Can A Preacher Use Something Visual Or Be Cleaver To Drive Home A Message Point?

Reader would you consider this stunt by this pastor to be “watering down the Gospel” are driving home a point?  There’s a perception among longtime churchgoing folks that the only acceptable way to teach or publicize the message of Jesus is a straight, verbal sermon with no visuals, no metaphors (unless they’re spoken) no modern media, and of course, no humor. Any attempt to communicate our faith using props, videos, skits, or other non-verbal tools is often dismissed as, foolishness. 

Pastor Message:

Goo Goo GA GA When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 1 Corinthians 13:11 You are not grown until you stop doing childish things. — at Enhance Church.



  1. The LORD said HIS WORD..

    They who worship must worship in SPIRIT (NOT FLESH) and IN TRUTH...

    1. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

    2. Witchcraft casting spells and enchantments, whether true or false.

    There it is...HIS WORD, HIS SPIRIT, HIS TRUTH!!!

    Why would anyone want to go through all the drama over a simple little verse is beyond me. I think their intention is to be theatrical. The WORD of God is pure, and sharper than a two edge sword. It doesn't need a GROWN man acting like a baby in a CRIB to over-exaggerate in demonstration.

    Maybe this immature preacher is EXACTLY where he needs to be, DRESSED in baby clothes sucking a BOTTLE!

    This sounds like something UPPITY House NEGRO would do.



  2. You don't need gimmicks to build a church, save a soul, or uplift someone's spirit. All you need is Christ.
    But if you're trying to build YOU... Well you might need to stick to gimmicks.

    1. 98
      Cleaver = a large knife for chopping, etc.

      Clever = witty or intelligent

      There is a difference between a gimmick and a visual aid or an illustration.

      Yes, illustrated sermons can be used and can be effective in giving the Word.

      Jesus set the example by using parables. He used the known--things the people could see and understand such as agriculture, to help them understand the unknown. Jesus often said, the kingdom of heaven IS LIKE...

      A picture is still worth a thousand words.

      Jesus also used parables so that the Pharisees would NOT understand the message he was giving. Sometimes, he had to break down the meaning to his disciples behind closed doors.

      A good illustrated sermons makes a good impact and achieves the intended results.

      Ain't nothing like a poorly conceived or executed illustration.

    2. This STUFF is really NOT that DIFFICULT!

      With a SERMON, we have the teaching of the TRUTH of the WORD of GOD, ie. the SERMON on the Mountain where Jesus "opened his mouth, and TAUGHT THEM".

      Parables are stories used to utter those things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world. One can use a parable preach a sermon, but the idea behind such type sermon must be to teach the truth the parable reveals.

      An illustration is a point to bring clarity. One can use illustrations to a better clarify a point in a sermon, or even to better explain points in a parable. It is not a sermon, nor is it a parable. All parables Jesus used are in the BIBLE ONLY! We can not create any MORE parables. The LORD already revealed the secrets of the kingdom through his written WORD. Again, we can create illustrations to bring forth clarity in a sermon, or better explain a parable.

      A physical demonstration (like the one here) can be used as an illustration, never a sermon or a parable. This demonstration here is not a really good one. It's more theatrics than anything.

      YOU got that UPPITY House Negro...

      Your FRED Sanford GARBAGE is NOT a sermon, because it is NOT TRUTH from Scriptures. IT is not a parable because it does not reveal truths kept secret from the foundation of the world. It is not a demonstration because it is not a physical display. At best it is a VERY VERY POOR and BAD Illustration- JUNK that you made up that does not help clarify any points of a SERMON or PARABLE.


  3. Interesting illustration, but it was somewhat pointless. Hopefully, he explained himself and the church got the point.

  4. I guess Id have to hear the rest of the sermon. Did he talk about things that could be considered "childish" from a spiritual standpoint, or did he say stupid stuff like:

    "so what they talked about you, dry your eyes and stop crying and being childish"

    ...just saying...the black church is legendary for saying that over the pulpit...bottom line, in 2017, unless your dealing with a room full of new unchurched converts, there is no reason to bring out the pack and play......

    1. LOL...

      "there is no reason to bring out the pack and play......"



  5. I guess a lot the Old Testament prophets would have failed yall test of what is deemed worthy for prraching/teaching. They used illustrations all the time. One even got naked and walked around to make points... One even married a whore to make a point all approved by God/Jesus. I'm sure Jesus has no problem w pastors using props to drive a point home.

    1. AMEN!!!!!!!!

      --This Negro will not be Descouraged!!--

    2. NOPE.

      David dancing was his life's experience, not an illustration. Hosea's marriage to a prostitute was his life's experience as well. Your life experience is NOT a sermon, nor is it a parable. Jesus DID NOT use PROPS. He spoke the TRUTH, using WORDS. It's always "Jesus said unto them", "Jesus spoke to the multitude", "When Jesus had spoken these words".

      Even when the LORD used clay to heal the blind man, the clay was just the material he used to anoint the man's eyes. When He turn the water into wine, the water was the material he used to perform His miracle. He used the clay and water to MAKE A POINT HE WAS GOD in the FLESH, not as illustrations to CLARIFY ANYTHING!


