# Mars Hill's Live Good Friday Service!



## ww (Apr 10, 2009)

I happened to watch part of the Live Service taking place at Mars Hill in Seattle, Washington in which a multimedia presentation was being shown which depicted Christ in violation of the 2nd Commandment. It seems as if Good Friday and Easter are just as Christmas an opportunity for folks whether ignorantly or willingly to violate God's Law with the Hopes of convicting sinners with the Law to repent and embrace the Gospel.


----------



## Scynne (Apr 11, 2009)

I wish I wasn't so jaded as to be unsurprised by this. Perhaps better, I wish the visible 'church' was less infatuated with the world, so as to give the Lord His due honour.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Apr 11, 2009)

Fortunately it happened after I was asleep. I hope that 'images of Christ' is another area where Pastor Mark will be moved to reconsider his position.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 11, 2009)

In a video about "The Shack" that was posted on the board a couple of months ago, Mr. Driscoll related that the Puritans thought images of God were a violation of the 2nd commandment, but then went on to make exception in the case of Christ. However, if his words were based on a reading of some Puritan, one would expect him to have been exposed to the full vigor of their position.


----------



## SoldierOfTheRock (Apr 11, 2009)

I wish some people would grow up.

For the culture in which he lives he is the only pastor making any sense. He is doing great things for this generation - showing them that the Bible is worth our attention and God is more than just a theological study.

*When you read about Christ in the scripture do you make any image of a man in your mind's eye? If so maybe you ought to stop that, it is probably a sin. Right?


----------



## py3ak (Apr 11, 2009)

SoldierOfTheRock said:


> I wish some people would grow up.
> 
> For the culture in which he lives he is the only pastor making any sense. He is doing great things for this generation - showing them that the Bible is worth our attention and God is more than just a theological study.
> 
> *When you read about Christ in the scripture do you make any image of a man in your mind's eye? If so maybe you ought to stop that, it is probably a sin. Right?



Joshua, I understand the point you're trying to make, but I don't think your post was a good way to do it. For one thing, it's easy to turn around: "I wish some people would grow up enough to realize that you don't serve God by breaking His commandments."

Also, you are justifying him on pragmatic grounds - he is successful. But success in the ministry is not measured by results - it is measured by faithfulness. If the 2nd Commandment prohibits making images of Christ, then nothing justifies breaking that.


----------



## Rich Koster (Apr 11, 2009)

SoldierOfTheRock said:


> I wish some people would grow up.
> 
> For the culture in which he lives he is the only pastor making any sense. He is doing great things for this generation - showing them that the Bible is worth our attention and God is more than just a theological study.
> 
> *When you read about Christ in the scripture do you make any image of a man in your mind's eye? If so maybe you ought to stop that, it is probably a sin. Right?



I like your avitar


----------



## SoldierOfTheRock (Apr 11, 2009)

You misunderstand my last post, I am not saying that he is to be justified because of what he is doing, I am saying that he is doing something for a group of people that are not being reached any other way.

My point is not that we should break God's commands for ministry purposes, but rather that he did not break any commandments.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 11, 2009)

Yes, Joshua, I understand that you don't interpret the 2nd Commandment the way the Puritans did. But you can't expect those who do to give other people a free pass. I doubt that you'd call on those who believe that the 7th Commandment prohibits polygamy to "grow up" even though there are those who believe that it does not.

The fact that Mr. Driscoll is reaching people who aren't being reached any other way (though that might be debatable), though, is strictly irrelevant to the point at issue: whether the cultural influence of Christian holidays has led at least some churches to compromise with the culture in some ways.


----------



## Ivan (Apr 11, 2009)

Joshua said:


> Joshua, you don't have to agree with the Confessional, Puritanesque, and Reformed interpretation of the 2nd Commandment, but it is the position of the board. Since such is the case, it would behoove you to just keep silent when the issue arises, disagreeing in your own heart, instead of defending someone else's contra confessional position thereof.



Excellent advice.


----------



## Rich Koster (Apr 11, 2009)

SoldierOfTheRock said:


> You misunderstand my last post, I am not saying that he is to be justified because of what he is doing, I am saying that he is doing something for a group of people that are not being reached any other way.
> 
> My point is not that we should break God's commands for ministry purposes, but rather that he did not break any commandments.



This seems to be the old iconoclast debate, reloaded.


----------



## SoldierOfTheRock (Apr 11, 2009)

Maybe I am not understanding the 2nd commandment correctly. For it seems to be saying that we are not to make anything that looks like _anything_ in heaven, earth, or in the sea?

If this is the case then is not the images we use as avatars breaking this commandment?

And if it is not because we are not worshipping them then why is it incorrect to have a video which was not worshiped, but rather was only used to show an event that happened?


----------



## SoldierOfTheRock (Apr 11, 2009)

I do not believe that my question results in a catch 22.

1. These images were not made to be worshiped.
2. These images were only to provoke thought about what it was that happened to Christ.

