I have seen on some blogs some of the women do what they call a week of pictures. They took pictures of them selves everyday with what they were wearing that day and posted it on their blog. I think they called it a week of dresses.
I think it is a really neat idea. I am not promising to take a picture everyday and I will still be posting my regular blog posts, but here is me today.
I think it would be really cool if more people did this. I love looking at pictures of people. Why not take a picture of yourself each day of the week and share it.
The Menace of the
Religious Movie
By A. W. Tozer (1897-1963)
When God gave to Moses the
blueprint of the Tabernacle He was careful to include every detail;
then, lest Moses should get the notion that he could improve
on the original plan, God warned him solemnly, "And look
that thou make them after their pattern, which was shown thee
in the mount." God, not Moses, was the architect. To decide
the plan was the prerogative of the Deity. No one dare alter
it so much as a hairbreadth.
The New Testament Church also
is built after a pattern. Not the doctrines only but the methods
are divinely given. The doctrines are expressly stated in so
many words. Some of the methods followed by the early New Testament
Church had been given by direct command; others were used by
God's specific approval, having obviously been commanded the
apostles by the Spirit. The point is that when the New Testament
canon was closed the blueprint for the age was complete. God
has added nothing since that time.
From God's revealed plan we
depart at our peril. Every departure has two consequences, the
immediate and the remote. The immediate touches the individual
and those close to him; the remote extends into the future to
unknown times, and may expand so far as to influence for evil
the whole Church of God on earth.
The temptation to introduce
"new" things into the work of God has always been too
strong for some people to resist. The Church has suffered untold
injury at the hands of well intentioned but misguided persons
who have felt that they know more about running God's work than
Christ and His apostles did. A solid train of box cars would
not suffice to haul away the religious truck which has been brought
into the service of the Church with the hope of improving on
the original pattern. These things have been, one and all, positive
hindrances to the progress of the Truth, and have so altered
the divinely-planned structure that the apostles, were they to
return to earth today, would scarcely recognize the misshapen
thing which has resulted.
Our Lord while on earth cleansed
the Temple, and periodic cleansings have been necessary in the
Church of God throughout the centuries. Every generation is sure
to have its ambitious amateur to come up with some shiny gadget
which he proceeds to urge upon the priests before the altar.
That the Scriptures do not justify its existence does not seem
to bother him at all. It is brought in anyway and presented in
the very name of Orthodoxy. Soon it is identified in the minds
of the Christian public with all that is good and holy. Then,
of course, to attack the gadget is to attack the Truth itself.
This is an old familiar technique so often and so long practiced
by the devotees of error that I marvel how the children of God
can be taken in by it.
We of the evangelical faith
are in the rather awkward position of criticizing Roman
Catholicism for its weight of unscriptural impedimenta and at
the same time tolerating in our own churches a world of religious
fribble as bad as holy water or the elevated host. Heresy of
method may be as deadly as heresy of message. Old-line Protestantism
has long ago been smothered to death by extra-scriptural rubbish.
Unless we of the gospel churches wake up soon we shall most surely
die by the same means.
Within the last few years
a new method has been invented for imparting spiritual knowledge;
or, to be more accurate, it is not new at all, but is an adaptation
of a gadget of some years standing, one which by its origin and
background belongs not to the Church but to the world. Some within
the fold of the Church have thrown their mantle over it, have
"blessed it with a text" and are now trying to show
that it is the very gift of God for our day. But, however eloquent
the sales talk, it is an unauthorized addition nevertheless,
and was never a part of the pattern shown us on the mount.
I refer, of course, to the
religious movie.
For the motion picture as
such I have no irrational allergy. It is a mechanical invention
merely and is in its essence amoral; that is, it is neither good
nor bad, but neutral. With any physical object or any creature
lacking the power of choice it could not be otherwise. Whether
such an object is useful or harmful depends altogether upon who
uses it and what he uses it for. No moral quality attaches where
there is no free choice. Sin and righteousness lie in the will.
