I think groups like Clowning for Christ are why many people have trouble taking Evangelicals seriously. Their mission statement:
We are a Christ Centered, Bible believing Ministry and our goal is to spread the Gospel through our unique clown performance in the foreign mission field as well as in local churches here in the United States. In addition to our performance ability we also teach a professional level of clowning to all Christian clowns as well as secular clowns.
You can’t make up stuff like that. I thought of adapting Bible verses for CFC — “He emptied himself, and took the form of a clown” — but that verges on blasphemy.
Eric – I think you get the carmudgeon of the day award from CL.
As a way to reach out to people; to draw people that might come to a clown performance and not a worship service; to teach people that you can have fun and still be a Christian, More power to them.
Anna
Hey, at least they’re not clowning around with the liturgy. Give ’em a break: it seems harmless to me. In fact, I go to church with a Catholic clown in my humorless fortress traditionalist enclave.
Questions to ask:
1) Is their doctrine sound?
2) Are they inspired by and guided by Scripture and the Holy Spirit
3) Do they glorify and honor Christ?
4) Do they preach Christ as the Word made flesh and tabernacled among us, crucified and resurrected to life eternal by whose grace alone we are saved, by faith in Whom we are justified and made righteous before God?
If the above are the case, they are to be given the proper latitude in their evangelical mission.
I’ve seen my share of Christian mime, Christian singing, Christian dramatic productions. If Christian clowing presents the Gospel, then glory be to God.
Remember, God chooses that which is foolish to confound the wise. May we be careful to not be wise in our own eyes and judge hastily.
Ken, I am not wise, but I am confounded. I’d ask another question: does this present the Christian faith in a way that lends itself to ridicule?
Come to think of it – it’s probably very undignified.
I don’t find it lending the Gospel of Jesus Christ to ridicule. And the ridicule test is faulty in many ways anyhow. Christ is referred to in Scripture as a stumbling block and as “foolishness” to those who are perishing. The message of the Christ is folly and weakness to the unbelieving Greek and the unbelieving Jew respectively as the Apostle Paul wrote in the book of I Corinthians.
Perhaps you may say Christian cartoons such as Veggie Tales ridicule the Gospel because they don’t conform to a method which you find conventional. But I would beg to differ when you consider it’s a powerful tool to inculcate biblical values into younguns.
Ken, if you showed Clowning for Christ to your average non-Christian, he’d laugh his ass off. I know this because it was sent to me by one of my formerly Christian co-workers. He thought it was hilariously inappropriate.
And most people who hear the Gospel message shake it off as ludicrous rantings of madmen 2000 years ago who followed a ludicrous madman who died on a cross for a crime he could have easily gotten off the hook for if he had played his cards right.
Look, the Gospel is a stumbling block in and of itself. My point is that if the message is doctrinally accurate, if their hearts are in the right place, and if the Holy Spirit is running the show, it’s all kosher.
Who am I to question the move of the Holy Spirit in ministering the Gospel?
Now, if you deny the doctrinal adequacy or the inspiration of the ministry, then you are welcome to argue so and back it up. However, you are arguing, as far as I can see, from a worldly perspective that holds unconventional ministry methods up to ridicule.
Speaking of the measure of human and religious institution ridicule, I’m sure the Pharisees and Sadducees in John the Baptist’s day scoffed at both the message and the method of that voice crying out in the wilderness eating locusts and living a spartan existence by the River Jordan baptizing people outside the spiritual oversight of the Temple authorities. Talk about your clowns, I’m sure they called him that, and worse.
But of course John’s ministry prepared the hearts of the people to receive the ministry and the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Praise God that John didn’t listen to the scoffers, especially from among his relatives (Zechariah of course being a priest in the Temple, John was no doubt surrounded by and accustomed to religious officials during his youth), who no doubt derided John’s ministry by the virtue of its unconventionality.
Our Lord may have been called a clown, but he was not, in the strictest sense, a clown.
Using clowns to teach religion is tantamount to using comic books to teach literacy.
Besides, as my wife always reminds me, clowns are scary.
Clowns? Ick.
No one has seriously indicted CFC with doctrinal error nor seriously indicted the results of their ministry. You’re all making stylistic arguments.
The clown ministry does not mock Christ or His sacrifice for the sins of the world. What they do do is present the love of God in a nonconventional manner, to which, oddly, you reject.
I’d have a problem if they made a whole church based on clowns jumping out of a car and then administering Holy Communion or using a dunking booth to baptize converts. But honestly, it’s simply an evangelical ministry.
