I hesitate to comment after the flurry of e-mails but it is an important
subject. I agree whole heartedly with the excellent posts by Chad (&
others), yet isn't it true that the content of what is proclaimed can be
contradicted by the method employed to actually proclaim it? What would be
regarded as an inappropriate media of proclamation?

Neil

-----Original Message-----
From: Dea5315@... [mailto:Dea5315@...] 
Sent: 26 February 2004 15:44
To: soundofgrace@...
Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] the both/and in proclamation

In a message dated 2/25/2004 4:54:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,
breusswane@... writes:

> You don't get it.  It's up to you to prove how a skit is 
> not the same "word
> of God" as a sermon.

Chad,
With all due respect, you don't get it sir. Because if you did, you wouldn't
ask such a ridiculous question.  A skit is not the same "word of God" as a
sermon because it is a totally different medium and the mediums THEMSELVES
generate a message even apart from the content.  One is VISUAL, one is
AUDIBLE. 
But, since you just flat out refuse to prove your "other means or mediums"
instead of preaching, I guess we remain at a stand still on this.

David

--
Read the Sound of Grace pages at
http://www.soundofgrace.com

To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...

To view our online archive go to our web page at
http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace