The day after the birth of a child is clearly not the time to be doing serious writing. Thus today I will only ramble, posting a compendium of things that have been on my mind this week.
While I managed to get a fair amount of sleep yesterday (never have I been so thankful for a spare bedroom), Aileen did not and had to hand me Michaela long before I was ready to crawl out of bed. Still, we knew that this was coming and we are not anticipating getting a lot of sleep for the next few days at least.
I received an email today which linked to an interesting article from the Orange County Register. The paper reports that a huge local church was unable to convince city officials to approve a $19 million expansion that included a three-story parking structure. Local residents protested the building plan, saying that the project would intrude upon their privacy and greatly increase traffic in their neighborhood. I can only imagine what it would be like having a three story parking structure erected directly across the street from my home. What a strange animal these mega-churches are as they attempt to grow and expand just like big businesses. Not that there is anything necessarily wrong with it—it just strikes me as odd that a church has to fight this type of battle when the vast majority of us go to churches that can only wish for such parking woes!
I noticed a few days ago that Christianity Today has listed their “10 Most Redeeming Films of 2005.” “What do we mean by “redeeming” films? They’re all stories of redemption—sometimes blatantly, sometimes less so. Several of them literally have a character that represents a redeemer. And with some of them, the redemption thread is buried beneath the surface; you might have to look a bit harder for it, but it’s most certainly there. Some of them are ‘feel-good’ movies that leave a smile on your face; some might leave you with more of a contemplative frown, asking, ‘How should I process that?’”
Here is the list of films:
- Cinderella Man
- Batman Begins
- Murderball
- Crash
- The Exorcism of Emily Rose
- Munich
- Dear Frankie
- Pride & Prejudice
- The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe
- Millions
Of those I have only seen the last three. Pride & Prejudice and The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe were both excellent. Millions was awful. I was disappointed to see a movie like Crash make it to the list. Now I have not seen the film, but judging by what I know of it, I wouldn’t even if I wanted to. It is rated R and apparently for good reason. The following warning is provided by PluggedIn Online: “THIS FILM FEATURES GRAPHIC VIOLENCE AND LEWD SEXUAL CONTENT. THIS REVIEW REFERENCES THAT CONTENT AND IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR CHILDREN.” The review mentions that there is intense, explicit wildly inappropriate sexual content, plenty of brutal violence and a lot of bad language. “Like the rapid-fire shots of a drive-by, the f-word is sprayed about 100 times (several times it’s used with “motherâ€; it’s also used in a sexual manner). The s-word is said at least a dozen times, while God’s name is misused almost as frequently and is often combined with “d—n.†Christ’s name gets abused four times. More than 30 other milder profanities further mar this film, including several sexual slang terms.”
But I’m sure it’s a wonderful tale of redemption. Maybe I’ll rent it tonight and watch it with the kids so we can all be blessed together. Or not. Every now and then I’m tempted to wonder if Christianity Today can stoop any lower. And yet somehow they always manage.
On that note I am going to get back to work. I am busier than I’ve ever been and this is an awkward time to have a little bundle of joy intrude into my busy schedule. But I love her anyways. I will hope to get back to reading, reviewing and writing over the weekend.
Comments (59) »
1. Sam B.
May 5, 2006
12:32 PM
Although I have nothing to say about Crash, since I have not seen it, I will say that Cinderella Man and Batman Begins both deserved to make this list, and I can’t believe that Munich was put up there. Humph…
2. Grace
May 5, 2006
1:26 PM
yOu need to post more pictures of that baby=)
3. billmelone
May 5, 2006
1:34 PM
Crash made the list because the plotline is redemptive—there is racial reconciliation and the movie is the most honest look at racism in America thats out there. The movie fits Wayne Wilson’s category of movies that tell a good story using evil/sinful means. I really enjoyed it, bar the sex scene and swearing. Whether or not its worth the watch being able to skip ahead, maybe not, but the plotline was definitely substantive and there are few films out there that show sin to be as evil, as well as the need for love in America.
4. billmelone
May 5, 2006
2:35 PM
Read why CT had it on the list:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/reviews/crash.html
I don’t think its fair to ct to imply that stooping low is typical for them. But I appreciate the desire to warn against graphic films.
5. Philippa
May 5, 2006
2:54 PM
Pride and Prejudice is an enjoyable film, but a blatantly revisionist adaptation of Jane Austen!! *grin* I’m no Austen purist, but the BBC P&P of 1995 is far more faithful to the spirit of Jane. Jennifer Ehle’s Lizzy has grace and dignity. Keira Knightley’s Lizzy is petulant and pouty. The film is all angsty melodrama … quite different from Austen’s elegant, ironic and touching comedy of manners.
I adored Narnia. A lovely adaptation of a lovely story..
Tim, have you ever seen The Shawshank Redemption? Fabulous film. Harrowing in the extreme in places, but a superb redemptive plot. I mention it because it seems to me an equivalent of Crash in some ways …
which is indeed an extremely honest and unflinching portrayal of the racial prejudices we all harbour, however unwittingly.
I’m surprised that ‘Christianity Today’ didn’t mention The Constant Gardener … bleak, uncompromising, with no happy ending, but with plenty of redemptive elements ,i.e. doing the right thing because it’s the right thing to do, even if it costs you your own life.
6. Ken Abbott
May 5, 2006
4:03 PM
I’d be interested in reading more about your negative take on “Millions.” It was inarguably quirky and offbeat in a way that independent British cinema can often be, and there were certainly a number of problems with it (the conversation between the boy and “St. Peter” was a theological mess). But “awful” is rather strong for a (mostly) innocuous film.
“Murderball” I have avoided because I heard there was a great deal of preoccupation about the sex lives of the players. And since the horror genre holds no attraction for me I did not see “Exorcism.”
“Crash” was very thought-provoking. Not an easy film to see (or hear, as you pointed out) and certainly not family fare. Not even a typical Hollywood film. I was surprised when it won the Academy Award. But better “Crash” than that other travesty…
7. Greg Gemell
May 5, 2006
4:34 PM
Ken,
How come a movie depicting homosexual sex on screen is a “travesty” while a movie with explicit heterosexual sex on screen is “thought-provoking?”
To anyone else:
How do we really apply Philippians 4:8 to the movies? What does “think on or meditate on” in that passage apply to?
I KNOW I will probably get blasted for sounding holier than thou, BUT please understand I am not being judgmental (SINCE I DON’T KNOW ANY OF YOU). I really just want an honest answer…please!
In Christ,
Greg
8. mpethe
May 5, 2006
4:49 PM
Just thinking out loud here:
Phil 4:8 “…if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.”
I suppose one could argue that there are some virtuous qualities in these films…
What do you think?
9. Greg Gemmell
May 5, 2006
5:16 PM
Looking at my “Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament, here are some definitions given of the words in 4:8:
truth
worthy of respect or honor
dignified
reverent
that which is awe inspiring
morally pure
undefiled
acceptable
pleasing
lovely
those things that grace attracts
well-sounding
praiseworthy
VIRTUE - the most comprehensive Greek term for moral excellence
In verse 9, Paul says “the things which you learned and received and heard and saw in me, these do…”
Paul, in this epistle, has already argued that there is nothing greater than the “knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord.” I can only imagine what the people learned, received, heard and saw in him - CHRIST!
