Posted on 07/23/2013 6:33:28 AM PDT by Kip Russell
Christian magicians are rising to defend themselves against assertions made by a Christian Post columnist that the performance of magic may involve the occult.
They are upset with columnist Dan Delzell's opinion that the U.K.-based magician Dynamo's illusion of levitating alongside a red London double decker bus was real. Delzell related the performance to "witchcraft and contact with evil spirits, and the presumption that the art of magic is a gateway to demonic involvement."
Delzell's column incited a number of Christian magicians to leave comments criticizing his assumption that magic performances are linked to demonic power. These magicians included Jim Munroe, who works with worldwide ministries; Rob Robinson, a Christian magician and mentalist; and Joe Turner, who is a member of the Fellowship of Christian Magicians and served on the board of the International Brotherhood of Magicians.
Munroe, who has worked with the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, I Am Second, and Cru (formerly known as Campus Crusade for Christ), told The Christian Post on Monday that he received Delzell's column through a secular magician friend and felt compelled to respond to it.
He is concerned that statements such as Delzell's can hurt the Christian witness. He wrote a comment under the opinion piece, "The Illusion That Seduces and Bewitches Magicians."
"I can tell you, with full authority, that the 'magic trick' created by Dynamo is in fact a 'trick,'" Munroe stated. "Its effect is in no way achieved by supernatural means. It was achieved by natural means, and its purpose was to illicit a reaction similar to Steven Spielberg's when he created the dinosaur in Jurassic Park: that of wonder … Don't write about things that you don't know anything about because you widen a gap with individuals that I am trying to shrink. You counteract the very inclusion that Jesus shared."
Munroe told CP that Christians should be accurate in their assertions in order to share the Gospel intelligently, "We run the risk of pushing people farther away when we don't know what it is that we are even talking about and this [opinion column] is a perfect example of that."
When asked by CP for his response to the controversy, Delzell wrote via email: "I believe people will disagree on whether or not Dynamo's levitation was real. Unbelievers may disagree about it, and Christians will likely disagree about it. There are many issues in life and spirituality and theology where Christians agree to disagree with one another."
He said he believes his column is a good and faithful witness to the truth of God's Word, and to the dangers of sorcery and levitation.
"I don't care about your little trick, GOB!"
"It's an illusion, Michael."
P.T. Barnum had the correct words: There's a sucker born every minute. :o)
Wouldn't that result in the magic of 15 to life? :o)
re: “Disciples are made through His word, through the foolishness of preaching, not through magic, juggling, motorcycle riding, rodeo, comedy, feats of strength and all the other worldly things people purport to do for Jesus. None of those activities point a sinner to Christ. If people got back into the Bible and learned once and for all how God saves sinners a lot of silliness would stop.”
.45 Long Colt, I too am often put off by the outlandishness of some so-called “Christian” celebrities. On the other hand, I’m not sure it’s fair to claim that Christians who use certain talents they have in presenting their Christian witness are attempting to throw out “preaching” or supplant the “preaching of the Gospel”.
Presenting the Gospel doesn’t always come through preaching in a pulpit at church. When you talk with a friend of yours about your faith in Christ, you aren’t “preaching” from the pulpit, but you are witnessing/preaching to them, don’t you think?
Obviously you are not in a formal church service, but you are presenting the Gospel. You are giving reasons to them for why they should have faith in Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior - isn’t that also preaching? Preaching on the individual level, is often called a “witness” or “giving a testimony”, but aren’t they pretty much attempting to accomplish the same thing?
If you were to give the same personal testimony in a crowd of people or as part of a worship service - would you be thwarting the ministry of preaching? No, you’re just giving your personal testimony in the unique way that is from your personal experience.
That’s what most of these Christian performers are doing. They are giving a witness through a very unique way of personal testimony.
I’m not condoning every one of these type of ministries because I have seen some where the individual giving the testimony is more concerned with promoting themselves than Christ.
I’m just saying, in general, I don’t have a problem with someone using a special talent they have to present the Gospel to non-believers. Christian films, radio programs, music, etc. can be wonderful assets in presenting the Gospel.
