Playing "baby Jesus" in Christmas play.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you get to play God the Father? :)

I think that it is clear in the WCF/WLC that this is a violation of the 2nd commandment. I would suggest using this as an opportunity to TEACH the person who has approached you what our standards say and what it means to be confessional. It does not have to be condemning or even condescending- just use it as an opportunity to teach what the Word says.... in love.
 
The main reason (In my humble opinion) why these things exist in Reformed churches is because too many folks are ignorant of the Standards and their implications. Don't the Dutch Reformed make members sign a piece of paper saying that the 3 Forms are their own confession? If so, we could learn a lot from them.

That is only for officebearers (in the churches I have been familiar with, anyhow...)
 
1 = No reason to compromise your beliefs

2 - Why should anyone get angry == they have plenty of time to buy a plastic doll if they need one.

Using a plastic doll if just as bad as using a baby, and probably even worse. I would say have nothing to do with it and oppose such an idolotrous play.

I don't disagree with you. But the question wasn't whether or not the church should violate the commandment, it was whether one should risk angering them by refusing to facilitate the violation. And I didn't see a significant risk of angering them that needs to even be considered.
 
For some reason the people who have posted on this thread are a little "waffley"...I would have expected a more resounding YES & YES from the people of this board. :lol:

Btw, YES and YES.
 
Was it an elder from your church who asked? Or someone from the community?
 
I think you should stick with your conscience and have good concerns. But at the risk of being "waffley," let's at least ask two things:

1. Is there is a difference between making an image of God for the purpose of worshipping that image, versus using a human to represent Jesus for the purpose of communicating and celebrating the incarnation?

2. It's clearly wrong to depict God as any created thing since he is above this. No depiction could be accurate. But now the Son has taken on human form. Since God himself has chosen to reveal himself to us in this form -- since Jesus IS human -- is it equally wrong to depict Jesus using some generalized human figure?

There's wisdom in staying far from sin here. But I'd say the strongest argument against acting out the role of Jesus, or any Bible story, is that God's Word and our record of his Son have come to us in inspired, inerrant written form. Turning them into a stage production inevitably messes with the God-given account.
 
I think you should stick with your conscience and have good concerns. But at the risk of being "waffley," let's at least ask two things:

1. Is there is a difference between making an image of God for the purpose of worshipping that image, versus using a human to represent Jesus for the purpose of communicating and celebrating the incarnation?

2. It's clearly wrong to depict God as any created thing since he is above this. No depiction could be accurate. But now the Son has taken on human form. Since God himself has chosen to reveal himself to us in this form -- since Jesus IS human -- is it equally wrong to depict Jesus using some generalized human figure?

There's wisdom in staying far from sin here. But I'd say the strongest argument against acting out the role of Jesus, or any Bible story, is that God's Word and our record of his Son have come to us in inspired, inerrant written form. Turning them into a stage production inevitably messes with the God-given account.

1. I would humbly suggest this view might imply that Scripture is not sufficient.
2. Christ now reigns in heaven, and we are not to make images of that which is in heaven, right? He also certainly didn't stay a baby, which would be the portrayal here.
 
I think you should stick with your conscience and have good concerns. But at the risk of being "waffley," let's at least ask two things:

1. Is there is a difference between making an image of God for the purpose of worshipping that image, versus using a human to represent Jesus for the purpose of communicating and celebrating the incarnation?

2. It's clearly wrong to depict God as any created thing since he is above this. No depiction could be accurate. But now the Son has taken on human form. Since God himself has chosen to reveal himself to us in this form -- since Jesus IS human -- is it equally wrong to depict Jesus using some generalized human figure?

There's wisdom in staying far from sin here. But I'd say the strongest argument against acting out the role of Jesus, or any Bible story, is that God's Word and our record of his Son have come to us in inspired, inerrant written form. Turning them into a stage production inevitably messes with the God-given account.

1. I feel that attempting to step outside God's chosen way for communicating the reality of His Son to us is presumption on our part. I'm also inclined to believe from God's Word that using a human to represent the incarnate Son of God, existent from eternity and begotten from God the Father, Savior of His people, and the One who sits at God's right hand is blasphemy at the very least.

I think the same principle was at play when Christ pointed out the Pharisee's practice of absolving one from their responsibility of honoring their father and mother by declaring anything they would have gained from them is "given to God". The practice served to completely vacate God's command. I'm sure the Pharisees thought they were being very religious by provided an alternative to following God's very strict command that "honored" God. The problem was they presumed that their own notions of what was honoring actually honored God.

In reality, obeying what God has said honors Him; not making up an easier rule that one thinks still honors Him. Communicating in the way God has said establishes His purposes; not making up our own way.

2. Again, I'm convinced from God's Word that this is wrong. Christ incarnated as a perfect human in all respects. Using an imperfect human to represent Him is not only insufficient, but a farce and a lie. He has taken human form, but it is a particular human form and God commands us that we should not reproduce it, as He is God.
 
Last edited:
As one raised in the broad evangelical movement, Second Commandment violations have been a relatively new concept, especially when even Reformed stalwarts like R.C. Sproul don't share the same scruples.

However, when you look at Matthew 2:11, "And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him," it is pretty obvious that his deity was evident enough that worship was not condemned as rank idolatry . . . even from the earliest stage.

I agree with those who say that you might simply demure, based on the fact that it makes you uncomfortable. New parents are notoriously skittish about EVERYthing to do with there kids, particularly a first child.

Frankly, given the violation of your conscience, it is a slam dunk, regardless of what people think. It would be wrong to go against conscience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top