In my own life whether it is TV, a movie or some other form of worldly entertainment; I try to ask myself if the qualities listed above are predominate (not just a brief moment in a movie or one song on an album) AND then I have to ask myself if this activity will draw me into a deeper knowledge and understanding of my Savior.
To be honest, the only movie I saw on that list was the Narnia movie. It really made me appreciate, praise and thank my Savior for what he did for me by His substitutionary atonement. It wasn’t a perfect film or a perfect parallel but I did find man of the qualities above.
I guess, I am saying that it is really hard to justify most forms of worldly entertainment. If I am to imitate Paul as he imitated Christ, I suspect I won’t see many movies, but that’s “ok!”
In Christ,
Greg
10. Greg Gemmell
May 5, 2006
5:19 PM
I meant to say:
“but I did find many of the qualities above”
:)
Greg
11. Zach Nielsen
May 5, 2006
5:19 PM
Interesting comments. There is so much here to comment on:
1. Tim, is there a useful difference between saying the “f-word” was used 100 times and actually using it? When one puts down “f-word” or writes f#$% we all know what that word is and it probably is running through our mind as we read. In light of the Jesus’ teaching about adultery/lust, etc in the Sermon on the Mount isn’t this just about the same thing? Does that make sense? I just think we all can kind of ride the line of hypocrisy or legalism with that. This may be a petty point, but I think it is worth thinking through. To sum up, if we are so against the “f-word” then don’t put “f-word” anywhere on the page cause it just brings it to mind.
2. In terms of Phil 4:8 - I wholeheartedly believe that we are to meditate on what is good and right and pure, but if that means that we can’t go to a rated R movies then I think we may be approaching legalism again. My main problem with it is that then one could really never read the OT since the OT has so much graphic violence and graphic sex (see Song of Solomon) that one would have too avoid it completely. Now I understand that a majority of the time the sex and violence put out by Hollywood is generally set up in a way as to arouse lust, so great caution must be exercised. To be fair, there have been many rated R movies that I have seen were I walked away wondering, “was there any redeeming value in that whatsoever? I should have spent that 2 hours reading a book or playing music or something…” Again, great caution should be the norm.
3. I fear that there is an almost greater danger on the flip side of the freedom that I may be advocating here. John Piper has helped me see in some of his preaching and writing that true spiritually for Christians runs far deeper than not going to rated R movies, not swearing, not cheating on your taxes and not getting drunk and not having premarital sex. The problem is that we can avoid all those sinful trappings and still go to hell if we don’t have a right heart. The “avoidance ethic” is what he calls it. One defines their relationship to God based on all those things they avoid, as opposed to cherishing Christ for who he is.
4. Does using the (sorry to be hypocritical here) “F-word” make a movie all bad? I think Crash was an amazing movie. I don’t think it’s really necessary to swear all the time, but the fact that it was there didn’t hinder my ability to walk away thinking about God’s desire for us to have real relationships that have substance and really examining my own prejudices, etc. There has to be some sort of middle ground. To say, any hint of swearing and sex disqualifies a movie from being labeled as good for Christians. We need more careful qualification I think.
5. I would submit that Cinderella Man was the best movie of 2005 and on my list of best of all time. I’m not sure if I have ever seen a movie that so inspired me to love and fight for my family more than this one. If that is not on God’s agenda for me as a father and husband, then I don’t know what is.
12. Ken Abbott
May 5, 2006
5:35 PM
Greg: The travesty lies not so much with the depiction of sexual acts per se as the philosophy/worldview being promulgated by the film’s creators. From the standpoint of sexual sin, heterosexual acts outside of marriage are just as wicked as homosexual acts. In “Brokeback Mountain,” there is no question that evil was called good and good evil. Acceptance of homosexuality was at the core of the film’s message. In “Crash” the scene depicting fornication was certainly not edifying but it contained a revelation. The black character made a racist gaffe and demonstrated he knew very little about the woman with whom he had just been very intimate. At first I thought the scene gratuitous, but it underscored the point that we make baseless assumptions about other people all the time while thinking we know more than we do. If I had my druthers, the filmmaker would have found a better way to show this. Perhaps it betrays a lack of imagination on his part.
13. Greg Gemmell
May 5, 2006
5:38 PM
I am not a legalist by any means…my family and friends will tell you that.
I probably need someone like Al Mohler (who is brilliant - I am not) to explain the difference between the written Word of God which primarily, but not exclusively, engages the mind (hence Romans 12:2) and the large screen of the movie theatre (or small screen at home) which primarily engages the senses. I don’t buy the argument that the Bible is graphic; therefore it is ok to SEE the same things on a screen.
Purposefully and willingly (by going and spending money) subjecting ourselves to ideas, images and blasphemous thoughts cannot be pleasing to our Lord. I do not think that is legalistic. Seriously, how many Christians are going to spend money on the Da Vinci Code movie and justify it by saying they want to witness or be in touch with the culture? They can get the book from the Library for free and peruse it all they want to be ready for a defense, but they don’t have to see it visualized right in front of them.
Isn’t pursuing Christ enough for us? Do we really need to see any movie? Isn’t the Word of God sufficient? I am not trying to be a legalist - I just don’t understand Western Christianity and its desire to constantly express its freedom by pushing boundaries that I don’t think our Lord wants us to push.
In Christ,
Greg
14. Greg Gemmell
May 5, 2006
5:41 PM
Ken,
Thanks for expressing your reasoning and answering my question.
In Christ,
Greg
15. Bill Barnes
May 5, 2006
6:35 PM
I really do hate to devolve into a bumper-sticker statement but I am moved to say, “would Jesus see Crash?” If he was hanging out with publicans and sinners I think it’s not a huge leap to say he surely might have. I think Paul would probably have as well. Was anyone uttering the “f” word at the Areopagus? Would that have kept Paul out of there? Doesn’t Christ say be as wise as serpents and as gentle as lambs? If we’re just hanging out with lambs we don’t need to be as wise as serpents. But we are commanded to be among the serpents - are we not? I really don’t want to sound harsh brothers and sisters but I think the enemy is quite happy for us to cede this territory to him. O.K. sorry, enough. But one final thing. I used to say the “f” word quite a bit (I spent 5 years in the Marine Corps and Marines are fairly liberal with that word). If Christians had avoided me because I was foul-mouthed and they were too intent on “pursuing Christ” I would have never heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That would have been an eternal tragedy.
16. Tim Challies
May 5, 2006
6:44 PM
Or to be even more bumper-stickerish, do you think you’d be proud to be watching “Crash” if Jesus were to return at that very moment?
17. Dusty Road
May 5, 2006
6:47 PM
I pastor a brand new church plant. For most of our members (ourselves included) movies are a favorite form of entertainment. Knowing this I always like to recommend good family, documentary, comedy type movies. We want to teach descernment in choice of what we allow to enter our minds.
