Pictures Aren't Words
Yesterday the Resurgence blog posted an article by Greg Wright, a writer and film critic. The article was titled “Movies, Morality, and Ratings: A Hard Look at Our Opinion of Films.” He begins like this:
Consider this graphic Hollywood plotline: A man travels to Las Vegas to retrieve his cheating wife. On the way back to Los Angeles, the two stop at a rundown motel in Death Valley. During the night, a mob of sexual degenerates surrounds their cabin, threatening to sodomize the man. Hoping to appease the bloodlust, the man throws his wife outside—and when morning comes, the mob has left nothing of her but a corpse. The man cuts up her body and sends pieces of it to his friends… But that’s nothing compared to the bloodbath that follows.No, this isn’t the synopsis for Saw IV or the latest Quentin Tarantino gore-fest. It’s an update of a not-so-familiar biblical story from Judges 20-21. But imagine if that story were made into a film. How the critics would rant, Christian and otherwise. If told without flinching, the story would earn an NC-17 rating for sure; and there’s probably no way to tell it in a fashion that would cut the rating to PG-13. Of what possible redemptive value could such a story be?
He goes on to say that we should have realistic expectations for films, knowing that they can, at best reveal only a portion of what is true. Context is everything. “No movie—no single tale in Scripture, even—can possibly tell the whole story of God’s redemptive plan.” The purpose of the article is to encourage Christians to watch movies and to do the difficult work of discernment in separating the good from the bad. “That’s no reason to shirk the task, though. We might take encouragement from the words of John F. Kennedy, who observed that we do these ‘other things’ not ‘because they are easy, but because they are hard.’”
Throughout the brief article Wright compares what is visual to what is written, the image to the word. And here is where I part ways with so many Christian film critics. I admit in advance that this article rambles a bit and that I may not even know what I’m saying. But bear with me. It seems to me that we cannot neatly separate the medium from the message. Many film critics would seem to have us believe that we can have a story in words or a story in images and it really makes little difference. We can, in other words, have the message in roughly the same way in either medium. But I disagree.
Like me, I’m sure you’ve heard people defend the violence and swearing and other ungodly behavior in film by saying, “The Bible has all of these elements!” And this is true. The Bible has many stories of violence and sexuality and just about every other manner of sin. But there is a difference.
It is all well and good to suggest that a movie based on Judges 20-21 would receive the ominous NC-17 rating. It likely would and for good reason. Yet when we read it in the Bible it would not. Why? Because words convey the story far differently than images. With words we read only what we need to know and receive little detail. We know the broad outline of the story, but the details are blessedly hidden from us. This would not be the case if the story were told in images. As film, the details would be in full view. We would see rape and bloodlust and dismemberment. We would see the parts of the story that were kept from us. If we have a high view of the Bible we have to accept that God gave us only and exactly what He wants us to know. He did not give us exhaustive truth, but did give us sufficient truth. There is a reason that God did not give us more detail about many of the Bible’s harsher scenes. There is a reason that the passages dealing with harsh sin are typically quite discreet in how they describe those sinful acts and deeds.
I suppose what I’m getting at is this: there is good reason that God gave us a book and not a movie. When we read the Book we can examine every sentence and every word. Theologians have the difficult task of picking apart the individual words, peering deep into the language looking for the most precise, most likely meaning of every jot and tittle. The written or spoken word lends itself well to this. It is fixed and constant and is well suited to examination, comparison and evaluation. Film is different. It is far different, in fact. It simply cannot contain truth in the same way that words can. It does not lend itself to evaluation in the same way. It is not as precise and, upon deep examination, muddles the truth as much as it clarifies it.
I’ve never heard a satisfactory response to this line of reasoning (and I am far from the first to suggest it). Film is a good and useful form of media, but I just don’t see that we can or should compare it to the written or spoken word. They are different. Each has strengths and weaknesses. But it seems to me that God has given the word a certain power, a certain strength, and we should not attempt to suggest that pictures can be equal. I guess this puts me in the same camp as a guy like Neil Postman believing that film and television are good at what they do best—entertainment. But they just aren’t the realm of really serious, really important ideas. We need words for that.
