Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I am most eager to write the Pastor.
    
    The Jesus Film is shown in many foreign countries and has been used 
    to lead countless numbers to Christ.  It's purpose is to put forward
    the doctrinal message of the cross.  This involves the understanding 
    of God's condition, our condition, the need for redemption and
    atonement.  In short, the message of Calvary.
    
    I'm still not quite sure what the Pastor is driving at.  Sending the
    video itself may or may not be correct; but the message of Jesus, I
    don't see as a problem.  Keep in mind that Luke also wrote the Book of
    Acts and went through many of the trials Paul experienced.  I don't
    believe the Pastor is being sensitive to what Luke went through to
    bring the gospel to us.
    
    -Jack

    .1  Did you see the full-length original or the doctored version?
    
    The pastor's primary concern, as I understand it, is the incompleteness
    of the video, which was cut by one-third.

    Unfortunately, the same kind of editing goes on in churches and in
    evangelization.  And that's why some people think there's no such
    thing as a social gospel.
    
    Richard
    

    Richard:
    
    The concern could be founded except the sole intent of the film again
    is to focus on the cross.  The Jesus Film is not for the same purpose
    as movies like, "The Greatest Story Ever Told".  It is used with the
    mandate to evangelize those that have never heard about the death,
    resurrection, and forgiveness of sin.
    
    Could you help me understand what the "social gospel" is?  Do you mean
    The Golden Rule?   
    
    -Jack

.3  I could not state it more succinctly than Thompson. From .0:

>	"When one carefully compares the original film with the abridged
>video, it is readily apparent that what gets cut are those portions of
>Luke's Gospel involving the social, political, economic and apocalyptic
>dimensions of the salvation that Jesus proclaims (eg, Luke 4:16-24, 28-30;
>6:24-26; 8:16-21; 9:27; 12:33-34; 17:20-21; 19:41-44; 20:9-19; 23:27-28,31).
>Not surprisingly, what's left in is more compatible with Campus Crusade's
>individualistic view of salvation -- one that primarily reduces everything
>to an individual's personal relationship with Jesus."

>Not surprisingly, what's left in is more compatible with Campus Crusade's
>individualistic view of salvation -- one that primarily reduces everything
>to an individual's personal relationship with Jesus."

But, but,... the gospel _is_ about an individual's personal relationship
with Jesus.  And that's all.

The good works that come out of serving God and being compassionate toward
others are not the gospel of Jesus Christ - they are the product of a life
changed by the gospel of Jesus Christ.

-Steve

>Not surprisingly, what's left in is more compatible with Campus Crusade's
>individualistic view of salvation -- one that primarily reduces everything
>to an individual's personal relationship with Jesus."

	My first thought upon reading this was "And the problem is what?"

			Alfred

re Note 762.6 by CVG::THOMPSON:

> >Not surprisingly, what's left in is more compatible with Campus Crusade's
> >individualistic view of salvation -- one that primarily reduces everything
> >to an individual's personal relationship with Jesus."
> 
> 	My first thought upon reading this was "And the problem is what?"
  
        I think Richard would agree with me that Campus Crusade
        didn't invent this limited Christ and that it represents a
        commonly-held viewpoint.

        Bob

Note 762.5

>But, but,... the gospel _is_ about an individual's personal relationship
>with Jesus.  And that's all.

No, it isn't.  But this *is* the edited gospel proposed by Campus Crusade,
most televangelists and many a pulpit.  Ironically, these are often the
same people who accuse others of "picking and choosing" from the Bible.

>The good works that come out of serving God and being compassionate toward
>others are not the gospel of Jesus Christ - they are the product of a life
>changed by the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I'm not talking about "good works."  I doubt that Thompson is either.

Richard

    Richard:
    
    OK Richard, help me out here.  Your not giving creedence to salvation
    by works but at the same time, you claim Jesus is put in a box.  Just
    what do you believe anyway?  I have read notes from you for well over a
    year and I'm still trying to figure you out.
    
    -Jack

    I'm sure the Pastor's real concern is that liberal theology is not
    given credence in the film.
    
    jeff

    -1  What a typically self-righteous response.  If it's beyond one's
    scope, put it down as "politically correct."
    