But I was shocked after 2 families said we “HAD TO SEE CRASH” and we rented it. We turned it off within the first 10 minutes. While the story line may have lead to redemption what one would have to sit though to get there is nothing a Christian needs to fill their minds with.
As one who know more then a couple vocal racist/anti-semites (I’m messianic Christ follower) I can say with complete asurity I almost never hear swear words come out of their mouths. So it is possible to portray a racist without cursing and even the sexual groping.
And Brother and Sisters I can’t believe you can justify watching others perform sex, listen to people use the Lord name in vain, then claim the end justifies the means. As Christ Followers we need to raise the standard, no lower it to be like the world.
18. Greg Gemmell
May 5, 2006
7:01 PM
How much conversation do you have with the lost while sitting in a movie theatre? I know what someone might say…”No, it is the conversation after the movie that is important.” How many believers actually go to the movies with the sole purpose of trying to win a soul to Christ?
Bill, you misunderstood me if you think that while I am pursuing Christ I disengage from all unbelievers. I went to public schools all my life and heard every word under the sun as well. AND yes, I did witness to my classmates and saw two come to faith (over 12 years, but two nonetheless). BUT, there is a huge difference between paying to watch “garbage” versus witnessing to unbelievers (preaching the gospel, not sitting next to one in a theatre, since a person needs to hear it according to Romans 10:14). I don’t need any movie to tell me or show me or encourage me to preach the gospel to the lost around me!
My motto has always been:
1 Corinthians 5:9-11
I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people.
Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.
But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner— not even to eat with such a person.
May the Lord give us the discernment to live righteously, soberly and godly in the present age.
In Christ,
Greg
19. Kenny
May 5, 2006
7:03 PM
Bill,
I would respectfully submit that I think there’s a difference between:
1) Shunning/avoiding lost people who curse because I don’t want to hear, therefore let my mind dwell on, anything impure.
2) And choosing to watch a movie that is full of obsecene language, sexually graphic images, etc.
The first is a decision to love or avoid real people whom God wishes to be saved. The second is not.
Jesus spent time with publicans and sinners because they were lost people for whom his heart broke and whom he desired to see come to repentance. That only suggests that Jesus would not have avoided people like the characters in the movie “Crash” in order to escape hearing a dirty word. It doesn’t follow that Jesus would have watched “Crash” for the same reasons. The movie isn’t the people.
There may still be reasonable arguments in defense of watching a movie like those being discussed, but I don’t think this is one of them.
I will say that I appreciate (and agree with) the concern you have that we Christians shouldn’t excuse hearts that are self-righteous and separtistic and call it “the pursuit of personal holiness”.
20. Bill Barnes
May 5, 2006
7:34 PM
To Tim:
Brother, I pray where ever Christ finds I won’t be proud.
21. JB
May 5, 2006
7:55 PM
Crash was amazing. I don’t think it’s for everyone, and that’s fine. It portrays the ugliness of sin and this world and reminds us that we are all affected by it. It’s a movie of realness (for lack of a better term). It portrays lives that are ugly, but realistic. Some people may say they don’t need a movie to do that for them, or that it does more harm than good, or whatever else. Personally, I benefited greatly from it. The cross was ugly, violent, and I imagine words equivalent to f-bombs were dropped on Jesus, yet it was redemptive and we retell the story. Gibsons the Passion was hard to watch because of it’s realness. I think Crash’s realness is similar in some ways (yet some may brand me for comparing the cross to Crash - I hope you get what I’m doign). I think God can use secular movies to communicate sin and redemption as well. Just my 2 cents.
22. Zach Nielsen
May 5, 2006
8:49 PM
Greg,
Help me understand why one or ten F bombs and a sex scene qualify a whole movie as garbage? Did you see the whole movie? If so, could you not reap any redeeming value from it? I sure did. Maybe I’m not as spiritual as most, but I thought it was amazingly powerful. I’m not in favor of crude language or sexual temptation, but I think to paint the whole movie with the “garbage” brush may be overly simplistic. Thoughts?
thanks.
23. Greg Gemmell
May 5, 2006
9:13 PM
Zach,
I knew that going down this post was probably going to be difficult - especially trying to convey my heart and beliefs without sounding judgmental or self-righteous. For this reason, I rarely join in blog conversations.
BUT, I did.
AND, you asked me a question…so, I’ll try and answer it.
Whether or not the whole movie (or any movie for that matter) was garbage is left to each individual and how they define garbage. I posted above what Philippians 4:8 means from a Greek study aid. When I examine those qualities and what they mean in the “present tense” sense of the verb “to meditate,” I have to say, my personal opinion is that a movie filled with foul language and a sex scene is not worthy of meditating on…I may classify it as garbage, others may not.
Screenit.com said this about the movie’s profanity:
“At least 91 “f” words (5 used with “mother,” 1 used sexually), 11 “s” words, 5 slang terms using male genitals”
I did not list everything else listed under profanity or the other sexual scenes…
You asked:
“Help me understand why one or ten F bombs and a sex scene qualify a whole movie as garbage?”
91 F bombs is alot more than 1 or 10.
So, I guess I don’t feel I was being overly “simplistic.”
Those are my thoughts.
In Christ,
Greg
24. Zach Nielsen
May 5, 2006
9:23 PM
Greg,
Thanks for your response. I can respect your point of view, though I might not agree. I think the best approach with issues like this is to take the Romans 14 approach. Believers consciences will be different on issues such as these and we should seek unity under the cross even thought we don’t always agree.
1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
25. Brian Thornton
May 5, 2006
9:37 PM
Why do we need to go watch movies using the justification that they display qualities of redemption similar to the redemption of Christ (I don’t know if anyone has said it that pointedly, but that is the impression I get from reading many of these posts)?
If one is looking for examples of redemption, may I suggest the real thing???
If you are going to go to a movie that many would deem questionable for a Christian to go see, then just go see it…but don’t try to justify it by saying it has redemptive qualities, especially when one has to wade through an ocean of muck while titling one’s head and squinting in order to see these “qualities” of redemption.
Just a suggestion…and one that probably won’t be taken well from many here, but…hey, that’s what blogs are for…differing opinions that may make some very angry.
26. Greg Gemmell
May 5, 2006
9:50 PM
Zach,
Thanks for respecting my point of view. But, I do not think this issue is a matter of having a weak or strong faith/conscience as Romans 14 states.
Here is what Paul states elsewhere:
Ephesians 5:3-4
But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints;
neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.
Ephesians 5:8-12
For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light
(for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, righteousness, and truth),
finding out what is acceptable to the Lord.
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.
For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret.
Ephesians 5:15-16
See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise,
redeeming the time, because the days are evil.
If we are not to have this named among us, have no fellowship with and not to even speak of these things because it is shameful - How can we view them and justify it as a “disputable matter”?
All I am trying to figure out is how to redeem my time in a way that pleases Christ. In light of the verses above, I cannot redeem my time by willingly participating (viewing) in shameful things.
I am mindful of some other verses in Romans 14:
Romans 14:10-12
But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
For it is written: “As I live, says the Lord, Every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to God.”