The motion picture is in the same class as the automobile, the
typewriter, or the radio: a powerful instrument for good or evil,
depending upon how it is applied.
For teaching the facts of
physical science the motion picture has been useful. The public
schools have used it successfully to teach health habits to children.
The army employed it to speed up instruction during the war.
That it has been of real service within its limited field is
freely acknowledged here.
Over against this is the fact
that the motion picture in evil hands has been a source of moral
corruption to millions. No one who values his reputation as a
responsible adult will deny that the sex movie and the crime
movie have done untold injury to the lives of countless young
people in our generation. The harm lies not in the instrument
itself, but in the evil will of those who use it for their own
selfish ends.
I am convinced that the modern
religious movie is an example of the harmful misuse of a neutral
instrument. There are sound reasons for my belief. I am prepared
to state them.
That I may be as clear as
possible, let me explain what I do and do not mean by the religious
movie. I do not mean the missionary picture nor the travel picture
which aims to focus attention upon one or another section of
the world's great harvest field. These do not come under consideration
here.
By the religious movie I mean
that type of motion picture which attempts to treat spiritual
themes by dramatic representation. These are (as their advocates
dare not deny) frank imitations of the authentic Hollywood variety,
but the truth requires me to say that they are infinitely below
their models, being mostly awkward, amateurish and, from an artistic
standpoint, hopelessly and piteously bad.
These pictures are produced
by acting a religious story before the camera.
Take for example the famous and beautiful story of the Prodigal
Son. This would be made into a movie by treating the narrative
as a scenario. Stage scenery would be set up, actors would take
the roles of Father, Prodigal Son, Elder Brother, etc. There
would be plot, sequence and dramatic denouement as in the ordinary
tear jerker shown at the Bijou movie house on Main Street in
any one of a thousand American towns. The story would be acted
out, photographed, run onto reels and shipped around the country
to be shown for a few wherever desired.
The "service" where
such a movie would be shown might seem much like any other service
until time for the message from the Word of God. Then the lights
would be put out and the picture turned on. The "message"
would consist of this movie. What followed the picture would,
of course, vary with the circumstances, but often an invitation
song is sung and a tender appeal is made for erring sinners to
return to God.
Now, what is wrong with all
this? Why should any man object to this or go out of his way
to oppose its use in the house of God? Here is my answer:
1. It violates
the scriptural law of hearing.
The power of speech is a noble
gift of God. In his ability to open his mouth and by means of
words make his fellows know what is going on inside his mind,
a man shares one of the prerogatives of the Creator. In its ability
to understand the spoken word the human mind rises unique above
all the lower creation. The gift which enables a man to translate
abstract ideas into sounds is a badge of his honor as made in
the image of God.
Written or printed words are
sound symbols and are translated by the mind into hearing. Hieroglyphics
and ideograms were, in effect, not pictures but letters, and
the letters were agreed-upon marks which stood for agreed-upon
ideas. Thus words, whether spoken or written, are a medium for
the communication of ideas. This is basic in human nature and
stems from our divine origin.
It is significant that when
God gave to mankind His great redemptive revelation He couched
it in words. "And
God spake all these words"
very well sums up the Bible's own account of how it got here.
"Thus saith the Lord" is the constant refrain of the prophets.
"The words that I
speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life,"
said our Lord to His hearers. Again
He said, "He that
heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting
life." Paul made
words and
faith
to be inseparable: "Faith
cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." And he also said,
"How shall they hear without a preacher?" (Romans 10:14)
Surely it requires no genius
to see that the Bible rules out pictures and dramatics as media
for bringing faith
and life to the
human soul.
The plain fact is that no
vital spiritual truth can be expressed by a picture. Actually
all any picture can do is to recall to mind some truth already
learned through the familiar medium of the spoken or written
word. Religious instruction and words are bound together by a
living cord and cannot be separated without fatal loss. The Spirit
Himself, teaching soundlessly within the heart, makes use of
ideas previously received into the mind by means of words.
