The Jesus Proposal: Shelly and York

PPB
PPB

May 22nd, 2006, 4:37 am #21

Here's the description from the ChristianBook.com website.

"A fishin' pole-totin' sheriff, a bumbling deputy, and a cherub-faced little boy are your guides through this unique examination of the popular '60s TV show in light of biblical teaching. Return to simpler days when values like honesty, caring, integrity, and responsibility were truly appreciated. Provides a synopsis of 30 episodes, including photographs."


Yeah, that sounds awful. We should definitely stand against those principles.
B...

I guess the Bible wasn't entertaining enough for these people? This is probably the saddest thing I have heard in a long time. And that you would even hint that it was "okay" to sit around in a classroom and use some old tv show as an example of Christian study is ridiculous in the extreme. Not everything that occurred on that show was "christian".

Why should I care about a show's teachings? What does that show have to do with God's Word? So what if it taught some basic behavioral lessons? Chalk it up to one more show your children can watch without supervision. There were several shows that taught the same premise - What about Lassie? or Flipper? Oh, I know...the Howdy Doody Show. Wait...I wonder what Rin Tin Tin or The Lone Ranger can teach us that the Bible can't? I guess I need to start re-watching Tonto to see if he can teach me anything I just couldn't learn from reading the Bible. Talk about short attention spans...

What in the world are we coming to when a tv show is the "pattern" we are learning from? Really, just throw out the Bible, you've made it about as useless as any other fictional book.

That you can't see the problem with this issue is scary...very, very scary.


P.S.

B...Thought I would help you out and present a new lesson plan for you based on the Lone Ranger Creed. (Though I for one, find Matthew Chapter 5 requires much higher standards and is more interesting than anything Hollywood could ever create.)


Lone Ranger Creed -
"I believe that to have a friend,
a man must be one.

That all men are created equal
and that everyone has within himself
the power to make this a better world.

That God put the firewood there
but that every man
must gather and light it himself.

In being prepared
physically, mentally, and morally
to fight when necessary
for that which is right.

That a man should make the most
of what equipment he has.

That 'This government,
of the people, by the people
and for the people'
shall live always.

That men should live by
the rule of what is best
for the greatest number.

That sooner or later...
somewhere...somehow...
we must settle with the world
and make payment for what we have taken.

That all things change but truth,
and that truth alone, lives on forever.

In my Creator, my country, my fellow man."

The Lone Ranger
Quote
Share

B
B

May 23rd, 2006, 8:28 pm #22

Thanks for reenforcing my point with the Lone Ranger creed. It doesn't take away from scripture. It is just an aid to help people with scriptural principles.

Sure, there were un-Christian things on the AGS. There were plenty of un-Christian things in scripture, too. It is simply a tool for teaching. It is no different than a sermon illustration for adults or the use of puppets with kids or a parable from Jesus to his disciples. It is the use of a story to make a point. There's nothing at all wrong with that.

Of course, we can stick to the usual C.O.C. playbook and try to ignore our culture and somehow remain relevant to the conversation.
Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

May 24th, 2006, 2:41 pm #23

I expect PPB to respond herself, but I gather that her illustration of “The Lone Ranger Creed” was to demonstrate its morality, similar to the AGS, but its paucity of Christianity, also similar to the AGS. And as we’ve said before, being moral is not necessarily synonymous with being Christian.

Only two elements of the LR Creed mentioned “God” or “Creator”: “That God put the firewood there but that every man must gather and light it himself” and “In my Creator, my country, my fellow man.” Are these references inherently “Christian”? Again, Jews and Muslims believe in “God” and “Creator,” but they do not believe that Christ is the Savior, the Son of God. The essence of Christianity is Christ, which includes morality. Non-Christian beliefs and faiths usually also embrace morality, but they do not embrace Christ. Having morals is not synonymous with being Christian.

