Great Art And Story
“Free_Will”_by_Marendo_Müller
At one point he said
It’s at least a possible sign of danger when we approach a controversial topic with appeals to a Higher Power that is not God. In this case [what is acceptable in fiction regarding sex and nudity], the needs of the story are trotted out in an effort to eliminate any objections, as if the discussion is over once the story has spoken.
Add to this the oft repeated accusation that Christians no longer produce art but “tracts,” and I begin to wonder, what’s so great, so necessary about producing art?
The thing is, “art” is a word with transient meaning. The definition of art in the Oxford American Dictionary is helpful, I think, in making this point clear:
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power
“Beauty” we say, is in the eye of the beholder (though that may or may not be true), and certainly what moves one person to tears may or may not affect another person in the same way, so if art is human creativity appreciated for its beauty or emotional power, then it seems apparent that what one generation or culture reveres as art may not be revered universally.
Once, pictures of plump cherubs fluttering over figures with halos was considered great art. Hundreds of years later, paintings of common objects such as soup cans became cutting edge art—a sort of rebellion against the art of abstraction that focused on shape and shade with little thought of beauty or emotional power.
And yet from Picasso to Monet to Warhol, from the Renaissance painters and the Greeks that inspired them to the Modern artists who rebelled against them, from the statue of David to Andres Serrano’s profane picture of his own urine, works of questionable beauty or emotional power have made their way into museums of art.
Now the cry goes up—where’s the great Christian art of today? Most people asking the question are referring to more than visual art.
In connection to stories, the implication is that “great art” must meet some acceptable standard which includes a degree of realism. I find this odd in the day of animation and computer-generated images. Why would Christians want their artists to revert to a former artistic style?
But greater than this question is the one that Cap Steward raised: should the demands of Story rise above the demands God places on His people?
Yes, demands. God’s grace is free. He recognizes we cannot earn salvation. We are incapable of what it takes—a pure life. Consequently He offers the pure life of His Son in our place, a substitution reminiscent of the various substitutions pictured in the Old Testament (such as God taking the Levites as His in place of the first born of all the people of Israel—see Numbers 8).
But once we come to God, He doesn’t turn us loose to do whatever we want. Rather, He lays out for us the path of discipleship. We are to follow Him in obedience.
So do the demands of Story ever conflict with the demands of obedience? I don’t doubt that some people would say, No—Story is about showing this world as it is, so there is no conflict because there is no question of obedience. A novelist, in essence, is simply holding up the camera and clicking.
Other people would argue, of course there is a conflict because the novelist can determine where to aim the camera—if toward sex, nudity, graphic violence, then obedience is very much in question.
The “where is Christian art” crowd claims that to make great art, the Christian must show the world as it is. Anything less is dishonest and a form of Kincaid-ism—painting with words only that which is beautiful, nostalgic, and evocative of warmth and security.
But that brings me back to the question: what’s so necessary about the Christian producing art? After all, the Great Commission is for Christ’s disciples to go and make more disciples, not great art.
Often people with a perspective like mine are chided for requiring a utilitarian function to what we create. We should do good art because God is glorified in good art, the thinking goes, and our purpose is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.
As it happens, Scripture doesn’t spell out this “glorify God and enjoy Him forever” purpose, though it certainly can be assumed from various passages. However, I’ve been taught that “the plain thing is the main thing” and that we aren’t to re-interpret clear Scripture based on more ambiguous passages.
It is clear that followers of Jesus are instructed to go and make disciples. It is also clear we are to walk in a manner worthy of God, of our calling, of the Lord (1 Thess. 2:12, Eph. 4:1, Col. 1:10). It is clear we are to be holy (1 Peter 1:15-16), that we are to take up our cross and follow Jesus (Matt. 16:24), that we are to love God above all else, then love our neighbors as ourselves (Luke 10:27). But make great art?
I understand, many will say, when we make a beautiful thing, we glorify God because He is the Creator who endowed us with the ability and our doing what He has gifted us to do proclaims His greatness, His glory, in the same way that the heavens proclaim who He is.
I don’t think I buy that explanation. God made the heavens. He didn’t make my story. He made me with the ability to make a story, and my ability to do so is a glory to His name, but that still doesn’t mean my story glorifies Him. Not my story, or any story.
Quite frankly, art is too ephemeral to be a great means of glorifying God. Today someone may praise a work as great art and tomorrow others will cast it into the remains bin or deleted from their iPad.
What’s more, God Himself seems to put more store in our relationship with Him and in how we treat others.
True, as many point out, God did go to great lengths to give Moses detailed blue prints for the tabernacle and all its furnishings, and even the priestly garments. He said more than once that these objects were created for beauty (e.g. Ex. 28:2). However, none was exclusively for that purpose. The lamp, the incense altar, the table for the bread of presence, the ark, the priestly garments, all had a function in the worship process.
But back to fiction. If all this “great art” talk is missing the mark when it comes to what God tasks Christians to do, should we care about the quality of stories, or are we making artificial judgments that don’t need to be made and are better left alone?