If I am reminded that modern
religious movies are "sound" pictures, making use of
the human voice to augment the dramatic action, the answer is
easy. Just as far as the movie depends upon spoken words it makes
pictures unnecessary; the picture is the very thing that differentiates
between the movie and the sermon. The movie addresses its message
primarily to the eye, and the ear only incidentally. Were the
message addressed to the ear as in the Scriptures, the picture would have no meaning and could be omitted without
loss to the intended effect. Words can say all that God intends
them to say, and this they can do without the aid of pictures.
According to one popular theory
the mind receives through the eye five times as much information
as the ear. As far as the external shell of physical facts is
concerned this may hold good, but when we come to spiritual truth
we are in another world entirely. In that world the outer eye
is not too important. God addresses His message to the hearing
ear. "We look," says Paul, "not at the things which are seen, but at the
things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are
temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal" (2 Corinthians 4:18). This agrees
with the whole burden of the Bible, which teaches us that we
should withdraw our eyes from beholding visible things, and fasten
the eyes of our hearts upon God while we reverently listen to
His uttered words.
"The word is nigh thee,
even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith,
which we preach"
(Romans 10:8). Here, and not somewhere else, is the New Testament
pattern, and no human being, and no angel from heaven has any
right to alter that pattern.
2. The religious
movie embodies the mischievous notion that religion is, or can
be made, a form of entertainment.
This notion has come upon
us lately like a tidal wave and is either openly taught or tacitly
assumed by increasing numbers of people. Since it is inextricably
bound up with the subject under discussion I had better say more
about it.
The idea that religion should
be entertaining has made some radical changes in the evangelical
picture within this generation. It has given us not only the
"gospel" movie but a new type of religious journalism
as well. It has created a new kind of magazine for church people,
which can be read from cover to cover without effort, without
thought--and without
profit. It has
also brought a veritable flood of religious fiction with plastic
heroines and bloodless heroes like no one who has ever lived
upon this well known terrestrial ball.
That religion and amusement
are forever opposed to each other by their very essential natures
is apparently not known to this new school of religious entertainers.
Their effort to slip up on the reader and administer a quick
shot of saving truth while his mind is on something else is not
only futile, it is, in fact, not too far short of being plain
dishonest. The hope that they can convert a man while he is occupied
with the doings of some imaginary hero reminds one of the story
of the Catholic missionary who used to sneak up on sick people
and children and splash a little holy water on them to guarantee
their passage to the city of gold.
I believe that most responsible
religious teachers will agree that any effort to teach spiritual
truth through entertainment is at best futile and at worst positively
injurious to the soul. But entertainment pays off, and the economic
consideration is always a powerful one in deciding what shall
and what shall not be offered to the public--even in the churches.
Deep spiritual experiences
come only from much study, earnest prayer and long meditation.
It is true that men by thinking cannot find God; it is also true
that men cannot know God very well without a lot of reverent
thinking. Religious movies, by appealing directly to the shallowest
stratum of our minds, cannot but create bad mental habits which
unfit the soul for the reception of genuine spiritual impressions.
Religious movies are mistakenly
thought by some people to be blessed of the Lord because many
come away from them with moist eyes. If this is a proof of God's
blessing, then we might as well go the whole way and assert that
every show that brings tears is of God. Those who attend the
theater know how often the audiences are moved to tears by the
joys and sorrows of the highly paid entertainers who kiss and
emote and murder and die for the purpose of exciting the spectators
to a high pitch of emotional excitement. Men and women who are dedicated to sin and appointed
to death may nevertheless weep in sympathy for the painted actors
and be not one bit the better for it. The emotions have had a beautiful time, but the will
is left untouched. The religious movie is sure to draw together
a goodly number of persons who cannot distinguish the twinges
of vicarious sympathy from the true operations of the Holy Ghost.
3. The religious
movie is a menace to true religion because it embodies acting,
a violation of sincerity.