Neither the AGS nor the LR teach what people must do to become Christians, how to obey Christ, that they must repent and confess Christ, that they must be baptized by immersion for remission of sins. Those shows teach neither of the Lord’s Supper nor of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, nor of His resurrection. Once when discussing a sermon topic, Opie asked what “seek and ye shall find” meant. Andy stumbled around and couldn’t give a proper answer, because he really didn’t know what it meant either. The scene passed on to other matters. And shows like that are supposed to teach Christianity? The AGS had one episode devoted to Christmas in its entire series, and that was primarily about a secular Christmas party at the jail with Barney dressed as a skinny Santa. As you may recall, it had a “Scrooge” surrogate in lonely Ben Weaver, who “reformed” and brought everyone gifts from his store. Andy and Ellie Walker the druggist did sing one carol, “Away in a Manger.” Lots of morality and soft sentiment but only vague hints at Christianity there.

“B” seems to justify using the AGS as a teaching tool because he alleges that there are plenty of “un-Christian” things in Scripture as well as the AGS. A more accurate statement is that there are far more things definitively “Christian” in the New Testament than there ever could be in the AGS or any other TV sitcom or drama.

It’s senseless to resort to worldly tools that appeal to our culture but that skirt around or present remote shadows of things “Christian,” as the AGS and other TV shows do. It’s far better to stick to and teach from the original Word, the New Testament itself, which is hardly a "playbook."


Quote
Share

B
B

May 25th, 2006, 6:00 pm #24

You guys can't seem to see the forest for the trees.

No one is suggesting replacing scripture with the Andy Griffith Show. No one is suggesting the the AGS is the source of all truth. No one has suggested that one should consult Opie for the plan of salvation or check with Goober on how to worship. No one is suggesting that the AGS was inspired by God or should become part of the canon.

It is simply another method of illustrating Biblical truths. Used without scripture, it is just another T.V. show (although more wholesome than most). Used as a method to illustrate scripture, it is a useful tool.
Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

May 25th, 2006, 6:10 pm #25

THE JESUS PROPOSAL: RUBEL SHELLY AND JOHN YORK

Rubel Shelly and John York claim that as Jesus Christ was the First Incarnation of God as WORD, CULTURAL CHANGES mean that the CHURCH is to be a Second Incarnation of the Word.

Individuals cause division and therefore have NO RIGHT to read and understand the Word for themselves. The true meaning of MODERNISM which they hate seems to be that EVERYONE HAD A RIGHT TO READ THE BIBLE FOR THEMSELVES.
Claiming to be scientists they think that the post-modern era demands that interpreting the Bible must be yanked back under the hands of SCHOLARS or the commune. Only the COMMUNITY (commune) has the right to interpret using the GROUP MIND. But, we have looked at enough SELF-PROMOTED scholars to understand what Jesus meant when He accused them of TAKING AWAY the key to knowledge. Quoting from their book:
  • <font color=red>Rubel Shelly and John York: Our proposal to focus on Jesus means that Scripture is NO LONGER a set of proof-texts or a collection of facts or God's rulebook for human behavior. Scripture is the unfolding story of God acting both to create and to re-create. It is not an easy book to understand. It was NEVER intended as a document to [115] be INDIVIDUALLY read and interpreted--a sort~of correspondence course in salvation. </font>
Isn't it a bit childish to keep on repudiating God's right to regulate our faith and practice? Certainly there are rules: thou shalt not "steal the church house of widows." Thou shalt not call God a liar by rejecting His Living presence as the Word.
  • <font color=red>Rubel Shelly and John York: Prior to the invention of the printing press, access to the content of Scripture was oral. For thousands of years it could only be heard and interpreted in the context of community. Yes, INDIVIDUALS could comment on Scripture, but those comments were always for the LARGER hearing of the community. Only after there was INDIVIDUAL access did there become an opportunity for an individual, isolated reading and interpretation that had no need or use for community. </font>
On the contrary, before movable type most of the great church theologians had written and published their works. Many men such as Heredotus hand copied his text and attended trade fairs and sold copies. Others continued to copy so that there was no lack of access. The church chained the Bible to the pulpit to keep it from getting stolen. The Gutenberg bible was completed in about 1455.
  • <font color=red>Rubel Shelly and John York: Just as identity in Christ is always COMMUNITY identity, our reading of Scripture becomes a COMMUNITY READING as well. , While we still have access to reading as individuals, we stop asking, "What does this mean to me?"--as though there is such an isolated meaning. Instead we have a GROUP MENTALITY that asks, "What does this mean to US?" More importantly, we lay aside INDIVIDUAL interpretations precisely because they are inevitably argumentative and divisive. We GIVE UP the right of individual interpretation and take on the accountability of SHARED READING. This is not a pooling of collective ignorance. The Bible is full of stories from ancient and often quite alien cultural settings and belief systems, and we cannot ignore those differences. So we listen to the voices of scholarship just as we listen to the child who intuitively hears what God is saying in a particular story. </font>
When Jesus went out to preach He did not call the "community." When He spoke of GIVING He insisted that the "community" had nothing to do with it. When He spoke of prayer He insisted that worship in the NEW PLACE of the HUMAN SPIRIT must be done totally alone just as only ONE priest could enter into the Most Holy Place. Paul never promised CUMMUNING but of SCATTERING and persecution. Jesus died to remove the COMMUNITY from off our backs so that we can come to Him and REST from "anxiety producing religious rituals." Jesus defined His presence in the ekklesia, synagogue or SCHOOL OF CHRIST as involving two or three gathered in HIS name and not in the name of a performing preacher or MUSICA team used to HURT people and call it the Holy Spirit.