So then each of us shall give account of himself to God.
I AM NOT judging you or anyone else in this post. I alone will give an account of my life.
I just think there is more absolute truth found in Scripture that relates to contemporary issues then there is subjective (meaning - open to everyone’s opinion).
I think God has made it very clear in His Word regarding what is appropriate and what is not.
Finally:
Psalm 1:1-2
Blessed is the man Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, Nor stands in the path of sinners, Nor sits in the seat of the scornful;
But his delight is in the law of the Lord, And in His law he meditates day and night.
In Christ,
Greg
27. Kenny Archbold
May 5, 2006
11:04 PM
A Blog From God
While I didn’t really care for all that sin stuff you did you know like murdering and rape and obsceneness and your vulgarity and your hatred towards me , well… you did it in such a creative , intelligent , thought provoking and I’ll say a quite entertaining way well I guess it wasn’t so bad after all. In fact I was deeply moved by the profound “realness” of your lives. Everyone gets to go to heaven!!!!!
28. Bibliomaniac
May 5, 2006
11:39 PM
Tim:
Everyone else has commented on the movies listed in CT. But I just wanted to make a quick comment about the megachurch in that article. Were you aware that’s Chuck Swindoll’s former church? Just curious…
29. billmelone
May 6, 2006
10:19 AM
I think its possible to delight in and meditate on Gods law and watch a movie like Crash—such movies make us aware of sinfulness and the need for love, and while I’d totally be in favor of dropping the sex and some swearing (swearing doesn’t bug me as much) (It would be nice to have some company that churns out movies with that stuff inaccessible) I literally think that Crash can make connections between Gods law and our lives currently. I don’t think for a second that you have to or even should see Crash necessarily but I wouldn’t be ashamed to have Jesus return while I was watching it—or at least I would be ashamed at not being out witnessing or something, but to know that God knows I’m seeing that movie does not change my thinking. Sometimes taking a brief time (I don’t watch or think about Crash constantly) to be made more aware of sinfulness helps to meditate on the glories of the things in Phil. 4:8. You don’t need Crash to do that of course, but my experience is that watching it helps meditation on Gods law.
30. randy buist
May 6, 2006
11:09 AM
To Crash or not to Crash? IF we are so afraid of engaging with culture, including violence, sex, language, and bigotry as noted in Crash, then how are we to transform our world?
If we are so afraid of facing evil, then is Christ the victor or is he not? Way too many of us stay away from thoughtful movies, speakers, writers, and theologians simply because we don’t want to be tempted to sin.
So, instead we have a thoughtless church in America simply following the ways of leaders whose theology is often terrible. Movies such as Crash and even Brokeback Mountain are thoughtful and show the realitiy of brokenness and sin in the world… and also so real in our churches.
To imagine if the people of God in America became serious about facing racism as well as homophobia… that would be living into the kingdom of God!
But, I believe most of us are too scared…
31. donsands
May 6, 2006
11:46 AM
I liked Narnia. I liked Batman Begins. I have both on DVD. I didn’t see any of the others.
As far as Christians watching R-rated movies, I see it as a conscience thing. And also a taste thing.
I would never waste money on some movies, and others I do end up wasting money on, and some I end up getting my money’s worth.
These are important thoughts we are sharing, and I have an open heart, and want the Lord’s blessing upon my life so that I understand my liberty in Christ, and also how I must walk in godliness and peace.
I don’t get the redemptive thing. King Kong was redemptive I suppose. Actually we can make almost any movie redemptive, don’t you think.
Just thinking out loud. I may be wrong, but to me movies are a nice way to fellowship, and enjoy the experience.
32. Bill Barnes
May 6, 2006
11:58 AM
Isaiah 6:5
“Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty.”
Romans 7: 21
“So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God?through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.”
Matthew 16:6
“Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
God bless all of you for trying to work this out. Forgive me if I have seemed at all disrespectful of your arguments. But I think Paul and Isaiah have a point. It is one I can relate to. It is that I am a sinner. Do I belong to the devil. GOD FORBID! By Christ’s blood I am His! Praise God! But I war with sin, every single, stinking day. In that sense I can relate to sinners who are not saved. In that sense I don’t hate them I love them and want them to know that they can be released from the horrible captivity of death and satan. Don’t see Crash if you don’t want to. But please don’t present an image to the world that would imply that you are not a sinner and that you have nothing to relate to when it comes to sin. You just ain’t going to catch any fish that way! Let me melt back into cyber anonymity now and await your excoriation. But, really, I do love you all and hope to see you in the New Jerusalem.
In Christ,
Bill
33. Greg Gemmell
May 6, 2006
4:26 PM
Randy B:
You joined in a blog that was discussing (mostly) whether or not a person SHOULD see a movie filled with violence, profanity and sex. All of my posts were related to that issue first. Where in this discussion did you find that we (all of us discussing this) are afraid of engaging the culture? Why did you think we are afraid to confront evil? Where did you get the idea that we are avoiding movies because it tempts us to sin? We are scared?
I am sorry, but your post did not make sense to our discussion.
What I still want to know is how watching movies such as Crash, (BIBLICIALLY Defended) make me more into the image of Christ?
On another note? How long ago was “video” invented? TV has been in the mainstream less than 70 years. What did poor Calvin, Luther and other Godly men and women do without it?
I have an answer. They preached the gospel to sinners. That was and always will be our primary mandate.
Brother Randy, with all due respect, I will NEVER have to see a movie in order to engage, confront and preach the gospel to a “perverse and wicked” generation. I don’t need to SEE SIN on a screen in front of me in order to know its there. I see it in my heart and mind, unfortunately, almost everyday. Until Christ transforms this lowly body, that is my plight. BUT, Christ IS the VICTOR and ever lives to make intercession for me.
May we all seek to “be holy as He is holy!”
In Christ,
Greg
34. Kenny Archbold
May 6, 2006
8:24 PM
Come on guys! What you see or hear won’t hurt you. It is only sin if you actually participate in it , not if you only observe it. In fact tomorrow I am going to the Coliseum in Rome. I’m a going to “engage the culture” All the struggle the hatred the blood! I am going to really get a chance to get a good look at our society. I hope that I get a bit of enlightenment out of this wonderful experience. I mean you can’t pretend that it doesn’t happen. You can’t be so heavenly minded that you are of no earthly good … right? After I hope to go to the strip club with some of my non Christian buddies and chat over a few beers about what we experienced and what Jesus might have thought about the fights. Then I plan to witness to some of the dancers. They are an unreached people and they need the love of Jesus too. I’m too strong to be tempted by them and it would be wrong for me to avoid them because as you know we are all sinners.
35. Aaron S. Wilson
May 7, 2006
12:08 AM
I’ve been enjoying the dialogue & thought I’d contribute some more food for thought.
My wife and I enjoy watching movies, and I try to be careful to avoid particular themes that might cause temptation (i.e., if there’s sex and/or nudity, I just can’t & won’t watch it, regardless of any redemptive value the movie might have). We try to avoid movies with heavy profanity and/or violence, but aren’t always successful.
