Not only are they enjoying secular music in what is supposed to be an assembly of saints for the glory of God, but the music selected is by men accused multiple times of child molestation!
Free Chapel Oct2107
What manner of filth is this?
Hat tip Covina.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Independent Conservative - Copyright 2008 - Copyright Notice
[powered by WordPress.]
32 queries. 0.413 seconds
December 1st, 2007 at 12:34 am
I desperatly want to say you must be mistaken. But unfortunately I know you are not. This is just sickening. Where are the true Saints who will stand up and say no more and call them out as the workers of iniquity in front of the ‘assembly’. Preaching repentance is no long ‘revelant’ anymore I guess. All I can do is shake my head. Satan is just laughing at their folly as many fall off the ‘cliff’ into his pit with the help of preachers like this.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:56 am
I watched about 5-6 seconds and I feel the need to bathe.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:17 am
I must admit that I was huge MJ fan at one time. Especially 1991 Dangerous album. Sorry IC just being honest.
Now as for this being held in a church is another matter all together. This is just nonsense. Absolute heresy.
Kyle
December 1st, 2007 at 9:11 am
Surprised? Not much. Interesting that Franklin jokingly disavowed it before it was presented. Listening to the whooping as it began makes me wonder if it was their own people who were thrilled at it or was it coming from the "unchurched" who had been invited. If it was the "unchurched," then they must have been delighted that the church was "sensitive" to their unregenerate tastes.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:33 am
IC,
You know from reading my blog (which is down right now b/c my webmaster is putting me on a different server) that I take pride in exposing pimps.
This J. Franklin video, taken "as is" is actually deceptive.
Franklin does a version of this expose of music every year and I can tell you what he is doing since I saw on t.v. at least twice the full version of this "show".
What he does via the live production is highlight a variety of famous artists. One year he included the late singer, Ailya (forgive misspelling of her name). In the production, the person playing the role will sing part of the person’s song.
Then there is a fade to black.
Then there is a voice which explains to the audience the problem with that person and the person’s lyrics. The goal is to ultimately show the audience the destructiveness of that type of music.
Again, I have seen a version of this yearly show in its entirety. Minister Franklin is not uplifting those artists. He in fact is using their music to show the error of their ways.
If it were any other way, I’d be the first to blast him.
LennieG (Lynn)
December 1st, 2007 at 9:46 am
I have to agree with Lennie on this video. I remember seeing one where he did a imitation of Aliya and Tupac and then showed how there lifestyles and music a problem and how they both died in darkness.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:51 am
Stan said:
And doesn’t that show there is no true order in his assembly? It really shows that he knows he’s wrong. I mean he really knows and still goes along with it. He’s trying to pass blame off to others when he’s the one who could have said no.
Lennie - I’ll take your word that he says they are no good at the end. This is about a pathetic as the Black Gospel stage play method. Where they have the crowd revel in the garbage, by playing it all out for everyone to enjoy and then acting like "oh that was so wrong"… It’s a cheap means to enjoy the filth and then claim "oh but that was not right". Notice, what is being posted online is the filth, because that’s what the kids are enjoying. Why is it that so many ministers can point out the evil WITHOUT giving a full show of evil? J. Franklin is making a show to excite the flesh and shoots any good in the foot.
Lennie, this is not good.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:34 am
Her name is spelled Aaliyah.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:35 am
True, IC. With that logic, he could show a porno, then speak against the evils of immorality.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:34 pm
The whooping in the audience is disturbing. If it is from his own people, which is more likely, it shows that he really is an "ear tickler" who knows what he is doing. What should have erupted from the church was sighs and groans of disgust, resulting in his being called to account for the disgraceful display. To think that he allowed to have his own people learn the "Thriller" dance routine is quite a shock, actually. What a false shepherd. His disavowal is meaningless, for he must give account for his ministry and the souls he has jurisdiction over.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Very well said Stan.
And like all the other celebrities of the Religious Industry, he’s having a DVD signing…
MOVING FORWARD DVD SIGNING
Perhaps its just me, but I never found signing events to be the mark of a humble man.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:27 pm
IC Said - It’s a cheap means to enjoy the filth and then claim "oh but that was not right".
Great point IC. That’s what I noticed about the 2pac presentation. The teens loved it, then he states how it was a bad way to live.
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:36 am
My Two cents,
The Franklin situation reminded me of something which happened at Jamal Bryant’s church when they had the movie "I think I love my wife" with Chris Rock & bought out a theater to show the film & later critique it so people would know what "not to do".
Now, many youth groups have done the same thing with noble intentions. Nevertheless, though, would you submit pornography to children in order to teach them that it’s wrong? Or expose them to a Brothel in order to REALISTICALLY show them its dangers? Of course not…..but that’s the FULL LOGICAL extent of the reasoning at Free Chapel… The issue isn’t avoidance of any REAL portrayal of sin or social issues—the Bible is full of stories about the sinfulness of humanity. But there is a right and wrong way for sin to be portrayed.