Peter outlawed such interpretation just as Jesus repudiated the Doctors of the Law. Peter was an EYE-WITNESS and therefore Shelly and York cannot be latter day apostles to deliver the Word in the form of a COMMUNE taxing people Jesus died to free.

Burden as CEREMONY and extra TAXES is guaranteed when the CHURCH takes on the tasks which belong to Caesar:
  • <font color=blue>Phoros (g5411) for'-os; from 5342; a load (as borne,) i.e. (fig.) a tax (prop. an individ. assessment on persons or property; whereas 5056 is usually a gen. toll on goods or travel): - tribute.

    Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. 2 Pet 1:12
    Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; 2 Pet 1:13
    Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me. 2 Pet 1:14
    Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things alway in remembrance. 2 Pet 1:15 </font>
WHY REJECTING THE TEXT BLASPHEMES GOD
  • <font color=blue>For we have NOT followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 2 Pet 1:16

    For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 2 Pet 1:17

    And this voice which came from heaven WE HEARD, when we were with him in the holy mount. 2 Pet 1:18

    We have also a MORE sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye TAKE HEED, as unto a LIGHT that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the DAY STAR arise in your hearts: 2 Pet 1:19</font>
We WORSHIP whatever we GIVE ATTENTION TO. People hate the Bible and warn of idolatry for trusting the ONCE DELIVERED WORD. However, to give heed to God we must give heed to His Word:
  • <font color=blue>Proserchomai (g4334) pros-er'-khom-ahee; from 4314 and 2064 (includ. its alt.); to approach, i.e. (lit.) come near, visit, or (fig.) worship, assent to: - (as soon as he) come (unto), come thereunto, consent, draw near, go (near, to, unto). </font>
WHY IS IT THAT WE SHOULD REJOICE IN SOLA SCRIPTURA? It is either the words of Lord Jesus Christ through an inspired Apostle or it is through a SELF-PROCLAIMED LATTER DAY APOSTLE. Peter speaking for Lord Jesus Christ gave NO ONE the right to INTERPRET the Word. The command of the Word is to "teach the Word as it has been taught" without trying to INJECT false dogma by claiming to be the SECOND INCARNATION. What happened the FIRST TIME?
  • <font color=blue>Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. 2 Pet 1:20 </font>
Because Peter said
  • <font color=blue>Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. 1 Peter 1:11 </font>
INTERPRETATION IS
  • <font color=blue>Epilusis (g1955) ep-il'-oo-sis; from 1956; explanation, i.e. APPLICATION: - interpretation.
    Epiluo (g1956) ep-ee-loo'-o; from 1909 and 3089; to solve further, i.e. (fig.) to explain, decide: - determine, EXPOUND. </font>
What was Paul saying when he DEMANDED that the elders (as the pastor teachers) "teach that which has been taught" and "refute those who contradict it?" Do we need a COMMUNE with a GROUP MIND to explain what Peter meant?

Peter made it very clear but the Phds for which there was no "certificate of need" have to turn the Bible upside down or go down in history as taking from the poor. There is NO community which can with a straight face claim that THE AUDIENCE is incompetent and the GROUP MIND--led by the GROUP LEADER--must INTERPRET the Bible which needs little interpretation unless you INTEND to repudiate Jesus as the Living Word who supplied the Written Word.

