they're doing for entertainment. They're asking me as a result of my bringing up the topic. They're fine with it.


Also in James 4v17 it says, 'Therefore, to him who know to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.'

That scripture speaks for itself.

It does speak for itself, but, again, this isn't helpful in this case where people are fine with what they're choosing and doing. They see it as Christian entertainment and it's good to them, because they're not out there going to rock concerts and x rated movies.

sermonindex Feb 18, 2008

Thank You, Keith for clarifying.....that was not the same Charles G. Finney.

But I did find this and wondered after I read.


http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar81.htm

If the Cross is not preached that our old adam is crucified with Christ, and this article seems to state Charles G. Finney did not preach the Cross, then it would seem to be our old nature is getting out of control. Just food for thought.

Maybe too much emphasis on the Holy Spirit and gifts etc, and very little on Christ crucified and Risen, or the GOSPEL Message in general.


Katy


M
MrBillPro Feb 18, 2008

So I am guessing this might be a good question, what if anything are we folks here doing about all this stuff were judging or exposing? and if all were doing is exposing it "here" is this enough? I really think this is a couple good questions.

sermonindex Feb 18, 2008

I think most, if not nearly all, of us agree that entertainment in the pulpit is sin. So, what kinds of entertainments are okay for Christians?

Depending on the entertainment, I dont think that being entertained is a sin in and of itself. But in America we are conditioned to be entertained 24/7. We have radios, cd players... and now DVD players in our cars. People arrange the furniture in their homes around the TV. We have plasma TV's that rival theaters! Heck, with all the surround sound home theater stuff we have... why spend $10 for a movie ticket? It looks and sounds better in our living rooms!

It's excessive, and anything in excess is bad.

But to sit down with your wife and enjoy a good movie... thats clean... is not a sin. Enjoying music for the sake of music is not a sin (tho there are a few on this forum that will argue against that). Enjoying a good novel is not a sin.

But all things in moderation. If you get caught up in a novel and neglect the Bible, well thats a problem.

Most Christian I know will sit infront of the TV for 4 or 5 hours a night... and complain that they dont have time enough in a day to study God's Word. Thats a problem.

God designed us such that we do need a break from our everyday work. Even God took off the seventh day of the creation week for some much needed R&R. He dictated it to the nation of Israel. And tho we do not keep the Sabbath as a law, the principle still stands... man needs rest.

And sometimes entertainment can play a part in resting. When we begin to try and dictate what sort of entertainment is acceptable for the believer we run into problems because people want to turn it into legalism. Thats a problem too.

If you like jazz... turn a jazz CD and relax and enjoy it. Want to watch a movie with your family? Watch a movie. Enjoy a good book! (it doesnt have to be a deep theological book either... read a John Grisham novel.)

It's ok so long as it's done in moderation, and it doesnt become a god in your life. Seek ye FIRST the Kingdom of God.

And keep Phillipians 4:8 as your guideline to what make acceptable entertainment. If you follow it's advice you wont need a man-made list of entertainment that some Christians will want to enforce upon you:

[b]Phillipians 4:8[/b] [i]Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.[/i]

Krispy

sermonindex Feb 18, 2008

So I am guessing this might be a good question, what if anything are we folks here doing about all this stuff were judging or exposing? and if all were doing is exposing it "here" is this enough? I really think this is a couple good questions.

Love ya, Bill... but you ask this because you get annoyed when we "expose" your pastor.

Fact is, brother, I dont belong to those churches, therefore I dont have a say in how they do things. But what they are doing is done publically, and should be marked and avoided publically... just as I have done.

Paul said to Timothy to "mark and avoid" false teachers, not go to them and show them their error. Now, Timothy could have done that because he did carry the authority to do so... but I dont.

Now, I grow a little weary of this debate back and forth that we should not expose, but go to the false teacher in private. No where is that scriptural. Going to someone in private concerns personal matters between brothers, or matters within the confines of the local assembly... not me going to Benny Hinn privately. This is a twisting of scripture.

This is not what this thread is about, so if you wish to bat this around more, Bill, please start another thread.

Krispy

sermonindex Feb 18, 2008


More food for thought.


The emphasis on visions and dreams, special extra-Biblical revelations, and the guidance of the Spirit through these revelations all belong to the tradition of mysticism. No wonder there is such a striking resemblance between revivalism and the modern charismatic movement!

Yet, mysticism is contrary to the Scriptures -- it is a theology of emotions, a theology of feeling, with little regard for doctrine.

For example, consider the life of Charles Grandison Finney, the early-19th century revivalist in the Northeastern part of the United States, and a kindred spirit of John Wesley. (Finney doctrinalized Wesley's "second experience" teaching.)

Finney's introduction of new methods for getting converts and the orchestrating of emotion and excitement in huge revival gatherings was clearly based on his heretical understanding of being born-again (12/25/95, Christian News, p. 7). Finney writes that he repudiated all the fundamental doctrines of the faith, including the vicarious nature of the atonement of Jesus Christ, in the interests of preaching revival:

"These doctrines I could not receive. I could not receive his [my teacher's] views on the subject of atonement, regeneration, faith, repentance, the slavery of the will, or any of their kindred doctrines" (The Memoirs of Charles Finney, p. 48).

Revivalism, then, is clearly the friend of pragmatism; i.e., using whatever method works in getting men to "make decisions for Christ," or in getting them to "weep and wail before God as evidence of a renewed commitment to godly living," regardless of the Bible's condemnation of any such method. Finney again, writing in 1834, declared that revival is "a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means. " In other words, Finney's purpose was solely to convince the human will and produce decisions and commitments (12/25/95, Christian News, p. 7). (See note at end of this report.)

This pragmatic approach appears to be grounded in the revivalist's faulty view of conversion; i.e., the revivalists were, for the most part, like Finney, preaching that salvation was dependent upon the individual, and that the preacher must prepare the individual's heart by preaching the law so as to put him in a spiritual frame of mind either to "accept" Christ or "reject" Him. The "decision" was solely up to the individual.

Revivalists typically hold to the false doctrine that salvation rests in man's hands, and that a "decision" can be encouraged if only some kind of "unusual" and/or "extraordinary" experience can be generated. In the end, the intensity of the "experience" becomes the revivalist's test, not only for the genuineness of the conversion, but for the personal assurance of salvation as well.

sermonindex Feb 18, 2008

Sis Katy, could you give the link to where you find your articles.
In this one case, I'd like to look further.

Thanks Sis.
Love.

Annie

This discussion is locked.

Archived
1 of 39 posts