Without doubt the most precious
thing any man possesses is his individuated being; that by which
he is himself and not someone else; that which cannot be finally
voided by the man himself nor shared with another. Each one of
us, however humble our place in the social scheme, is unique
in creation. Each is a new whole man possessing his own separate
"I-ness" which makes him forever something apart, an
individual human being. It is this quality of uniqueness which
permits a man to enjoy every reward of virtue and makes him responsible
for every sin. It is his selfness, which will persist forever, and which distinguishes
him from every creature which has been or ever will be created.
Because man is such a being
as this all moral teachers, and especially Christ and His apostles,
make sincerity to be basic in the good life. The
word, as the New Testament uses it, refers to the practice of
holding fine pottery up to the sun to test it for purity. In
the white light of the sun all foreign substances were instantly
exposed. So the test of sincerity is basic in human character.
The sincere man is one in whom is found nothing foreign; he is
all of one piece; he has preserved his individuality unviolated.
Sincerity for each man means
staying in character
with himself. Christ's controversy with the Pharisees
centered around their incurable habit of moral play acting. The
Pharisee constantly pretended to be what he was not. He attempted
to vacate his own "I-ness" and appear in that of another
and better man. He assumed a false character and played it for
effect. Christ said he was a hypocrite.
It is more than an etymological
accident that the word "hypocrite" comes from the stage.
It means actor. With that instinct for fitness which
usually marks word origins, it has been used to signify one who
has violated his sincerity and is playing a false part. An actor
is one who assumes a character other than his own and plays it
for effect. The more fully he can become possessed by another
personality the better he is as an actor.
Bacon has said something to
the effect that there are some professions of such nature that
the more skillfully a man can work at them the worse man he is.
That perfectly describes the profession of acting. Stepping out
of our own character for any reason is always dangerous, and
may be fatal to the soul. However innocent his intentions, a
man who assumes a false character has betrayed his own soul and
has deeply injured something sacred within him.
No one who has been in the
presence of the Most Holy One, who has felt how high is the solemn
privilege of bearing His image, will ever again consent to play
a part or to trifle with that most sacred thing, his own deep
sincere heart. He will thereafter be constrained to be no one
but himself, to preserve reverently the sincerity of his own
soul.
In order to produce a religious
movie someone must, for the time, disguise his individuality
and simulate that of another. His actions must be judged fraudulent,
and those who watch them with approval share in the fraud. To
pretend to pray, to simulate godly sorrow, to play at worship before the camera for effect--how
utterly shocking to the reverent heart! How can Christians who
approve this gross pretense ever understand the value of sincerity
as taught by our Lord? What will be the end of a generation of
Christians fed on such a diet of deception disguised as the faith
of our fathers?
The plea that all this must
be good because it is done for the glory of God is a gossamer-thin
bit of rationalizing which should not fool anyone above the mental
age of six. Such an argument parallels the evil rule of expediency
which holds the
end is everything,
and sanctifies the means, however evil, if only the end be commendable.
The wise student of history will recognize this immoral doctrine.
The Spirit-led Church will have no part of it.
It is not uncommon to find
around the theater human flotsam and jetsam washed up by the
years, men and women who have played false parts so long that
the power to be sincere has forever gone from them. They are
doomed to everlasting duplicity. Every act of their lives is
faked, every smile is false, every tone of their voice artificial.
The curse does not come causeless. It is not by chance that the
actor's profession has been notoriously dissolute. Hollywood
and Broadway are two sources of corruption which may yet turn
America into a Sodom and lay her glory in the dust.
The profession of acting did
not originate with the Hebrews. It is not a part of the divine
pattern. The Bible mentions it, but never approves it. Drama,
as it has come down to us, had its rise in Greece. It was originally
a part of the worship of the god Dionysus and was carried on
with drunken revelry.
The Miracle Plays of medieval
times have been brought forward to justify the modern religious
movie. That is an unfortunate weapon to choose for the defense
of the movie, for it will surely harm the man who uses it more
than any argument I could think of just offhand.
