please watch the video fully, i'd like to know your immediate responses to it after you watch it..

also do reply and tell me if the content in the video is any different from what you already believe in.

Bold, and a needed corrective. We can never make "too much" of the Gospel - the biblical one, that is. This guy knocks it out of the park in terms of going to Scripture and confronting the distorted image of ourselves in relation to God that I know I personally grew up with from church.

My only critical thought, however, is I would love to spend an afternoon discussing Romans 14 with him to hear his stance on "areas of Christian liberty". He comes down pretty solidly on movie-goers and others for the content of their "entertainment", and rightly so for the most part. It's so easy to become callous or deadened to the things around us that hold no love or fear for a holy God. However, zeal against such things also easily turns into a brand of legalism that confuses Law and Gospel from what I've seen and experienced personally. I probably wouldn't even mention this as a critique were it not for the fact that he said he was specifically addressing self-professed "believers".

Man, his point about how it's better in our church culture to laugh at sin instead of correcting it was right on.

I am hoping that there will be more viewers to this video, and more replies to this thread. Indeed, i would like to know more opinions on this matter.

Shamax wrote:

the distorted image of ourselves in relation to God that I know I personally grew up with from church.

how different were your previous views to now? what was the distortion you had experienced?

Shamax wrote:

My only critical thought, however, is I would love to spend an afternoon discussing Romans 14 with him to hear his stance on "areas of Christian liberty". He comes down pretty solidly on movie-goers and others for the content of their "entertainment", and rightly so for the most part.

I dont see him as judgemental, or "extreme" or crazy or something like that.. his arguments are pretty valid.. absolute hatred for sin would probably make us not enjoy anything that sugar-coats it.. on the other hand, what IS sin-free? so in that context, i do not know how to approach things. Forget entertainment, a casual talk from a non-believer might be having content that "disturbs" us.. how do you react to that.. "What would Jesus do?" indeed.

Shamax wrote:

It's so easy to become callous or deadened to the things around us that hold no love or fear for a holy God. However, zeal against such things also easily turns into a brand of legalism that confuses Law and Gospel from what I've seen and experienced personally. I probably wouldn't even mention this as a critique were it not for the fact that he said he was specifically addressing self-professed "believers".

i don't suppose this is about "obeying laws" in anyway, (if that is what you were suggesting..) i suppose we can say this has to more to do with "a love for God would induce a hatred for sin"

OK, for serious, f**k this guy. So what, I can NEVER watch a movie with a bad word? If some one at my job says "GD", I have to storm out indignantly and never return until he apologizes? I can NEVER make a joke anymore? So God doesn't ahve a sense of humor? So, I spit in God's face every time I watch Die Hard? I'm supposed to quit my job and never produce anything? For all the time this guy talks about the evils of wordly things, he seems to have enough money for some decent editing software, a set, lighting equipment, and those emo-kid glasses he wears.

So I know he said don't call him judgemental, but, um...yeah. Dude, you don't know ME! You don't know what I've gone through, what I struggle with. How dare YOU talk down to me, and tell me I'm going to hell! There are people who say YOU would go to hell cuz of that ugly scruff on your chin. There are people that say you would go to hell cuz of that spare tire you carry around in your shirt. I've read the Bible, I've grown up in church. And I've taken away what I have from it. I've talked at lengths about how much interpretation matters with Scripture. Do you really think OUR God is Fred Phelps' God? I worship God, and I fight my sin, and this pious, pudgy, peice of poo says, it's not enough.

Look, I'm not banging on this guy because he makes these videos, more power to him. It's just this rigid inflexibility that irks me something fierce. People like this guy can't even PRETEND to accept that other people may veiw God differently, and that THEY have just as much claim to be right as HE does. It's THAT kind of thinking that has our world in such a bind, I think.

I find it odd that when he starts the video there is no backing music at all. As he gets going he starts adding the music louder and louder, perhaps to add emphasis to his words. Then he stops it, and starts it again. I find it somewhat manipulative in helping get a response from whomever he believes his audience is. Perhaps he felt his words were not enough?

My immediate response is very similar to SSG Jake's above. I have actually come across many folks with his beliefs in my walk with Jesus; I just have never felt or saw things the way he (they) do.

trephining wrote:

I find it odd that when he starts the video there is no backing music at all. As he gets going he starts adding the music louder and louder, perhaps to add emphasis to his words. Then he stops it, and starts it again. I find it somewhat manipulative in helping get a response from whomever he believes his audience is. Perhaps he felt his words were not enough?