Jesus outlawed the Doctors of the Law because they "took away the key to knowledge." Peter was given the keys but HE rejected the idea of continuing revelation. All of the rhetoricians, sOPHISts (serpents), singers, musicians and technikrats in the church fulfilled self-selected roles as SORCERERS. Revelation 18 reveals the fact that the harlot church will be LOADED DOWN with "ministers" pretending to fulfill these functions. Because they performed no useful role they were deemed PARASITES. Pharisees (false preachers), Scribe (false book writers) and Hypocrites (actors, musicians).

The deviant musicians tried to "make a place for themselves in the mainstreem" even though the CHARISMATICS both repulsed and attracted people like a TRAIN WRECK.
  • <font color=blue>And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee; Rev 18:22

    Mousikos (g3451) moo-sik-os'; from Moåusa , (a Muse); "musical", i.e. (as noun) a minstrel: - musician</font>
The "muses" were the "worship team" of Apollo, Abaddon or Apollyon . The LOCUSTS or "musical performers" in Legend had the power to PUT YOU TO SLEEP but they had the STING of a Scorpion. History is agreed that MUSIC stings you before you begin to FEEL SPIRITUAL.
  • <font color=blue>musica , ae, and musice- , e-s, f., = mousikê, the ART of music, music; acc. to the notions of the ancients, also every higher kind of artistic or scientific culture or pursuit: musicam Damone aut Aristoxeno tractante?

    Similar meaning: exegetice , es, f., = exêgêtikê, the art of interpretation, exegesis
    magice- , e-s, f., = magikê (sc. technê), the magic art, magic, SORCERY , medicinam magices factio

    Music has always produced FACTIONS or SECTARIANS:

    factio , o-nis, f. [id.] II. (Acc. to facio, II. B.; lit., a taking part or SIDING with any one; hence concr.) A company of persons associated or acting together, a class, order, SECT, faction, party (syn.: pars, partes, causa, rebellio, perduellio, seditio).

    B. In partic., a company of political adherents or partisans, a party, side, faction

    magia , ae, f., = mageia, the science of the MAGI, magic, sorcery

    mageia , hê, theology of the Magians, m. hê Zôroastrou Pl.Alc.1.122a .</font>
FURTHER REASONS FOR NOT CHANGING SAVIOURS:
  • <font color=blue>For the prophecy came not in OLD TIME by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Pet 1:21

    BUT there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you , who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that BOUGHT them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 Peter 2:1 </font>
Prively means leads in aside, introduce surreptitiously. That means INFILTRATE and DIVERT.
The meaning of the GOSPEL is FREE WATER OF THE WORD. Jesus bought us all. Therefore, anyone who peddles the free Word and denies its power DENIES the Lord that bought them. The Postmodern "scholars" totally deny that the Lord Jesus Christ had the POWER to purchase them with a PRICE and a MESSAGE of good news which could survive OUR culture. The Biblical facts can be perverted but they cannot be HAMMERED out of the Bible.

Paul and peter laid down the MARK: you can tell FALSE TEACHERS if they refuse to teach the word "as it has been taught." Any modern sermonizing opens the door for the false teachers to come in: trained as PROPHETS, CHANELLERS and FACILITATORS.

You say, Whoa! This cannot be happening among OUR scholars. Sure, you just read any of the stuff and it is like a game to see who can pervert the Bible and history the most: the winner gets to be SCHOLAR OF THE YEAR and all of the little scholarettes WILL NOT get their degrees unless they join in the circle. Don't let them take you captive. Read the Word.

Ken Sublett
Instead of using The Andy Griffith Show as a Sunday school teaching tool, why not use a TV drama with an angel in it, like Highway to Heaven (HtH)? Characters Jonathan Smith, an angel on "probation" of all things, and ex-cop Mark Gordon run around fulfilling do-good "assignments" from God, Whom both refer to as "The Boss."

The show is even "relevant" to modern culture, because Jonathan and Mark are not above using "mild" profanity, such as an occasional "damn" or "that's a hell-of-a this or that" when they become angry. An angel using some expletives to "relate" to modern culture!