We’re instructed in God’s Word that “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.” The Word of God is presented and heard and produces faith in sermons and homilies and grand theological discourses. But the Word of God is also presented and heard and leads to ever increasing faith via presentation in Christian contemporary music, particularly in a lot of good worship music out there. The Word of God is also presented and heard and believed on as the result of Christian cartoons and literature and cinema (yes, I’m eagerly anticipated Mel Gibson’s film, The Passion). And the Word of God is also preached in mime and drama and yes, in “clowning.”
If these guys are doing it of their own accord and outside of the guidance and motivation of the Holy Spirit, their evangelism will falter.
Effective evangelism as we see in Jesus’s ministry and in the early Church in the book of Acts is based on sound doctrine, unity of purpose, constant prayer, and a willingness to be guided not by traditions and protocols of man but by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
So far your criticisms of CFC are based on your faulty inside-the-box thinking which limits God to operating solely within the framework of a traditional clerical outreach.
Yes, but we have a prescribed way to worship (which means a proscribed way, too): Mass. The article quoted in the original post says that this group’s mission is “to spread the Gospel through [their] unique clown performance…in local churches here in the United States.” Who needs this in the local churches?
I am reminded of a priest who used hand-puppets during homilies. I assume he was only trying to engage his audience, etc., but the effect was of making himself (the priest) the centre of attention rather than Him Self (I AM WHO AM) who, through the earthly ministry of our Lord, established a church and a way of worship. The place for the clowns is seated in the pews (without their paint, of course).
Hand puppet homilies may certainly have a place in teaching children.
Jesus instructed us to “suffer not the little children, but bid them to come unto Me.”
I’m sure Jesus didn’t use grand theological wind-baggy talk in teaching the children. Heck, he used parables on grown adults!
Paul writes in I Corinthians chapter 2 that he came to them not in words of human wisdom but in the “demonstration of the Spirit and power, So that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” If the message is delivered truthfully and accurately and by the guidance of the Spirit of God, it’s all good. It doesn’t have to be “wise” in man’s eyes.
A Sunday service that is predominantly done by “clowning” is inappropriate. No question. But when it comes to street theater or separate performances in an evangelical service or revival tent meeting, there’s nothing wrong with it. Do they preach Christ and Him crucified? And if they do, don’t you know that many will find it foolish by any count (I Corinthians 1:21-31).
Furthermore, while the masses in the Masses may contain some clowns, I doubt the early church apostles would be comfortable restricting worship solely to the rigidity and scripted nature of the Mass.
Indeed Paul’s instructions on worship in I Corinthians 14:26-40 are instructive. The early church was animated by beautiful praise, worship, adoration, prayer, and sharing of the Word, including and especially as contributed to by ordinary parishioners as well as elders and deacons. This was all done without the mechanical rigidity of human liturgy, but rather divine order of worship as inspired and managed by unity in the Spirit.
Paul sums it up in verse 40 saying that “all things should be done with regard to decency and propriety and in an orderly fashion.” This after he instructed the church in Corinth not to restrict speaking in tongues and prophesying, but rather to allow both and to test the spirits.
This was and is “normal” and “prescribed” worship. Mass is a beautiful liturgy and its traditions are grounded in Scripture, but certainly Scripture shows us worship can be conducted in an orderly fashion without a rigid construct dictating every step in the process.
Your rigidity in your views of valid worship and different manners of preaching the Gospel lie behind your incorrect attack on the suitability of CFC.
There is a time and purpose to every thing under Heaven. Surely there is a time and purpose for a sermon or homily and surely there is a time and purpose for sharing the Word in other means.
Clowns to the left of me
Evangelicals to the right
here I am
stuck in the middle with you
You’ll enjoy this story.
Interestingly, the nuns’ instructor is an alternative-lifestyle clown, according to her author-partner’s bio blurb.
And now, for your listening pleasure.
And while we’re at it, how about the balloon puppet crucifix, via Extreme Family Entertainment?
I don’t know, Eric. Ever since you got back from the desert it’s been one thing after another — one day suggesting moral responsibility on the part of alcoholics, the next, questioning the efficacy of clown ministry. What next — mimes?
Calm down, boy! I’d diagnose Rummy Syndrome, but am afraid that would get us off on another 12-step tangent.