Yup. And you have the spooky, other-worldly top-lighting. You know at DINFOS, Defense Informaiton School(the US Military's journalism school), they teach us that top-lighting is a crutch used when the reporter doesn't think his message is effective enough. It adds an air of superiority that is desinged to make the audience veiw you as a subject matter expert. And I have railed to my soldiers at length about how important sound is when conveying a message.

skkorre wrote:

how different were your previous views to now? what was the distortion you had experienced?

Basically it was a "me" centered view, rather than a Christ-centered one. While I wanted to "accept Christ" because I didn't want to go to Hell, I felt like I had my ticket punched and God was basically cool with me regardless of what I said or did (or didn't do) for the most part. I think it was Screwtape in Lewis' work that described my attitude best (Paraphrasing heavily): I felt like I was on the ins with God and had already earned a lot of brownie points just for agreeing to identify myself as a "Christian".

I'd occasionally hear a sermon or feel some guilt over some things I was doing, and I'd "re-dedicate" myself, but not because I was truly repentant or desiring God. I just didn't want to feel "guilty". I didn't want my conscience nagging at me - I just basically wanted it to die and go away so I could get on with my life.

skkorre wrote:

i don't suppose this is about "obeying laws" in anyway, (if that is what you were suggesting..) i suppose we can say this has to more to do with "a love for God would induce a hatred for sin"

Not "obeying laws" in terms of things like civil laws (speeding, jaywalking, etc), but laws such as the kind we easily make when we try to come up with what "hating sin" looks like. To Mr. Pfiel, "hating sin" apparently involves not watching movies with coarse language in them and (possibly) not going to bars. To some denominational groups, "hating sin" includes women not wearing makeup or jewelry and men not having long hair. To others still, "hating sin" mean not drinking alcohol or listening to anything but Southern Gospel music.

This is perfectly acceptable for the INDIVIDUAL (coming back to Romans 14, here). The problem of confusing the Law and the Gospel comes when someone says (like Mr. Pfiel almost seems to): "You DON'T love God unless you look like I do in hating sin!"

That takes Christ out of the central spot of the Gospel message, and places ourselves and our "righteousness" in a spot where only Christ's should be.

Romans 14:14-17,22-23 (emphasis mine) wrote:

I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is
unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for
that person it is unclean. If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you
are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for
whom Christ died. Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit..

So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and
God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he
approves. But whoever
has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from
faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

Paul addresses both crowds here. To the people that know "meat sacrificed to idols" (and likewise: alcohol, tobacco, music, jewelry, deodorant, etc) is not sin, he tells them not to flaunt their freedom to the other crowd or convince them to join-in against their conscience. To those who feel convicted that it *is* sin, he tells them to keep it to themselves and do not practice it if they believe it to be sin. It's truly that "simple".

Also, I notice the emotional-plea music thing too. If I had to take a wild shot in the dark, I'd guess that Mr. Pfiel is a Southern Baptist by confession

The only thing I don't like about that line of though is that I've seen it get taken one too many times as a license to do whatever one wants and say "if its causing you to sin, stay away from it," about one too many things. I'm not saying that about you personally, but I do get uneasy when that part of Romans is tossed around a little too much.

I find this man to be disgusting. I want what we would find if we over turned his rock.

Walter Kovacs wrote:

The only thing I don't like about that line of though is that I've seen it get taken one too many times as a license to do whatever one wants and say "if its causing you to sin, stay away from it," about one too many things. I'm not saying that about you personally, but I do get uneasy when that part of Romans is tossed around a little too much.

Romans 6:1-2 wrote:

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?

Have I ever mentioned that I prefer expositional preaching to the topical variety? Usually keeps misunderstandings like that from happening

You're absolutely right, though, which is why so much time is spent in Scripture thoroughly addressing the need for us to be seeking righteousness, to seek being conformed to Christ's image, to purify ourselves as He is pure, etc. Which is also why I said Mr. Pfeil's words were a needed corrective. I say a hearty and (mostly) unreserved Amen to everything he said. Again, though.. I worry about him adding works to the Gospel if he preaches things like "if you drink, smoke, chew, or go out with them that do, then you don't love God and your aren't a believer!" He comes close to implying that in his video, but seems to stop shy which is why I applaud his corrective of calling us to righteousness in Christ.