Wright concludes his article by saying “Discernment is obviously required, as is spiritual maturity. And when it comes to our children, parental guidance is always a necessity, whether it’s the bad theology of The Sound of Music, or the violent reality of The Passion. And guiding our children through the book of Judges—or the moral minefield that is the real world—is likely to be just as tough.” But no, it won’t be as tough. When it comes to the book of Judges we know that God gave us the story, gave us the story in a specific, perfect way and gave us the story for a very good reason. This is not true when it comes to The Passion or Evan Almighty or any other film. Yes, it will be difficult to work through Judges 20-21 with my children. But I can have confidence that God desires that I do so and that His Spirit will guide through the process. I have no such confidence when I take my children to the movies to watch Shrek III. Nor should I.
Comments (36) »
1. Jeri
June 22, 2007
10:40 AM
Pictures definitely aren’t words, all well said, Tim. Another thing about the violence in that story from Judges, or any happening in any other story or chapter or verse from the Bible, is that all the details of everything God chose to tell us are purposeful and should be read and understood in light of the overall revelation of God’s purposes the Bible gives. Always, God’s glory, His redemption, judgment, mercy or some other purpose of His is in play, which can’t be grasped apart from the love and study of the whole Bible (the whole counsel of God.)
2. Andrew Lindsey
June 22, 2007
10:45 AM
You make such a great point. So many Christians need help in carefully thinking through issues like you have done here. Have you ever considered writing a book on discernment?
3. Darby
June 22, 2007
11:16 AM
Well said, Tim. It seems to me that much of our “critique” of film is thinly veiled desire to indulge in all the fantasies that our culture enjoys. Did Christians have to go to the gladiator fights to assess the “sinful and redemptive themes” of the whole affair? Do Christians really have to watch Matrix or Butterfly Effect (or whatever) as stimulation to godliness? I can pretend to put on my white lab-coat and sit down and watch Evan Almighty from a “critical” perspective. Or I can be honest and just admit I like to laugh at sinful themes. Sitting around after watching and assessing the film may salve my conscience. But does that offset the sinful desire? With all that said, I do think fiction tends to drive a point home in a way that non-fiction sometimes does not.
4. Joshua
June 22, 2007
11:31 AM
Good post! I have recently been debating the issue of portrayals of nudity in art. I have argued that Scripture gives no warrant for nude depictions of the human body. Do you have anything to say on this matter?
5. Steve
June 22, 2007
12:18 PM
Amen!
6. Mike
June 22, 2007
12:25 PM
Very interesting post. One of the pastors at our church has a drama background, and he gave a talk one time about the incarnational nature of film and stage, vs. literature or even painting and drawing. When you read about an event, or even see it painted, much is left to the imagination and the medium you see it through is not “real.” When you see film or stage acting, the people in the production are actually doing something real, even if it is a portrayal of something else.
For example, if you look at one of the hundreds of classical “nudes” painted by Rembrandt, Caravaggio, etc. you may be exposing yourself to an image of a naked woman, but it isn’t a real woman and no real woman had to bare her skin for the painting. However, when you see a nude photograph, or a nude scene in a film or on stage, you are seeing the nakedness of the “character” she is playing, but you are also seeing the very real nakedness of the actress/model. There is no way to separate the two. You could read a hundred books about naked women, or look at a hundred of Caravaggio’s nudes, without seeing a “real” naked woman. In film/stage, there is not this same separation from reality.
This is, in my opinion, one of the reasons that graphic movies are in a completely different category than graphic written accounts of graphic or disturbing events. I think it also makes a difference that the events from Judges are true, and they are not a fictitious story. That “guideline” does not justify the telling of every “true” story, as there are many not worth telling. Yet, if God tells us this true story there is obviously a reason for it, and as Tim has pointed out there is a reason he told it in the way that he did.
7. Mark
June 22, 2007
12:38 PM
Yes, well said, Tim. As Mr. Wright asks, what redemptive quality would such a film have? We must consider that any hypothetical film maker’s hypothetical motive behind producing a hypothetical film based on Judges 20-21 would not be the same motive behind God’s inclusion of the story in the Scriptures. He is holy, we are carnal. He included it for holy purposes; we would revel in the movie for its thrills, all the while justifying our viewing of it based on the fact that it’s ‘biblical!’
A bloodbath of biblical proportions onscreen? No thanks.
8. Dan B.
June 22, 2007
12:52 PM
Tim, Great post. You correctly point out the difference between book and film—books have only what they have contained in them, plus what our thoughts or imagination might supply them. On the other hand, films often leave nothing to the imagination filling in all necessary gaps and even going beyond what the written word intended.