So, I’m not a T-totaler when it comes to entertainment, but I’m also not ready to expose myself to just any ole thing on the screen for the sake of “engaging with the culture”. I certainly don’t need a movie to make me “more aware of sinfulness” - the Bible makes it clear enough. And I have 4 children. And I know me.
As usual, I’m not quite sure where I stand amongst these varying opinions. Most of them have some legitimate arguments. However, I was reminded of something I heard John Piper say regarding having a television in his home. He said this during a radio interview on Familylife Today. The interview involved his book, Don’t Waste Your Life, and Piper was speaking of living in a “wartime” lifestyle. He gives the following example, which is fitting for this discussion.
So, for example, I’ll give you a concrete example. We haven’t had a television in our house in America for 30 years, and I used to think, “Oh, dear me, I raised these boys, and they’re going to be out of it,” and yet I was choosing to take that risk because they need time and banality. I wasn’t worried about sex and violence. I mean, who cares about sex and violence? The Bible is full of it. I care about the silliness of it all and dragging the soul down into such small, empty, insignificant junk that fills that screen every day. How can anybody have a capacity for glory and greatness and magnificence and chivalry and beauty.
And so we’ve done this for 30 years. My boys have never once ? they’re grown now ? they’re 31, 28, 23, and 20, and they’ve never once complained in my hearing that we didn’t have a TV. Because their lives were full. Instead of saying, “Oh, they’ve got to see reality, they’ve got to see suffering, they’ve got to see life as it really is, I say, “Look, why don’t you just take them and live where life really is. So we live in the poorest neighborhood in Minneapolis, Phillips Neighborhood. They’ve seen people do drugs, they’ve seen prostitutes, they’ve seen me pull a guy off of a woman trying to rape her in my front yard, they’ve heard the gunshots. They don’t hear it on TV, just go there. Really, come on, parent. If you’re serious about wanting your kids to see life as it really is, do you really think TV is the answer? That’s not the answer. It’s an escape hatch when you’re tired at night, and you’re most vulnerable, and you’re letting the world infect your brain.
Vintage Piper, huh?! I remember being extremely challanged by these remarks. Perhaps they can put yet another spin on the dialogue here.
Thanks for letting me join!
BTW, you can read the whole transcript or listen to the broadcast here
36. Greg Gemmell
May 7, 2006
8:05 AM
Thanks Aaron! That was a great illustration from Piper’s life.
I pray that I will be able to articulate as well, think as biblically and APPLY the truth to my family’s life better each year. It IS encouraging to think that Piper has 25-30 years on me - meaning, he has had that much more time to study the Word and apply it. How I pray I will be as concerned for the majesty and glory of God in 25-30 years as he is…
May the Lord bless you all on this Lord’s Day!
In Christ,
Greg
37. Mike Perrigoue
May 7, 2006
7:22 PM
My two-cents…
I don’t buy the “I need to watch this stuff in order to be relevant to the lost world” argument. At least be honest and say you watch this stuff because you’re entertained by it. Just say you like it for crying out loud!
You’ll have to explain your way around the stuff that is forbidden and warned against in Scripture. I just don’t see any wiggle room here. Yet, wigglers we are and excuses we make. Personally, I love the “it’s just acting” or “I gotta’ be in touch with my culture”. I can make all kinds of excuses for doing things I want to do…and all and all I can make myself sound like a pretty concerned righteous fellow. But we all know the REAL reason for tuning in to the latest Hollywood Blockbuster, don’t we? We are sinners that love entertainment and a good emotional story. We are willing to compromise what Scripture says we are to avoid in order to have these little lustful desires fulfilled. That’s the point and the truth. Don’t bring that weak “gotta’ be relevant” argue, man. It sounds so pathetic. And the world watches and snickers because they know those little goody goody Christians like a good punch in the face or sex scene just like they do…and it makes us look so hypocritical. No wonder they don’t listen to us!
You know what’s relevant today? People that have no clue what you’re talking about when the latest fad or movie is being discussed. Yup. That’s different. That gets weird looks. That causes questions. A normal looking middle class American that doesn’t watch TV…and can survive…and even hold a normal conversation!!! Everyone just assumes only the Amish abstain from popular entertainment.
But then the motive card is played. “Well, you’re just being legalistic.” Give me a break! I hate the way this term is tossed around (always by those who want to be able to do something forbidden) without I reall understanding of what the word means.
Does anyone question John Piper’s motives? How about John MacArthur’s? The truth is these guys care more about (and understand more about) Christ and what He died for. If these men are driven to these types of convictions, should we not at least take a moment and contemplate the scripture that has molded these habits for them?
Nope, we say they are pastors and we are sheep. Sheep need to be relevant and entertained. Baaaaa….Baaaaaa….Baaaaa….
38. david
May 7, 2006
8:05 PM
Well said, Mike. That’s the bottom line, and we all know it.
39. Bill Barnes
May 8, 2006
11:27 AM
To Mike:
Mike, I hope you haven’t given up on reading this chain because I just want to tell you that I love your comments.
I am sure you’ve got me there on some level. Heck yes, I do like to be entertained and I am sure there’s some sin in that.
But I also want to say to David that no, that isn’t “the bottom line”. Jesus is the bottom line. Without Jesus both sides of this argument are pathetic. With Him they are glorious.
You ever read “The Great Divorce” by C.S. Lewis? There’s a pretty good scene in there in which the main character realizes that he has been wrong about almost everything - except his willingness to know that he’s wrong (sinful).
I just think we had better not get too self-righteous and remember that we are sinners saved by grace. And I am very self-righteous about that!
If I ever meet up with you Mike I’d love to buy you a beer…oooh right…perhaps a diet Coke.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Bill
40. billmelone
May 8, 2006
1:44 PM
Its more than just being entertained, and more than being relevant. I watched Crash expecting edification because I had heard about the plotline. The movie is not entertaining. The ‘wiggle room’ is that with so many things in secular culture, there are both edifying and denigrating elements within each ‘thing’. The question is whether or not its always wrong to see a movie that has certain content, and certain amounts of it. I’m going to be as much a prude as anyone when I move out of my parents house by not having a TV and not caring. Mike, I think you’re right to point out that people can tend to play the legalism card, but I respectfully disagree when you say theres no wiggle room and that its really all about entertainment.
41. Mike Perrigoue
May 9, 2006
1:23 AM
Oops. I guess I forgot to cover all my bases. But I assumed the “legalism card” also covered the “self-righteous card”. Nice play, Bill Barnes. I guess you got me. : )
And hey…easy on the drinking jab. I go for the real stuff. It doesn’t have to be diet Coke. Coca-Cola Classic will do just fine. I know, I know. I’m a rebel. : )
Wow, two smiley-faces. I must be feeling particularly giddy tonight.
I want to say something about wiggle room…but it will have to wait. I hope you dudes check back…
42. Levi
May 9, 2006
5:17 PM
Tim, excellent site. I’m a first time visitor but you can bet this is going in my bookmarks.
This is something I’ve thought about for a long time. One of my favorite films is Magnolia, which isn’t exactly PG. I’ve always been very “free” in the movies I watched, trying to go by the standard of if it edified or stumbled me.