    Actually, you're quite wrong about Thompson.  But I'm sure hearing it
    from me only fortifies your belief that you're not.
    
    Richard
    

    .9 Jack,
    
    	If you've been reading my entries here for a year and you don't
    have a grasp of my perspective as a Christian, I'm at a loss as to
    what to tell you.
    
    	When I titled the entry "Boxing Jesus," I had in mind a parallel
    with the film "Boxing Helena," a bizarre movie involving a woman who
    is surgically amputated of her arms and legs.  Campus Crusade's
    campaign is to get an amputated gospel of Jesus into every VCR in
    Colorado Springs.
    
    	I didn't copy Thompson's letter in its entirety due to length.
    Thompson encourages his readers to actually read Luke's Gospel instead
    of accepting the video as a suitable substitution.  Unfortunately, many
    people will not be inclined to do so.
    
    	What is the matter with Campus Crusade distributing the full-length
    original version of the film?  Expense?  Or manageability of message?
    I would tend to believe the latter more than the former.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

    Richard:
    
    Again Richard, you are shirking the issue.  I have seen alot of entries
    from you, some very good.  However, you give me at least the impression
    of ambiguity in your personal testimony so I don't know where you
    stand.  I thought I did until I've read some of your last replies.
    
    You also still haven't addressed your accusation that Campus Crusade is
    presenting an incomplete gospel or message of the way to salvation.  I
    had previously asked you that if the message of the cross that crusade
    gives is incomplete, and you don't prescribe to salvation by good
    works, then by what authority or information do you base eternal life
    on?
    
    Peace,
    
    -Jack

re Note 762.13 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     However, you give me at least the impression
>     of ambiguity in your personal testimony so I don't know where you
>     stand.  I thought I did until I've read some of your last replies.
  
        I can't and don't in any way speak for Richard in this area,
        but it is possible for one to believe that the true situation
        is inherently ambiguous, and that any totally non-ambiguous
        stand is therefore in error.

        Bob

    So Bob, do I hear you saying that Christianity in itself is quite
    possibly what we make it (ambiguous) and not based on a master plan?
    (concrete).
    
    -Jack

    NOT putting words in Bob's mouth....  :-)

    *I* believe that Christianity can take on many forms or
    paths.  The "master plan" is ... 

	Well, you can do this, or you can do this or you can
	join the ministry or start a family or go into missionary
	work or become a deacon or participate in a notesfile or
	just about whatever you think is right as long as you have
	Love in your heart.

    Lots of options all with the same contraints.

    Tom

re Note 762.15 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     So Bob, do I hear you saying that Christianity in itself is quite
>     possibly what we make it (ambiguous) and not based on a master plan?
>     (concrete).
  
        I don't equate "what we make it" with "ambiguous".

        Rather, ambiguous to me in this case would mean that there
        may be some areas in which we don't know which of two or more
        interpretations of the available "facts" is (more) correct.

        This by no means says that "anything goes" as far as
        interpretation; but it says that we humans, even with
        available revelation from God, cannot definitely answer
        certain questions.

        The history of Christian belief would certainly support this.


        Quite possibly it's both: in the mind of God it may be
        "concrete" and in the mind of man it may be inherently 
        ambiguous.


        But no, it is not simply "what we make it."

        Bob

Note 762.13:
    
>    Again Richard, you are shirking the issue.

Shirking, eh?  And I thought I was merely at a loss.  I'm a bit disturbed
by terms like "personal testimony."  I've never required a personal
testimony to identify someone as a brother or sister in Christ.  At the
same time, I realize that a personal testimony is recognized as something
of a certification in some Christian circles, including Campus Crusade.  I
see nothing wrong with having a personal testimony.  I also see nothing
wrong with not having a personal testimony, either.  If I'm doing it right,
my life with give off the light of Christ like a city built on a hill.
    
>    You also still haven't addressed your accusation that Campus Crusade is
>    presenting an incomplete gospel or message of the way to salvation.  I
>    had previously asked you that if the message of the cross that crusade
>    gives is incomplete, and you don't prescribe to salvation by good
>    works, then by what authority or information do you base eternal life
>    on?