Hollywood often takes things and twists them, whereas the book is what it is in front of you—there may be sifting you may have to do with a book as well, but I’d say that it’s often easier to get rid of words running through your mind than images. I mean, it’s quite easy to remember how a scene goes in a film you’ve watched than remember words you’ve read in a book. Oftentimes, one has to actively memorize a passage in Scripture or a part of a play, but images stick (for good or ill).
9. Joshua
June 22, 2007
12:54 PM
Re: mike
I don’t see a categorical difference between painted nudity and acted out nudity. Both a visual images. There is a form of Japanese cartoon art that is pornographic in intention and result and it wouldn’t qualify as “real” under your description. I think that we ought to question the motives of previous century’s depictions of nude women in art. Considering that it was often considered scandalous to display ankles can we really argue that a naked portrait was somehow considered benign?
10. DLE
June 22, 2007
2:19 PM
Tim,
We normally agree on most everything, but I disagree with this assessment.
First, let me say that garbage is garbage, whether in words or in pictures. Christians should not support lousy movies any more than they should support lousy books. Too many Christian movie critics want us to endorse junk. THAT’S what we should be arguing against.
Second, I think your premise that images are somehow less authoritative or useful than words is mistaken. For you, words have more power. But I don’t think that’s true for everyone. Nor is that true in history, even Church history.
The fundamental oversight of Protestantism is that it discounts images as sources of power, wisdom, and truth. It elevates Word over Image.
The fundamental oversight of Catholicism and Eastern Othodoxy is that they make truth found in words subservient to images. They elevate Image over Word.
The problem here is that both sides are wrong in their exclusivity. They create a false dichotomy. They’re both lacking because they’re excluding the holistic truth of what God has reveled both by words and by images. God values both.
The Word was made flesh. Christ is the very image of the invisible God. As He said to His listeners, if we have seen Him, we have seen the Father.
The Bible is replete with powerful images that people saw and those images transformed them. Jacob’s Ladder. Isaiah’s vision. The Transfiguration. Hebrews teaching that we see in spiritual truth on Earth is a mirror image of Heavenly realities. We see Christ in each other because we bear His image. We serve because we saw Him serving. (Yes, this was written down, but Christ let His disciples see, He did not dictate how they should live out Truth, but He showed them.)
We simply cannot relegate image to some lesser role. Images carried (and still carry) power and awe. And they also transmit truth.
Image is authoritative, too. The authority of the Apostles came in part because they SAW the Living Christ. Their witness (and the role of witnesses in the Scriptures, in general) sealed the truth of their testimony. No one handed them a piece of paper that said, “This formally entitles the bearer to speak God’s truth.” No, their authority came because they saw and touched the Lord.
We Protestants simply cannot toss out Image. I fear that we have done so and that’s a terrible loss to our faith. I’m not saying that we should erect icons in our churches. Don’t get me wrong here. But our faith suffers when we discount Image. Even today, we still bear the image of Christ. Even today, the homeless man we see lying in a gutter is a type of Christ. I can sit down and describe both the Christian man and the homeless straggler in words, but the sight of the one living out the Gospel and the image of the other in his squalor SPEAK in a way that words cannot.
You’re absolutely right when you say that Christians are too entertainment oriented. We watch too many stupid movies, listen to too much disposable music, and read too many vapid books. But we simply cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Powerful images exist in the best movies, images that can challenge and better our faith. The same goes for dynamic words in books.
But both books and movies can distract us from the job Christ gave us to fulfill the Great Commission. They can keep us from serving others. They can force us into our own little shells and islands of distraction. That’s the real problem here. That’s what we need to discern.
11. Bethany
June 22, 2007
3:16 PM
Great point. Thanks!
We don’t watch much television at our house (no cable, no antenna, just DVD’s we’ve purchased or rented) and we make no bones about it. When we watch television, it is for entertainment. Not education or edification or anything else!
We did a family Bible study through the book of Judges. That story was a tough one! My husband did a fantastic job though!
12. Chris C
June 22, 2007
3:17 PM
I would heartily recommend the book “The Vanishing Word” by Arthur W. Hunt III, which makes a very strong argument for Tim’s position on “Image vs. Word.”