Yes, Jonathan and Mark serve others and help the needy, but you won't hear the name of Jesus ever mentioned on that show (come to think of it, the only time I ever heard "Jesus" mentioned on the AGS was when Andy and Ellie sang that one-time Christmas carol). And the name "God" takes a back seat to a "cool" but less reverent appelation of "The Boss," which sounds less "churchy," religious, and austere. Similar to the AGS, HtH doesn't teach much of anything about Christianity, obedience to the New Testament, baptism, or definitive biblical doctrine. It teaches morality, peppered with a few expletives, and that's about it.

People need to learn Christianity from the New Testament, not from the pop culture of TV sitcoms and dramas that occasionally present faint shadows of it.
Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

May 25th, 2006, 8:46 pm #26

I expect PPB to respond herself, but I gather that her illustration of “The Lone Ranger Creed” was to demonstrate its morality, similar to the AGS, but its paucity of Christianity, also similar to the AGS. And as we’ve said before, being moral is not necessarily synonymous with being Christian.

Only two elements of the LR Creed mentioned “God” or “Creator”: “That God put the firewood there but that every man must gather and light it himself” and “In my Creator, my country, my fellow man.” Are these references inherently “Christian”? Again, Jews and Muslims believe in “God” and “Creator,” but they do not believe that Christ is the Savior, the Son of God. The essence of Christianity is Christ, which includes morality. Non-Christian beliefs and faiths usually also embrace morality, but they do not embrace Christ. Having morals is not synonymous with being Christian.

Neither the AGS nor the LR teach what people must do to become Christians, how to obey Christ, that they must repent and confess Christ, that they must be baptized by immersion for remission of sins. Those shows teach neither of the Lord’s Supper nor of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, nor of His resurrection. Once when discussing a sermon topic, Opie asked what “seek and ye shall find” meant. Andy stumbled around and couldn’t give a proper answer, because he really didn’t know what it meant either. The scene passed on to other matters. And shows like that are supposed to teach Christianity? The AGS had one episode devoted to Christmas in its entire series, and that was primarily about a secular Christmas party at the jail with Barney dressed as a skinny Santa. As you may recall, it had a “Scrooge” surrogate in lonely Ben Weaver, who “reformed” and brought everyone gifts from his store. Andy and Ellie Walker the druggist did sing one carol, “Away in a Manger.” Lots of morality and soft sentiment but only vague hints at Christianity there.

“B” seems to justify using the AGS as a teaching tool because he alleges that there are plenty of “un-Christian” things in Scripture as well as the AGS. A more accurate statement is that there are far more things definitively “Christian” in the New Testament than there ever could be in the AGS or any other TV sitcom or drama.

It’s senseless to resort to worldly tools that appeal to our culture but that skirt around or present remote shadows of things “Christian,” as the AGS and other TV shows do. It’s far better to stick to and teach from the original Word, the New Testament itself, which is hardly a "playbook."

So according to your argument, Paul shouldn't have used the alter to the unknown god since it was cultural and not scriptural...at least not before Acts 17! The idea of using TAGS isn't to base your theology on Opie and Andy, but to use it as a starting point for Bible based discussion. I personally know that it can also be a good first experience for those who would never set foot in a church of Christ otherwise. Isn't that a good thing? Of course if you have been to a class before you already know these things. Your argument and the website as a whole does remind me of Barney acting as an expert about things he has no knowledge of...nip it...nip it in the bud!

Quote
Share

B
B

May 26th, 2006, 1:47 am #27

Instead of using The Andy Griffith Show as a Sunday school teaching tool, why not use a TV drama with an angel in it, like Highway to Heaven (HtH)? Characters Jonathan Smith, an angel on "probation" of all things, and ex-cop Mark Gordon run around fulfilling do-good "assignments" from God, Whom both refer to as "The Boss."

The show is even "relevant" to modern culture, because Jonathan and Mark are not above using "mild" profanity, such as an occasional "damn" or "that's a hell-of-a this or that" when they become angry. An angel using some expletives to "relate" to modern culture!

Yes, Jonathan and Mark serve others and help the needy, but you won't hear the name of Jesus ever mentioned on that show (come to think of it, the only time I ever heard "Jesus" mentioned on the AGS was when Andy and Ellie sang that one-time Christmas carol). And the name "God" takes a back seat to a "cool" but less reverent appelation of "The Boss," which sounds less "churchy," religious, and austere. Similar to the AGS, HtH doesn't teach much of anything about Christianity, obedience to the New Testament, baptism, or definitive biblical doctrine. It teaches morality, peppered with a few expletives, and that's about it.