I’m of the mindset that God cares about all we do, so we certainly ought to care. I think we should grasp the truth of Exodus and make our stories both functional and beautiful. To do that, we must also grapple with the demands of our culture when it comes to realism in Story and the greater demands of Scripture to obey God in all we do and say.
In the end, because fiction is first a form of communication, I think stories should pay attention to what Scripture says about our correspondence with one another. A good start might be this:
As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love. (Eph. 4:14-16, emphasis added)
Above all, stories show, so in the Christian novelist’s “speaking” he is to show truth and to do so in love—love for his reader.
If novelists all wrote stories from that perspective, would they all look alike? Not at all. Would they be whitewashed? I don’t think so, though I think Christian stories would be distinct.
At the same time, if readers came to stories with that same perspective, I think they’d be a lot less concerned with what words offend them and more concerned about what truth the novelist is showing.
Is this Opposite Week and I missed the memo? What the junk is this article doing on this site? Questioning one’s premise every now and then is probably a healthy thing to do, but what the heck is this? This looks like a giant cop-out. “It’s okay if we suck because Jesus”?
Let’s just get this straight: Opposition to culture does not equal more godliness. Slacktivist link!: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2005/06/29/hegels-bluff/
Notleia, I’m not sure what brought you to the conclusion that I’m saying it’s OK if Christian fiction is bad. I think the heart of my own views is in this:
I also am making no statement that Christians should write in opposition to culture except where culture clashes with Scripture. I do think we should “obey God rather than man,” so if culture says let’s have group sex or profanes the cross of Christ or in some other way makes a mockery of Scripture, all in the name of art, I think we as Christians ought not follow that path. Why should we? Because culture says so? Because art says so?
That’s what Cap Steward was referring to when he said we make idols of Story.
It’s not that art is bad or Story is evil. It’s a matter of who or what is Most Important. God should be. His Word should be. And because God is the source of creativity, I personally believe the stories that align with His kingdom and His righteousness will also be the best art. The most truthful and the most artistic. But I guess that’s just my theory.
Becky
You spent a lot of time de-legitimizing Art as a valid concern for Christian storytellers, emphasizing its subjectivity and its shifting nature as though those were bad things. You also equate Art with Culture, which you set up in a dichotomy (that I, like the Slacktivist, call false) with “Scripture” (the scare quotes being shorthand for interpretative qualities that are very YMMV).
My super-long edit looks to have been eaten, so I will repeat here:
I’m still confused as to whether we are expected to worry about orgies and pee-crucifixes in Christian-oriented art (which I really, really don’t), or whether we need to gather up the torches and pitchforks over orgies and pee-crucifixes in general Art/art that neither targets nor caters to a specifically Christian audience.
Notleia, I don’t think the Christian needs to “worry” about those things—we aren’t tainted, as if we’ll lose our salvation. It’s a matter of wanting to please the Person who matters most. But maybe we as Christian writers need to say that to each other because we’ve been beat over the head with the need to serve Story. In reality we serve the King of kings and Lord of lords.
And I don’t think we need to start book (or art) burning. No one forces us to read books, so we can make choices consistent with what we believe and let others do the same.
Let’s get THIS straight 🙂 Your attempted profundity is unfortunately an epic fail. It is indeed a non sequitur to propose that the mere fact of broad unpopularity is ipso facto proof of one’s rightness with God. Fred Phelps was a living object lesson. Only a simpleton would advance such a fallacious position. People can be universally reviled for all sorts of ungodly reasons. It IS however true that widespread popularity in the culture IS ipso facto proof of WRONGness with God.
Gospel of Luke, 6:22 The words of Jesus:
“Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man.”
Matthew 10:22 Jesus speaking to His disciples.
“You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.”
John 15:18-19 Jesus speaking again.
““If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.”
John speaking in his 1st epistle, 2nd Chapter.
“Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world”.
John speaking in his 1st epistle, 3rd Chapter, 13th verse:
Do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you.
The apostle James chapter 4 verse 4b
Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.
The defining reason? The Lord Jesus speaking of Himself. John 3:19-20
19-“This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20-“For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
There’s more.
No. Simply being an obstreperous jackass that nobody can stand does not establish righteousness. Just the opposite (Romans 12:18) OR, just being stubbornly wrong for that matter.
If however, you are all chummy with the debauched and blasphemous “pop culture” you ARE wrong with the God of the bible. If THIS God hating whoring pagan culture is not included in what is meant by “world” in these passages, then they have no meaning. God DOES have His limited uses for “art” and they are clearly spelled out in His word. The trouble is they bear NO resemblance whatsoever to the breathtaking idolatry that is being committed with “art and entertainment” in today’s chameleon skinned worldly church. This is the unassailable biblical truth, but people will protect their pet addictions over the word of God 95% of the time in the Christendom of the last few decades.
Some of them even while proclaiming glorious gospel truth in many other areas. Those are the most deceived and deceptive cases of all because all that actual truth lends artificial credibility to the undue exaltation of their beloved “art”. I hold out great hope for some that I see who I just cannot believe will persist forever in this error. For now it’s “LA LA LA, I can’t hear you! Go away please. I don’t want to think about this because it will force me to confess the need for some practically unthinkable changes in my life!!”
