How are we to discern which secular media (movies and television shows in particular) is fit for consumption, and not only that, but which we can commend to others? Alan Noble from Christ and Pop Culture basically explains that a book such as Judges portrays the world as it is, and thus portrays truth, and in the context of a larger redemptive truth. The assumption here is that there are similarities between this truth and the redemptive themes that my run through secular media. To this end, I offer the following brief analysis of Judges 3:7-11 as a paradigm for true redemptive narrative, which will in time become and introduction to a sermon I suspect. Please bear with me and consider these thoughts:
Observations and Arguments. First, this book is included in Holy Scripture, so there is something that can be learned or emulated from it. Christian cultural commentators might say that it is the portrayal of truth, and that the communication of truth is always desirable. The book simply recounts people acting as they are. Second, the book of Judges portrays the sin and rebellion of the nation of Israel. Cultural commentators are quick to parallel this with the sin that is portrayed in media, and that viewing or reading about sin does not necessarily cause us to sin. An honest presentation of mankind is incomplete without the depiction of sin. Third, the book demonstrates a subsequent downward cycle of rebellion and wickedness. Judges does not end with a fairytale happy ending. So others take this to show that movies must not necessarily have happy endings. Sometimes evil appears to triumph over good, and these cases may still and often most powerfully teach a lesson or make a point. Finally, Judges is not only permissible to read but imperative, as it is Scripture. and portrays the reality of our world. Movies, likewise, portray aspects of the world and allow us to be involved and experience what we might otherwise be unable to, in order to better understand the world in which we live.
Analysis. While clearly the above are arguments given in support of media, there is not merely a fine distinction but rather a gaping hole in the argument. After meditating on the passage the differences are irreconcileable. Certainly the book of Judges records the history of the nation of Israel in the time between the Exodus and kingship. However, the account is not merely historical but also theological, written and preserved in such a way as to make a point. I concede that media makes a point as well. So one task is to compare the purpose and see if they are aligned, or even similar? What is the purpose of the book of Judges?
The purpose of the book of Judges is to highlight the faithfulness of God in contrast to the faithlessness of His people. Did you catch that? God is the great protagonist, and the judges act out his will upon the earth. It is the Spirit upon them which gives them their strength. Perhaps you don’t like my purpose. Expositor’s Bible Commentary decides that the purpose is to demonstrate that Israel’s spiritual condition determines its political and material situation. What was the purpose of the last movie that you watched? I imagine it does not have the God of the Bible anywhere near its controlling purpose statement.
With that in mind, we might now respond to the four claims above.
1. Yes, something can be learned from secular media as it can from Scripture, but their themes and meanings are in diametric opposition. Judges does not simply present a record, but gives a select record. Media does not simply present neutral and comprehensive facts, but only those relevant to the argument being made. After honest consideration, I believe you will find a vast difference between the purpose and themes of Scripture and secular media. Also, truth is not reason enough. A vivid description of illicit acts, while true, is unworthy of our attention simply because it is true.
2. The sin portrayed in Judges is unlike that of the media. First, sin is never glorified in the Bible, but its horrendous effects are clear. This can also be true for movies. But Scripture also explains why sin is horrendous, namely that it is a sin against a Holy God, rather than cosmological karma. Additionally, there is a difference in the medium. Surely no one will dispute that experiential aspect of videos and interactivity that it depends upon in order to garner interest in viewers. In the Bible certain passages are suggestive or direct about inappropriate sexual behavior, for example, but to watch direct or even suggestive behavior on screen is quite different. There is an obvious reason why the big screen is so important to the film, largely that it is part of the experience. Unfortunately, when many people presume that we can view sin without ourselves personally sinning (as Christ did, since his life was sinless), the greatly underestimate the effects of our fallen nature. Finally, there is a great difference between the elective viewing of movies and seeing it unavoidably in life. For your consideration, please realize that Scripture is not only historically true but beneficial for study, our lives are historically true, unavoidably experienced, and deserving consideration, while films are fictional, external, elective, and rarely edifying. You can choose what you should spend your time thinking about, because it is usually a focus on one to the detriment of another.