The Miracle Plays had their
big run in the Middle Ages. They were dramatic performances with
religious themes staged for the entertainment of the populace.
At their best they were misguided efforts to teach spiritual
truths by dramatic representation; at their worst they were shockingly
irreverent and thoroughly reprehensible. In some of them the
Eternal God was portrayed as an old man dressed in white with
a gilt wig! To furnish low comedy, the devil himself was introduced
on the stage and allowed to cavort for the amusement of the spectators.
Bible themes were used, as in the modern movie, but this did
not save the whole thing from becoming so corrupt that the Roman
Church had finally to prohibit its priests from having any further
part in it.
Those who would appeal for
precedent to the Miracle Plays have certainly overlooked some
important facts. For instance, the vogue of the Miracle Play coincided exactly with
the most dismally corrupt period the Church has ever known. When the Church emerged at last from
its long moral night these plays lost popularity and finally
passed away. And be it remembered, the instrument God used to bring the Church out of
the darkness was not drama; it was the biblical one of Spirit-baptized
preaching. Serious-minded
men thundered the truth and the people turned to God.
Indeed, history will show
that no spiritual
advance, no revival, no upsurge of spiritual life has ever been
associated with acting in any form. The Holy Spirit never honors pretense.
Can it be that the historic
pattern is being repeated? That the appearance of the religious
movie is symptomatic of the low state of spiritual health we
are in today? I fear so. Only
the absence of the Holy Spirit from the pulpit and lack of true
discernment on the part of professing Christians can account
for the spread of religious drama among so-called evangelical
churches. A Spirit-filled church could not tolerate it.
4. They who present
the gospel movie owe it to the public to give biblical authority
for their act: and this they have not done.
The Church, as long as it
is following the Lord, goes along in Bible ways and can give
a scriptural reason for its conduct. Its members meet at stated
times to pray together: This has biblical authority back of it.
They gather to hear the Word of God expounded: this goes back
in almost unbroken continuity to Moses. They sing psalms and
hymns and spiritual songs: so they are commanded by the apostle.
They visit the sick and relieve the sufferings of the poor: for
this they have both precept and example in Holy Writ. They lay
up their gifts and bring them at stated times to the church or
chapel to be used in the Lord's work: this also follows the scriptural
pattern. They teach and train and instruct; they appoint teachers
and pastors and missionaries and send them out to do the work
for which the Spirit has gifted them: all this has plain scriptural
authority behind it. They baptize, then break bread and witness
to the lost; they cling together through thick and thin; they
bear each other's burdens and share each other's sorrows: this
is as it should be, and for all this there is full authority.
Now, for the religious movie where is the authority? For such a serious departure from
the ancient pattern, where is the authority? For introducing
into the Church the pagan art of acting, where is the authority?
Let the movie advocates quote just one
verse, from any book of the Bible, in any translation, to justify
its use. This they cannot do. The best they can do is to appeal
to the world's psychology or repeat brightly that "modern
times call for modern methods." But the Scriptures--quote
from them one verse to authorize movie acting as an instrument
of the Holy Ghost. This they cannot do.
Every sincere Christian must
find scriptural authority for the religious movie or reject it,
and every producer of such movies, if he would square himself
before the faces of honest and reverent men, must either show
scriptural credentials or go out of business.
But, says someone, there is
nothing unscriptural about the religious movie; it is merely
a new medium for the utterance of the old message, as printing
is a newer and better method of writing and the radio an amplification
of familiar human speech.
To this I reply: The movie
is not the modernization or improvement of any scriptural method;
rather it is a medium in itself wholly foreign to the Bible and
altogether unauthorized therein. It is play acting---just that,
and nothing more. It is the introduction into the work of God
of that which is not neutral, but entirely bad. The printing
press is neutral; so is the radio; so is the camera. They may
be used for good or bad purposes at the will of the user. But
play acting is bad in its essence in that it involves the simulation
of emotions not actually felt. It embodies a gross moral contradiction
in that it calls a lie to the service of truth.