People need to learn Christianity from the New Testament, not from the pop culture of TV sitcoms and dramas that occasionally present faint shadows of it.
Again, no one is suggesting the replacement of the New Testament.
Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

May 26th, 2006, 2:50 am #28

So according to your argument, Paul shouldn't have used the alter to the unknown god since it was cultural and not scriptural...at least not before Acts 17! The idea of using TAGS isn't to base your theology on Opie and Andy, but to use it as a starting point for Bible based discussion. I personally know that it can also be a good first experience for those who would never set foot in a church of Christ otherwise. Isn't that a good thing? Of course if you have been to a class before you already know these things. Your argument and the website as a whole does remind me of Barney acting as an expert about things he has no knowledge of...nip it...nip it in the bud!
"Anonymous": "The idea of using TAGS isn't to base your theology on Opie and Andy, but to use it as a starting point for Bible based discussion."

Folks just don't seem to realize that the starting point for any Bible-based discussion, especially in Sunday school of all places, is not with popular TV characters like Andy, the Lone Ranger, Superman, angel Jonathan Smith, Mr. Ed, or Howdy Doody, but with the Bible itself. Get to the heart of the matter instead of fumbling and spinning wheels with TV shows that hint at Christianity but never quite get to first base.
Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

May 26th, 2006, 1:31 pm #29

Again, no one is suggesting the replacement of the New Testament.
"B": "Again, no one is suggesting the replacement of the New Testament."

And again, the place to begin a Bible study is with the Bible itself. The Bible needs no augmentation or supplementation from pop culture, especially TV shows which, again, vaguely hint at Christianity but never quite get to first base.
Quote
Share

Jack Mann
Jack Mann

May 26th, 2006, 6:44 pm #30

Instead of using The Andy Griffith Show as a Sunday school teaching tool, why not use a TV drama with an angel in it, like Highway to Heaven (HtH)? Characters Jonathan Smith, an angel on "probation" of all things, and ex-cop Mark Gordon run around fulfilling do-good "assignments" from God, Whom both refer to as "The Boss."

The show is even "relevant" to modern culture, because Jonathan and Mark are not above using "mild" profanity, such as an occasional "damn" or "that's a hell-of-a this or that" when they become angry. An angel using some expletives to "relate" to modern culture!

Yes, Jonathan and Mark serve others and help the needy, but you won't hear the name of Jesus ever mentioned on that show (come to think of it, the only time I ever heard "Jesus" mentioned on the AGS was when Andy and Ellie sang that one-time Christmas carol). And the name "God" takes a back seat to a "cool" but less reverent appelation of "The Boss," which sounds less "churchy," religious, and austere. Similar to the AGS, HtH doesn't teach much of anything about Christianity, obedience to the New Testament, baptism, or definitive biblical doctrine. It teaches morality, peppered with a few expletives, and that's about it.

People need to learn Christianity from the New Testament, not from the pop culture of TV sitcoms and dramas that occasionally present faint shadows of it.
Dr. Crump, the Lone Ranger was for "justice." I often sat around by old RCA, and listen to the anouncer say: "From down the path comes the thundering hoof beat of the great horse silver, the Lone Ranger rides again!"

Good Doctor, the Lone Ranger was more than just a masked man to the kids of my day. He rode for peace and justice. His justice was to see that men kept the law of the territory.

You see, you could teach a New Testament class on "peace."
But, I would like to hear you take the connotation of Lone Ranger "justice," and apply it to New Testament "Justification." True, the Lone Ranger "reconciled" men to justice by a six gun and silver bullets, not sure if he and Tonto ever heard a sermon by Campbell on "baptism," or "righteousness," but we are not to judge a man on a white horse, riding with an Indian scout....Wouldn't be politically correct.....(-).

You could instruct your New Testament class on how Jesus reconciled men to justice and righteousness in a dying world by using a Cross. You could incorporate Romans 5:9; 3:21-26 in your text. But, I would like to hear a lesson taught by a man of your eminence using 2 Cor. 5:18-21 and correlating Paul's words here with James 2:23,24.
Hi-ho Silver, ....awayyyyyyy!
Quote
Share