First, let me offer a cynical wisecrack:
When defending some questionable attempt at ministry, and reason and scripture are not on your side, assert that the Holy Spirit is at work. Your own personal mystical discernment of God’s inscrutable action trumps all the arguments of the doubters.
I’m at work now, so I’ll be back later with the non-cynical take.
I judge by Scripture. No one else here has convincingly laid a Scriptural indictment against this ministry.
And look, if CFC is promulgating false doctrine, I’ll line up and condemn it.
I’m simply saying if the message of salvation through the grace of our Lord is preached in unconventional ways, it has its place in the panoply of ministries out there.
I’ll refer you to the test the Apostle John gives us for testing the spirits in I John 4:1-6. If the ministry does not acknowledge that Christ came in the flesh, it is operating as a ministry of the anti-Christ. It is opposed to Christ. But if it acknowledges Christ, then it’s legitimate.
See also Mark 9:38-41, where Jesus tells his disciples not to rebuke a man who was not of their company but who cast out demons in Jesus’s name. Jesus said in verses 39-40: “Do not restrain or hinder or forbid him; for no ne who does a mighty work in My name will soon afterward be able to speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is for us.”
The Apostle Paul is also instructive in I Corinthians 2:14-16. It is the spiritual man, renewed and regenerated in Christ and given the gift of the Holy Spirit who is able to discern the spirits and test doctrines that are preached for their Scriptural validity. Paul exhorts the church at Corinth, addressing clergy and laity alike: “But we have the mind of Christ (the Messiah) and do hold the thoughts (feelings and purposes) of His heart.
So I’m judging by Scripture, I’m judging by the fruits of the ministry. You guys have said nothing but condemnation of a Christ-centered ministry.
If indeed the ministry is not truly Christ-centered and if their doctrine is false, then your criticisms are valid. But your beef is mostly if not completely with the style than the substance.
OK, did ANYONE read what Bryan said? Clowns are scary.
I think the whole issue is simply a matter of taste, however, I would have to take issue with the statement: “A Sunday service that is predominantly done by “clowning” is inappropriate.” Excuse me, but a Mass which has anything to do at all with clowning is inappropriate(insert liturgical dancing joke here).
Not to mention really tacky and creepy. Clowns. Ewwww.
Thomas, I did read your lyrics, and lo, I laughed unto death.
Mark, I was disgusted by the balloon crucifix. Thank you for passing it along. Your comment about mimes reminded me of a line from the movie “Hot Shots,” where Admiral Benson is giving a mission briefing to the fighter pilots:
“Our assignment is to knock out the nuclear-weapons plant at Falafel Heights. The plant goes on line in 12 hours and is heavily defended. Now, if you have trouble hitting your objective, you secondary targets are here and here: an accordion factory and a mime school.”
Ken, I appreciate your robust defense of Clowning for Christ, I really do. For argument’s sake, let’s grant that they’re completely consonant with the Gospel, because we have no reason to think they aren’t.
You summarize your viewpoint in this sentence: “So far your criticisms of CFC are based on your faulty inside-the-box thinking which limits God to operating solely within the framework of a traditional clerical outreach.”
No, they aren’t. I have no problem with bringing the Christian message into new media. (Including, ahem, the Internet, as you may have noticed from the name of this blog.) I do think it’s tremendously imprudent, and possibly blasphemous, to drag the Gospel into a medium where it is going to be laughed at.
What would you think about a group of clowns re-enacting the Passion? Would that be a good way to move unbelievers to Christ?
When St. Paul said he was a “fool for Christ,” he meant that the Gospel was absurd on the surface to many of his contemporaries, but in its essence it was pure wisdom. A jaded nonbeliever seeing Clowning for Christ wouldn’t get past the appearances of the clowns to the meaning of the Gospel. They’d file it in their brain under “Christians, Why They Are Silly Idiots.”
Alexandra,
Though not a Catholic, I assure you the sacrament of Communion is very respectfully observed in my church. And we do dance and sing and clap hands and all that sort of thing in worship in my church. It’s entirely Scriptural and entirely in divine order of worship.
But my bottom line argument is if you are arguing “taste” then you’re arguing something that is grounded in a human, fleshly reaction to a form of ministry. The REAL issue is if it is rooted in sound doctrine and a pure heart for serving God and reaching out to the lost.
I understand the concern about placing the Gospel to ridicule. And certainly the balloon crucifix and other things of that nature don’t really work as evangelistic tools.
My understanding of CFC is that their ministry isn’t completely “clowning” but that it is used as an icebreaker in outreach.