According to Hunt, the church is being cut off from its word-based heritage and is open to abuse by those who exploit the image but neglect the Word.
Exalting visual imagery throughout history has been a favorite pastime among pagans and for good reason. It dulls the mind, excites passions, and makes it more difficult to use our biblical and mental defenses to resist this fleshly assault.
This isn’t throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Certainly God gave us eyes to see the world around us as we walk in faith. But we do need to acknowledge that there are serious dangers inherent in the veneration of images in our culture today.
13. The Cutting Truth
June 22, 2007
4:34 PM
“… words convey the story far differently than images. With words we read only what we need to know and receive little detail. We know the broad outline of the story, but the details are blessedly hidden from us…”
The beauty of the written word, the magic of literary imagery, is its inherent power to excite the imagination. Lewis’ Narnia, Tolkien’s Middle-Earth, Solomon’s Song of Songs - all employ to majestic use this power to energize the imagination. The written word is so powerful not despite the literary gaps but because of the artful use of them. It is through these gaps that our imaginations are employed and where literature becomes something more than just ink on paper; it turns into a salvation which we cling to with some kind of fierce. While you may be correct that they are instances of “blessed” censorship, I think you may have inadvertently cut down, in one fell swoop, that aspect of literary excellence which has us returning again and again to the word and Word.
14. Kyle
June 22, 2007
5:37 PM
Tim,
Help clarify your argument for me. In place you said,
””… words convey the story far differently than images. With words we read only what we need to know and receive little detail. We know the broad outline of the story, but the details are blessedly hidden from us…”
And yet in another you said,
“It is not as precise and, upon deep examination, muddles the truth as much as it clarifies it.”
Those seem to be contradictory statements to me. I’m sure they are reconciled in your mind - could you reconcile them for mine, please?
Thanks
15. Kyle
June 22, 2007
5:39 PM
I should clarify that the second quote in my comment was referring to film/images, while the first referred to words.
Thanks.
16. DLE
June 22, 2007
6:16 PM
To #12:
The book you cite is part of the problem. It creates an either/or. No such either/or exists. The title speaks as if Word needs to take back its authority from Image. But that’s wrong. Word and Image co-exist.
To #13:
The power of words does not exist in an image-less vacuum. When you read a book, it’s impossible to do so without imagining visually what you read. There’s a reason for that: Word and Image co-exist. God designed it that way. It’s a mistake to claim otherwise.
17. Greg Wright
June 22, 2007
10:09 PM
Tim,
I don’t think I would take much issue with anything you say in your analysis. It’s actually kind of nice to see someone finally take up the gauntlet and respond to the article, as it’s been reprinted in a number of places over the last few months.
I only take exception to your assertion that “The purpose of [my] article is to encourage Christians to watch movies and to do the difficult work of discernment in separating the good from the bad.”
Not at all. Whether or not Christians elect to consume art of any form is entirely between them, God, and their conscience. There are some people — and I was once one of them — who have no business whatsoever retreating from God by indulging in film, this most seductive of art forms. I wouldn’t dream of such a blanket encouragement.
The purpose of the article (and whether I succeeded or not is another issue) was merely to encourage Christians not to ask too much of any given film, should they decide it’s worth watching — to ask what it is, precisely, that a given film is actually trying to do.
(For those who haven’t followed the link and actually read my article, I encourage you to do so if you’re interested in digging a little deeper, and engage my baseball metaphor as a way of absorbing my point.)
One question, Tim — do you think you’d have agreed with your own point of view if you had lived in the era prior to the invention of the printing press? I rather doubt it. The post-Gutenberg period has produced something of an idolatry of the written word.
18. Brad Williams
June 22, 2007
10:12 PM
DLE,
I totally disagree with your assessment of word and image. The Bible is the Word of God, and as such it is inerrant and infallible. We don’t have anything comparable in an image. And even the visions that the prophets had were interpreted by words. I cannot think of any that stood alone without explanation. No prophet was ever sent to paint pictures. They were sent to speak.
Further, I disagree that it is impossible to read without making an image. I often do, but that is not always the case. Maybe I just think words. Isn’t that possible?
19. DLE
June 22, 2007
10:35 PM
To #18, Brad:
Then you do not believe the following to be true?
Or this?
20. Danny Slavich
June 22, 2007
11:18 PM
In Judges, when it describes the dismemberment of the concubine, it is simply stated in the narrative. It does not give specific detail. I think a modern film is much like a modern novel than it is like Scripture. A novel gives specific details, and (if the novelist has a good amount of talent) a novel’s graphic imagery can arouse sinful lust, etc as much as a film depiction of the same scene.
My point is that the difference between “image” and “word” as we’re talking about here is one of degree as well as kind. We have to discuss “word” and “image” in similar respective categories. Again, I think that a fairer comparison would be between the modern novel and the modern film.
Test case: David and Bathsheba. Scripture says (more or less): David saw Bathsheba from the rooftop. A modern novel might say: David saw Bathsheba, and the curves of her body, and the soap suds (and so on…) A film: could either render a “image” version of Scripture (not actually “describing” Bathsheba’s body), or the modern novel (showing it all).
In Scripture, we do not “see” all that David saw. Scripture says that David saw Bathsheba, but does not let us “see” it as clearly. The point is that words can describe things as graphically as pictures, but often they don’t. In creative writing classes I was always told, “Show, don’t tell.” Often narrative can “tell”, and it can also “show”. Film, I think, can do the same, it’s just that with words it’s often easier to “tell” (and requires more creativity and craft to “show”), whereas in film it’s easier “show” and harder to “tell.” But they can both do both.
21. Brad Williams
June 23, 2007
12:52 AM
DLE,
Your quotes do not prove what I think that you intend them to prove. That is, that we have “seen” Jesus in the same sense that we “see” a movie. Did not Jesus say to Thomas, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29). If you have “seen” Jesus in the way that I believe you are trying to convey, then John 20:29 does not make sense.
I believe that 2 Cor. 3 is contrasting the work of the Law of Moses with the work of the Holy Spirit in our heart. The way, in context, that Jesus Christ is unveiled for us is through the written Word, and how that plays out is not by us imagining a picture of Jesus in our minds but by our behavior conforming to His. Which I believe is the point of 3:2-3.
No one is downplaying the paramount importance of the incarnation. Not that I can see, anyway. Here is what makes no sense to me:
If the Word had not taken on flesh that we could see with our eyes…
Are you saying that you have seen Jesus with your eyes? Like, physically? I know that my spiritual eyes have been opened to see the face of Jesus Christ, through the Word, but I have no “picture” of what that glory looks like. And I certainly cannot duplicate it on screen or canvas. After all, the Bible teaches that God made man in His image. Does that mean He has toes and fingers and hair?
You say that my comment makes no sense. Perhaps I am just strange, but when I read the word “absolutely,” no picture comes to mind. No image. Nada. I got nothing here. And the word image…if I think for a second I get a Byzantine cross. I don’t know why. How is that even relevant? I must be missing your point. What might be nice is if I had a Thesaurus that gave me pictures when I needed a synonym for a word instead of more words.
Yes, Jesus was fully human, and I delight and rejoice in his truth. But just by looking at him, you’d have thought he was completely ordinary. The Image that mattered was veiled, except for briefly at the mount of transfiguration. And that Image is, as you say, of tremendous importance. Indeed, I believe that this very Image is the very thing that we are expressly forbidden to try and duplicate through painting and image (little “i” intentional). Because we cannot capture God’s very image with ink and paper and imagination and we must not, lest we be tempted to worship it. John 1:14 says that “we” beheld the glory of God, and in 1 John 1:1 he writes that they heard and saw and handled. Do you think that this was the privilege of the apostles and other followers at that time, or do you think you’ve handled the Messiah in the sense that John meant?
Even if you think everything I’ve said up to this point is bunk, I think that this last point is the most important. What you are saying is that image and word are equal, but I submit that you know nothing of God’s Image that you did not gleen from the written Scriptures. And I’d bet that the Image of God that you have “seen” you cannot articulate on canvas, and neither can anyone else. Words won’t even do, but they are a better conduit for carrying this glory than painting or movie. It seems that this should be self-evident in that the prophets wrote and preached and did not paint and sculpt. If image, as I believe you mean it, we equally important, then you’d think that God would have inspired at least one painting or film, right? And by inspired I mean perfect and free from error.
“Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is” (1 John 3:2). That time is coming, but it is not yet.