Have no fear brethren. 🙂 I and some others will not be dissuaded from proclaiming these long held, but now almost lost truths of historic reformed orthodoxy.
Oh believe me, I know the verses and the justifications, but I still think the blind antagonism is a massive waste of time and energy. Not to mention that it completely undermines our “living witness” or whatever the proper term for that is.
Also, when you say things like “God DOES have His limited uses for ‘art’ and they are clearly spelled out in His word,” I’m gonna be all chapter and verse and exegesis, arigato gozaimasu. So come at me with the textual support, bro.
You didn’t address what I said. We’re not talking about what you think. We’re talking about a clear biblical pattern and principle in which light, my antagonism is anything but blind.
Saw your comments on the Blarg, which were automatically held for moderation because all new posters’ comments on WordPress are held for moderation. If you don’t want to waste your time with a “blasphemous, foul-mouthed pagan” (first time I’ve been cast out of the Real, True Christian Tribe so bluntly, hehehe), so I guess I won’t bother to approve them. It looks like respectful discourse just isn’t your thing. You must be fun at parties.
Aw now that’s a real disappointment. All that blasphemous profane language http://blargontheinternet.wordpress.com/2014/08/22/reviewing-black-sun-and-scorn-drunkenly-bottle-4/#comment-96 (bad fruit, bad tree, bad heart, for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. Luke 6) and you can’t stomach a guy making a simple biblical observation?
I still don’t see my answer.
No, the disdain of the world is not proof of righteousness. But friendship with the world betrays one as an enemy of God. The love of the world AND the things therein indicates the absence of the love of God.
I have, trust me, heard ALL manner of painful biblical contortions by which such world lovers have attempted escape from the crystal clear truth that this includes the utterly worshiped “art and entertainment” of our day. Most often by equally painful manglings of the new testament “liberty” passages.
At least they tried. Of course in that usage, world (kosmos) is not indicating exclusively that, or maybe even primarily that in it’s 1st century context, but it most assuredly DOES include the filth that passes for “art”, not just in today’s world anymore, but a harlot church as well. Who uses groovy terms like “nuance” and “context” and “engagement” to justify her own defilement, in flagrant disregard for the plainest biblical precepts imaginable.
Can I look forward to more evasive retreat from you or do you actually have an answer to my effortless squashing of your linked article? IF you do, I’ll show you from Gen. to Rev. God’s uses for “art”. You may not care, but somebody else might and even if they don’t, I will have faithfully declared God’s word on the matter and will rejoice in a conscience clear of offense.
What is your answer. Scripture only please.
While I share the strength of your reaction, a little civility (only a little!) might help us all.
It might not. But you never know when you’re going to need civility given to you.
I have now read this piece maybe 6 times in a row. It’s possible that some deficiency in myself explain this, but it seems to me that this article can be summed be saying :“Yes, truth (art) in the story necessitates raw content. “
In other words the last sentence was really all that needed to be said. I cannot but be honest. I could not make heads nor tails of where this was going until that last sentence. Which roughly translates into: “despite anything else I’ve said here, the “art” people are ultimately right”. IF that’s the case, I have my suspicions as to why.
Please DO feel free to straighten me out. A thing I would be most eager to have happen.
Forgive my infernal hurried typos 🙁
Greg, Notleia understood what I was saying in this article, though clearly not agreeing with the point. I’m honestly baffled as to why you continue to think the worst of what I have to say. I can only hypothesize that you’ve decided I have some departure from Scripture in my theology, so you read what I write looking for evidence of it. I can only assume you had to read the article six times because you couldn’t find the evidence you were looking for.
I will ask you again. Please, if you think I have said something that doesn’t square with the Bible, point it out. Copy the offending lines and paste them in a comment. Give me Scripture to show where I’ve gone astray.
I’ll quote for you the same lines I quoted for Notleia that give the gist of my opinion:
I don’t agree with the art trumps all camp. I have no idea why you would think I do. I said specifically
Greg, I want to say this in the kindest way I can. If you would read the way I’m suggesting (holding an attitude of Christian charity as you seek whatever truth is in the article or story) , you would have a charitable view of what others say, not a judgmental view.
Becky
I tell you before Father, Son and Holy Ghost. It is the exact opposite of what you allege. I read it six times trying to cast the ebst light n it I could. I also allowed right up front that I may be reading it wrong. AND hoped that I was.
The trouble Rebecca is that I can’t get you to give simple clear answers to simple clear questions SO THAT I do not accuse you wrongly. I do see evidence of serious moral compromise in these areas. The right thing in those instances is to ASK. I do and you to this day refuse to answer. I go on valiantly attempting to assume the best in the face of this steadfast stonewalling and you continue to tell me to tell you where you’re wrong when about 3 sentences would happily silence me forever. Why won’t you give them to me? Not because I have authority over you, but because I’m asking.
As I said before. You can ask me absolutely anything and I will answer. Directly, instantly and with a genuine smile.