Just thought about this. A nother thing that p*ssed me off about this guy is he is one of the MANY people I have heard throughtout my life who preached more about Hell than Heaven. He's like those crappy movies my private school made us watch, trying to SCARE us into believing. "OOOOHHH, you better be a good little boy or girl, otherwise you're gonna go to HELL!!!" That's the crap you tell a 5 year old about Santa to get him to behave. In my humble opinion, ANY sort of preaching should start at God's love, not hate. God can't hate. And remember CHrist's greatest comandment, "Love each other as I have loved you." Hate the sin, not the sinner, guy.

Wait, are you saying Santa isn't real?

JeffdlS wrote:

Wait, are you saying Santa isn't real?

Haven't we covered this before?

mantits.

Overhead lighting doesn't flatter him. Two things, sir. Wear black, wear layers.

olias wrote:

mantits.

Overhead lighting doesn't flatter him. Two things, sir. Wear black, wear layers.

The politically correct term is "moobs".

I finally got around to watching this...

Wow. I just can't stand when someone stands there and says "YOU go around living in sin" and "YOU need to turn from your wicked ways". If he maybe through in a "we" or "us" every now and then, it would be a bit better. The plank in your eye, and all that...

I dunno, I pretty much agree with Olias and Jake on this one.

It's funny reading all the different replies to this video here. Well, not funny, but lame. I mean, sheesh, the guy has a message that folks here disagree with, and all that happens is expletives are thrown at him, his speaking ability questioned, his message demonized because he used dramatic lighting and music, called fat, disgusting...man, is this how Christians disagree with somehting they don't like now? I thought Christians are supposes to be above that crap. Seriously, is that the best we can do? Is this how we disagree now? Just ignore any possible truth the message may have because we don't like it, call him some names, instead of giving it an open-minded and open-hearted listening and weighing it against Scripture, and disagreeing respectfully? Shamax did it, and his small disagreements were respectful, insightful, and well thought out...and he never called the dude disgusting or cut him down in any way, so it's obviously not that hard to do.

Methinks some folks doth protest too much...

'Cause if I can do it, then anyone with two brain cells to rub together can, eh?



Seriously, though. Amen.

Shamax wrote:

'Cause if I can do it, then anyone with two brain cells to rub together can, eh?

Didn't think that one through

Personally, I didn't insult him or the way he looks or anything like that. I just didn't like the fact the he seemed like he was only pointing fingers. I don't care how he looks. His message was just something I don't agree with (for the most part).

As I have said before, being a Christian doesn't automatically make you a good person. Again, is Fred Phelps a good person? I know I keep bringing him up, but due to my profession me and him are kinda arch enemies. (Arch Enemy!! \m/)


Anywho, I'm not getting on his case because of WHAT he's saying, thats just a dissagreement. It's HOW he's saying it. Like Gorlim said, he's up there waving his finger at ME, because I like horror movies, listen to Slayer, and respect other people's right to believe whatever they want. If he had just said, "I think that we need to follow the Scripture more to the letter" then yeah, it would have been a debate. But his attitude said something different. He doesn't SAY it, but the way he talks REEKS of piousness, "I'm almost crying because you aren't as holy as me. WHY can't you be more like ME?!" If we disagree on something, I'll debate you all day and be the most polite guy in the world. But the SECOND you start talking down to me, looking down your nose at me, then we got problems, Chuck.

SSG Jake wrote:

Anywho, I'm not getting on his case because of WHAT he's saying, thats just a dissagreement. It's HOW he's saying it. Like Gorlim said, he's up there waving his finger at ME, because I like horror movies, listen to Slayer, and respect other people's right to believe whatever they want. If he had just said, "I think that we need to follow the Scripture more to the letter" then yeah, it would have been a debate. But his attitude said something different. He doesn't SAY it, but the way he talks REEKS of piousness, "I'm almost crying because you aren't as holy as me. WHY can't you be more like ME?!" If we disagree on something, I'll debate you all day and be the most polite guy in the world. But the SECOND you start talking down to me, looking down your nose at me, then we got problems, Chuck.

+2