By A. W. TOZER
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 shewed 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 builded 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 1justify 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
criticising 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 modem 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 discussion and will be
left entirely out of 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
anyone 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
fee wherever desired.
The “service” where such a movie would be shown might seem much like any
other service till 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.
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 the first symbols used to
represent ideas. These 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?”
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
to 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 through 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.” 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.” Here, and not somewhere else, is the New Testament
pattern, and no human being, no, 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.
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 o 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 skilfully 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 playa 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 that 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 modem 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 she is
following her Lord, goes along in Bible ways and can give a scriptural reason
for her conduct. Her 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 and 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 playacting 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 sub-divisions 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 modem 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.” John the Baptist was called, “The voice of him
that crieth in the wilderness.” Again we have, “And I heard a voice from
heaven saying unto me, Write.” And the Apostle John opens his great work
called the Revelation by pronouncing a blessing upon him that readeth and
them that hear 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 nor 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,” 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. Try 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 Edward's 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
Bartimæus, “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 i.
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? Anyone 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.” 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 Fundamental 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-bait picture of a young man and young woman in a
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 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 Sunday 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 such displaced prophets can do is to admit that they are technicians
and not preachers. Let them admit that they are not sent-men, ordained of God
for a sacred work. Let them refuse ordination and 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.
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
border-line 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 of 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 up 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 to drive from the Church this latest invader, the Spirit of
Hollywood.
HOME
Indien u het document in Word wilt downloaden, klik hier.
Om de rand kwijt te raken. Selecteer de tekst. Kopieer. Open Word. Plaats het in Word.