When I saw this post on SOL today, my first reaction after reading it was “wow, I actually agree with Ingrid on something”. Then I went and read the linked article, which seemed to really be a journalistic hit piece, and I started to feel a bit convicted. I read some of the reader comments from people who attend the church, and it seems that the vast majority of the people involved were volunteers, and the production did have a positive impact on the community. Was I too fast to judge this church?
I guess there’s part of me that really loathes these types of productions. It might be because of my experience in these types of things (on a much smaller scale). It seems that they really cause a lot of stress to people involved, and in the end I wonder what the lasting fruit is. I also wonder, is it worth the expense in money and time? I know we can’t put a price on someone coming to know Christ, but what if the hundreds of volunteers in a production this size focused their efforts on a different need in the community?
I guess my point is this. I certainly do not feel it is my place to judge a church over 1,000 miles away from me. What they do worth their money is between them and God. Seeing things like this does make me stop and think about the institution we call the church, though. Is this what we are called to do? Is putting on excellent dramatic productions a good thing? Should we compete with Broadway?
I guess I’m doing this as discussion starter more than anything, because I really don’t have all the answers. I look forward to hearing others’ input.
14 Comments(+Add)
I have to admit I’m somewhat torn on this issue. We are called to share the Gospel with everyone, and a Christmas production can be a wonderful celebration for the community and the church alike. I’m singing in the choir at my church for our Christmas musical (final performance tonight), as well as singing utility tenor in the youth choir, and singing as part of a group of “carolers” in the opening sequence (we sing a verse, then hum the chorus while a brief scene plays out). That said, it can also be a very draining experience, and this article does make me wonder at the value of it. I’ve rented a costume (the musical is set in Victorian-era England), and I’ve been either rehearsing or performing every night since last Tuesday, which means I eat dinner at work (a residential rehab program) and then head to church, which has required me to put aside some personal things I want/need to do, or otherwise delay them (spending time with friends, getting to the gym, laundry, etc). If people hear the Gospel, it’s been worth it, and I know many that have attended have been blessed by the performance, even as we schlock our way through the Hallelujah Chorus from Handel’s Messiah (OK, it’s not that bad, but it’s a demanding end to a production, especially after some fairly demanding tenor parts). So, I guess I say all that to say that as worthwhile as it is, it should really be balanced so as not to add undue stress to a season that should be full of celebration.
It is difficult to justify such expense and man hours that could have easily been put to better use. Many missionaries would have wept over a thousand dollar Christmas gift rather than such an extravagence produced for the comfortable Americans.
It is true that some people come to Christ through these types of theatrical productions, but perhaps if all the man hours would have been spent delivering goods to the poor and witnessing to them God would have granted a harvest as well without the million dollar price tag.
I’m with Rick on this one.
How many deep water wells could have been dug to save lives in Africa?
How many women could have been freed from forced sex work through the efforts of the IJM?
At the same time…I have my opinion, but it’s not my place to get too high horse. If I was called to be the conscience of 1st.Bapt. Ft. Lauderdale, then I’d be on the elder board there or a pastor.
I think we have to trust God’s heart and do our part from where we are…not criticize others for every perceived failure or difference of approach.
THAT’S the lesson lost on ODM’s…you don’t show your devotion by being angry and looking for things to criticize.
Good points by Ingrid and others but before we draw any conclusions, we should ask a few other questions:
1.Did it really cost that match after you subtract ticket sales?
2.If a small church with a budget of $300,000 had a $10,000 pageant would that be extravagant for them or look that way to us?
3.How many people heard the Gospel?
4.How many people were visitors that will return to hear biblical preaching and the Gospel?
5.Is it possible that one or maybe a few others wrote the check specifically for that?
6.Did we complain how much was spent on the Passion of the Christ?
My points are that we can attribute motives or results from the information we have. Do I agree that there are poorer churches and missionaries around the world that could have used that money? Absolutely, but I suppose that my family could get by with a smaller house and one car and give the proceeds of what we sold to those same missionaries. The difficulty of where we draw the line is only answerable between that person and God.
So on the surface it seems extravagant, but I would caution folks like Ingrid to not jump to conclusions as to the means, motives, and result from something like this. There are Christians throughout the world who might look at Ingrid’s church and think it is extravagant that she sits in an air conditioned or heated church, when they have to meet in the woods.
Revise the above: “My points are that we cannot attribute….”