This seemed to work until I married my wife and discoverd that she had very different convictions than me. She isn’t stumbled by the filmmakers worldview or if they’re preaching postmoderism or whatever - the things that get to her are things like swearing, violence (I’ll leave sex off the list because that “gets” to me too.).
Nowadays, I hardly ever watch movies like Crash and Magnolia and never with my wife. Even though I don’t have any problems with them - I have to respect her concience as her caretaker in The Lord.
I think it comes downt to what Paul said in Romans 14:
I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean… For if your brother is grieved by what you eat [watch?], you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died.
What we watch and how it affects us is between us and God and our brothers in Christ. Movies aren’t unclean in of themselves - the thing that matters is how it affects us and our brothers.
God Bless
- Levi
43. Mike Perrigoue
May 9, 2006
7:13 PM
Greg has had some great things to say about this topic. Nicely put, man. I’m definitely tracking with you (not something I would have been able to say a few years ago). Unfortunately, (or fortunately depending on how you look at it) Greg has exposed an unwillingness (or ignorance) of some of the commenters to really face this issue honestly. We must at least admit we all are filthy sinners, have nothing to offer for our salvation, and have much to learn about our God: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
To Bill Barnes,
Your statement, “Jesus is the bottom line” just flat out confused me. If you mean that Jesus is all that matters, bottom line, then I’d say don’t forget the Father and Holy Spirit. I’m a Trinitarian, brother…and I get a little antsy when the other two persons of the Godhead get left out when talking about something so absolute as “the bottom line”. Now, I have no idea what THAT has to do with this thread since that’s not what my “bottom line” was referring to when I wrote it. So maybe I’ve confused you. Let me restate it:
Bottom Line: The issue of entertainment is about obedience. God forbids us to be involved in some things. We have a choice. Partake or abstain. Bill, you choose to partake. I choose to abstain. And even if you still think you commit no sin by watching movies like Crash, I still think you waste your time watching them. If it’s not entertaining you (edifying you in some weird way) then what is it doing? So, you think it somehow gets you closer to God or more in touch with your own depravity or culture. Fine. One can and should first read the Bible for that same goal. And I’d argue that the Bible doesn’t need a supplement (like movies) in order to give a complete picture of our depravity.
Some questions for you:
1. Are you SO sure this stuff is okay that you are willing to stake your Christian life (not your salvation) on it?
2. Are you THAT sure of yourself and God’s Word?
3. What do I lose out on by not seeing this movie, if I’m wrong (and I am in no way judging you, just the content)?
You yourself admitted that this movie is not required. So I don’t lose out on anything by not seeing it.
4. What do you lose out on by seeing this movie if you’re wrong?
Ponder that last question for awhile.
5. Are you REALLY all that sure that God does not find you in disobedience to His Word when you watch movies with this kind of content?
If so, I wish I had your confidence, man. But I prefer a much more humble outlook on life. That’s the bottom line.
To Bill Melone,
I disagree, man. It IS about wiggle room. The Pharisees “wiggled” out of taking care of their parents financially (Matt. 15:3-6) by claiming it was better to devote money to God than to give it to parents. Is this not what Christians do today with entertainment? They “wiggle” out of abstaining from those things that are forbidden by claiming edification or redeeming value. Remember, “a little leaven leavens the whole lump.” Plain and simple.
But then you say, FREEDOM!!! (Just like Braveheart, probably.)
Tell me where in the Bible it says we are free to engage with, participate in, be around, or even have a hint of sexual immorality and obscene language. I think you’ll find the exact opposite if your honest.
So, back to EDIFICATION and REDEEMING VALUE we go!
When Christians feel the need to fight so hard for the “freedom” to go see movies like Crash they make weak arguments like edification and redeeming value. Well lets be honest now. The Bible has the most redeeming value of any book, music, or movie. So if those that make these excuses REALLY were looking for edification and redemption, would they not be better served by just spending that movie time reading Scripture?
The difference between the edification found in the Bible and in movies is this: Multiple readings and further study of the Bible seems to grow the edification experience. However, with a movie the multiple viewings seem to make the edification grow dim. Think about that.
Were you as “moved” the second time you saw the Passion of Christ? How ‘bout the third time?
We’ve trained ourselves not to be offended by the content of movies…and the Bible says we should be offended by everything immoral. Maybe God has given us over to our sins.
Scary thought, no?
SDG
44. Greg Gemmell
May 10, 2006
12:06 PM
One final post for me:
While we Christians “debate” whether or not a movie filled with violence, sex and profanity is “ok” for a Christian to view AND actually debate whether or not there are redeeming qualities in such movies, let me show you what is happening in “non-Christian” world. In particular, don’t miss the final sentence!
12 boys accused in sexual assault of second-grader
JIM SALTER
Associated Press
ST. LOUIS - Twelve boys in the first and second grade at a St. Louis elementary school are accused of sexually assaulting a second-grade girl during recess, authorities said Tuesday.
One teacher who was supposed to be supervising the recess has been fired, and another suspended with pay, St. Louis schools superintendent Creg Williams said. Ten of the boys, ages 6 to 8, were suspended for the rest of the school year, and the other two received five-day in-school suspensions. Names of the teachers and students were not released.
The girl, who is 8, is physically OK but will not return to school for the rest of the school year. “We don’t know what type of emotional scars it will have on the young lady,” Williams said.
“In my mind it’s unconscionable that it happened and in my mind people have to be held accountable,” Williams said. “How is it this kind of thing is even in the minds of young men?”
How is it in the minds of young men? I am guessing the garbage that is in/on movies, TV, radio, CDs and the internet has nothing to do with 12 first and second grade boys doing something as awful as this!
OK, I am sorry for the sarcasm, but who is going to go “engage” this poor girl and her family now?
Redeeming qualities? I don’t think so…
In Christ,
Greg
45. wfseube
May 10, 2006
12:57 PM
Greg wrote: How is it in the minds of young men? I am guessing the garbage that is in/on movies, TV, radio, CDs and the internet has nothing to do with 12 first and second grade boys doing something as awful as this!
Precisely. This was what crossed my mind when I read all this nonsense about how we must watch this garbage to “engage the world.” Do we have to smoke crack or shoot smack to relate to drug addicts? Hit the brothel so we can relate to prostitutes? I think not. Similarly, I don’t have to watch trash movies to relate to nonbelievers. The Word is sufficent, thank you.
——
bill
46. Ken Abbott
May 10, 2006
3:38 PM
Gentlemen (Greg, Mike, and Bill in particular): I would be interested in how you apply the principles each of you set forth here to the Apostle Paul’s experiences in Athens (Acts 17).
47. Mike Perrigoue
May 10, 2006
7:11 PM
Ken,
I don’t apply the principles talked about here to Paul’s experiences in Athens because Acts 17 says nothing about sexual immorality or obscene language.
I don’t see what Acts 17 has to do with this topic, but I’ll play along. I think I know what you are trying to do though. Does it have anything to do with reading the poetry of pagans? If so, I think I’ve heard this one before…and I wasn’t convinced then either.
