Thread: Don't Let This Happen To Your Church!

This is wrong on so many levels. Give me the fixed palette of the regulative principle.

This was spotted in The Wave: Quarterly Magazine of the Anglican Mission (June 2009). The caption on the picture reads:

"Deacon Lisa Schwandt, Pastor of Worship Arts, plays the character of the Parable Princess for children's worship."

The attached article, "Worship Arts at HopePointe" says it all in the first paragraph:

"Creative expression through the ministry of Worship Arts has been part of the DNA of HopePointe since the Rev. Clark Lowenfield became Lead Pastor five years ago. 'When you begin a new church, you have a blank palette and endless possibilities to work from. Our people were really open to the arts coming in,' shares the Rev. Lisa Schwandt, Deacon and Pastor of Worship Arts." [emphasis added]

Looks like my daughters playing dress-up.

What the This is disgusting. Those flower sleeves totally clash with the pink tutu. ...Oh yeah, and the other stuff is bad too, whether or not you hold to the RPW.

R.......
...o....
......f....
.........l.....

Deacon Lisa Schwandt, Pastor of Worship Arts, plays the character of the Parable Princess for children's worship.

Let's see if we can dissect the multiple errors and compounded errors in this one sentence.

1) The office of Deacon is qualified as men (and, if married, their wives are examined as Deacon wives)
2) Deacons are not Pastors
3) "Lisa" is a good name, just not an authoritative sounding name
4) "Parable Princess" is not about God, and thus not a focus of true worship
5) The focus is on the music/acting talent of "Lisa's" impersonation, rather than our Triune God
6) "Worship Arts" is not a biblical function
7) Corporate worship is corporate worship, art is art
8) Children should not have separated "worship" (particularly under the pretenses "Lisa" is operating under)
9) God destroyed thousands in Israel for such abomination, though it seemed right "in their own eyes."

Pray for Lisa's repentance... that she will see how offensive this is to her God, and that she will find a biblical, reformed church to serve God in a way He has prescribed.

(I could not have articulated all this a year ago, praise God for Puritan Board)

Originally Posted by Scott1

1) The office of Deacon is qualified as men (and, if married, their wives are examined as Deacon wives)
2) Deacons are not Pastors
3) "Lisa" is just not an authoritative sounding name
4) "Parable Princess" is not about God, and thus not a focus of true worship
5) The focus is on the music/acting talent of "Lisa's" impersonation, rather than our Triune God
6) "Worship Arts" is not a biblical function
7) Corporate worship is corporate worship, art is art
8) Children should not have separated "worship" (particularly under the pretenses "Lisa" is operating under
9) God destroyed thousands in Israel for such abomination, though it seemed right "in their own eyes."

The possibilities are endless!

Its a travesty....
Its a sham....
Its a mockery....





Its a traveshamockery.

But seriously, I agree Scott, this is a violation of Gods worship on so many levels. Where do you begin but to pray for the perpetrators.

wow...

the church i left is having a 4th of July celebration this Sunday, i attended last year... it pastor talked about independence and our forefathers and being a christian nation... i think our scripture reading was replaced with the constitution reading.

thanks be to God i am now worshiping with the RCUS

Urk!

Eww

So, I envision this in N Ca presby some time soon. One ... ehem... church had a Beavis and ******** "worship" service a few years back in our presby... but I'm sure even B&B could easily see through Lisa the fairy god deacon/pastor/nutjob...

Cheers,


LOL, it didn't let me say Beavis's companions' name! ahahahahahah

At least it wasnt a man though.

One ... ehem... church had a Beavis and ******** "worship" service a few years back in our presby...

Is that for real?!

Oh my!

That church needs to read William Ames A Fresh Suit against Human Cereemonies in God's Worship.

Pretty in Pink.

Originally Posted by LadyCalvinist

Oh my!

That church needs to read William Ames A Fresh Suit against Human Cereemonies in God's Worship.

Oh, she had on a pretty fresh suit, alright!

"Don't Let This Happen To Your Church!"

OK...so what to do when it already has?

Someone asked me "Well, if the Arts have no place in the church, wouldn't it be wrong to engage in them period?"

Originally Posted by Josiah

At least it wasnt a man though.

One ... ehem... church had a Beavis and ******** "worship" service a few years back in our presby...

Is that for real?!

Yes.

God has given us all things richly to enjoy, in their place.
I'd change churches if this were to start in my church.

Originally Posted by D. Paul

"Don't Let This Happen To Your Church!"

OK...so what to do when it already has?

Someone asked me "Well, if the Arts have no place in the church, wouldn't it be wrong to engage in them period?"

I richly enjoyed that picture here, for instance.

Hmm, I've not been there but that 'church' is about 1/4 mile from my house. It was formerly a bible church but sold out to the Anglicans, who do have female 'ministers'. Sad that so many choose to do their own thing and avoid scriptural guidelines.

It would seem that this is purely a "Reformed" issue. Churches in general give it no thought. However, since it is a Principle of the Church, how can the myriad congregations call themselves "churches" when violations concerning this (and the Lord's Day) are so evident?

