Post Reply
Page 1 of 3  •  1 2 3 Next
7 years ago  ::  Nov 27, 2007 - 11:08PM #1
kepercayaan
Posts: 55
I have been reading these forums for awhile although that was 1 year ago. Now I'm online again after year language study, a move to a new place, and have some questions my self.

My kids, 3 of them, go to a christian school. This Christmas the school is putting up a nativity play, we decided not to go to the Christmas evening.
How come some many Christian don't see a problem in playing GOD or a sinsless creature (Angel) let alone adding words to the bible.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Nov 28, 2007 - 10:46AM #2
Verdugo
Posts: 5,258
What exactly do you mean by "adding words to the Bible"?  I'm not aware of any mainstream Christian group who has done such.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Nov 28, 2007 - 6:08PM #3
kepercayaan
Posts: 55
[QUOTE=Verdugo;99856]What exactly do you mean by "adding words to the Bible"?  I'm not aware of any mainstream Christian group who has done such.[/QUOTE]

I have yet to see a nativity play where they only use text out of the bible. In order to make the play attracive / entertaining they add words and commends to what we think happend on that glorious day.

To often we try to make GOD's WORD more entertaining so that more people will be interested. (can we make people interested???)

Percaya.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Nov 29, 2007 - 12:01AM #4
CalKnox
Posts: 330
Nativity plays and passion plays have become standard fare in modern American evangelicalism.  Note the enthusiasm shown for Mel Gibson’s The Passion of Christ a few years ago, with some congregations cancelling services and purchasing thousands of tickets to encourage non-Christians to attend.  They believed this would bring people to Christ.

Historic, confessional Presbyterianism objected to all such plays, the representation of any of the three persons of the Trinity (including Jesus Christ) in pictorial form, and the worship of God in any manner not appointed in his word (drama, dance, puppet shows, clowns, etc.).  Now, there are few Protestant or Evangelical churches without such images.  Most Presbyterians have abandoned such thinking. 

If my children were still young, I would not allow them to participate in or watch such a play at church or school.  Nor would I take them to a movie portraying such.  We would not attend a congregation which promoted such things.  And, we’d be considered odd, strange, and have difficulty finding a church to attend.  But, there are a few.  Some are even Presbyterian.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Dec 03, 2007 - 1:51AM #5
resolutions1
Posts: 15
You have posed a difficult question and my answer may not satisfy the more theologically educated members of this forum.

However, God gives us many ways to reach the unchurched, dechurched, and unlearned.  If the Christmas play accurately shares the Good News, then I don't have a problem with "added words".  We don't know exactly what Joseph said to the innkeeper or what the innkeeper's response was.  However, we do know the ending of the story of Christ's birth.

Many Presbyterian churches use a variety of translations of the Bible - the King James, the Revised Standard Bible, the New Revised Standard Bible, The Message by Eugene Petersen, etc. 

All of these share the Good News and should be recognized for the way they speak to the common world. 

If the Nativity Play shows the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ in a theologically correct way according to your beliefs, then I think you should support and participate in it.

If you think that it is Biblically or theologically errant, then don't.

Blessings,
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Dec 07, 2007 - 4:13PM #6
DeweyCMH
Posts: 64
I aggree with this. I believe that the use of drama/theatrical presentations is a perfectly acceptable way to proclaim the gospel, and that in doing so, it is not to be confused with being strictly a reading of the Scriptures. There are many ways that the supplemental wording in a play can draw out many thoughts and emotions that help people to understand the gospel truth. Of course there are also ways in which this can be abused, and, as said, if a person believes the presentation is theologically flawed, then they shouldn't participate. But in general, I don't have an issue with someone illustrating the message of the Scriptures in different words and manners. After all, isn't that largely what every sermon is?
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Dec 07, 2007 - 6:02PM #7
Verdugo
Posts: 5,258
It occurs to me that when the NT writers quote the OT, they don't always quote it precisely, often what they provide is really a paraphrase-- and that often stripped of it's context.  That suggests to me that the sort of literal purity that is being elevated here is not really a biblical value, but rather fidelity to the heart of the gospel message is the real priority.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Dec 10, 2007 - 6:41AM #8
kepercayaan
Posts: 55
I partly agree with using pictures and play to clarify the bible, Jesus also drew mind pictures. But these where always used to clarify the spoken word.

We teach our childeren by reading the bible and using the bible for childeren (with pictures). But again this is done to clarify or teach our childeren.

I think nowadays people use the bible as entertainment like biblical drama, or movies like the passion of the Christ. So when playing a nativity drama at a school christmas celebration (should be remebering) do we do this to teach our childeren about the birth of our LORD and Saviour? To make things clear for them? Or because its so cute to see or childeren play Josef and maria, the shepherds, and the angels? It is so easy to make entertainment out of it.

Also when we make biblical drama and show these to our childeren what are the going to think about the sacrements of Holy baptisim and Lord supper. These are signs and seals of the covenant. If we are pretending to be Josef, Maria, Shepherds, Angels, JESUS, GODs voice. what are the going to think about these two visual signs of our covenant??
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Dec 10, 2007 - 12:15PM #9
CalKnox
Posts: 330
WLC Q. 109. What sins are forbidden in the second commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Dec 11, 2007 - 6:54PM #10
DeweyCMH
Posts: 64
I appreciate the Westminster Catechisms and Confession, but I don't believe that they are without error or misinterpretation. In this instance, I believe that the key phrase here is "all worshipping of it." We do not worship a picture of Jesus with children gathered around him that is used in a Sunday School lesson, or a painting of Jesus with his disciples, or a baby (or even a doll) representing the baby Jesus in a nativity play. I understand the intent behind this answer in the Catechism, but I also understand the theological and political environment within which it was written.  Westminster was written in a time when Protestantism was still setting out its differences over against Roman Catholicism. While they generally made very good points, I also think that in some cases there was a bit of throwing out the baby with the bathwater in order to emphasize the difference between Protestants and Catholics. As far out of correct theology the Catholic church had strayed in the use of images, the earliest Protestants logically reacted - overreacted, I believe - in the opposite direction.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 3  •  1 2 3 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook