We can, yes, but should we?

I am wrestling with the implications of the gospel for our entertainment choices.

Has there been anything written on the Christian view of leisure? Perhaps Tim’s book addresses this very issue!

I find that the “is it necessary?” argument is growing old and tired with regard to what we do and don’t do - particularly as it relates to art.

To base one’s theology of ethics on “is it necessary” is clearly problematic if you understand that grace is “gratuitous,” that is, “given or done freely.” If God operated on the basis of “what is necessary,” we’d all be in a lot of trouble. But, thankfully, the nature of God’s giving of himself is centered on love and enjoyment.

A better starting question is probably to ask whether something like a film or a television show is truthful and/or beautiful, and/or good.

But this requires much stronger rationale than simply looking up the “content,” which is a shallow way of considering whether an artistic depiction is worthwhile.

As my favorite Christian film critic Jeffrey Overstreet likes to say, there is a difference between a film that depicts immorality and one that carries out immorality. And discerning the difference can be difficult, but necessarily involves discerning context.

In other words, a better question than “does this movie or tv show have immorality?” might be “does this movie or tv show depict immorality truthfully?” The latter does not glorify sin; it exposes sin as sin. Big difference.

Of course, content is still important and what one is able to watch varies from person to person and, thus, more discernment here is required.

But one starting place for the general American public (yes, Christians included) might be to stop “consuming” culture uncritically (particularly films), and begin consciously thinking about what one is watching. “Reading” a film or tv show can be difficult business because of its basis in image, but when we stop being purely consumptive of culture, we desire more than to be merely entertained as if on a roller coaster; and, therefore, we become less likely to be affected by the “content.”

Food for thought.

I am not sure what to make of the “is it necessary?” arguement. What is behind their thoughts when Christian’s use an arguement like this? Getting to the heart of this, should determine whether their point is good or not.

Nick,

I’m hesitant to respond, as I don’t want to start a debate in the comments here.

Your point is well taken, though I often find the movement in some circles toward “cultural engagement and/or transformation” also old and tired. Perhaps its just me, but that line of thought is too frequently tossed out as a justification by Christians to watch, listen, or read whatever they want to read with no actual consideration for the implications of the gospel on their choices.

My interest is less in debating content of television, movies, and music, and more on unpacking the gospel implications for how we spend our time. Again, not a content question, but more of a value question.

My question (and I’d honestly love to hear your thoughts) is not on whether or not the material in Mad Men (or any other television show Christian or otherwise) is immoral or moral, but why we are watching television or movies in the first place. Don’t we have better things to do? Are those hours time well spent?

Sorry for the longish response. I wasn’t trying to come off in a legalistic way. There is a growing trend within the evangelical population that labels any judgment with behavioral implications “legalism,” and that troubles me. How do we determine “right” and “wrong” in entertainment choices? Can we? Aren’t there some value judgments that are universal? How do we determine what are the gray areas of personal preference?

Do you know of any worthwhile materials that discuss the implications of the gospel on our leisure time?

“Sentence 1 of comment 3 implies it.”

No, it does not in any way. Comment 3 is not asking if it is necessary, but if it is wise. Those are two clearly distinct questions. “Is it necessary” is a halfway rhetorical question that implies that that which is not necessary, is best avoided.

“Should we?” is simply the question that should be asked about everything we do, at every moment. But it is not a simple question, and is not answered by asking whether it is necessary, nor by whether it is forbidden, nor even by whether it is permitted, but by wisdom.

Pentamom:

Both are implied by the “should we” because we know that the subject (watching Mad Men) is not explicitly forbidden. The question of relative necessity is always implied by the question of “should.” To ask if one “should” do something is always to implicitly ask of its necessity.

See definition 3 if you are still confused: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/should

Then go to “must” and see definition 2.

Either way, I am perplexed by your resistance toward the matter. Is it really something to get bent out of shape over? My point wasn’t really to confront comment three so much as to present the issue truthfully (though I did sense the issue was raised in comment 3). Is your problem with what I said or with why I said it? If it is the latter, then *should* you have commented? :) Seems unnecessary.

Either way, I still stand by my comments and think they’re edifying or worthwhile for many people who read this blog and misunderstand a Biblical approach to culture, the arts, etc.

I shared some “wisdom” on the issue in my most recent comment. Hopefully this alleviates your offense at my concern over the merits of doing only that which is necessary.

Oh, and as for why I’m bent out of shape — well, I don’t consider that a fair description of my reaction.

But I responded because someone legitimately suggested that we should always consider whether doing is something is good even if it is permissible, and you reacted to an argument that he didn’t make, in a way that dismissed his his concern entirely. I didn’t think it was fair to dismiss that concern at all.

Taking my previous “take a walk” example to something like a TV show, we can grant that many things that are not necessary are permissible, and still wind up asking ourselves whether spending the time watching it is a legitimate way to relax (it might be), to amuse ourselves (it might be) or is it something that would violate our consciences or present unnecessary temptations? Plenty of things, like chocolate mousse, are not necessary, can be harmful to some people but not others, but are fine to do. I would even say there are times a person *should* eat that mousse, because enjoying God’s material blessings is something we should all do, in the right ways, proportions, and circumstances. But it’s still not “necessary.” One can have a good and godly life without ever touching chocolate mousse — maybe you don’t even like it.

And I did not dismiss his concern. Read my comments after my initial comment. I addressed his more specific concern after I addressed a common objection among evangelicals.

Pentamom

Very good advice. :)