Arguments for the religious
movie are sometimes clever and always shallow, but there is never
any real attempt to cite scriptural authority. Anything that
can be said for the movie can be said also for aesthetic dancing,
which is a highly touted medium for teaching religious truth
by appeal to the eye. Its advocates grow eloquent in its praise--but
where is it indicated in the blueprint?
5. God has ordained
four methods only by which Truth shall prevail---and the religious
movie is not one of them.
Without attempting to arrange
these methods in order of importance, they are (1) prayer, (2)
song, (3) proclamation of the message by means of words,
and (4) good works. These are the four main methods which God
has blessed. All other biblical methods are subdivisions of these
and stay within their framework.
Notice these in order:
(1) Spirit-burdened
prayer. This has
been through the centuries a powerful agent for the spread of
saving truth among men. A praying Church carried the message
of the cross to the whole known world within two centuries after
the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Read the book of
Acts and see what prayer has done and can do when it is made
in true faith.
(2) Spirit-inspired
song has been another mighty instrument in the spread of the
Word among mankind.
When the Church sings in the Spirit she draws men unto Christ.
Where her song has been ecstatic expression of resurrection joy,
it has acted wonderfully to prepare hearts for the saving message.
This has no reference to professional religious singers, expensive
choirs nor the popular "gospel" chorus. These for the
time we leave out of consideration. But I think no one will deny
that the sound of a Christian hymn sung by sincere and humble
persons can have a tremendous and permanent effect for good.
The Welsh revival is a fair modern example of this.
(3) In the Old Testament,
as well as in the New, when God would impart His mind to men
He embodied it in a message and sent men out to proclaim it. This was done by means of speaking
and writing on the part of the messenger. It was received by
hearing and reading on the part of those to whom it was sent.
We are all familiar with the verse, "Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her" (Isaiah 40:2). John the Baptist was
called "The voice of one crying in the wilderness"
(Matthew 3:3). Again we have, "And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write"
(Revelation 14:13). And the Apostle John opens his great work
called the Revelation by pronouncing a blessing upon him that
readeth and them that bear and keep the words
of the prophecy and the things which are written
therein. The two words "proclaim" and "publish" sum up God's will as it touches His Word. In the
Bible, men for the most part wrote
what had been spoken; in our time men are commissioned
to speak what has been written.
In both cases the agent is a word,
never a picture, a dance or a pageant.
(4) By His healing deeds
our Lord opened the way for His saving Words. He went about doing good, and His
Church is commanded to do the same. Faber understood this when
he wrote:
"And preach thee too,
as love knows how
By kindly deeds and virtuous life."
Church history is replete
with instances of missionaries and teachers who prepared the
way for their message with deeds of mercy shown to men and women
who were at first hostile but who melted under the warm rays
of practical kindnesses shown to them in time of need. If anyone
should object to calling good works a method, I would not argue
the point. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they
are an overflow into everyday life of the reality of what is
being proclaimed.
These are God's appointed
methods, set forth in the Bible and confirmed in centuries of
practical application. The intrusion of other methods is unscriptural,
unwarranted and in violation of spiritual laws as old as the
world.
The whole preach-the gospel-with-movies
idea is founded upon the same basic assumptions as modernism--namely,
that the Word of God is not final, and that we of this day have
a perfect right to add to it or alter it wherever we think we
can improve it.
A brazen example of this attitude
came to my attention recently. Preliminary printed matter has
been sent out announcing that a new organization is in process
of being formed. It is to be called the "International Radio
and Screen Artists Guild," and one of its two major objectives
is to promote the movie as a medium for the spread of the gospel.
Its sponsors, apparently, are not Modernists, but confessed Fundamentalists.
Some of its declared purposes are: to produce movies "with
or without a Christian slant"; to raise and maintain higher
standards in the movie field (this would be done, it says here,
by having "much prayer" with leaders of the movie industry);
to "challenge people, especially young people, to those
fields as they are challenged to go to foreign fields."