However, I totally agree with you that developing Christian discipleship must be done by encouraging people to become involved in good, solid Bible Study, as well as attend regular worship services where they hear good Bible preaching/teaching every Sunday. That’s the role of the Church.
But, that is generally not the purpose of these Christian performers, nor is it their role. Their object/purpose is evangelism - it’s getting a hearing for the Gospel - to present it in a way that may peak the interest of a lost person who would never darken a church to hear traditional preaching.
Evangelistic preaching can be done from the pulpit and it can be done in your living room. It can be done over the phone, on the radio, on TV. It can be done talking with co-workers at lunch. It can be done through singing a Christian song, telling humorous stories, doing illusions (with a Christian point to it), through skits, through movies, and on an on.
Evangelistic preaching can be accomplished in a variety of ways - not just from a pulpit. But, is every sermon your pastor or priest gives, is it strictly an “evangelistic” sermon? Probably not. Sometimes they are “teaching” sermons regarding specific passages of Scripture, or a specific “topic” from Scripture.
And, did Paul and the Apostles ALWAYS tell others about Christ from a pulpit? Did they only go to the synagogue? Paul witnessed to the Roman guard chained to watch him - was that NOT preaching? Paul and Silas, after being beaten and imprisoned in Phillipi, sang songs of praise to God - the Bible says the other prisoners, including the jailer, were listening. I think that was preaching as well.
We send missionaries to various countries and use points of contact and need to get a hearing - building water wells, medical facilities, education, etc. - all to get a hearing for the Gospel.
Anyway, I think that is what most of these Christian performers are trying to do: witness and preach the Gospel as Christ commanded us to do, but with our own unique gifts and abilities.
My biggest issue is the use of worldly entertainment as worship. I’m not saying a Christian shouldn’t be a rodeo rider or a juggler any more than a Christian shouldn’t be a plumber or doctor. There is honor in all work and all who have experienced the new birth are in ministry every single day. we are all on the mission field. Our transformed lives are a living testimony of what the Lord has done, whether we rope calves or dig ditches we should do it heartily and unto the glory of The Lord.
We have seen a real degredation in American Evangelical churches during my lifetime. We have churches presenting what Dr. Michael Horton refers to as “Christless Christianity.” We are seeker-sensitive, Purpose-Driven, and relevant, rather than Gospel-centered. Of course I’m talking about evangelicalism generally. There are still some wonderful churches, but Christians have to seek the out.
I recommend the John MacArthur’s book “Ashamed of the Gospel.” I read it when it first came out back in the early 90’s and it really challenged me. At the time I was attracted to some of the new things that were happening in other churches. My church seemed a bit “old fashioned.” Today I praise The Lord for that!
What Is Pragmatism & Why Is It Bad?
By: John MacArthur
In a column published some years ago in a popular Christian magazine, a well-known preacher was venting his own loathing for long sermons. January 1 was coming, so he resolved to do better in the coming year. “That means wasting less time listening to long sermons and spending much more time preparing short ones,” he wrote. “People, I’ve discovered, will forgive even poor theology as long as they get out before noon.”1
Unfortunately, that perfectly sums up the predominant attitude behind much of ministry today. Bad doctrine is tolerable; a long sermon most certainly is not. The timing of the benediction is of far more concern to the average churchgoer than the content of the sermon. Sunday dinner and the feeding of our mouths takes precedence over Sunday school and the nourishment of our souls. Long-windedness has become a greater sin than heresy. The church has imbibed the worldly philosophy of pragmatism, and we’re just beginning to taste the bitter results.
What Is Pragmatism?
Pragmatism is the notion that meaning or worth is determined by practical consequences. It is closely akin to utilitarianism, the belief that usefulness is the standard of what is good. To a pragmatist/utilitarian, if a technique or course of action has the desired effect, it is good. If it doesn’t seem to work, it must be wrong.
Pragmatism as a philosophy was developed and popularized at the end of the last century by philosopher William James, along with such other noted intellectuals as John Dewey and George Santayana. It was James who gave the new philosophy its name and shape. In 1907, he published a collection of lectures entitled Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking, and thus defined a whole new approach to truth and life.