As Joshua Harris said in "Not Even a Hint", "A portrayal of sin should never prompt the reader/viewer only to want more of the same. Today many images of sin that should produce REPULSION instead produce attraction.” There’s a BIG difference between reading in Scripture about David’s adulterous affair with Bathsheba, which is condemned as wickedness, and watching an adulterous affair or lewd content in a film that’s celebrated, making it appear GOOD.
Likewise, when the media’s promoting an evil message (i.e. presenting sin in a attractive way, and celebrating sins like lying, stealing, murder, sexual immorality etc), or using an evil method to make a point (ex. Jakes “Woman Thou Art Loosed”, where the story makes the point of sexual abuse being bad while having the performers behave shamelessly, n’ making viewers wallow through HEAVY graphic sexuality/temptation), then it’s WORLDLY….
For some excellent resources on the issue, consider these:
http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001258.cfm
http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001277.cfmAnd avoidance is QUITE necessary…..
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:43 am
To be fair, I think there’s some merit reagrding the methodology of Franklin. As another wisely said on the subject, "The Christian community must do a better job of showing people how to ask the questions that make a person media literate. If we are indeed the “royal priesthood” that we are described as, then our job description includes the command of Ezekiel 44:23, “They are to teach my people the difference between the holy and the common and show them how to distinguish between the unclean and the clean.”We must live not as passive sponges but as mindful agents. As Bill Romanowski (author and Calvin College professor) says, “There’s some good stuff out there and lots of bad stuff and, if people are going to live as mature Christians, they’re going to have to learn to tell the difference.”
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:16 pm
I find this to be inaccurate. It flies in the face of the MANY ministers of the gospel INCLUDING SCRIPTURE IT’S SELF that are able to convey truth without offering full displays of something not fitting for an assembly of saints.
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:19 pm
He did not simply show a clip of some video, his own people learned and performed the routine.
Instead of spreading time learning to praise the Lord and pursue Christ, they learned Thriller.
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Hey Brah,
I have a post previous to this one awaiting moderation that clarifys my stance, for I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE TO SHOW SIN FULL BLOWN IN ORDER TO EXPOSE IT.
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:21 pm
And again I note, look at how ineffective the result has proven to be. Instead of his supposed good message, the secular performance is what was captured for video presentation on the Internet.
I will add, that Michael Jackson fan sites are running copies of the YouTube video with great glee.
This was a terrible idea and an utter failure.
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:26 pm
I recall the discussion of that film and Bryant’s actions here:
I Think I Love My Lord
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:17 pm
To clarify, I’M NOT DEFENDING THE THRILLER RE-MAKE.
Where I’m coming from is the basic principle of discussing a paticular aspect happening in the culture and comparing that to what the Word of God says.
Regarding Franklin, I believe we’re both in agreement that his presentation was WAY OFF.
Can you imagine if I wanted to teach my youth group about the dangers of "sexual immorality" & did a remake on stage of the video by Missy Elliot "LET ME WORK IT" or R. Kelly’s "I don’t see NOTHING WRONG WITH A LITTLE BUMP & GRIND"? (LOL, LOL)
If he wanted to talk about the evil’s of thriller, it probably would’ve been best if he discussed the philosophy of video without having a REMAKE OF IT ON STAGE (prayerfully, if you’re a child of the 80’s/90’s, you’ve already heard of the video by now, lol)……or at least simply show a small clip/segment of the video to illustrate a point.
A pracitical example would be discussing some lyrics by Tupac (EDITED of course, Ephesians 5:3-7,)and showing where what he said was of merit (lest we’re not on the same page that every culture/religion has an aspect of Truth in it), what was off and directing people toward the larger picture of CHRIST/HIS WORDS. The same could be applied to movies, where one could use things such as "CLEAR PLAY" to edit movies so one could watch without being exposed to things compromising their purity…..or using things such as "MOVIE NIGHTS" from "Focus on the Family", where the movie summaries are placed up, with comparisions/contrasts to Scripture & discussion as to how it relates to one’s life.
http://search.focusonthefamily.com/search?q=movie+nights&site=family_org&entqr=0&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&client=focusonthefamily_com&ud=1&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&filter=0&proxystylesheet=focusonthefamily_com
IMHO, That’d be similar to what Paul did, where he engaged the culture by becoming willingly exposed to differing philosophies, finding common ground by emphasizing where the unsaved agreed about God or what was actually truthful, & then moving his message toward the person of Christ ( Acts 17:16-33. )
Though there has been much mess by people going to the extreme in trying to connect with the culture, I’ve witnessed many youthgroups that’ve approached the situation with a balanced mentality & have had EXCELLENT RESULTS.
