by Trevin Wax
I grew up in a fundamentalist environment. The church I was
baptized in believed it was inappropriate for Christians to go to a movie
theater. To this day, my grandparents maintain this standard as a bulwark
against worldliness.
The library at my Christian school had a variety of books
for children, sanitized for Christian consumption. Encyclopedia Brown made the
cut, but all the “goshes” and “gee whizzes” were marked out with a heavy black
pen. No second-hand cursing allowed.
Films without anything objectionable were allowed at school,
but looking back, I see how this analysis was applied simplistically. I
still remember watching an old version of The Secret Garden - a movie
with no cursing, thank goodness, but with a pseudo-pantheistic worldview that
healing power is pulsating through all living things.
As a teenager, I discovered the work of Chuck Colson,
Francis Schaeffer, and C. S. Lewis. These men had a different perspective on
art and its merits. I began to see artistic analysis differently. I realized
Disney movies weren’t safe just because they were “clean,” and PG-13 movies
weren’t bad just because they had language or violence. It was possible to
watch a movie with a critical eye for the underlying worldview.
I never subscribed to the fundamentalist vision that saw
holiness in terms of cultural retreat or worldliness as anything that smacked
of cultural engagement. I don’t subscribe to that position today.
But sometimes I wonder if evangelicals have swung the
pendulum too far to the other side, to the point where all sorts of
entertainment choices are validated in the name of cultural engagement.
Generally speaking, I enjoy the movie reviews I read
in Christianity Today and World magazine. They go beyond
counting cuss words or flagging objectionable content and offer substantive
analysis of a movie’s overall message. But in recent years, I’ve begun to
wonder if we’re more open than we should be to whatever Hollywood puts out.
Take, for example, Christianity
Today’s recent review of The
Wolf of Wall Street. Alyssa Wilkinson devotes nearly half of her
review to the graphic depictions of immorality, yet still gives the film 3.5
stars out of 4. Another review counts 22 sex scenes, but can’t be
sure since it’s hard to tell when one ends and another begins.
My question is this: at what point do we consider a film
irredeemable, or at least unwatchable? At what point do we say it is
wrong to participate in certain forms of entertainment?
I understand there are complexities to this issue. Some
Christians disagreed with the praise showered on the recent Les Miserables film. I am
among the number who thought Les
Mis showcased the glory of redemption. It was a movie in which
the sordid elements only served to accentuate the beauty of grace and the
dehumanizing nature of sin.
Les Miserables is
not unlike the accounts we read in our Bibles. Sexual immorality, rape,
and violence are part and parcel of the Scriptural narrative. If a movie
version of the book of Genesis were made, it wouldn’t be for minors. It seems
silly to cross out cuss words from Encyclopedia Brown when first-graders can
discover some pretty adult-themed events in their Adventure Bibles.
So, please don’t hear me advocating for a simplistic
denunciation of Hollywood films. I am not. But I am concerned that many
evangelicals may be expending more energy in avoiding the appearance of being
“holier-than-thou” than we do in avoiding evil itself.
Yes, Paul used a popular poet of his day in order to make a
point in his gospel presentation. Cultural engagement is important and necessary. But
church history shows us that for every culture-engager there’s also a Gregory
of Nyssa type who saw the entertainment mindset as decadent and deserving of
judgment.
Is there justification for viewing gratuitous violence or
sexual content?
At what point does our cultural engagement become just a
sophisticated way of being worldly?
I find it hard to imagine the ancient Israelites admiring
the artwork on the Asherah poles they were called to tear down. I find it hard
to picture the early church fathers attending the games at the Roman coliseum,
praising the artistic merits of the arena even as they provide caveats against
violence.
Yet now in the 21st century, we are expected to find
redeemable qualities in what would only be described by people throughout
church history as “filth.”
What’s the point in decrying the exploitation of women in
strip clubs and mourning the enslavement of men to pornography when we
unashamedly watch films that exploit and enslave?
I do not claim to have this all figured out. But one thing I
know: our pursuit of holiness must be the mark against which our pursuit
of cultural engagement is measured.
If, like me, you’re conflicted about this issue, maybe it’s
because we should be.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2014/01/06/evangelicals-and-hollywood-muck/
No comments:
Post a Comment