3. Yes, there is a clear downward cycle of sin and no ready happy ending. But be careful before jumping immediately to apply this give credibility to “depressing” movies. Consider the cycle more closely. With Othniel as a paradigm, we can witness the downward cycle as follows: Israel’s Sin (3:7), Israel’s Servitude (3:8), Israel’s Supplication (3:9), Israel’s Salvation (3:9-10) and finally Israel’s Security (3:11). If a movie would mimic this, then I would be in full support. However while we may view the sin and resulting servitude in media, prayer to God and salvation by God have largely been replaced with a humanistic salvation. What were the last lessons that you remember? I can think of some: be true to yourself, take a risk, don’t give up, family is important, greed is harmful. If there is no sin against God, then there is no need for redemption by God. If it is only ruptured relationships, then forgiveness and grace from men are all that is necessary. Take God out of the picture and the most redemptive message on screen is still an affront to the holiness of God. Yet an account of increasing wickedness with God in the picture presents a loving picture of God’s faithfulness to His people.
4. Certainly movies help us to understand the world in which we live, often illustrating the depravity of man. Yet this is of little benefit without the goodness of God. Some films do a great job of painting our fallen world, but they do not point to the Savior. But even more foundational is the fact that these lessons are believed by the general public to only be learnable on the big screen. I had never thought of that before, but by their actions, people testify to the truth of that statement every day. Instead of helping out in a convalescent home or soup kitchen, we watch movies that jerk our tears. We become even more separated from the needs of our world, insulated, rather than being propelled into action. There are needy, the poor, the sick, the widow and orphan all around us, and if we were taking care of them we would not need movies. In fact it is the very reason that we aren’t doing this that movies are being made, because it is increasingly rare for Christians to work out their faith.
Finally, unless a movie glorifies God, and not simply denigrates man at its best, then it does not pass the Philippians test regardless of how we process it or rationalize it. Scripture encourages worship of God; secular media does not. I hope that Christians will begin to get tired of the energy that is expended defending secular media and searching to find meaning within it. Instead of making the best out of a bad situation, instead of defending hurtful media, we should consider what we can learn from Scripture and use media to make something truly commendable. This is the generation that calls evil good because it is unwilling to give up its base desires, rather than at least admitting the harmful elements of media. Even if unwilling to give it up, please do not promote it and so snare others but identify and confess it as a struggle and area of accountability of God in which you desire to grow.
Can carnal but skilled and artistic people glorify God in their work? No. Scripture clearly tell us that those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Rom. 8:8) And it likewise warns us that friendship with the world is enmity with God. (James 4:4) The test is not to take Philippian 4:8 and look for something true or honorable or right or pure or lovely or of good repute or excellent and worthy of praise. We need a paradigm shift, a change of thinking, so that a single blemish and failure to line up with Scripture will give us pause, rather than a single positive quality bringing our praise when it comes to media.
I think you’re preaching to the choir, there … no one who does not agree with you already is likely to find your arguments compelling.
The logic you’re employing here could easily be taken to mean, “Don’t read/consume any media but the Bible and specifically devotional literature.”
Certainly a case could be made for being more careful about which media you allow into your life, knowing that some could have a detrimental effect … but shutting yourself off from everything but the narrow confines of what is really only a small segment of Christian thought, and closing off all interaction with others, all other sources of truth, is not likely to provide you with a better understanding of God and what he intends for you and others, but rather a more limited one … and, further, leads to the kind of closed-off, self-righteous legalism that makes you even more irrelevant to those who need the gospel.
“Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: ‘Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!’? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.”
Thanks for the visit again, Ben. I understand that the logic can be taken that as its extreme, but I’m not promoting isolation. I don’t mind what people watch, but I do mind the promotion of harmful material on the youth that I instruct. There certainly are more neutral distractions available, and there is also media (beyond the Bible and devotional material) that gives glory to God. I’m just confronting the bad habit we have of intellectual dishonesty when we defend blatantly offensive material.
You are right that rules such as “do not handle, taste or touch” represent legalism, but you fail to see the intention of the passage. It’s meaning is that superficial rules do not bring about the transformation of the heart that drives our sanctification. I wholeheartedly agree. Plus, let me add that handling an idol, tasting pork, and touching a Gentile is not the same as glorying in a film depicting unnecessarily violent and sexually suggestive/explicit scenes.
This is post is, more than anything, the formation of personal convictions and not a set of rules for others. I’ll probably be off the topic for a while, or if I ever get on it again I bring up a specific film or television show.
The post came out of my realization that there is a substantive difference between the book of Judges and modern film. Rather than simply an attack on film, this is an opportunity to have truly redemptive projects. As Alan said in his post, we want to encourage artists doing what is commendable and not simply profitable. Here is an additional perspective, by looking at Judges, of what is commendable.