My long post above was ruined because your site doesn’t use html tagging anymore. Sorry. The good version is here http://tiribulus.net/wordpress/?p=286#comment-3742
Greg, you’re misreading her based probably on the last few sentences, which kind of counter the message. The point of the article is more “good art isn’t enough; story must align to God’s truth first, art be hanged.” The last sentences would make sense if this attitude was in writer’s hearts first; then readers would focus on the message more than worry about individual words. At no point I think she meant that true art has to be morally repellent, and the whole “art must be realistic” argument others make simply is inferior to the “serving God first” point.
I think you’re reading into it a bit too much there, based on your presuppositions.
I’ve read this response of yours, the other guys, her long one, which I appreciate, AND the article over again and I still don’t understand. I still see the article exactly as I first saw it. Which is not to say that I am right. I didn’t write it. I’m also not inditing Rebecca’s considerable literary skills. I’m saying that I can’t follow where apparently it IS leading, as others see what she says she wrote.
No offense, but your response makes no more sense to me than her article did. I’m only being honest. You even said the last sentences counter the message of the rest too. I’m lost. Notice I said I AM lost. Not that somebody else is wrong.
I think you’re being deliberately obtuse, especially after the author herself replied and said that isn’t the case. You really need to tone the argumentative spirit down some, and just relax; other believers here aren’t out to get you and you don’t have to play heresy cop to the extent you do. Just accept the explanation given already, and quit ascribing motives to people.
You’re alienating people who might otherwise agree with you when you do it.
When I say:
“I don’t understand” and
“I’m not saying I’m right” and
“I’m also not indicting Rebecca’s considerable literary skills” and
“I can’t follow where apparently it IS leading,” and
” I AM lost. “ and
“Not that somebody else is wrong.”
I have pretty much exhausted my ability to indicate that I am owning that this is MY problem as far as the intent of the article is concerned. That is to say: I AM NOT reading it right. MY fault. 🙂
I am now asking directly that somebody please bear with my apparent mental block and graciously further try to help me understand the intent of the article.
Let me also make this abundantly clear. In every other area I’ve seen except this one, Rebecca is a formidable expositor of the scriptures. My hat is in my hand. And that from a rabid incurable complementarian.
I have had whole days blessed by starting them with reading her wonderful handling of the letters to the churches of the apocalypse for instance. Despite her mistaken persistence to the contrary, I AM NOT HER ENEMY (sorry Rebecca, I just had to say it again).
There is a God in heaven who knows that I have never EVER spent a single calorie TRYING to find fault with her and that it is in fact the exact opposite.
Please. I am simply saying that I cannot see in the article what is being said of it in these comments and actually I still don’t really understand the comments either. I want to. Can somebody help me further please?
Hi again, Greg,
First I got to say that I’m glad you’re asking about stuff that seems confusing or self-contradictory; it’s a posture I hope also to have among other Christians, even strange ones I meet via the internet.
I could write a big ol’ comment essay but first I noticed this:
Is it possible that your perspective is being informed somewhat by this view of the church (which isn’t necessarily wrong) and therefore also by your desire to fix the problem? And is it possible that Becky has a different perspective of what the problems plural among Christians might be? Problems that might be different from Christians’ compromise with popular culture? Problems that might actually be caused by Christians not understanding or fearing culture?
Or it may be that Becky has an entirely different goal: not to Fix a Problem (though this is often necessary), but to explore Scripture for the more-positive reason of studying, knowing, and loving our God.
Problem-solving is what we do on the way to that “chief end.” Otherwise we may confuse the means for the end. Otherwise we may end up enjoying “the battle” for its own sake, rather than (I hope this is my practice) a necessary thing to do on the way to worship.
Notice I’m not saying, “this is the case,” but like you I’m saying, “I don’t understand your perspective; do you think it’s something like this?”
Responses welcome!
DM, thanks for your clarifying thoughts. Much appreciated.
You’ve hit the gist of the article, though I wouldn’t go so far as to say, “Art be hanged.” Rather, I think the example of the tabernacle, and later, the temple, and honestly, creation itself is that beauty does matter—just not over and above the demands God makes on His disciples.
Regarding readers, I don’t think it matters whether or not a film or novel is written from the “truth with love” perspective. I still need to read with that same mindset. I want to measure works of art against the truth of God’s Word and I want to do so, not with a “gotcha” attitude, as if I’m waiting to catch the writer slipping up and uttering something that breaks my [legalistic] list of taboos.
Hope that expands my intentions in this article still further.
Becky
The trouble, as you call it, Greg, is that you accused me of wrong doing but offered no evidence, in the same way that you initially did here.
For you to approve of what I write about the arts and culture, you want me, in essence, to sign some sort of list of Things That Are Acceptable In Story, and I won’t do it. I think you’re wrong to ask. You should rather assume I adhere to Scripture since I say I adhere to Scripture and when I write something confusing, you should read it with the most charitable interpretation until I say something that contradicts Scripture. Then feel free to quote it and call me on it. As it is, I find your assumption that I believe something unBiblical about storytelling to be judgmental.
I’m sorry if that offends you. I really am. But I won’t be bullied into doing what I think is wrong.
Becky
Clearly myself and this other fella got two entirely different messages from this piece. 🙂 This could be great discussion coming up here.