To be completely honest, it is not my accusation, but Thompson's, who has
done his homework on this particular issue.

The question boils down to this: Is individualistic, personal salvation and
nothing else all that Jesus' life and teachings was about?  By editing out
what is extraneous to Campus Crusade's central message, Campus Crusade is
saying, "Yes, that's all there is."

I say no, Christianity is not merely a carrot on a stick, a reward to be
reaped only in the next life if only we follow a prescribed formula of faith.
Christianity is the Way, and is therefore a process, not a destination.
Being responsive to the nudgings of the Holy Spirit is more than a matter of
being a good citizen and doing nice things for others, especially those "less
fortunate" than us.

There are social, economic, and even political elements and implications
to not only Luke's Gospel, but to the Gospels when understood in conjunction.
What do these have to do with the cross?  What do these have to do with
salvation and the Messiahship of Jesus?  I am at a loss again as to know
where or how to begin.

Sorry.

Shalom,
Richard

>The question boils down to this: Is individualistic, personal salvation and
>nothing else all that Jesus' life and teachings was about?  By editing out
>what is extraneous to Campus Crusade's central message, Campus Crusade is
>saying, "Yes, that's all there is."

Is there nothing more to what Jesus lived and tought then what is in the
unedited version of the movie? If there is one bit more than was in the movie
your arguement is invalid. I doubt very much that CC is saying that's all
there is. What they are saying is this is important stuff. That's not the
same as saying that that's all there is or even that that's all the important
stuff.

		Alfred

BTW, interesting that the cleric whose letter we are discussing is named
"Keith." I have a brother by that name. But he is not a Rev and he's not
so liberal as me.

    Richard:
    
    It appears everything you touched on are the elements of spiritual
    growth and discipleship.  These elements are the evidence of true
    belief.  I believe the epistle of James touches on this in chapter 2
    where he states that faith without works is dead.  In this context, I 
    agree with you that the elements of the christian life are essential in
    our walk with God.  It is essential to grow in our relationship and be
    a testimony to a dying world.  
    
    Evangelism on the other hand, is done to establish the church, not grow
    it.  The Jesus film is an evangelization tool used just as a tract, a 
    Billy Graham crusade, or any other means to reach the world.  If you
    recall, Jesus spoke to Nicodemus in John 3 and stated, "...ye must be
    born again."  Even in the gospel of Luke, Jesus claimed that he came to
    seek and to save that which is lost.  Here, he established a human
    condition and his mission, namely to offer himself as a living
    sacrifice for the church.  Spiritual growth and discipleship could
    never adequately come from watching a film.  This comes through the
    conviction of the Spirit and training from a discipler or a teacher.
    
    The salvation message that Campus Crusade provides is supported by
    the four gospels and the epistles of Paul, James, John, and Jude.  It
    is also supported by the major and minor prophets of the Old Testament.
    
    Based on the evidence put forth through the scriptures, I would find it
    difficult to challenge Campus Crusades views on the plan of salvation.
    This is evangelism I am talking about.  Discipleship is an entirely
    different matter and of the utmost importance in our Christian walk.
    I in no way belittle spiritual growth, good works, and loving thy
    neighbor; but not as a mandate for salvation.  The teaching of
    salvation by works is contrary to the teachings of Christ.
    
    "Jesus saith unto them, I AM the way, the truth, and the life.  No man
    cometh unto the Father but by me"  Jn. 14:6
    
    -Jack

Note 762.20:
        
>    Evangelism on the other hand, is done to establish the church, not grow
>    it.

I've never heard this concept before, Jack.  From whence does it come?
I understand evangelism as "delivering the good news," not so different
from when Jesus read Isaiah, as cited in Luke 4.18-19.  (Also see note 183.4)

>   The Jesus film is an evangelization tool used just as a tract, a 
>   Billy Graham crusade, or any other means to reach the world.

Again I must ask, why not deliver the whole package?  Why delete 33.3%?  Too
long?  Too boring?  Too incomprehensible?  Too threatening?  Might turn some
people off?  Might turn the wrong people on?