Although I do not agree with all the points you raise here, I am thankful for the way you thoughtfully engage the topic. Wrestling with what our liberty is is not an easy thing, and it is crucial that we consider all sides of the issue. I am particularly pleased with the way you stress the media’s destructive effects on our youth (and culture in general). Being a substitute teacher, I have personally witnessed these destructive effects. Any discussion of the qualities of film that do not address its potential harm is incomplete. With that in mind, I think you might be interested in reading Rich’s post’s on the merits and dangers of film:
http://www.christandpopculture.com/film/in-praise-of-film/
http://www.christandpopculture.com/film/the-dangers-of-film/
While I don’t think we can agree on all aspects of the media and our engagement with it, I am encouraged to see another perspective thoughtfully presented.
I understand what you’re trying to do … but it seems that the only argument you are adding to the discussion is “Because film does not have a strictly Christian redemptive message, the ‘objectionable material’ contained within cannot be overlooked.”
Obviously the Bible contains a great deal of this same “objectionable material” … rape, murder, incest, genocide, even foul language … and if the only reason that those things can be overlooked is because of a blatantly Christian message and authorial intent, then you’re less than half a step away from the Puritans who banned Shakespeare and the Catholics who banned Galileo … that is, an entirely exclusive epistemology that says, “We can learn nothing about God, Creation, Life and Love from those who are not focused 100% on our version of Christianity”.
Certainly this idea is not unique in the history of Christianity, but I think it’s a dangerous path to tread, and one that perhaps runs counter to the meaning behind Jesus’ statement … “there were many lepers in Israel, but only Naaman the Syrian was healed”.
Maybe you also think Shakespeare is not worth reading / consuming, but it might make sense to step back and ask yourself whether the cases are analogous.
As to my reading of the Colossians passage, if it’s not relevant to cases like this, then why is Paul speaking of “restraining sensual indulgence”? Wouldn’t the primary reason to refrain from watching movies be to “restrain your sensual indulgence”? I sat there for a while trying to figure out how general he was being, and I don’t think I’m off base in drawing a parallel there.
Caveat: I’m certainly not against being more careful about what we watch. This is something I’m convicted about on occasion as well … but I think that we can learn some things about God and the things that matter from non-Christians.
Perhaps I am misjudging you, but I’m reminded of all the flak “Wild at Heart” got for “using movies to explain God”, which I think was misplaced. Or, again, the fact that as recently as 25 years ago, many Christian seminaries had a blanket ban on students watching films. I don’t think that was the right idea.
Ben, hopefully these comments will clear up some misunderstandings between us. I don’t assume you are purposely misrepresenting my position, but that I must have not written clearly. Here are three direct points:
1. The “objectionable material” of the Bible is not a license for “objectionable material” in film. There are substantive differences, including but not limited to differences in kind and extent of description, type of media, purpose and intent, and qualities. All Scripture is useful for three things, and that certainly cannot be said of “objectionable material” on film. I’ll leave it up to you to draw your own application, but I personally will not use an argument that film can portray certain acts because they are mentioned in the Bible. I’m sorry if you believe I’m less than a step from the Puritans, and I did not advocate any ban whatsoever.
2. There is certainly truth in film. I have not denied this, nor do I only find instructive those who “are focused 100% on our version of Christianity.” You bring up Shakespeare as an analogous case, and I’ll leave it to you to determine where such an analogy fails.
3. Your understanding of Col 2:16-23 is still missing the point. You are right that it concerns “sexual indulgence” but are wrong in your application to the matter at hand. Here is your error: The passage addresses laws, since laws do not change the heart. You have taken this to support the abolishment of all laws. Of course that seems ridiculous when stated that way, but that is how you are using the argument. Let me also add that nowhere did I advocate legalism, nor righteousness from abstaining from certain activities, so you are furthermore erecting a “straw man.” In a sense, you have responded to my call for discernment by saying “but laws don’t bring sanctification!”
I am advocating that people consider their desires and motives as well as the purpose and effects of the media that they watch. I’m advocating a consideration of the tradeoffs that we make in the activities and entertainment that we enjoy. I’m addressing weak arguments for film, and awaiting thoughtful Christians out there to respond with better ones, since I know they have yet to be communicated. I don’t communicate as clearly or precisely as I’d like, and I appreciate your grace and time to understand.
Alan, thanks for your comment and for continuing to generate posts and podcast episodes. Though we don’t agree, your ministry is always thought-provoking, and helps me to understand a world with which I’m increasingly unfamiliar.