Collide Magazine: “We Respectfully Disagree With John Piper …


1 Comment

  1. I have theological reasons for mistrusting the use of drama in church, but those reasons don’t rest on anything near so solid of ground as another kind of reason. That is to say: while I won’t use my theological ground to create a dogma, I am perfectly happy to rely upon another form of reason.

    See, the thing is? I find the use of drama in church to be embarrassing. Excruciatingly so. I instantly feel bad for every participant. Like watching a Ben Stiller movie or having to sit through Michael Scoot interacting with the public. It’s that bad.

    See, I know they mean well and all, but the fact is: it takes a very special kind of person with very particular kinds of tolerances to take this kind of drama seriously. To the rest of us, it just comes off as cheesy. And to those particularly sensitive to people making fools of themselves without realizing it, the use of drama actively engenders psychological pain.

    When I read things like this Collide article, much more than just my critical mind rebels (though that certainly does, since the article was not particularly rigourous*). Instead, I just wonder, Why? Why would you want to do that? Why would you want to add failed drama to the drama of the word, to the drama of the Table? Why people would wish to conspire to distract me from what’s overtly worthwhile by inducing a cringe reflex is just flatly beyond me.

    *note: an article that says things like,

    Piper doesn’t explicitly say preaching saves, but I can extrapolate from his statement that he believes it does. I’m not aware of the scriptural basis for that idea, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

    proves that it shouldn’t be taken seriously on any theological level.

    The Danes last blog post..20090417.teaParty

Comments are now closed for this article.