It simply a matter of trying to do as Paul and connect with the culture as fair as consciense/scriptural examples allows (I Corinthians 9:19-27)…and I’d like to be fair in the assement since it’s not a "ONE SIZE FITS ALL" deal with EVERY YOUTH GROUP AROUND (and as a Youth Worker, I’ve seen alot, Proverbs 11:1, Proverbs 16:11, Proverbs 20:10)
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Brah. I loves a good discussion (smiley faces/hugs to you)
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Brother, I was helping youth when you were still young enough to be in one of those groups
.
I know we can break things down without doing something insane like having our own people learn an entire routine by secular artists. The kids already know the lyrics, you don’t have to present them, just have them consider what they already know when weighed against scripture.
What good the world has is of common grace, but won’t save them, given they can’t be saved via works or philosophies that are not Christ, Colossians 2:8. Given our own self righteousness is filthy, Isaiah 64:6. Paul knew enough of the secular to bring out the sheep, but did not promote tuning into much evil, Romans 16:17-19.
Yes, smiles and brotherly hugs to you. I knew a church assembly that tried the holy kiss once, but it was never something I participated in
. And lets just say they had to cut back on it 
. (No they were not a place anywhere close to having order to begin with. Something from my past in the hyper-charismatic.)
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Actually, Brah, I’ve experienced the "holy kiss" deal myself. Except it was kind of awkward when it happened. The man was an ex-convict who had a RADICAL EXPERIENCE in PRISION WITH CHRIST, & did HOMELESS MINISTRY.
Imagine a bulky, 6.5 FOOT, TATOOED DUDE coming up to give you a hug and kiss on a check…..& when trying to resist, having him tell you, "Brah, don’t play like that…..Bible says I gots to do this." (which is what happened.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Of course, the moment where it gets to the men using that line to score points with the ladies, I GOT’S A PROBLEM……..(and I’m guessing that was probably your experience with hyper-charismatic since Reformed Charismatics don’t generally do that)
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:26 pm
A brother out of prison wanting to give me a kiss…I don’t know if I’d be able to think of it as "holy". I’m weak (as in I might wrongly take offense), so I just let my wife be the only one to kiss me
.
And yea, that "holy kiss" effort I witnessed was selective and just didn’t go as well as planned by the elder who proposed it. I conveniently remained in the back of the building while they did it. I mean even when I was attending (pretty much grew up in) hyper-charismatic assemblies, I just knew some things were not working out well.
And true, we folks who are of the Reformed view (the present view I’ve come) don’t go around kissing
.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:32 pm
As far as the "holy kiss" is concerned, just give me a form of the 1 Corinthians 8:13 treatment
.
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:01 pm
That’d be something good to post on, actually (if I may suggest).
THe church at Rome was instructed not only to greet one another, but explicitly—“with a holy kiss.” You find This command not only once, but 5 times in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 16:20; 2 Corinthians 13:12; 1 Thessalonians 5:26 and 1 Peter 5:14.)…..& if you’ve ever been to Europe, they seem to have no problem expressing it in what seems to be a most GODLY WAY.
Some may say it was just cultural, but the repeated emphasis/ease which Paul commanded it may say something about whether the mentality against it is ofen based on PERSONAL BIAS/DISLIKE than Scripture.
http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&safe=active&client=pub-5916974983069861&channel=6250499698&cof=FORID%3A1%3BGL%3A1%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.bible.org%2Fassets%2Fimages%2Fmain_headl5.gif%3BLH%3A50%3BLW%3A235%3BLBGC%3A000000%3BLC%3A%230000ff%3BVLC%3A%23663399%3BGFNT%3A%230000ff%3BGIMP%3A%230000ff%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3B&domains=www.bible.org&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&q=holy+kiss&sitesearch=www.bible.org
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Holy Kisses aside, not many guys are even comfortable giving things such as hugs, crying, and being affectionate to one another…..& what’s saddening is that the Bible doesn’t seem to support the mentality ONE BIT, yet entire sermons have been made in defense saying "That’s just how men are." I contend that just how men have been raised to think.
Look at David & Jonathan friendship (to the point of ENORMOUS SELF-SACRIFICE/DEDICATION & affection….even to the point of, hugging & KISSING, (I Samuel 18:1-4, I Samuel 20). Look at the characteristics of Colossians 3:12-13 , I Peter 3:8).
Though I’ve been blessed to have this type of friendships in my life, I’m sadden for how many men have literally be ROBBED of this type of INTIMACY & have been trained to see it as UN-MASCULINE.
http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001486.cfm
I’m steppping off my soapbox now…….
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Yea, like I said, I’m weak. Too easily offended. So keep your lips off me, lest I stumble
.
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Don’t let me find your church, Brah. Smooches are comin’n for ya the moment I recognize…….& if stuff hits the fan, so be it.
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Regarding "Thriller", so as to not sound hyprocritical, I did like the music video. The dances were cool, but that’s just me……..
December 4th, 2007 at 10:44 am
GxG said,
Amen! Like the old saying goes, "I ain’t got to eat a shovel full of horse manure to know it don’t taste good."