So much hedging. But it isn't a sermon, it is a play. That is therefore no pulpit, but the stage for a performer. And that no preacher, but an actor. He is imaginatively narrating what Jesus might want to say. What if (now here's a thought) what if he merely preached Jesus words as given in the Bible? That is, what if (and imagine this) he read the scripture, and then expounded the scripture---rather than sit, in a study, and just, like, think what Jesus would say. Well--it isn't as if the saintly apostle Peter, in Acts, hadn't given us examples on how to preach a sermon, did he? Ah, he did. Turns out, St. Peter didn't use his imagination to conjure up what Jesus would say. He, well, he quoted Jesus. Because we know what Jesus says about Christmas. He gave us the narratives, and then Paul's commentary. And he gave us the Old Testament, and the prophecies therein. So there is no need for art, brother. No need for acting. No need to assume the "I" of Jesus, when instead we might read his "you" to us, given to us in the Bible. There is indeed, as accurately stated, a gospel offer imbedded within the story of the manger. Without doubt. And yet I don't believe in a God that leaves things up to chance. According to the Bible, the saints are elected from before time. So it is not up to an offer. The impetus for our salvation does not lie in our decision. Jesus isn't wringing his hands, waiting for his elect to choose him. And if this man, if this man grasped that? It might radically change his artistic affair into a sermonic one. Indeed----the Christmas story itself points to the irrevocable logic of God's eternal decree. His saints, and his saints alone, he has known from eternity, and none else. Such a truth, such powerful, majestic, sweeping, awesome truth, produces majestic, sweeping, awesome preaching. And why. Because it magnifies grace, to an extent which the arminian, psychological gospel fails to get. The artist, the thespian, preached a therapeutic gospel. No judgement. No eternity. Really, no cross. That being said---this rick shaw artist/preacher, this mongrel sermon/play. . . .yet I'll praise God for it. Sure, he called the persons of the Trinity "parts," on accident, as if the Trinity consisted of parts and not persons. And sure, he preached a lukewarm message of salvation, stripping it of God's holiness and wrath, draining God's mercy and grace such that they hinge on the human will. . .and yet, and yet, surely God might use even this. So praise God for that. Indeed, any thing on the internet might be critiqued endlessly, truly endlessly, just like any person. But hey---he could be saying that God is a woman, or something like that. So surely, be grateful for what you get.
So much hedging. But it isn't a sermon, it is a play. That is therefore no pulpit, but the stage for a performer. And that no preacher, but an actor. He is imaginatively narrating what Jesus might want to say. What if (now here's a thought) what if he merely preached Jesus words as given in the Bible? That is, what if (and imagine this) he read the scripture, and then expounded the scripture---rather than sit, in a study, and just, like, think what Jesus would say. Well--it isn't as if the saintly apostle Peter, in Acts, hadn't given us examples on how to preach a sermon, did he? Ah, he did. Turns out, St. Peter didn't use his imagination to conjure up what Jesus would say. He, well, he quoted Jesus. Because we know what Jesus says about Christmas. He gave us the narratives, and then Paul's commentary. And he gave us the Old Testament, and the prophecies therein. So there is no need for art, brother. No need for acting. No need to assume the "I" of Jesus, when instead we might read his "you" to us, given to us in the Bible. There is indeed, as accurately stated, a gospel offer imbedded within the story of the manger. Without doubt. And yet I don't believe in a God that leaves things up to chance. According to the Bible, the saints are elected from before time. So it is not up to an offer. The impetus for our salvation does not lie in our decision. Jesus isn't wringing his hands, waiting for his elect to choose him. And if this man, if this man grasped that? It might radically change his artistic affair into a sermonic one. Indeed----the Christmas story itself points to the irrevocable logic of God's eternal decree. His saints, and his saints alone, he has known from eternity, and none else. Such a truth, such powerful, majestic, sweeping, awesome truth, produces majestic, sweeping, awesome preaching. And why. Because it magnifies grace, to an extent which the arminian, psychological gospel fails to get. The artist, the thespian, preached a therapeutic gospel. No judgement. No eternity. Really, no cross.
That being said---this rick shaw artist/preacher, this mongrel sermon/play. . . .yet I'll praise God for it. Sure, he called the persons of the Trinity "parts," on accident, as if the Trinity consisted of parts and not persons. And sure, he preached a lukewarm message of salvation, stripping it of God's holiness and wrath, draining God's mercy and grace such that they hinge on the human will. . .and yet, and yet, surely God might use even this. So praise God for that. Indeed, any thing on the internet might be critiqued endlessly, truly endlessly, just like any person. But hey---he could be saying that God is a woman, or something like that. So surely, be grateful for what you get.