22. nathan
June 23, 2007
2:04 AM
DLE: Your comment is the best response here. I’ve been in similar discussions before and always wondered about the arguing of specific cultural and historical era forms versus each other when the real issues we must address can only be applied on a case by case basis. Simply, not all books are good, not all movies are.
Brad Williams: One thing I might mention is that God used images MOST often in delivering prophecy to His people. He even had his prophets act out allegorical stories (we’ll call it stage, since no filming was done).
Also, no one is suggesting that we see firsthand the things the writers of Scripture saw. But in the same way this conversation describes in print things each of us have seen and heard, Scripture describes in print what the original authors saw and heard. There is a difference between using the word “absolute” alone and using it in a sentence: “Resting in the wooded half acre, the stocky gnome knew with absolute certainty that he shouldn’t be reading this book.”
Mike (#6): With all due respect, that’s absolutely absurd. Perhaps we should petition Hugh Hefner to create a painted version for Christians. Did give me a good laugh, though.
23. Brad Williams
June 23, 2007
10:05 AM
Nathan,
The simple fact is that no “allegory” or act of any prophet was given without explanation with words. The image cannot stand alone, but the word can. I believe even your example falls short. Can you tell us what “absolute certainty” looks like? (As in your gnome.) I can’t. But I can certainly tell you what it means.
24. RANDY HURST
June 23, 2007
10:19 AM
Sitting on the sidelines, though admiring the Reformed family’s commitment to clear thought, I often get dizzy from the debate.
I could not make myself go to the “Passion of the Christ”. I have a hard enough time filtering that event so that my sensitive heart can handle it without the graphic visualization. The man who loved me most - violently crucified. (I would not want to see my Father suffer such capital punishment). The scriptures are more than enough for me.
Thank God “the word became flesh”, that He sent us Himself rather than another book, or movie or play. The Greeks already had drama; the Jews already had the OT. But “the word became flesh and lived with us and we saw His luminous glory”. Thank God He didn’t just throw a book in a room full of reformed scholars and say tell me what I mean! Where is the line drawn that keeps us from Bibliolatry? Just because I ask the question does not mean I am any less a lover of the written Word? The Bible is Not God. I love the author more than His Book.
Jesus lived out what He meant. He told the most basic interpretive stories. For some reason the lengthy debates the Sanhedrin would have enjoyed with Jesus just didn’t make it into the Book. Jesus enjoyed answers in sentences rather than paragraphs or chapters. Though all He has done (as the Creator of the universe) is too big a record for the Library of Congress, He chose to speak in a manner so that all of us could appreciate His Truth and Love.
How we entertain ourselves requires much greater discernment, as you continue to point out Tim. We have become a people that see being entertained as the purpose of life. We need to spend more time participating in Love Life rather than vicariously living a plasticine caricature of someone else’s vision. It’s not just what’s on the screen, or stage, or even page that is debilitating us; it’s that it matters so much to begin with.
25. Jeri
June 23, 2007
12:46 PM
“The Bible is Not God. I love the author more than His Book.”
That’s not an accurate distinction. Linger for a while on Psalm 119 and ask the Lord to show you what He would have to see there.
He has asked us to love and meditate on Him by loving and meditating on His word.
26. RANDY HURST
June 23, 2007
3:20 PM
88 In your steadfast love give me life, that I may keep the testimonies of your mouth.
JERI: I took you advice and read PSM 119. Yuo would have to pick a long ole song! Look at my statement again in context. I do not love His word the same as I love Him. But that does not infer that I do not love His word more than anything but Him. There is an implict connection between Person and Word. But they are NOT the same thing.
The relationship with the Person predicates an understanding of their words.
Look at how many times the stanzas start with pharases like “Make me understand…Teach me…Lead me…Incline my heart…Confirm your promise…etc”.
The Psalmist loves the Lords commandments…but that is because those commands are meditations of the Person He loves. Only Elohim can make His words live in our hearts.
The teachers of Jesus day knew this song well. But they missed the Maker of all Music. They never experienced the spiritual birth that makes the Word we love Live.
Pardon my dramatic prose. But there are those that Love the Words and miss Jesus altogether.
27. RANDY HURST
June 23, 2007
3:43 PM
Jeri …and to quote a very bright and awakened lady:
“All the influences of different teachers and authors and my own speculations had formed a muddle in my head, so that when I read the Bible I was missing its coherent and cohesive message. But I began to pray that the Lord would bring truth, because I knew that was what He wanted (“Behold, You desire truth in the inward parts. You teach me wisdom in the inmost place.”—Psalm 51:6) The Lord helped me see that more than I needed help from Him for our troubles, I needed Him, our help.”