But, I’d love to hear you out. I guess I could have a change of understanding and conviction. Afterall, I used to think it was mean and wrong to practice church discipline.
I’m not above being kicked some knowledge…so kick it, man!
48. Lance Roberts
May 10, 2006
9:28 PM
“culture, including violence, sex, language, and bigotry”
“homophobia”
It’s not a fear thing, it’s a sin hatred thing.
Of course, that’s hatred of the sin, not the sinner.
I think people who justify seeing movies with obscenities, nudity and sex as ok, just don’t hate that sin enough. I hope they learn to hate it enough, because a) it’ll get them closer to God (where I hope were all aiming) and b) they will keep making nastier and nastier movies as long as it’s making them money.
49. Mike Perrigoue
May 10, 2006
9:52 PM
Good point, Lance.
50. Ken Abbott
May 11, 2006
12:30 PM
Mike: While I appreciate the response, I’m not asking you to “play along” with anything. The question was serious and had no hidden motive.
As Luke describes it, Paul went about in Athens and saw all the idols (many of which, by the way, were herms, decorated with especially prominent phalluses) in the city. This provoked him to carry on conversations in the synagogue and the marketplace; in the latter he encountered Stoic and Epicurean philosophers. In his address at the Areopagus, he refers to the many idols as evidence that the Athenians were “very religious” and singles out one particular altar as a subject upon which to build his presentation of the gospel. In doing so, as you mentioned, he quotes from Arastus and (probably) Epidmenides, demonstrating a familiarity with Greek literature. They didn’t have movies or TV back then, but they did have plays and dramatic readings. Paul’s knowledge of Greek culture allowed him to incorporate these elements into his preaching.
Now, Paul does not indicate that he approves of these things, even though he is able to draw from them to make his points. I rather doubt he was glad to be accosted visually by the herms and no doubt he knew exactly what was going on in the temple worship practices (as evidenced by what he says in the Corinthian letters). And the outcome of all this (via the Holy Spirit) was that some mocked but others heard.
For me, a vital part of these considerations is motive—why am I doing what I do? What lies behind the choices I make? Scripture enjoins me to do all for the glory of God. So whether or not I eat meat sacrificed to idols—or whatever the modern counterpart would be—I am to eat or not eat as unto the Lord. Under the right circumstances, what might be considered questionable behavior can be honoring to God. Jesus—to use a perilous example—associated with tax collectors and sinners, and was roundly condemned for it by the Jewish religious leaders. Now, I am not about to draw a direct comparison between that situation and the issue under discussion here. Jesus never put a wrong foot in his entire life and his motives are past questioning. But it does provoke some interesting thoughts, don’t you agree?
51. Ken Abbott
May 11, 2006
12:32 PM
By the way, I’m still waiting to read Tim’s critique of “Millions.”
52. Bill Barnes
May 11, 2006
1:24 PM
Mike.
Did “Jesus is the bottom line” really confuse you?
Luke 9:35
“A voice came from the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him.”
John 14:21
“He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.”
Revelation 3:11-14
“Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders. 12 In a loud voice they sang:
“Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain,
to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength
and honor and glory and praise!”
13 Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing:
“To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
be praise and honor and glory and power,
for ever and ever!” 14 The four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshiped.”
I am sorry bro but we began with whether Christians should see movies like “Crash” and now you’re antsy about whether praise, glory and honor to Jesus Christ will upset the balance between the Holy Trinity?
I take your other points on board. Yes, it’s all well worth tussling with, which is what we are doing. There is tension in the Gospel and that is what is being played out in these posts. I respect your position, my only point is that we don’t delude ourselves by thinking that by not watching a movie like Crash we have obtained some sort of super-spirituality. I just sense a bit of that in your comments. We all struggle mightily with sin. Let us remain humble in that and trust the Lord God Almighty to deliver us from it.
Bill
53. Greg Gemmell
May 11, 2006
1:25 PM
Ken,
I was determined to make my “final post” really final. Oh well! I really don’t want to digress too much from my original question. How do you apply Philippians 4:8 to the junk seen in movies? No one has really answered that yet. All I have seen is people redirecting the post to other issues and questions (which is fine) but I still have not heard a good Biblical argument that says it is ok to “meditate or think on” things that are so blatantly opposed to Phil. 4:8.
Also, regarding Paul in Acts 17: Don’t you think there is a HUGE difference between being aware of your culture because you can’t escape it (like walking around Athens or Las Vegas for us today) versus actually PAYING to see a strip show or a movie that has similar content? HOW CAN a Christian justify spending the money God has entrusted to them on stuff that seems so opposed to not only Phil. 4:8 but any number of other verses in Scripture? I have seen plenty of junk in my day, but I am not going to spend money God has entrusted to me on it.
In Christ,
Greg
54. Ken Abbott
May 11, 2006
2:22 PM
Greg: Glad you changed your mind about continuing the discussion. The short (and hopefully nonflippant) answer to your question is: Carefully. The maturing Christian should exercise godly discretion in all things, with a constant eye toward motive as previously mentioned. In other words, what is my purpose in seeing this movie, or TV show, or in reading this book/magazine? Clearly there are some circumstances where a person is just playing with fire—reading certain magazines “for the articles” comes to mind. Going to see some movies purely for entertainment may be appropriate, but other films require a better motive and still others may be inappropriate no matter the circumstances. I can think of no good reason for me ever to see something like “Deep Throat.” Similarly, I would not ever visit an establishment in which nude dancing takes place. But one can not draw a direct correlation from a strip club (whose purpose is entirely to profit from the titillation factor) to a movie in which nudity is displayed, not as an emphasized feature (as in pornography) but as an element of the whole production. The line of discernment may differ from individual Christian to Christian—that’s the whole point, IMO, of Paul’s discussion in 1 Corinthians 10. Part of working through that is sensitivity to the convictions of other believers.
Another movie that has provoked a very similar discussion is the upcoming “Da Vinci Code.” I’ve seen numerous arguments pro and con for Christians’ response—go, don’t go, go but not on opening weekend, protest, ignore it. What’s the right answer? Again, it comes down to individual conviction and motive.
Isn’t it interesting that “The Passion of the Christ” was just as controversial?
55. Mike Perrigoue
May 11, 2006
7:26 PM
Bill Barnes,
No the “Jesus bottom line” statement didn’t really confuse me. The Trinitarian rant was meant as tongue-in-cheek since there’s a whole bunch of people that hold to “Jesus Only” or “Red Letter” theology. My bad for not saying so. I guess I should have used a smiley emoticon. Anyway, I was pretty sure I knew what you meant. However, I was confused as to what that had to do with the topic. While I understand your point in saying it I don’t believe it helps or lends to the topic. For me, bottom line, Jesus is my Savior. And for you, bottom line, Jesus is your Savior. That’s established and obviously something we both agree on…AMEN! Yet, we still have the problem of what movies we allow ourselves to watch. See what I mean? Sorry for the confusion…email and comments are cumbersome because you can’t see my smirk or tears as I write.
