# An idea for a reformed "Passion Play"



## ReformedWretch (Mar 8, 2007)

Ok all tell me what you think of this idea.

A "Passion Play" where Jesus is never seen, therefore never has to be portrayed by an "actor". The story could be the disciples, Mary, Nicodemous, etc. telling the story to a live audience from first hand experience.

Some example

-Towns people react to Jesus having just passed through after the Triumphal entry.

-The Roman soldier reacts standing at the foot of an empty cross.

-Joseph of Arimathea reacts to using his tomb

-Mary reacts after having just seen Jesus before running off to tell the others.

...etc.

Could it work? Would it be "acceptable" if it did?


----------



## blhowes (Mar 8, 2007)

houseparent said:


> Could it work? Would it be "acceptable" if it did?


Works for me.

As I was thinking about the "Passion Play", wondering how you would portray it without showing Jesus on the cross, I was reminded of an Easter contata I was in once. When it got to the part where Jesus was crucified, you could hear somebody offstage hammering some spikes - very effective, sent chills up/down the spine.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Mar 8, 2007)

If Jesus is not portrayed and God's name is not taken in vain, then it "works" but I am not sure what the purpose is for such reenactments.

I would just stick to the tried and true preaching of the very words of the living God.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Mar 8, 2007)

I'm not talking about inside the Church, but maybe a Christian play house.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Mar 8, 2007)

houseparent said:


> I'm not talking about inside the Church, but maybe a Christian play house.




Eh, I know what you are saying. If I thought you meant the context for all of this would be as part of the worship service, then I would say without a doubt it would NOT "work.” I assumed you meant this would take place outside of church worship.

I guess my question is what purpose would such a reenactment serve that the very words of God could not? Shear entertainment?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Mar 8, 2007)

I understand Christopher's point, but I see nothing wrong with the idea. Many are peaked to curiousity by these kinds of things. We can either reach out to those people or let Rick Warren have them all.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Mar 8, 2007)

Why not use the words of Scripture "dramatically" with folk acting as the author (as carried along by the Holy Spirit) of the Scripture utilized?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Mar 8, 2007)

That would be fine, but Jesus would have to be invisible.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Mar 8, 2007)

Didn't the movie Ben Hur only imply Christ's crusifixton with rain washing away blood and the silhoutte of a man on a cross?

That was well done.


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Mar 8, 2007)

Why did the early Church never think of it? Zeal to win the lost is commendable but needs to be informed by Scripture. May I suggest a careful study of Romans 1:16f. and 1.Cor.1:18ff. ?! 
The Gospel must be preached and lived. The Greek word for a play actor is a word from which we derive 'hypocrite'! 
We may and must learn from the history of the Church in times of great blessing - preaching with the Holy Spirit sent from heaven is what is again so desperately needed. Better men - not better methods. 'A holy man is a mighty weapon in the hand out God - my people need my holiness' (I am citing from memory the words of a Scottish divine).


----------



## ReformedWretch (Mar 8, 2007)

I love the D.o.G.'s (Dead old guys) too, but do you honestly believe that if it hasn't been thought of in the past it's of no good use?


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Mar 9, 2007)

It depends on whether you believe whether the Scriptures are normative. Would the Holy Spirit have forgotten to mention all we need to know? It is inconceivable.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Mar 9, 2007)

Wow, I don't see how an idea like this would be saying that!


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Mar 9, 2007)

houseparent said:


> I understand Christopher's point, but I see nothing wrong with the idea. Many are peaked to curiousity by these kinds of things. We can either reach out to those people or let Rick Warren have them all.





houseparent said:


> Wow, I don't see how an idea like this would be saying that!




Adam, I know it appears harmless, but that is why I asked what the purpose for such would be. I believe the very words of God are more effective than our methods. So I ask you why do this in lieu of using the very words of God?

Your response implies that the Rick Warren types have some better method of reaching people and we should adopt such methods ourselves to be better at something. If that is not what you meant then I am not sure why a Passion Play would have anything to do with Rick Warren reaching all these people. I don't know about you, but a play did not bring me from Rome, Benny Hinn, John Hagee, 700 Club, Bill Hybels, to the no exception OPC member I am today. The very words of God did. "Search the scriptures," is so simple, yet so difficult.

If an opportunity arose where the church was able to have thousands of non-church people as an audience, what would be the best thing to do? I would say speak the very words of God. Some will utterly hate such with great passion while others will show that God gave them ears to hear.

Grace Brother


----------



## ReformedWretch (Mar 9, 2007)

I don't disagree with that, but at the same time I don't think that makes plays "wrong" either.


----------