Bottom line: perhaps the best you can do for CFC is to pray that they are guided by the Lord to effectively minister the Word and not minister inappropriately.
And at the very least, CFC is mildly controversial because of their method of message delivery, not because of a sinful, incongruous lifestyle. It’s not as though it were something completely contradictory to holy living like Strippers for Christ or Fortune Tellers for the Lord or something.
THAT would bring disrepute to the Gospel.
I did a short stint Christian clowning (not for this organisation) and in my experience, its primarily an outreach activity, designed to break the ice in appropriate public forums (fairs, festivals, concerts, etc.). You mime typical silly clown stuff, occasionally do a Christian parable type skit, and mostly hand out balloons and candy with scripture verses written on them. You have a couple of non-clown people around to evangelise the crowd that gathers. Its not a worship service, or something that would take part in a church building.
Ken, what you call a “human, fleshly reaction” and “worldly” in another post, is entirely correct, and bolsters what I’m saying: that worldly people seeing this aren’t going to try to discern God’s will for them.
I am human and fleshly. That’s how God made me and you and everybody else. When the Bible refers to temptations or sins of the flesh, it means the passions that come from our fallen incarnate beings. It does not mean that our bodies are opposed to our spirits; they are subordinate yet still of great value. After the Final Judgment, we’ll still have our senses, just as Christ did after the resurrection. Our senses give us clues about the nature of the universe and its Creator, and aesthetics is directly connected to our perception of truth. Thus, you can’t really blame a nonbeliever for being skeptical about a faith that presents itself in this way.
Oy vey, Eric.
My point is we should be careful not to fall into the trap of criticizing from the same template that the great masses of the unwashed do.
I’ve referenced Scripture in my previous posts about how God uses the foolish things in this world to confound the wise. Wise as in wise in the wisdom of this world. I think your concerns with CFC are based in the wisdom of this world, and not the wisdom from above.
I’m not advocating some New Age absurd crap. Perhaps I could have phrased it better. My point is to renew your mind with the Word of God and a godly perspective on different Christian ministries and NOT to think in terms of the way the world does.
I realize that the horse is not yet dead, but almost, and we’re still beating it.
Perhaps I am the one who is being unclear. I’m saying that when you evangelize, you *must* try to look at what you’re doing from a worldly perspective. I’m not saying that Clowning for Christ is a bunch of bad dudes, because I don’t know them. But they aren’t likely to do much good, and they probably harm the spread of the Gospel by further insulating nonbelievers’ minds from accepting Jesus Christ. There’s nothing worldly about that perspective. If a form of evangelization doesn’t work, then try something else that does. Providing a good example, doing good works, preaching when the time is right, etc., are a better approach.
Anyway, this has been an interesting debate/discussion. I’ll wind up my arguments by saying that I suppose there’s a unique audience for this ministry that reaches some people more than others.
I suspect it works most of all to reach children and secondarily to break cultural and language barriers in overseas ministry in order to till the soil for the Word to be sown in the hearts of those who hear it.
I still don’t agree with your beef with CFC, but I appreciate the sentiments behind them, Eric.
Anyway, I enjoy your insights.
I’ll keep an eye on this blog and I’ll occasionally drop a line for comment or whatever.
LOL! You sure do know how to open up a can of worms, Eric! I don’t think it’s blasphemous, but it is rather unorthodox. Maybe if we looked at it the other way around: instead of a ministry that uses clowning as its modus operandi, look at it as a clowning group that has taken on Christianity as it’s message. It’s akin to the many pop/rock/rap acts that are labeled as Christian music. Their methods are secular, but they are using them in an attempt to bring people closer to God. That can’t be a bad thing.
P.S.-Bryan is right though, clowns are indeed scary!
Ken,
Please notice that I confined my comments about the inappropriateness of ‘clown liturgies’ to the Mass… I am well aware that other denominations have that sort of thing and that is entirely within their discretion… not my pervue, as people have become so fond of saying.
You can make a case, true, for liturgical dance based on passages in the Old Testament, but there you are dealing with a culture that viewed dance very differently than we do now. Dancing, in Western culture, has a sensual aspect that has made it, for many hundreds, if not thousands, of years, to be inappropriate for Western Christian worship. I have been told that liturgical dancing is permitted to Catholics where the culture always viewed dance as an expression of the sacred, and I have absolutely no problem with that. Just as long as I never again have to see a cohort of middle-age ladies in skin-tight unitards prancing around the altar waving embroidery hoops strung with ribbons from Total Crafts.