Greg, I’m answering your last comment here.
You wanted help understanding what this article says, so I went ahead and outlined it. I can see where in the middle it might have gotten a little murky, but I don’t yet see how you missed the main point. Be that as it may, I hope this helps.
Question to explore: what’s so great, so necessary about producing art?
Defining terms: what is art? A creative work producing beauty or emotional power.
Observation: art is not universal—we don’t agree on what is beautiful nor are we all moved emotionally by the same thing and in the same way.
Question: therefore, should art—or in fiction, Story—be the guiding principle for the Christian writer, outweighing what God demands?
Defining terms: what are God’s demands of us?
Scriptural observations: nothing for salvation. For Christ’s disciples, His demand is obedience.
Question: do the demands of Story and the demands of God ever conflict?
Postulated answers: (1) No. Story simply shows the world as it is. Obedience has nothing to do with writing Story. (2) Yes. The writer should not show what is not in obedience to God’s demands. (3) Rebuttal: Withholding the sinful side of life is dishonest storytelling.
Question: is it necessary for Christians to produce art?
Observation: God commanded Christians to make disciples. Nowhere in Scripture are we commanded to make art.
Observation: One position says, Story shouldn’t be utilitarian (make disciples). Its purpose, like ours, is to glorify God.
Scriptural observation: nowhere are we commanded to glorify God though we are commanded (in addition to make disciples) to walk in a manner worthy of Him, be holy, take up our cross and follow Him, love Him and love others.
Scriptural rebuttal: when we make something beautiful, we glorify God in the same way that the heavens do.
Observational reply to this rebuttal, #1: God created the heavens; He did not create my story or anyone’s story. He may be glorified because He created people in His image capable of creating, but not because of the thing we create.
Observational reply to this rebuttal, #2: what we consider art is temporary and therefore not a great means of glorifying God.
Scriptural rebuttal to this reply: God dictated beauty in His place of worship.
Observational reply to this rebuttal: God combined beauty with function [not beauty for beauty’s sake, and not even beauty for the sole purpose of glorifying Him].
Question: should Christians care about the quality of stories?
Scriptural observation: since God cares about beauty as well as function, we should too, but what that means is something Christian writers should struggle to apprehend.
Conclusion: Fiction communicates, so Christian writers should communicate in the way Scripture lays out—truthfully and with love.
Corollary #1: stories written with love for readers and with a desire to show truth will not all look alike.
Corollary #2: readers would do well to stop judging stories based on a list of acceptable or not acceptable words, but rather on whether they are truthful and loving.
Becky
Becky, I’m still following this discussion. I wonder if I understood what you were saying correctly in this statement, “Scriptural observation: nowhere are we commanded to glorify God…..”
The reason I ask is this verse came to my mind, “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”
I am wondering if I misunderstood what you are saying as your statement seems to contradict that verse.
Good question, Cherylu. The verse you quoted, 1 Cor. 10:31, is in the context of Paul’s instructions regarding eating meat offered to idols. His conclusion was that we refrain from giving offense—whether that meant eating or drinking or not, then, the individual was to glorify God by his decision. He concludes with
I’m certainly not saying Christians are NOT to glorify God in all we do, but I think the verse has been taken from its context and applied in ways that are misleading. I’ve heard it used in such a way that the meaning is more nearly, “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, you do it to God’s glory.”
I think that errant interpretation is the one I most care about clearing up.
But I also wonder what other people mean when they say we are to glorify God in everything we do. Does that nullify the Great Commission or the command to Love God first and foremost, then love our neighbors as ourselves, or do we, in fact, glorify God by doing those other things in the course of our every day activities? That latter, I think, is what taking Scripture as a whole would lead us to, I think.
As I understand glorifying God, it means to put the spotlight on Him. But how do I intentionally go about putting the spotlight on Him? I can praise Him directly and tell others about His works and His character, but there are parts of our day that doing so doesn’t fit. So what, when a coach is pacing the sidelines, is she to do to glorify God?
As I see it, the answer is in obeying any number of other commands in Scripture. So, too, with fiction, I think. When we edify others through our stories, or reflect Christ, or speak the truth, or any number of things consistent with God’s word, we can glorify God.
Really appreciate this dialogue, Cherylu.
Becky
Becky,
I am afraid I do not get your point. You said, “I’m certainly not saying Christians are NOT to glorify God in all we do, but I think the verse has been taken from its context and applied in ways that are misleading. I’ve heard it used in such a way that the meaning is more nearly, “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, you do it to God’s glory.”
But that is precisely what the verse says, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”
“Or whatever you do,” sounds pretty inclusive. Going way beyond eating and drinking.
Cherylu, let’s set aside the “out of context” issue and suppose that you’re right and the verse does mean disciples of Christ are to do whatever we do for God’s glory.
I maintain that does not mean therefore that whatever a Christian does in fact glorifies God as in, “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, you do it to God’s glory.” That’s what a lot of people hear and may even believe. But how is God glorified by a mom cooking dinner or sitting in a parking lot waiting to pick up her kids after school? How is God glorified by a dad coaching his son’s basketball team or taking out the trash or watching Monday night football?