  6. I am not opposed to using props and illustrations, because Jesus used parables as a method of illustration.

    Your pastor has crossed the line if he is dressing like a infant, complete with a crib and onesie.

    I am not sure where the line is, but this pastor crossed it.

  7. Dude walked around NAKED FOR 3 YEARS to prove a point to make an illustration... I think dressing up in as a bby in a crib is way less extreme lol:

    Isaiah 20:2‭-‬4 KJV

    At the same time spake the Lord by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot. And the Lord said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia; So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.

    1. Sorry.

      Nice try though.

      But "naked" here, doe not mean nudity. The term was often used not to denote an absolute destitution of clothing, but that the “outer” garment was laid aside. Same thing with King David. He did not dance while nude.

      Isaiah's putting aside his outer garment was not an illustration. The verse here simply made a comparison / prophecy to say as Isaiah stripped his special garment, the Egyptians and Ethiopians would be stripped and carried captive into Assyria. THAT'S ALL!

      Nothing extreme what Isaiah did. Can't compare this great man of God with this baby clown in a crib.
      Way Way NOT THE SAME!

      The WORD of GOD is PURE!

      The WORD of GOD is TRUTH!


    2. soooooooooo..
      it says hos garment was off and that he would be treated as a captured slave who were usually stripped NAKED which is why it says even you BUTT will be bare so at the very miminum the prophet of God was walking around BUTTnaked lol.

  8. Oh wow:

    And we hold that in order to determine which side has the soundest position, whether or not the word ‘naked’ that is mentioned in the verse actually means “stark naked” or “absolutely naked”, we should consider the text of Isaiah 20:2 and its immediate context closely and look at what is really being said.
    “at that time the LORD spoke by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, “Go, and loose the sackcloth from your waist and take off your sandals from your feet,” and he did so, walking naked and barefoot. Then the LORD said, “As my servant Isaiah has walked naked and barefoot for three years as a sign and a portent against Egypt and Cush, so shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptian captives and the Cushite exiles, both the young and the old, naked and barefoot, with buttocks uncovered, the nakedness of Egypt.” (English Standard Version, Isaiah 20:2-4) [emphasis added]
    In the plain wording of the text, Isaiah is commanded to remove his sackcloth and there are no undergarments mentioned here and typically there would be no undergarment beneath the sackcloth, which is something similar to what Jesus is typically depicted to have supposedly worn on the cross. Do you think he was wearing anything additional underneath? The answer should be no and the command was for it to be removed from Isaiah’s waist. The King James Version is even more lucid in its rendering as it says, “loose the sackcloth from off thy loins” which basically means in contemporary English, “take off the sackcloth from your private parts”. And the stark nakedness that is conveyed clearly by the text in its plain form is strengthened further by verse four, which specifically and essentially, without ambuguity, qualifies the nakedness as one that involves the uncovering of the rear end, the buttocks. And to this effect, a Christian author, Don Anderson, writes:
    “God commanded Isaiah to take off his clothes and shoes and walk around naked. How naked? Isaiah was so naked that his buttocks were uncovered – for three years.” [8]
    And, one might wonder, “How would this command that was adhered to by Isaiah have impacted his person?” Perhaps no better description can be given than Matthew Henry himself, even though he promotes the position that we disagree and have shown to be unsustainable, nevertheless his description of what Isaiah might have felt, had he in fact truly had to undergo what is described in Isaiah 20, remains useful and relevant to our discussion.
    “This was a great hardship upon the prophet, it was a blemish to his reputation, and would expose him to contempt and ridicule; the boys in the streets would hoot at him, and they who sought occasion against him, would say, The prophet is indeed a fool, and the spiritual man is mad, Hos. 9. 7. It might likewise be a prejudice to his health, he was in danger of catching a cold, which might throw him into a fever, and cost him his life; but God bade him do it, that he might give a proof of his obedience to God in a most difficult command, and so shame the disobedience of his people to the most easy and reasonable precepts.” [9]

  9. Case closed:

    And Jerome, the great Christian theologian who produced the infamous Catholic Vulgate, or Latin translation of the Bible writes:
    “Isaiah goes naked without blushing as a type of captivity to come.” [13]
    In the foregoing discussion, the preponderance of evidence indicate that the most reasonable interpretation of the text as it stands, even according to the above Patristic writers, inform that Isaiah was indeed commanded to walk for three years absolutely naked without any covering whatsoever, which would have truly shocked the sensibilities of his spectators, but not only that, it shocks even Christians today to the extent that they come up with such clever excuses just to avoid the embarrassing plain meaning of the text as it is.