This last point should not
be allowed to pass without some of us doing a little challenging
on our own account. Does this new organization actually propose
in seriousness to add another gift to the gifts of the Spirit
listed in the New Testament? To the number of the Spirit's gifts,
such as pastor, teacher, evangelist, is there now to be added
another, the gift
of the movie actor?
To the appeal for consecrated Christian young people to serve
as missionaries on the foreign field is there to be added an
appeal for young people to serve as movie actors? That is exactly
what this new organization does propose in cold type over the
signature of its temporary chairman. Instead of the Holy Spirit
saying, "Separate
me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them" (Acts 13:2), these people will make
use of what they call a "Christian talent listing,"
to consist of the names of "Christian" actors who have
received the Spirit's gift to be used in making religious movies.
Thus the order set up in the
New Testament is openly violated, and by professed lovers of
the gospel who say unto Jesus, "Lord, Lord," but openly
set aside His Lordship whenever they desire. No amount of smooth
talk can explain away this serious act of insubordination.
Saul lost a kingdom when he
"forced" himself and took profane liberties with the
priesthood. Let these movie preachers look to their crown. They
may find themselves on the road to En-dor some dark night soon.
6. The religious
movie is out of harmony with the whole spirit of the Scriptures
and contrary to the mood of true godliness.
To harmonize the spirit of
the religious movie with the spirit of the Sacred Scriptures
is impossible. Any comparison is grotesque and, if it were not
so serious, would be downright funny. To imagine Elijah appearing
before Ahab with a roll of film! Imagine Peter standing up at
Pentecost and saying, "Let's have the lights out, please."
When Jeremiah hesitated to prophesy, on the plea that he was
not a fluent speaker, God touched his mouth and said, "I
have put my words in thy mouth." Perhaps Jeremiah could
have gotten on well enough without the divine touch if he had
had a good 16mm projector and a reel of home-talent film.
Let a man dare to compare
his religious movie show with the spirit of the Book of Acts.
Let him try to find a place for it in the twelfth chapter of
First Corinthians. Let him set it beside Savonarola's passionate
preaching or Luther's thundering or Wesley's heavenly sermons
or Edwards' awful appeals. If he cannot see the difference in kind, then he is
too blind to be trusted with leadership in the Church of the
Living God. The only thing that he can do appropriate
to the circumstances is to drop to his knees and cry with poor
Bartimaeus, "Lord, that I might receive my sight."
But some say, "We do
not propose to displace the regular method of preaching the gospel.
We only want to supplement it." To this I answer: If the
movie is needed to supplement anointed preaching it can only
be because God's appointed method is inadequate and the movie
can do something which God's appointed method cannot do. What
is that thing? We freely grant that the movie can produce effects
which preaching cannot produce (and which it should never try
to produce), but dare we strive for such effects in the light
of God's revealed will and in the face of the judgment and a
long eternity?
7. I am against
the religious movie because of the harmful effect upon everyone
associated with it.
First, the evil effect upon
the "actors" who play the part of the various characters
in the show; this is not the less because it is unsuspected.
Who can, while in a state of fellowship with God, dare to play at being a prophet? Who has the gall to pretend to be an apostle, even in a show? Where is his reverence?
Where is his fear? Where is his humility? Any one who can bring himself to act
a part for any purpose, must first have grieved the Spirit and
silenced His voice within the heart. Then the whole business will appear good to him.
"He feedeth on ashes; a deceived heart has turned him aside"
(Isaiah 44:20). But he cannot escape the secret working of the
ancient laws of the soul. Something high and fine and grand will
die within him; and worst of all he will never suspect it. That
is the curse that follows self-injury always. The Pharisees were
examples of this. They were walking dead men, and they never
dreamed how dead they were.
Secondly, it identifies religion
with the theatrical world. I have seen recently in a fundamentalist
magazine an advertisement of a religious film which would be
altogether at home on the theatrical page on any city newspaper.