If you see worship as a blank slate to be filled by man (or woman as the case may be) then I suppose being open to the "arts" would seem innovative and refreshing. Sadly, this has nothing to do with honoring God.

Anyone thinking of taking the moniker "Parable Princess"?
Hear tell there's a great avintar handy too, if anyone needs one.

1) She didn't have a tambourine.
2) She wasn't slaying people in the spirit.
3) She wasn't imitating a dog or staggering drunk "in the spirit".

It was bad, but could have been worse.

Originally Posted by christusregnat

So, I envision this in N Ca presby some time soon. One ... Ehem... Church had a Beavis and ******** "worship" service a few years back in our presby...

Wha?!?!?!?

Originally Posted by Archlute

Originally Posted by christusregnat

So, I envision this in N Ca presby some time soon. One ... Ehem... Church had a Beavis and ******** "worship" service a few years back in our presby...

Wha?!?!?!?

Thats what I said...

Wow... Scary.

Those poor kids. They're certain to be scarred for life...

Reminds me of my old church. Someone from my old church just put on her FB quote:

I was talking to God today. . . .and I called him dude. Then I realized, I do that a lot. You know your relationship with God is tight when you can call him dude! ;-D

Originally Posted by D. Paul

"Don't Let This Happen To Your Church!"

OK...so what to do when it already has?

Someone asked me "Well, if the Arts have no place in the church, wouldn't it be wrong to engage in them period?"

One way you might approach this is explaining there is nothing wrong with "arts", God gave people the gift of artistic expression. But they are not the center of corporate (public) worship. That may lead to a good engagement about the second commandment.

Originally Posted by LadyCalvinist

Oh my!

That church needs to read William Ames A Fresh Suit against Human Cereemonies in God's Worship.

That congregation needs to get a clue.

Originally Posted by D. Paul

It would seem that this is purely a "Reformed" issue. Churches in general give it no thought. However, since it is a Principle of the Church, how can the myriad congregations call themselves "churches" when violations concerning this (and the Lord's Day) are so evident?

I think a lot of churches would have problems with aspects of this. Many churches do not ordain women and among those that do officially, many local congregations do not. But there are other issues, too. Confusing the Pastorate with the Diaconate would violate most church polities. Others would not be comfortable with the fact there is not an effort to use biblical characters for children. There are others who might actually not like separating children to a separate "minister." Others are going to think, this is just plain weird.

Originally Posted by Augusta

Reminds me of my old church. Someone from my old church just put on her FB quote:

I was talking to God today. . . .and I called him dude. Then I realized, I do that a lot. You know your relationship with God is tight when you can call him dude! ;-D

What relationship?

Originally Posted by Michael Doyle

Its a travesty....
Its a sham....
Its a mockery....





Its a traveshamockery.

But seriously, I agree Scott, this is a violation of Gods worship on so many levels. Where do you begin but to pray for the perpetrators.

It's also ludicrous....

traveshamockuliculous

Originally Posted by Augusta

Reminds me of my old church. Someone from my old church just put on her FB quote:

I was talking to God today. . . .and I called him dude. Then I realized, I do that a lot. You know your relationship with God is tight when you can call him dude! ;-D

That is unspeakably reprehensible. God is not our homeboy. If you think He is, then you know not the God of the Bible.

(What a wonderful opportunity to practice being angry and yet not sinning! The not sinning part is where it's difficult.)

I was reading Michael Horton's book on covenant theology yesterday and he said something significant about hearing God speak: in the Bible, when God spoke to the people directly, they were afraid. Think of the Israelites and Moses. The Israelites didn't want to hear God speak to them. It was only when they made their own gods that they were comfortable with "god" speaking to them.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Originally Posted by Michael Doyle

Its a travesty....
Its a sham....
Its a mockery....





Its a traveshamockery.

But seriously, I agree Scott, this is a violation of Gods worship on so many levels. Where do you begin but to pray for the perpetrators.

It's also ludicrous....

traveshamockuliculous

It is also tom-foolery!

It is a tomtraveshamockuliculousoolery!

Originally Posted by AThornquist

Originally Posted by Augusta

Reminds me of my old church. Someone from my old church just put on her FB quote:

I was talking to God today. . . .and I called him dude. Then I realized, I do that a lot. You know your relationship with God is tight when you can call him dude! ;-D

That is unspeakably reprehensible. God is not our homeboy. If you think He is, then you know not the God of the Bible.

(What a wonderful opportunity to practice being angry and yet not sinning! The not sinning part is where it's difficult.)

Jonathan Edwards can be, though.

Originally Posted by Augusta

Reminds me of my old church. Someone from my old church just put on her FB quote:

I was talking to God today. . . .and I called him dude. Then I realized, I do that a lot. You know your relationship with God is tight when you can call him dude! ;-D

You know you're a presumptuous, blasphemous twit when you call God "dude"...

You're all a bunch of Pharisees!

Here's this woman just worshipping God in her own way. So it's strange fire, so what? It's still fire! C'mon! You can tell by the wince on her face that she really means it. Plus, I'm sure it blesses those little kids' hearts, not to mentioned gives some hearty laughter to the adults.

Bunch of legalists!!!