Now, you said “I respect your position, my only point is that we don’t delude ourselves by thinking that by not watching a movie like Crash we have obtained some sort of super-spirituality. I just sense a bit of that in your comments. We all struggle mightily with sin. Let us remain humble in that and trust the Lord God Almighty to deliver us from it.”
Wow, Bill. That was not my intention at all. Again, we may be at the mercy of “technology” here but nowhere did I mention or allude to how the types of movies we watch determine our level of spirituality. I do not believe this AT ALL! I truly do believe card carrying Blockbuster Video patrons will make it to Heaven! If my comments led you to believe otherwise, please forgive me. And I agree, we do all struggle “mightily” with sin…so hard is the struggle I have a hard time accepting that Christians can watch movies that portray sexual immorality or obscene language and not be affected. I’d still love to see how you answer the numbered questions I asked you above…don’t feel obligated though.
Ken Abbott,
I thought that was where you were going…and I still disagree. I think you make a big leap FROM Paul quoting some ancient poets writing about stars, weather, and Greek gods TO us today watching movies filled with sexual immorality and obscene language in order to better understand our culture. By the way, these poets lived hundreds of years before Jesus Christ. I have a hard time believing Paul wasn’t already familiar with them before coming to Athens. It wasn’t like he strolled into town and picked up the latest Cosmo to see what these Athenians were all talking about. Someone may say “fo’ shizzle” but that says nothing about whether or not they listen to or even like Snoop Dogg. And it would be wrong for someone to come to that conclusion and then go out and buy the albums he makes because “so and so likes ‘em”. This kind of logic is laughable…but unfortunately used plenty often.
Ken, moving on to your comment to Greg:
Let me get this straight:
1. Mike no likey “Crash”
2. Ken no likey “Deep Throat”
3. “insert name” no likey “insert really really bad movie”
4. etc.
All you’ve done Ken, is move my conviction down a couple of notches and placed it on something else. How can you tell Jim-Bob “Deep Throat” is bad if you yourself watch “Crash”. Does the amount of sex and nudity determine the level of appropriateness? Oh, wait, I guess to you it does because you said something about the “element of the whole production.”
So, now we have the motive of the movie watcher and the movie maker.
This is getting very interesting…
Bill and Ken, I truly do love you brothers!
P.S.
This thread has been really edifying for me!!! I hope nobody is getting their feelings hurt. Let us continue to sharpen each other…and take what we learn out into a lost world. Let us discuss and preach with/to our culture the way Paul did…with courage and conviction. I’m sure we all can do a better job of that, huh?
56. Bill Barnes
May 11, 2006
9:32 PM
Mike:
I have also found your comments edfiying and I agree about the limitations of e-mail. Your last post was so gracious let me try and answer your questions.
1. I don’t view watching Crash or other secular movies as a bet on my Christian life. I spend considerable time in the Word, prayer and fellowship with other Christians. I am accountable to other Christians and am very serious about growing in Christ. There certainly are situations that I wouldn’t put myself in. They are situations that I feel would be clearly sinning. Cursing, drinking excessively, looking at pornography, making lewd comments, treating others unkindly, etc. But I am sincere about also wanting to be with sinners. I don’t know how they learn about the Gospel otherwise. I also think it’s pretty clear that Jesus kept company with sinners and was not happy at how the Pharisees felt so superior to them.
2. I am certainly not sure of myself. There are some things that I am sure about in God’s word - His love for us, our assurance of salvation, the power of Christ’s blood for forgiveness. I am certain there are other things that I have wrong. I am dependent on the Holy Spirit to bring me along and I pray that He will.
3. I don’t think you lose out on anything if you don’t in your heart think that those going to the movie have sinned. If it’s an occassion for spiritual pride then I think you do lose.
4. What do I lose if you’re right and I am wrong? Well, I’ll bet you I’ve been wrong a lot today. I am sure I’ve sinned today and perhaps sinned without even knowing it. I really am trying not to get sarcastic because your words were so gentle but I just don’t see this as a spiritual football game. I think the Mormons are pretty good at that incidentally. I also think they’re religion is straight out of…not Heaven. I am not accusing you of that but I think that is the evil in following rules and not the heart. And I have to say there just isn’t a clear Biblical rule on whether we can see a secular movie with cussing and sex in it (I am sure that will initiate another 15 posts).
5, Well I am pretty sure that there’s nothing in the Bible that says thou shalt not watch secular entertainment. It just seems that this sort of attitude gets us headed in the wrong direction, i.e., let’s draw up a list of what we can and can’t do. That list gets pretty extensive and we start to think we gain our salvation by making sure we tick off all the boxes. I know you know that is not the message of the Cross. You may well be right but even you admitted it won’t keep me out of Heaven because my only claim is that I have been washed in the blood of Jesus Christ. He is my Lord and my Savior. I absolutely do NOT use this as a free pass to sin - GOD FORBID. I am honestly, sincerely fighting sin as hard as I can (“The Enemy Within” Erik Lundgaardand has been very helpful with that and I recommend it). I have not made a truce with it. If you could convince me that seeing this movie was a sin I wouldn’t see it.
Thank you so much for your gentle comments. Look me up in Heaven and we can settle this. Somehow though, I think we’ll have better things to do.
Love,
Bill
57. Mike Perrigoue
May 12, 2006
12:42 AM
Amen, Bill. Thanks for the reply. Your, right…I do have many more comments and questions regarding your answers to my questions. I hope others keep this thread going because I’ll be gone for the next few days. It would be great to see some headway made on this issue by the time I get back…yes, I think we’re getting close. And no, I don’t think it will be “solved”, but I think that strong Christian men can come to an agreement on this issue. Maybe the blessing of doing things this way is that the communication gap forces us to REALLY think about what we’re typing…
One last thing. I don’t EVER want to boil down Christianity to a list of rules. And I would certainly never express it that way to anyone or hold someone to my list of do’s and dont’s. My point is this: Let’s not abuse our freedom in Christ. And quite simply, God has not given us the freedom to do some of the things we Christians regularly do.
58. Ken Abbott
May 17, 2006
4:50 PM
I have been meaning to get back to this for several days and even now I don’t have time for a lengthy response. There is a lot of truth to what has been posted above; the area of agreement between Mike, Bill, and myself is much larger than the area of disagreement.
The line of discretion will differ from believer to believer. This is, in my humble opinion, exactly what Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 10. Christians are called to a standard of behavior, a standard of holiness. Exactly how that works itself out in each believer’s life is different. Some people have susceptibilities in areas that are of no particular trouble to others. This is where we must respect one another. I do not mean to preach moral relativism—my point is that Christian liberty is the balance between antinomianism and legalism.
By the way, here’s a thoughtful review of “Crash” that recognizes the moral problems with the film while illuminating its strengths: http://www.decentfilms.com/sections/reviews/crash2005.html
59. Bill Barnes
May 17, 2006
6:29 PM
I think you’re right about us agreeing on much more than we disagree on Ken. This has been a great discussion for me and I hope I’ll bump into you guys on other chats. I don’t want to be proud about it at all but I do feel that our conversation has been God-honoring. It’s clear to me that we are serious about these issues and respect the opinions of our brothers.
Shalom,