I can't speak for Rev. Thompson, but my own attitude might be different if the
missing third was never filmed in the first place.  Instead it was discarded;
in a way not unlike the discarded cornerstone mentioned in the Bible, imo.

Psalm 118:22  The stone [which] the builders refused is become the
head [�stone]� of the corner.

Luke 20:17  And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is
written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is
become the head of the corner?

Acts 4:11  This is the stone which was set at nought of you
builders, which is become the head of the corner.

Ephesians 2:20  And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and
prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [�stone];�

Richard

    RE: .18
    
    I agree with your "personal testimony" concept.......nicely said.
    
    Marc H.

 Did they leave out Luke 11:15-32?  19:10, 21:25-36?  Did they leave out
 his crucifixion or resurrection?  As I recall the film ended on Acts 1:11.
 Did they leave that out also?  Did they in any way violate Matthew 28:19-20?


 I'd be quite concerned had they done that.  As noted earlier perhaps the
 distribution of this film serves as a tract.  I go out 1 night a week
 on visitation, telling folks about Jesus and inviting them to church.  I'll
 leave them with a tract that in no way shape or form contains the entire
 Bible, but also tells about salvation through Jesus Christ.  Perhaps that
 is the goal of the distribution of the film.  


 The base note refers to the promotion of the film..how are they promoting 
 it?





 Jim who just couldn't stay away.

    .23  Good to "see" you, Jim!
    
    8-}
    
    Richard
    

Re: Note 762.21   
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Pacifist Hellcat"                 34 lines  23-NOV-1993 23:07

        
##>    Evangelism on the other hand, is done to establish the church, not grow
##>    it.

>>I've never heard this concept before, Jack.  From whence does it come?
>>I understand evangelism as "delivering the good news," not so different
>>from when Jesus read Isaiah, as cited in Luke 4.18-19.  (Also see note 183.4)

 Jesus said to Peter and John at the very beginning, "Come unto me and I will
make you fishers of men."  Without the believers, no church exists.  The 
church had to be built as Jesus states in Matthew 16, "...upon this rock I 
will build my church."  Evangelism is showing people the way.  Once converted,
the Church is being established. (I refer to church as the bride, the whole 
body)  Church growth in my context above refers to spiritual growth, not growth
in numbers.  Evangelism: Church established.  Discipleship: Church Growth.

#>   The Jesus film is an evangelization tool used just as a tract, a 
#>   Billy Graham crusade, or any other means to reach the world.

>>Again I must ask, why not deliver the whole package?  Why delete 33.3%?  Too
>>long?  Too boring?  Too incomprehensible?  Too threatening?  Might turn some
>>people off?  Might turn the wrong people on?

Could you please clear this matter for me.  Is the 33% you refer to the act of
loving thy neighbor?  Is it good works...what is it?  As I have stated before,
the mandate of the Jesus Film is to give the message of the cross.  It is an
evangelism tool, not a discipleship tool.  It is to be used to set the 
foundation for the christian life.  What is the foundation?  1st Corinthians
says "For no other foundation is there than that which is Christ Jesus."
Many religious leaders have existed throughout time that have taught to love thy
neighbor.  But absolutely none of them could atone for the sin of the world.
The message of the cross is the foundation of christian evangelism.  
Discipleship follows.

>>I can't speak for Rev. Thompson, but my own attitude might be different if the
>>missing third was never filmed in the first place.  Instead it was discarded;
>>in a way not unlike the discarded cornerstone mentioned in the Bible, imo.

The Jesus Film focuses completely on the cornerstone, the Messiah.

>>Psalm 118:22  The stone [which] the builders refused is become the
>>head [�stone]� of the corner.

Redemption through Christ, not of ourselves.

>>Luke 20:17  And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is
>>written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is
>>become the head of the corner?

Ditto

>>Acts 4:11  This is the stone which was set at nought of you
>>builders, which is become the head of the corner.

Ditto
>>Ephesians 2:20  And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and
>>prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [�stone];�

Ditto


Peace,

-Jack

    .25  Jack, I *know* who those passages were refering to.  I was
    attempting to make a parallel, in that, in both cases what may
    seem reasonably disposable ultimately may be central.
    