The Love from/of and desire for God preceeds a proper love/understanding/appreciation for His Word.
28. Ken
June 23, 2007
3:44 PM
Randy: There’s a reason the Son is called the Word of God (John 1:1, 14 and Revelation 19:13).
The Spirit of God, through the written Word, testifies to the Incarnate Word. “Thy word is truth.”
29. RANDY HURST
June 23, 2007
5:05 PM
Ken, ?
30. Ken
June 23, 2007
5:56 PM
Randy: I gather that’s a request for clarification.
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who according to his divine nature is the Second Person of the Trinity, is the Incarnate Word, the Word of God made flesh. He is the Word that was spoken, through whom all things were made. He is the ultimate, unsurpassed revelation of God (Hebrews 1:2-3).
The Bible is God’s inscripturated Word. It is by this Word that God revealed himself to the prophets, and via the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (who brought all things to the recollection of the apostles—John 16) directed the writing of the NT.
Now, no mere book is God and may not be treated as such. But the words contained within are Spirit and life (John 6:63) when they are received by faith. The Spirit ensures that the Word of God does not proceed from God without accomplishing its purpose. And he blesses all those who heed it.
31. Jeri
June 23, 2007
8:24 PM
Randy,
Thanks for reading what I wrote, but let me just say that I only knew to pray for His truth because of the words of Psalm 51:6, the Spirit of God applied them to my heart and so gave me a desire for God, and the truth that the Lord graciously granted (that is, knowing Him more as He really is) came as He opened up His word to me. We can only know Him, therefore love Him, through His word.
I was a professing Christian for almost 30 years before I understood that!
32. Randy Hurst
June 23, 2007
9:30 PM
Jeri & Ken,
I agree wholeheartedly with all you say. You have both said it well. God’s Spirit enlivens our spirits to love, hunger for and understand His Word. And we love Him by obeying that Word.
You have both actually affirmed my point that God and his word are disctinct. We know & worship God through His Word. I Love His Word. That I love Him at all is because of his revelation through the Word. Just because one has read the Bible (as you did for 30 years Jeri), that does not mean that they have received the Word.
That I love Him more than His medium of communication should not be understood as a slap at the medium.
Please do reflect on my entire statement.
33. Anna
June 24, 2007
12:43 AM
I couldn’t agree with you more. I’m so tired of hearing the Bible’s somewhat graphic passages being used as an excuse for Christians to pour gratuitous, violent, titillating filth into our minds!
34. Chris
June 24, 2007
8:46 PM
Tim,
Thank you for this post. I do agree that the argument of the Bible containing graphic sin means that films can do the same (because they are different mediums).
You make an assertion that films are not a useful art form because they cannot convey weighty ideas. I would question that line of reasoning on two fronts: 1) You compare the Bible to films like Shrek III, and Evan Almighty. That is a completely unfair comparison. The Bible is the Word of God, and film is in the class of uninspired art (just like other books). You cannot compare something infallible to something very fallible and then judge the fallible work for muddying truth. Of course the Bible speaks truth clearly (and not necessarily because it is a book, though God did choose to have it recorded as a written record). To make an effective, fair argument about film and written word, you cannot compare the Bible to Shrek. (a fair comparison would be something like comparing Shrek to a popular fiction work for 12-year olds, or a classic book like The Great Gatsby or The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn to a classic movie like Citizen Kane). 2) You’re biased to the written word (you practically live in it, which is great), just like a film critic in biased towards film. Each one of you can see the same thing in different ways. I am not saying that all things written could or should be conveyed in film. What I am saying is that film can convey weighty ideas without muddling the truth, but that you may not be as attuned to it. Might it be your perception of the films that cause you to think that they make truth muddy (I say this not as sarcasm, or as an attack, but merely as a question for further thought)?
I agree completely with your argument to a point (the part about film being a different, incomparable art form to written literature, and that the Bible is far superior to art). I just can’t take the argument as far as you carry it (saying that movies often make the truth muddy and such)
35. Brandon
June 28, 2007
10:39 PM
Tim, Thanks for sharing the link and posting your comments. This is a subject that greatly interests me. I have some thoughts on what you wrote:
I agree that the medium greatly affects the message. I am not arguing that God’s Word should be directly communicated in a film, because that is not how it was delivered and there are too many intermediary steps in the translation.