I would lean towards saying that this shows the decadence of the western church. Not commenting on this one church but as a whole the western church is so obsed with the seeker model that in the end you end up hurting the gospel. Remember what you preach to them is what they put there faith in! So which Jesus is convyed through these extravagant production. The Christ that lived, died and rose for my sins or the christ of America that is there to make me a better person and make me happy(the disease of affluenza). I see nothing wrong with spending money to glorify God, look at some of the great catherdals and churches. But is this just another sign of the times? I would say YES!
I tend to agree with the tenor that we’re taking here – I would not want to be associated with this. I would like to know what it actually cost the church if “most of the expense was covered by ticket sales”… sure, you could feed a lot of people with 1.3 million, but it’s not like the church had 1.3 million and decides to put on a show instead…that said, I found it kinda embarrassing.
Darren,
RE: The Passion… I think the difference between this and “The Passion of the Christ” is the fact that this is a church putting on a production. The movie was a business venture by a secular enterprise.
Neil
If it was a good, I mean REALLY good show, (and it better be for 1.3 mil,) then it should draw people in who are not just church people. If it is (and it sounds like) good family “entertainment,” then there may be a lot of people coming and hearing the story of Christ’s birth for the first time. What would make it more amazing is if they share the gospel message as well. Hopefully people will come to know Christ through this. I don’t really have a problem with this. As long as they are glorifying and worshipping God through this, as churches are supposed to do. I think for those involved it would be a great way to get to know and fellowship with other Christians. If this is how God wants them to spend their time, energy, and money, then hopefully he will bless them with success.
Because of my hippie view on church I’m a little biased, so I think that any amount is too much. I will say however, that I know of someone who was moved to tears and wanted to know Jesus at a local church here from seeing a rendition of the Willow Creek Christmas play, so in some ways I don’t know whether it’s right, or God uses it anyway.
nb: not much was spent on the Willow Creek play here AFAIK.
In another discussion, we’ve talked about a rather amateurish rendition of MJ’s “Thriller” dance done by some people in a church. So, keeping that in mind, what about this production?
For starters, I’m actually glad to see that a church is putting in what it takes to put on something of quality. Instead of wrapping towels around the heads of 5-year-olds and saying it’s enough, they seem to be doing something that may actually appeal to people other then parents and grandparents.
On the question of money, so what? Egads, have we forgotten that it was Judas who tried to play that game on Mary when she sacrificed her expensive perfume for Christ?
–Is this what we are called to do? Is putting on excellent dramatic productions a good thing? Should we compete with Broadway?–
If we’re going to put on dramatic productions, then yes they should be excellent. Not all will have the resources this church can put into it, but that does not excuse a lack in other areas which are more important.
Should they be like Broadway, if they have the resources? Well, why not? If a church can put a production that rivals “Cats”, why not?
I guess my feeling is this. I guess the thing that bothers me is the fact the church in America has become more of a corporation or institution than the living, breathing, collection of God’s people. Having these huge outreach events kind of reinforces that image. Rather than the church members interacting personally with their neighbors, they are interacting in an unnamed and impersonal entity. It is just reinforcing an idea that we care more about people coming and filling our seats rather than actually knowing them.
The other thing I personally dislike about these huge entertainment based outreaches is the whole “bait and switch” element. I know that pastors usually tell congregants to “bring your friends and family”. It’s kind of a low pressure type of thing. We get them there, and then once they’re trapped, we give them the spiel. It’s not unlike the timeshare presentations that Chris L. has mentioned.
As far as the actual funds used for this thing, that doesn’t really bother me all that much. I mean who draws the line at what is extavagant and what is OK? It seems rather fuzzy to me. It’s up to a church board to decide those things, I guess.
I guess overall, I am for Christians participating in the arts, and doing it with excellence. I just wish we didn’t actually hide behind the line, “it’s for evangelistic purposes”. It seems we can say that for about anything if we want to. There is a place not far from where I live called Sight and Sound that puts on Christian productions that really do rival Broadway shows. To me this seems a little more upfront about its goals. It is really meant to be purely Christian entertainment and everyone knows that going in.
–I guess overall, I am for Christians participating in the arts, and doing it with excellence. I just wish we didn’t actually hide behind the line, “it’s for evangelistic purposesâ€.–
I can understand that. My gripe, though, would be when “evangelism” is used as an excuse for the shoddy and half-baked. ‘We know it wasn’t that good, but our goal was to evangelize, not to entertain, so as long as the message went out, how bad we didn’t doesn’t matter. God looks at the heart, after all’.
Oops, in that last one , it should be “how bad we did doesn’t matter”. Sorry for doing so bad in my spelling