Illustrated with the usual sex-bate picture of a young man and
young woman in tender embrace, and spangled with such words as
"feature-length, drama, pathos, romance," it reeked
of Hollywood and the cheap movie house. By such business we are
selling out our Christian separation, and nothing but grief can
come of it late or soon.
Thirdly, the taste for drama
which these pictures develop in the minds of the young will not
long remain satisfied with the inferior stuff the religious movie
can offer. Our young people will demand the real thing; and what
can we reply when they ask why they should not patronize the
regular movie house?
Fourthly, the rising generation
will naturally come to look upon religion as another, and inferior,
form of amusement. In fact, the present generation Yahwist has done this to an alarming extent already, and the
gospel movie feeds the notion by fusing religion and fun in the
name of orthodoxy. It takes no great insight to see that the
religious movie must become increasingly more thrilling as the
tastes of the spectators become more and more stimulated.
Fifthly, the religious movie
is the lazy preacher's
friend. If the
present vogue continues to spread it will not be long before
any man with enough ability to make an audible prayer, and mentality
enough to focus a projector, will be able to pass for a prophet
of the Most High God. The man of God can play around all week
long and come up to the Lord's Day without a care. Everything
has been done for him at the studio. He has only to set up the
screen and lower the lights, and the rest follows painlessly.
Wherever the movie is used
the prophet is displaced by the projector. The least that such
displaced prophets can do is to admit that they are technicians
and not preachers. Let them admit that they are not God-sent
men, ordained of God for a sacred work. Let them put away their
pretense.
Allowing that there may be
some who have been truly called and gifted of God but who have
allowed themselves to be taken in by this new plaything, the
danger to such is still great. As long as they can fall back
upon the movie, the
pressure that makes preachers will be wanting. The habit and rhythm which belong to great preaching will be missing from
their ministry. However great their natural gifts, however real
their enduement of power, still they will never rise. They cannot
while this broken reed lies close at hand to aid them in the
crisis. The movie will doom them to be ordinary.
In conclusion
One thing may bother some
earnest souls: why so many good people approve the religious
movie. The list of those who are enthusiastic about it includes
many who cannot be written off as borderline Christians. If it
is an evil, why have not these denounced it?
The answer is, lack of spiritual discernment. Many who are turning to the movie
are the same who have, by direct teaching or by neglect, discredited
the work of the Holy Spirit. They have apologized for the Spirit
and so hedged Him in by their unbelief that it has amounted to
an out-and-out repudiation. Now we are paying the price for our
folly. The light has gone out and good men are forced to stumble
around in the darkness of the human intellect.
The religious movie is at
present undergoing a period of gestation and seems about to swarm
over the churches like a cloud of locusts out of the earth. The
figure is accurate; they are coming from below, not from above.
The whole modern psychology has been prepared for this invasion
of insects. The fundamentalists have become weary of manna and
are longing for red flesh. What they are getting is a sorry substitute
for the lusty and uninhibited pleasures of the world, but I suppose
it is better than nothing, and it saves face by pretending to
be spiritual.
Let us not for the sake of
peace keep still while men
without spiritual insight dictate the diet upon which God's children shall
feed. I heard the president of a Christian college say some time
ago that the Church is suffering from an "epidemic of amateurism."
That remark is sadly true, and the religious movie represents
amateurism gone wild. Unity among professing Christians is to
be desired, but not at the expense of righteousness. It is good
to go with the flock, but I for one refuse mutely to follow a
misled flock over a precipice.
If God has given wisdom
to see the error of religious shows we owe it to the Church to
oppose them openly. We dare not take refuge in "guilty silence."
Error is not silent; it is highly vocal and amazingly aggressive.
We dare not be less so. But let us take heart: there are still
many thousands of Christian people who grieve to see the world
take over. If we draw the line and call attention to it we may
be surprised how many people will come over on our side and help
us drive from the Church this latest invader, the spirit of Hollywood.
He can hardly move and there is nothing I can do to fix it 
Recent Comments