    I'm not sure I've as sharp a distinction between evangelism
    and growth as you.

    You're now posing questions about the film I'm unqualified to answer.
    Thompson would be able to respond, however.  It'll cost you 29 cents in
    postage and a bit of a delay compared to electronic communications.
    ;-}
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Evangelism in my understanding is in spreading the Gospel.. Revivals
    are for growing the church.
    
    Nancy

    .27  I would agree about spreading the Gospel, but not only a portion
    thereof.  By growth, I think Jack means "deepening."
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Nancy,
    
    		What you said about Revivals brought to mind the first
    Revival I ever preached.  My concern was for the Church and its people
    and preparing them for growth but only thru a revived spirit within
    their own heart.  When we research the great Revivals in England and
    here in the U.S., the spirit moved within individuals for a closer walk
    with God.  A natural reaction of that new found "joy" was an outpouring 
    of Evangelism.  Much the same as when you recieve a great gift and want
    to share it with friends and loved ones.  When true God-like joy is
    experienced the all people become the source of joy and love so Church
    growth is a natural reaction to a revival within ones own heart.
    
    
    dave

    .29
    
    Dave,
    
    You are exactly correct... which is why my Pastor has the theme for our
    church as "Revival '93".  I especially love the stories of the great
    preachers of old.  Some of those events were in line with the 2 and
    5000 that were added unto the church in the book of Acts.
    
    You see as the spirit poured out the, gospel began to
    spread...Remember, "He that winneth souls is wise."
    
    Nancy

RE:    <<< Note 762.30 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

   

>       spread...Remember, "He that winneth souls is wise."
    
 

     He that winneth souls is wise was theme for our recent missions conference,
     and a small banner is hanging in the auditorium of the church with that
     verse on it.  


     My pastor recently was in an old bookstore and was rummaging around and
     stumbled across a book about a revival that took place in New England
     in the (I believe) late 1800's..the book chronicles the task of putting
     it together, and then the results.  It was written by a pastor who put
     the revival together.  He has a twinkle in his eye as he contemplates
     the possibilities of such a revival today.



    Jim

	... on the Colorado Springs effort with the tape. Presentation by the 
reporter was actually pretty positive.

 Positive in the sense that they positited that the message of Jesus Christ
 was not altered?




 Jim

    .33  Doubtful.  The press is as biblically ignorant as the general
    video-viewing public.
    
    The concerns brought forth in .0 are those of more thoughtful Christians,
    and would be viewed by the press as a negligible side issue.
    
    Pax,
    Richard
    

    So Richard, what is the 33% of the salvation message that Crusade is 
    leaving out?  Or what have you heard it to be?
    
    -Jack

    .35  See 762.0.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

I have 5 copies of the gospel of Luke which I will send free of charge
and with no obligation to the first 5 persons to send me their U.S. postal
address.  Just type SEND/AUTHOR at the notes prompt.

This is *much* better than the video that Campus Crusade plans to be dispensing,
because it is whole and complete.
              ^^^^^     ^^^^^^^^

I have Luke's gospel only in the modern English translation (TEV).

Peace,
Richard

 I rented the film from my local Christian Bookstore over the weekend.  
 What I learned from the film was that Jesus was born of a virgin, was
 tempted by Satan and yet remained sinless, chose 12 discpiles (one of
 whom betrayed Him), was rejected by many of the religious leaders, 
 was crucified for my sins (seeing him beaten and whipped and the depiction
 of the nails being driven into his hands brought tears to my eyes) and
 was placed in a tomb, and just as he said he would, was raised on the
 3rd day.  The joy that was depicted on the faces of his disciples was
 wonderful..



 Now...what is left out of the version being distributed in the Springs and
 what is the big deal?


Jimm

    .38  Did you see the uncut version??  If yes, good for you.
    I have unedited versions of Luke which I am also giving away.
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    .0 gives some of the passages in Luke which are omitted in the
    video.  If you want details, please write Rev. Thompson at the
    address at the bottom of .0.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

 Beats me if it was the uncut version or not...playing time was 2 hours



 I have an unedited version right here in my Bible, thanks (right between
 Luke and John).





 Jim