Pragmatism has roots in Darwinism and secular humanism. It is inherently relativistic, rejecting the notion of absolute right and wrong, good and evil, truth and error. Pragmatism ultimately defines truth as that which is useful, meaningful, helpful. Ideas that don’t seem workable or relevant are rejected as false.
What’s wrong with pragmatism?
After all, common sense involves a measure of legitimate pragmatism, doesn’t it? If a dripping faucet works fine after you replace the washers, for example, it is reasonable to assume that bad washers were the problem. If the medicine your doctor prescribes produces harmful side effects or has no effect at all, you need to ask if there’s a remedy that works. Such simple pragmatic realities are generally self-evident.
But when pragmatism is used to make judgments about right and wrong, or when it becomes a guiding philosophy of life and ministry, it inevitably clashes with Scripture. Spiritual and biblical truth is not determined by testing what “works” and what doesn’t. We know from Scripture, for example, that the gospel often does not produce a positive response (1 Cor. 1:22, 23; 2:14). On the other hand, Satanic lies and deception can be quite effective (Matt. 24:23, 24; 2 Cor. 4:3, 4). Majority reaction is no test of validity (cf. Matt. 7:13, 14), and prosperity is no measure of truthfulness (cf. Job 12:6). Pragmatism as a guiding philosophy of ministry is inherently flawed. Pragmatism as a test of truth is nothing short of satanic.
Nevertheless, an overpowering surge of ardent pragmatism is sweeping through evangelicalism. Traditional methodology—most notably preaching—is being discarded or downplayed in favor of newer means, such as drama, dance, comedy, variety, side-show histrionics, pop-psychology, and other entertainment forms. The new methods supposedly are more “effective”—that is, they draw a bigger crowd. And since the chief criterion for gauging the success of a church has become attendance figures, whatever pulls in the most people is accepted without further analysis as good. That is pragmatism.
Perhaps the most visible signs of pragmatism are seen in the convulsive changes that have revolutionized the church worship service in the past two decades. Some of evangelicalism’s largest and most influential churches now boast Sunday services that are designed purposely to be more rollicking than reverent.
Even worse, theology now takes a back seat to methodology. One author has written, “Formerly, a doctrinal statement represented the reason for a denomination’s existence. Today, methodology is the glue that holds churches together. A statement of ministry defines them and their denominational existence.”2 Incredibly, many believe this is a positive trend, a major advance for the contemporary church.
Some church leaders evidently think the four priorities of the early church—the apostles’ teaching, fellowship, the breaking of bread, and prayer (Acts 2:42)—make a lame agenda for the church in this day and age. Churches are allowing drama, recreation, entertainment, self-help programs, and similar enterprises to eclipse the importance of traditional Sunday worship and fellowship. In fact, everything seems to be in fashion in the church today except biblical preaching. The new pragmatism sees preaching—particularly expository preaching—as pass‚. Plainly declaring the truth of God’s Word is regarded as offensive and utterly ineffective. We’re now told we can get better results by first amusing people or giving them pop-psychology and thus wooing them into the fold. Once they feel comfortable, they’ll be ready to receive biblical truth in small, diluted doses.
Pastors are turning to books on marketing methods in search of new techniques to help churches grow. Many seminaries have shifted their pastoral training emphasis from Bible curriculum and theology to counseling technique and church-growth theory. All these trends reflect the church’s growing commitment to pragmatism.
Notes: * This article is excerpted from Ashamed of the Gospel: When the Church Becomes Like the World (Wheaton: Crossway, 1993).