  10. A pastor dressing up as a bby is NOTHING compared to this:

    Consider Isaiah, who stripped off all his clothes and wandered around naked (Isaiah 20). Or Jeremiah, who not only hid his underwear in a rock but then went back to retrieve it after a “long time” (Jeremiah 13). Jeremiah apparently didn’t mind parting with under garments, but he couldn’t be separated from the cattle yoke he had fastened to his shoulders until another prophet broke it off (Jeremiah 27 and 28). Yet another eyebrow-raiser was Hosea, who married a prostitute and named their daughter Lo-ruhama, which means ‘unloved’ (Hosea 1).
    But the weirdest of the lot may be Ezekiel. After witnessing a vision of God flanked by four chimerical creatures, the prophet ate a scroll that had been given to him (Ezekiel 1 and 3). Ezekiel was called to be a prophet, but his ministry initially did not involve any prophetic words, as God had rendered him mute (Ezekiel 3). Instead he took to drawing, depicting an image of Jerusalem under siege on a clay tablet. Then he lay down on his side, with an iron pan separating him from his clay art. After 390 days had passed, Ezekiel rolled over and repeated (Ezekiel 4).

    After his clay tablet stunt was over, Ezekiel went new diet of barley cakes baked over cow manure (Ezekiel 4). Next Ezekiel used a sword—yes, you read that right, an actual sword—to shave off his beard, dividing his hairs into thirds. He set one third on fire. He scattered another third around the city and stabbed it with his sword. He threw the remaining third into the wind. But the hair histrionics were far from over: Ezekiel had saved a few hairs from such abuse, which he sewed into his clothing. Then he burned some of those hairs too (Ezekiel 5).

    The weird stuff didn’t stop when Ezekiel finally started speaking. In Ezekiel 6, he prophesies against the mountains. Six chapters later, he goes into lurid detail—at least by biblical standards—about the sexual depravity of two sister prostitutes. Later, he prophesies over dry bones in a valley. As Ezekiel stands speaking to his captive audience, he has a vision of the bones coming to life (Ezekiel 37).

    One crucial detail has been omitted in these accounts: the actions of Ezekiel, Hosea, Jeremiah, and Isaiah were commanded by God, which means that we cannot dismiss their behavior. Indeed, these men were not prophets in spite of their eccentricities. Rather, their actions were at the center of their ministry. In the Scriptures, they are explained as symbolic acts that convey divine messages along with their words. For example, the stripping of Isaiah symbolized the future humiliation of Egypt and Ethiopia at the hands of Assyrian conquerors. Jeremiah’s yoke signified the servitude of the Jews to Babylonia while Ezekiel’s dung-warmed meals foreshadowed their exile, where they would be forced to eat unclean food.

    1. Nope it never said he stripped off all his clothes it says

      "At the same time spake the LORD by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot. Isaiah-20-2


      And just like the idea of sackcloth was first mentioned Genesis 37:34 "And Jacob rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his loins, and mourned for his son many days."

      LOINS here in BOTH these Cases, means for them to take them from their WAIST!

      As also again mentioned in Exodus-12-11 And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the LORD'S passover.

      Again about Elijah
      And they answered him, He was an hairy man, and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins. And he said, It is Elijah the Tishbite. 2 Kings 1:8

      And no need for your non-sense, to assume when the Scriptures mentioned "girdle" in Jeremiah, it referenced "underwear". Your ignorance is really pertruding with silliness.

      The verses in Jeremiah 13:1,2

      "Thus saith the LORD unto me, Go and get thee a linen girdle, and put it upon thy loins, and put it not in water. So I got a girdle according to the word of the LORD, and put it on my loins."

      AGAIN DUFUS, it says PUT it UPON thy LOINS (WAIST).

      And again same Chapter
      "For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the Lord; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear." Jeremiah 13:11

      At least you did not divulge such stupidity to assume girdle meant corsett, like women back in the day wore. You definitely display the type mentality to assume such folly.

      Not going to address your silliness about Hosea and Ezekial. I've wasted too much of my time here. The LORD gave these prophets instruction and they OBEYED, so NO NEED to dismiss their behavior. YOU are the one who comes across as weird talking about dirty underwear.

      Bottom line Isaiah is widely regarded as one of the greatest prophets of the Bible. His name means “YHWH (the LORD) is salvation.”

      Jeremiah served as one of God’s prophets through the rule of five kings of Judah, and continue pleading God’s case against Judah during the time of Jerusalem’s destruction by the Babylonians.

      Ezekiel revealed prophecies regarding the destruction of Jerusalem but also the restoration of Israel in his “Temple Visions” while in exile in Babylon.

      Hosea was a prophet as well.



Post a Comment

.......Stay On Topic.......

Popular posts from this blog

Saying Farewell To The Great Lee Williams!

Legendary Gospel Great John P Kee Offers To Feed The Clemson Tigers, After 45 Dropped The Ball!

Pastor By The Name Of Bishop Dr. Victor Couzens Has Been "Exposed"!!!

Black History Facts: Why Ushers Wore White Gloves.

It's Been Alleged That Pastor John Gray Cheated On His Beautiful Wife.

Vashawn Mitchell Performace At Oakwood University Church Didn't Go Too Well, But He Was A Good Sport About.

Vicki Yohe Is Not A Victim, She Got Caught Being The Side Chick To A Black Man.