I do not see these things as vain just because I do not worship the means of such thought. In the same way I do not worship my Bible, it brings to me thoughts about Christ and from that comes my worship of him.

So, such an image is not vain, nor is it being worshiped as an idol.


----------



## SoldierOfTheRock (Apr 11, 2009)

I suppose if we are only worried about the letter of the law then it would be wrong, but I don't believe we are.

I'll take a look at those posts now.


----------



## SoldierOfTheRock (Apr 11, 2009)

Here is the problem with making images - worshipping them.

Duet. 4:15-19 “Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, 16 beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, 17 the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, 18 the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth. 19 And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven."

If they are not to be worshiped then what is the problem?


From the Westminster Larger Catechism
"Question 109: What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?

Answer: The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; tolerating a false religion; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, _either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature_: Whatsoever; all worshipping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense: Whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God has appointed."

Does the section about "inwardly in our mind" really mean what it says? Does this mean that we are not even to think about what Christ may have looked like when we read about the crucifixion or in the gospels?

I apologize for my comment about the letter of the law. I will not feign a greater godliness or greater understanding of these issues than the others on the board.

I will try to work through these things, but I do have questions.

I know why God says to not make images, so we won't worship them. And so I think if an image is not worshiped then it is not breaking the commandment.
But for the Westminster to say that we are not to make an image in our minds as well... maybe it's just me, but I like to see the things I read. That seems a bit far.

Where is the balance here, what am I missing?


----------



## ww (Apr 11, 2009)

SoldierOfTheRock said:


> I wish some people would grow up.
> 
> For the culture in which he lives he is the only pastor making any sense. He is doing great things for this generation - showing them that the Bible is worth our attention and God is more than just a theological study.
> 
> *When you read about Christ in the scripture do you make any image of a man in your mind's eye? If so maybe you ought to stop that, it is probably a sin. Right?



Yes sir it is a sin and an unnfortunate part of my antinomian past full of Man's Man-Made Laws and lacking a true understanding of God's Law. I grew up watching "Jesus of Nazareth" and I even watched the "Passion of the Christ" before I came to an understanding of the 2nd Commandment. I don't think it would be sin if the image I had in my mind wasn't based on past depictions and violations of the 2nd commandment. But of course they are based on the Robert Powell type Jesus when he probably didn't look anything like him. 

Iin any event I would encourage you to read the numerous posts regarding this topic that helped me develop understanding of 2nd commandment violations and cause me such disgust when it is violated today.


----------



## Rich Koster (Apr 11, 2009)

One thing I look to in history is the bronze serpent on the pole. God commanded it to be made, but later it was destroyed because of idolatry. Man's heart is an idol factory.


----------



## SoldierOfTheRock (Apr 11, 2009)

I will speak with my pastors about these things tomorrow at church, perhaps they can show me further where I err in my thinking in all of this.

My thanks to all of you for your comments, and while I am not completely behind you on these things I do not wish to be incorrect if what you say is the case.

It is not my goal to argue, but rather to have a right understanding of this issue.

Thanks for not banning me for my silly comments. 

And thank you as well for trying to teach me why the confessions and you all hold to the beliefs that you do. 

But to bring up the main topic again. If Driscoll is wrong on this I am sorry for defending him. But please do not throw him out because of such, he really is doing great things for the church.


----------



## Rich Koster (Apr 11, 2009)

I have said this before, Driscoll has some rough edges to polish off. (so do you and I). He is also quite solid on some points. Let's pray and encourage him to become a little more conservative than relevant to culture.


----------



## ww (Apr 11, 2009)

I have all of Driscoll's books and have read them. I appreciate the ministry of Mark Driscoll and have seen him grow in his convictions. It is my hope that he will grow in the area of the 2nd Commandment as well and it was never my intention to disparage him personally.


----------



## tdowns (Apr 11, 2009)

*Pleasant exchange...*

What a pleasant exchange, where truth was held, challenges made, rebukes received humbly with iron sharpening iron and a killer set of links, all without overbearing fire and anger.

Excellent!


----------



## creformed01 (Apr 11, 2009)

Are aviators also a Violation of the 2nd commandment?


----------



## Davidius (Apr 11, 2009)

creformed01 said:


> Are aviators also a Violation of the 2nd commandment?



?


----------



## AThornquist (Apr 11, 2009)

Well, I certainly have no intention of worshipping this hamster or think that it is meant to be a representation of God, so no, it wouldn't be a violation  THAT IS of course assuming you meant avatars and not aviators! Perhaps there are some aviators who would consider their picture an image of God. Maybe someone isn't even an aviator and just feel worthy enough to try to look like God. It's horrible. When it's really bad, it may even look like this:


----------



## Rich Koster (Apr 11, 2009)

creformed01 said:


> Are aviators also a Violation of the 2nd commandment?



Only if they bow down to the sun while flying into it

Couldn't resist the wordplay..........


----------