Father Groeschel tells the story that during one such episode he swears he heard a laugh from the Tabernacle. All I heard was my Mom and her best friend sniggering so loudly that one could hardly hear the mighty strains of ‘Gather us In’ (insert girdle joke here.)
You must allow us beleaguered Catholics our moments of levity on the subject, Ken. When one’s church is beset by enthusiastic ‘liturgical innovators’ on every side, one tends to be a little hyper-sensitive!
Chris, I also have major problems with Christian pop/rock/rap, as it reminds me of “new wine in old bottles.”
That is, as you allude, another can of worms.
I am reminded of the charming story of the Juggler of Notre Dame. Clowning, like juggling, has its place. It most definitely isn’t in church, I’ll grant you that. I’d be the first among you to ditch a “clown Mass” if I ever had the misfortune of attending one. But if a bunch of clowns want to incorporate a Christian message into their work, that seems perfectly harmless and probably helpful to some people.
Pligrim to old monk: “Father, is it permitted to smoke while praying.”
Old monk: “No, my son, one must never be distracted by smoking while at prayer.”
The pilgrim thinks for a moment, taking in the advice, and seems visibly discouraged. Then his eyes light up, as if hope has returned, and he asks the wise old monk another question.
Pilgrim: “Father, is it permissible to pray while smoking?”
Old monk: “Of course my son. One should do all things with prayer.”
Yes! I was wondering when someone was going to bring up the juggler!
The difference between the JOND and CFC is that the juggler juggled because that was his only skill with which to honor Our Lady. His juggling did not carry any message, whereas the clowns’ clowning is supposed to convey the gospel. I have no doubt that if someone is a professional clown, and dedicates his work to Christ, then God must be pleased.
Everyone does their own thing with God their own way. That’s it.
Lots of people might, but we ought to do God’s own thing God’s way.
Here’s the non-cynical part of my answer.
1. Religious art deserves to be made skillfully.
What we’re talking about here is the application of an art form to express a Gospel message, and as in any art we make for God, grace builds on nature, and the success of the communication depends on the craftsmanship of the work.
The commitment of CFC to excellence of performance is a good sign.
2. On the other hand, some art forms come with cultural baggage that can be an impediment or contradiction to the Gospel.
Both Chris and Eric mentioned the example of rock music as a vehicle for the Gospel, and I think it’s an apt analogy. A lot of rock music conveys anger and libido, so it’s understandable when people question whether and how that genre can be prudently applied to religious themes. (Pop music is another matter.)
IMO the figure of the clown in popular culture has more ambiguity than does rock music. With the clown, as with any masked figure, the viewer doesn’t necessarily feel that he understands the character.
Many children — many people in general — have a natural fright at masked figures with their not-quite-human faces. Horror films have played on this fear, going beyond the mysterious clown to the downright evil and threatening clown — an association that I think practically ruins the art form’s prospects.
Eric and Friends,
After reading your post I thought I might take a moment and contribute. I am a full-time Children’s Evangelist and Clown. The first thing that many do not know is that clown ministry has a rich tradition in the church. In Mid-evil times Clowns were used in church. The service was in Latin, and many common people had no understanding of what was going on. There was a trap door above the altar and the clown, or jester would open the door (sort of like on Laugh-in) and would provide a “divine interuption” using humor to explain what was going on or some point of theology. I have done clown ministry since 1999. I have found that people respond well to clowning. It makes faith interesting for children. And if you can make doctrine, theology, dogma, and faith meaningful to children, it will also make sense to adults.
Yours in Christ,
Bob Smith,
aka Handi the Clown
Eric, Just happened across this thread re. Clowns and Ministry. I read thru the many comments on clowning in the church and I was so surprised to see such attitudes.
Have we forgotten that whatever we do, we do for Christ? So it is with the Christian Clown. I know that to show God’s love to others, actions speak louder then words, and if that’s what it takes, that is what we should do! Also, if God has blessed me with the heart of a clown, then I should sing his praises even when I’m clowning.
Next time you drive down the street, shop at the grocery store, whereever, look around and see if you see the heart of Christ in your actions or are you just giving lip service?
As a clown I am more then happy to show God’s love. But then I think actions speak louder then lip service anyday. The next time you see a Christian Clown, stop,watch and listen. You will laugh, you will think, and you will probably get a better understanding of Clowning for Christ and how it introduces Christ to people.