1. Jamie Buckingham, “Wasted Time,” Charisma (Dec. 88), 98.
2. Elmer L. Towns, An Inside Look at 10 of today’s Most Innovative Churches (Ventura, CA: Regal, 1990), 249.
***Pragmatism has roots in Darwinism and secular humanism. It is inherently relativistic, rejecting the notion of absolute right and wrong, good and evil, truth and error. Pragmatism ultimately defines truth as that which is useful, meaningful, helpful. Ideas that don’t seem workable or relevant are rejected as false.***
Pope Pius X issued an encyclical in 1907 entitled “Pascendi Dominici Gregis” which condemned “Modernism” and declared that it was a heresy, and that in fact it is the synthesis of all heresies. The short definition of “Modernism” is that God has NOT revealed His truth in the Holy Scriptures and the teachings of the Church; therefore, there is no way to know right and wrong. That’s why so-called Christians can say - with a straight face - “well, I don’t believe in abortion myself but who am I to force someone to believe what I believe? After all, there’s no way to know the Truth and what’s true for me may not be true for you.” It’s interesting that this encyclical came out the same year that William James’ collection of essays was published. Even the name of James’ collection, “a new name for some old ways of thinking,” ironically shows that his “new name” is for “old heresies.”
“Pragmatism” is just another word for the heresy of “Modernism.”
re: “We have seen a real degredation in American Evangelical churches during my lifetime. We have churches presenting what Dr. Michael Horton refers to as “Christless Christianity.” We are seeker-sensitive, Purpose-Driven, and relevant, rather than Gospel-centered.”
I couldn’t agree with you more .45 Long Colt. I think for many people, whether one has worshiped or not is now defined as “how much was I entertained”? Many so-called evangelical churches are careful to avoid a discussion of the consequences of sin and hell.
Knowing doctrine and why that’s even important is often not even on the radar screen of priorities for many Christians.
So, I agree that the world has influenced the Church far more than the Church has influence the world.
Christian music is a prime example of the loss of doctrinal integrity in favor songs that often have little or no doctrinal content, but “it sounds good”.
I’m with you on all of that. I’m just saying, and I think I’m hearing you also say, that it is possible to use one’s talents and abilities (even in an entertaining way) to get a hearing for the Gospel - but, once you have the unbeliever’s attention we’ve MUST give him/her the real, complete Gospel, not just entertainment.
Thanks for the article from John MacArther. I am aware of his ministry and that he loves the Lord and proclaims the Gospel faithfully. God bless you.
I think we agree more than we disagree.
Its the Egyptian Magician that scares the heebie jeebies out of me...
“I think we agree more than we disagree.”
I think we do, too.
Wasn’t he the pope who stood against democracy and constitutional rights?
I agree, in principle. The seeker-friendly, church and circuses movement is patently ungodly. However, there is also Proverbs 22: 29
Do you see a man who excels in his work?
He will stand before kings;
He will not stand before unknown men.
All work can be used for the glory of God. All are called to spread the Gospel. Not all are called to preach.
We agree. I believe I basically said you what said in a later comment:
“My biggest issue is the use of worldly entertainment as worship. I’m not saying a Christian shouldn’t be a rodeo rider or a juggler any more than a Christian shouldn’t be a plumber or doctor. There is honor in all work and all who have experienced the new birth are in ministry every single day. We are all on the mission field. Our transformed lives are a living testimony of what the Lord has done, whether we rope calves or dig ditches we should do it heartily and unto the glory of The Lord.”
Amen, brother!
I also despise the “Christian” business concept. If I can’t tell by your honesty, work ethic and customer service, don’t bother hanging a cross or a fish over your door...
Interesting and ironic comment. Just a few weeks ago I downloaded a radio discussion between a couple of ministers. I don’t remember their names. All I know is I found it on sermonaudio.com. Part of the discussion centered around the idea that many people get “Christian tattoos” or slap a fish on their business card or bumper as an outward show because they know that their lives don’t reflect Christ. Of course that certainly isn’t a universal truth, but my experience tells me there is something to the idea.
Commercial christianity is not new; these are the descendants of the folks that Jesus ran out of the Temple.
Doug Henning ruined the word. Anybody old enough to remember him always hears his “it’s an illOOsion” and then won’t call themselves illusionists.
Of course if you try to do stuff the way P&T say you’ll fail and often get hurt. That’s the “hidden” joke of P&T when they show you how to do the trick they’re actually doing a whole other trick, the trick of making it look like that’s how you do the trick. Sometimes they play it square, but most of the time there’s a couple of extra slights they don’t show to make it “work”.
Indeed
Red herring ping.
Thanks Kip Russell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.