I was reading in James tonight, and I had to stop in verses 26-27 of the first chapter. It's not often that I have to stop like I did, usually I can finish a book like James in one sitting and then Meditate and think on what I've read. But this section stopped me dead:
"If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world."
The relevant part is at the end. Christians are called to keep ourselves "unstained" from the world. The language James is using is the same as 1 Peter 1 talking about the sacrificial Lamb being without blemish. this got me thinking (again) about what Christians should and should not partake in when it comes to media.
Pastor James Harleman from Seattle has his own site where he reviews movies that most Christians won't even watch. (reviews available here) he explains why here but a shortened quote may help those who don't want to read the whole thing:
"We are image-bearers of our Creator, a master storyteller whose narrative spans all of creation, a metanarrative in which we all play a part. Made in the image of our Creator, we have a yearning to both create, and be entertained, by narrative"
By connecting "secular" narratives created by that save God-given creativity to the metanarrative of the scriptures, Harleman takes cultural engagement to a new level.The question now is what is acceptable to watch and what is not.
The answer to this comes from Jesus, in Mark 7:15 Jesus says this: “Hear me, all of you, and understand: There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” Yes, in context, Jesus obviously was not talking about movies or any form of media. The immediate context is food and eating. But the broader context applies directly doesn't it? I'll explain.
I had a conversation with my lovley wife tonight, we were talking about the recent controversy surrounding "South Park". Read about that here. In the end she won't watch South Park and certain other movies because the gratuitous language may cause her (and other good friends of ours who share the same postion) to fall into the same behaviour themselves. I on the other hand am free to watch the show and appreciate the (usually) excellent social commentary without it affecting by behaviour.
What we have here is a basic "weaker brother" situation. Some of us are free to watch things like South Park et al because they woun't blemish us or defile us and some cannot. Because the measure is mot what goes in, but what comes out.
Christianity: we have shades of grey too!
-Kevin
I have to say (as I'm sure you saw coming) that I think you're completely wrong on this one.
ReplyDeleteLet's take your use of Christ's words and take them to their logical conclusion. So, any and all levels of swearing is okay, long as it's going and not coming in at least. Also any and all violence. In fact, sexuality in movies only comes in. So, I guess watching pornos is okay as long as you don't actually cheat on your spouse. In fact, going to a strip club and watching there is okay, since it's only coming in not going out.
Here's the problem with your argument: Yes, no external factor can forcibly put you in the position of sinning. Sinning is something you choose/do. However, just like choosing to look at strippers, and put yourself in that position of accepting that filth as entertainment is a sin, so is choosing to flood your senses with filthy language and disgusting sexually based jokes and put yourself in that position a sin.
In regards to entertainment I believe there is a much more appropriate verse to bear in mind:
Philippians 4:8,9
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.
When we watch things filled with crude jokes, sexuality, swearing and graphic violence we are spending hours and hours meditating on... well, certainly not pure or praiseworthy things.
Why would you choose the part about being 'unstained' as the relevant part of that verse rather than the instruction to look after orphans and widows?
ReplyDeleteBill:
ReplyDeleteMy friend, it will be a pleasant surprise when you simply agree with me on any topic.Sadly I must debunk your "Hyperbolic Logic"
No, looking at porn is not ok under my framework. Remember that Jesus said even thinking about adultery IS adultery. Therefore, looking at porn IS adultery and IS in itself a sinful activity. Really man, I've seen you come up with better arguments in your sleep...
While your Philippians 4 argument has a point, I beg to differ. I would argue that you are correct if all you are searching for is entertainment, but if you, as I am are searching for a way to connect the narrative presented to the Biblical metanarrative then really there is no such thing as pure entertainment.
Anonymous:
It's just the part of the verse that happened to stand out to me during this particular reading, don't blame me, blame the Holy Spirit for getting me thinking. :)
Thanks for the comments
-Kevin
Kevin, I appreciate you admitting that I make better arguments than you even in my sleep ;)
ReplyDeleteAnd that being the case, let me explain why your attempt to rebuff my previous argument has failed.
First, my point in comparing taking in pornography through the eyes to taking in gross amounts of swearing and/or violence obviously wasn't to try and argue that pornography is okay. My point was that the Bible's teaching that things coming in aren't what's sinful, but what's going out, is not a blanket statement. Pornography is proof of that (clearly, that's from the outside coming in). You've taken Jesus' words and suggested that they are all encompassing which is clearly not the case (as even you admit regarding pornography).
That being the case, you never actually rebutted my previous argument, most succinctly contained here:
Here's the problem with your argument: Yes, no external factor can forcibly put you in the position of sinning. Sinning is something you choose/do. However, just like choosing to look at strippers, and put yourself in that position of accepting that filth as entertainment is a sin, so is choosing to flood your senses with filthy language and disgusting sexually based jokes and put yourself in that position is a sin.
In regards to your attempt to rebut my Philippians 4 argument, considering how many movies are out there (hundreds of thousands? Millions?), it seems like a pretty hollow excuse to suggest that it's okay to watch movies with that kind of filth so that you can find the metanarrative in it. After all, you have an excessive abundance of choices you could go through which don't have an R rating, and you'd still never be able to get through them all.
That and, let's be honest here, I find it hard to believe that being entertained is not your primary goal when you're watching movies. So arguing that it's okay because you've got a higher purpose in mind doesn't come across all that convincing.
To use another exaggerative example (cuz I know you love those;) that's like if I started going to strip clubs to witness to people. It still wouldn't be right, cuz there's a whole lot of more cleaner and more appropriate ways I could be fulfilling that higher level I was trying to accomplish. Just like there's a lot of cleaner and more appropriate kinds of entertainment that you could seek out that metanarrative in.
Later bro.
-Bill
P.s. See, I told you I'd get back to this yet