I guess my point is that we don’t glorify God simply by doing what we do. There’s more to it and it goes back to keeping the clear and specific commandments God has laid out for us in His word.
So too for writers. We don’t glorify God simply by writing a great story that adheres to all the realism dictates in vogue today. Some people would like us to believe this. I believe we ought to live more intentionally than that, with Truth on the throne, not Story.
Becky
Becky, it seems to me that “doing all to the glory of God,” would entail a lot of our attitudes and the way we approach whatever we do in life. It would entail doing each thing that we do with His principles as taught in His Word in mind. If each activity that we do during the course of our day is done with an attitude of love and a servants heart to others, are those activities not being done to the glory of God? If the fruits of the Spirit are at work in our life in all that we do, are we not doing those things to the glory of God? If we are putting others and their needs above ourselves, are we not living to the glory of God in all things? f we are seeking to build others up in our daily interactions with them, are we not doing that to the glory of God?
In other words, is not living our lives with Him in control no matter what mundane thing we are doing living our life to the glory of God?
It seems to me that the activities you listed above can pretty much all be done to the glory of God if looked at from that perspective.
What do you think?
I personally have a long ways to go in getting to that point.
You’ve made my point, Cherylu. To glorify God in our every day life means we must obey some other command He’s given us: to love our neighbor, to be filled with the Spirit, or as I listed in my post, to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to take up our cross and follow Him, to speak the truth in love. In other words, glorifying God doesn’t “just happen.” We glorify Him by doing something else. And it is the “something else” I think writers should not hesitate to make much of in our stories.
Becky
I’d say, neutral, Stephen. I think there are a lot of human activities (taking a shower, for instance), that aren’t sinful but by their nature also don’t glorify God. However, I think we Christians, if we obey God’s commandments, can seize neutral activities as opportunities to make God known. The mom waiting to pick up the kids, for example, can pray for the yard supervisor or for the mom in the car ahead of her. She can pray over the conversation she’ll have with the kids on the way home and how she’ll spend the evening with them helping them with their homework. She could recite Scripture or text an encouraging note to a friend. There really are lots of things we can do if we think intentionally.
As you know, Stephen, I don’t agree with you that we give God glory just by being. I think that was true of Adam and Eve in the garden, but the fall changed that. We are not the perfect reflection of His nature. We have a fallen nature, and that taints what we do and our motives for doing it. That’s why we have to take our thoughts captive, to take up our cross, to die to self. These are things that, if left undone, will spoil opportunities we have for bringing glory to God’s name.
So too with writers. It’s not enough to write a good story, as if that in itself will bring God glory. As I said earlier, God is glorified because He created us in His image with the ability to create, but the story I write is mine, not His. It might be a mess, filled with grammar errors and factual inaccuracies. Would those glorify God? No. In the same way, what a story says can be Truthful or not. If it is realistic about the physical world but leaves out anything about the spiritual, I don’t see that as a story glorifying God.
But this long comments thread is probably not the place to try to hammer out our differences here. 😉
Becky
I also believe that 1 Cor. 10:31 can be applied in misleading ways, perhaps to excuse carelessness. The application I sometimes — sometimes — see being made is like this: hey, everything we do glorifies God anyway (except maybe sin), so why be intentional about it?
But that’s not what Paul says. Because of sin we must be intentional about all we do. The apostle Paul directly says that if he partakes — eats, etc. — with thanksgiving, his action glorifies God and his conscience is clear.
I am, however, eager to avoid any implication that there are some activities that “do not glorify God” even if it’s okay that we do them.
Question, though: how exactly do these things not glorify God?
Are they sinful activities? Or at best “neutral” activities?
Rather, God gets glory whenever folks are doing “normal” or sinful things just like these activities. He gets glory when folks are just being human, fulfilling their original created-purpose and imaging Him. After the resurrection we will be doing things like this all the time as acts of praise to God, and He will be glorified by them. Only this side of eternity do we need to fight sinful motives and be intentional about our praise and thanksgiving to God for His good gifts, even “neutral” things like waiting for children or coaching or doing chores. When our redemption is complete, we will do these things with both more and less intentionality because actively praising God while doing them and enjoying His gifts with thanksgiving to Him will come as naturally to us as breathing.
Cf. 1 Tim. 4:4-5:
“Received with thanksgiving” and “it is made holy by the word of God and prayer” refers to our intentionality. We cannot enjoy things without some measure of intentional effort to prayerfully thank God for giving them.
And yet “everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected” refers to the truth that his gifts and our enjoyment of them are not “neutral.” Things that are good give God glory because they point back to Him as their giver. This side of eternity we must strive to see things in this way, yes, but it also means that even those mundane things — picking up kids from practice, football, dishes, etc. — are good gifts of God made holy by His word and prayer that we must receive with thanksgiving to Him. Otherwise, we will be abusing this gifts for sin.
Rebecca says: “You wanted help understanding what this article says, so I went ahead and outlined it. … I hope this helps.”
Thank you so much. 🙂 Your effort here is truly appreciated. I’m pretty sure I have now understood you. The following would be my version of the areas you cover. I will leave unchanged what I retain in agreement.