“It is all well and good to suggest that a movie based on Judges 20-21 would receive the ominous NC-17 rating. It likely would and for good reason. Yet when we read it in the Bible it would not. Why? Because words convey the story far differently than images. With words we read only what we need to know and receive little detail. We know the broad outline of the story, but the details are blessedly hidden from us. This would not be the case if the story were told in images. As film, the details would be in full view. We would see rape and bloodlust and dismemberment.”
This is not true. It obviously depends on the intent and style of the author. Just as God did not need to reveal every detail of the story, so can filmmakers use inference to tell a story. Take a look at “Tender Mercies” to see this in practice. (Danny Slavich explained this well in his response).
“Theologians have the difficult task of picking apart the individual words, peering deep into the language looking for the most precise, most likely meaning of every jot and tittle. The written or spoken word lends itself well to this. It is fixed and constant and is well suited to examination, comparison and evaluation. Film is different. It is far different, in fact. It simply cannot contain truth in the same way that words can. It does not lend itself to evaluation in the same way. It is not as precise and, upon deep examination, muddles the truth as much as it clarifies it.”
This is not fully accurate. In a sense, you are comparing non-fiction writing with fictional, story-telling films. Would the same evaluation hold water if you were talking about documentaries or pieces on the History Channel? Film is fixed and constant. It’s forever recorded on celluloid. You can easily pause, rewind, review, and compare. Perhaps the problem is not the medium but the story itself and the analysis that is unclear.
Just as writers have techniques of communicating their message (punctuation, grammar, etc), so do film makers, some of which are extremely subtle. Just as properly understanding the Bible takes serious exegesis from trained theologians, properly understanding a filmmaker’s intent takes serious study from trained film critics who understand the medium. Theologians disagree about translations and meanings, and for a layman without an understanding of God’s Word to tell a Bible translator that he is wrong is silly.
If everyone read a trained film studies’ (not entertainment critic) review of the films they see (as they read biblical commentators) then we would have much clearer discussions about the films. (Although many critics, especially Christian ones, tend to read into the film whatever they can manage to get out of it, rather than letting the “image” speak for itself… if that sounds familiar). However, most people just gather around the water cooler to share their insights about a film or show. This is equivalent to a home church sharing their feelings on a passage without any guidance from theologians. The issue is the participation in the medium, not the medium itself.
Just because film is a popular medium does not mean it does not require serious study by professionals if the creator’s original intent is to be found. If the filmmaker is unclear in his story or message, then the film critics will be unable to discern a clear meaning and the truth will be muddled… but the same is true of a poorly conceived piece of writing.
“they just aren’t the realm of really serious, really important ideas.”
This is simply because films are very expensive to make and must therefore have a means of recovering the cost. Most moviegoers don’t want to pay for really serious important ideas, they want to pay for escapism entertainment. That doesn’t mean the medium can’t support it. Take a look at Francis Schaeffer’s reviews of Ingmar Bergman’s films.
36. ADAM
July 1, 2007
2:18 AM
yes, words are better. but we do live in a society of people who read less and less and although the bible is the source of truth that every believer and seeker should go to, I do believe other mediums are useful. I also believe that as much as God was working in the early church that we have documented in the scripture, he is also at work today and I do believe that he can use movies to communicate with people. For the majority of believers in the dark ages, they had only the words of monk and stain glass windows to build their theology from. It has only been since the printing press and public literacy that believers have had the experience of seeking out their own salvation through the bible. And even now we have the a lot of imagery in our mind when we read the bible that we only have because of people who have done what research they could and produced an image that we then remember when we read the bible. I mean you know when you picture Jesus, he’s always that white guy with the beard and hippie hair. Even if you know that probably isn’t what he looked like. And it helps when you have a picture what things look like. It makes it more real to you. Less fictional. I mean, I can picture the cross and the way Jesus was treated, but when I saw the passion, I could not censor it, it became more real to me. It was like, I had envisioned it being brutal, but I hadn’t experienced the pain and suffering until I saw the movie. I personally don’t have a problem with that. Sorry for rambling, I just found your blog tonight and it’s got me thinking.