Question to explore: What’s so great, so necessary about producing art?(good question)
Defining terms: what is art? Biblical definition = A creaturely expression of the imago dei whereby men (chicks too 😉 ) produce holy creative works in the worship and glorification of the one true God and strengthen each other in Him.
Observation: Biblical art reflects the eternally immutable beauty of the creator God.
Further observation: therefore, in art—or in fiction, God’s worship and the edification of the saints is both the story and the guiding principle.
Question: do the demands of Story and the demands of God ever conflict?
Postulated answers: (1) No. Story simply shows the world as it is. Obedience has nothing to do with writing Story. (2) Yes. The writer should not show what is not in obedience to God’s demands. (3) Rebuttal: Withholding the sinful side of life is dishonest storytelling. (4) The correct answer. The sinful side of the story is to be told in direct worship of God and or the the edification of the saints, with the scriptures serving as our example both in form and content when we are writing. When producing performance art, sin is to be handled in a manner that would not be itself sinful in a non artistic context. “Art” is not a license to sin.
Question: is it necessary for Christians to produce art? (GREAT question)
Observation: While the direct command to create art is not explicitly found anywhere in Scripture, God’s covenant people ARE found making it in various forms with His approval and pleasure. Does that make it necessary then? I’d say it makes it “righteously inevitable” as a function of our creation in His image.
Observation: One position says, Story shouldn’t be utilitarian (make disciples). Its purpose, like ours, is to glorify God.
Scriptural observation: Jesus commands us to let our light so shine before men that they see our good works and glorify our Father who is in heaven.(Matt. 5:16) This is in the context of God’s people being the salt and light of the world. Unless someone is going to advance the idea that our “works” of creativity are not to be good, then we are to glorify God with them. We fulfill this principle by using our artistic gifts for the explicit worship of the Lord and the building up of His body just as they are universally used by God’s people in the bible.
Scriptural rebuttal: If Christians are to make art only for God and His people, how is that letting our light shine before the unbelieving world which Jesus words in Matt. 5:16 clearly imply?
Observational reply to this rebuttal: The fact of the bible’s exceptionless pattern in both testaments as declared above, does not mean that we hide our art from the world either or display it only where other Christians might see, hear or read it. We should take every opportunity to make God’s art produced by His church for Him and each other available for the world’s consumption. We are not however to make it FOR them because nowhere in the word do we ever find this practice.
Observational reply to this rebuttal, #2: what God considers art is a holy display of our adoration of Him as creator and therefore is a great means of glorifying Him.
Further observation: God dictated beauty in His place of worship.
Further further observation: God combined beauty with function, neither one for it’s own sake or the sake of the other, but both for purpose of glorifying Himself in and through us.
Question: should Christians care about the quality of stories? (another great question)
Scriptural observation: Since God cares about beauty as well as function, we should too. Both are defined by clear godly example in the scriptures. Even, and today especially, extending to the handling of sin.
Conclusion: Fiction communicates, so Christian writers should communicate in the way Scripture lays out. Truthfully and with love, being careful to adhere to the biblical example of “to one another and to the Lord”, resisting the pursuit of success with the world in an area where no such pursuit is found in God’s word.
Corollary #1: Stories written in obedience to the Lord’s word and love for readers and with a desire to show truth, will by definition be first concerned with the above biblical principles which, by His awesome grace, leave ample room for individual expression as diverse as those He would call into such work.
Corollary #2: Readers would do well to start judging stories first based on how faithful they are to the universal scriptural example of glorifying God directly through worship the edification of His bride.
Greg, while I appreciate your kind words about my blog, I am baffled by this:
When have I ever intimated, let alone stated, that I think you are my enemy? I have asked you to stop making that assertion, or rather, offering your assurances to the contrary, because they are preposterous. I hold no rancor toward you (except when you tell me over and over that I think you’re my enemy when in fact you’re not. That does stir up my animosity a bit. 😉 )
I really wish, instead of ignoring what I say, you would believe me. I do not now, nor have I in the past, believed you to be my enemy.
Becky
A Scripture that always comes to my mind in these discussions is this one in Philippians 4:8-9 “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me–practice these things and the God of peace will be with you.” ESV
This Scripture would seem to eliminate a lot of things that we may choose to read or watch as Christians.
However, I have also seen the phrase “whatever is true” used as a reason to say that movies that show “truth” are fine for Christians to watch no matter what the rest of the content is so long as it portrays truth in some way. I have seen it used as a reason to excuse all manner of violence, sex or whatever in our viewing choices. I personally do not see how we can put aside all of those other requirements in that verse and focus on one word only, “truth.” Granted, that discussion was relating to movies. But the same principle would apply to our choices in the novels/stories that we choose to read also.
I personally just stopped reading a novel about 3/4 of the way through it because a huge amount of time was spent in detailing the plans of the villain. It became depressing. And it did not at all seem to be fulfilling the requirements of those verses in Philippians. Except it may have been depicting true human behavior at some of it’s worst.
We can see enough of that in our news or newspapers, or in the folks around us to know what human nature is like. We do not need to sit and soak ourselves in movies or books for the sake of art or entertainment in order to know that.
Cherylu, I appreciate your view, and I think you should absolutely stop reading a book if the perspective of the antagonist is having an adverse effect on you. I’ll add that I’ve read a good commentary on Phil. 4:8 which points out that Scripture itself would have to be considered excellent and worthy of praise but it includes true stories of adultery, murder, rape, incest, homosexuality, witchcraft, child sacrifice, kidnapping, polygamy, assassination, infanticide, and a list of many, many other things we wouldn’t think fit the Phil. 4:8 list.
There’s a pertinent Scripture that quite honestly has me a little tied up in knots. At one point Paul says we are to expose the deeds of darkness, but he follows that by saying we aren’t even to name what those deeds are.
Exposing these deeds would seem on the surface to contradict Phil. 4:8 (I don’t believe Scripture does contradict itself however; I think we need to interpret Scripture with Scripture). All this to say, I think it’s important to take the whole counsel of Scripture as our guide for our belief system rather than a single passage.
At the same time, I think we all won’t necessarily arrive at the same place—thinking the same things are fine or not fine, and I don’t think that means some people are more or less godly.
This is a big topic and I know there’s more to say about it. But hopefully this will give some food for thought.
Becky
Thanks for your reply Becky.
I have just one quick thought to add to what I said above after reading your comment to me.
What you have said about the Bible is very true. It does contain all those things. However, it is God making it clear that these things exist, that they really happen, and that human nature without His Spirit transforming and leading us is truly depraved.
To me that seems to be quite a different thing then picking up a book to read or going to a movie for the sake of relaxation and entertainment and finding ourselves having to soak in scene after scene or page after page of that depravity. All for the sake of the story/entertainment/art. Sitting and deliberately soaking in all of that garbage that is just the opposite of all the good things we are told we need to be focusing on for the sake of pleasure. That seems to me to be very wrong.
I agree, Cherylu. But entertainment means different things to different people. For me, I love to ferret out meaning, so a story that is simply a sweet recitation of happy events leading to ever after happiness, I wouldn’t choose as top of my entertainment list. Maybe once in a while. Not regularly. But I wouldn’t list unrealistic superhero car-chase, alien-battle stories either. They are, in my way of thinking, filled with repetition.
For me, real challenge brings the most satisfaction and therefore the greatest entertainment. Here’s an example some might think odd: Downton Abbey. The story contains a lot of truth telling, though it isn’t written from a Christian perspective and contains a lot of those things the Bible contains. I don’t think I’m sitting in garbage, though, because a scene includes something sinful. Rather, it seems more like light shone on the darkness.
But not everyone has to feel that way about that particular show or any other story. I guess my idea of us grappling “with the demands of our culture when it comes to realism in Story and the greater demands of Scripture to obey God in all we do and say” falls right in here where we make decisions about what we will or will not see, what we will or will not read, what we will or will not write.
Becky
Becky already touched on much of this, and I suggest this last part here — “for the sake of relaxation and entertainment” — is where the key to sorting out popular culture/art lies. I don’t believe that Scripture would support the concept of a story/book/movie/etc. being for the “chief end” of “relaxation and entertainment.” These are gifts of God, to be sure, but are they the central reason He gives us art?
If you go where you usually go here? Rebecca and yourself will not agree. (I don’t think) I still don’t understand either one of your views well enough to comment on that might ultimately play out.
Why make art? What about Tolkien’s answer to that question — that God is the great Creator, and we are all sub-creators? I discovered Tolkien’s astounding poem “Mythopoeia” from this site — in fact I think it was you, Rebecca LuElla Miller, who mentioned it or linked it. Tolkien’s lines in that poem have since resonated with my worldview and help to define it, especially as I’ve encountered communication theory and postmodernism.
Thomas Kincaid was a good artist, maybe a great one. He was probably also a shill, and the effectiveness of his work was diminished by the evangelical kitsch machine. However, that doesn’t diminish the truth of the glory that his work reflected. Art should be truthful, but no artist or individual work of art can reflect all truth; hence, dark and edgy works have a place, but so do serene and harmonious works.
I think beauty is more objective and universal than you and postmodern relativism would both have me believe. No elitist class or authority structure has the right to define art or beauty.
IME, postmodern art is most fun when you make fun of it. The second-runner-up is when you examine a piece from every weird angle you can think of (then probably make fun of it).
Probably the stupidest-funniest trip I had with the family is when Kaa-san and Imouto Niban and I invaded a postmodern art gallery and played Rorschach-test with the exhibits. Like, the Imouto and I were comparing the glasswork tableaus to sci-fi B-movie sets and went down a hallway on our backs like dorks to fully scope out the collection of glassware they had decorated the ceiling with. It was probably a good thing that there weren’t that many people there, though.
I wish I’d been there to see that! My friends and I once re-enacted Grover’s Near and Far at a bus station. It was 4 in the morning. We had to do something while we waited.
Bainespal, I agree about Kincaid—the lines you quoted are not my opinion, but one I’ve heard over and over to explain why stories should include profanity, vulgarity, and sex. I’m also not quite sure why people seem to be offended that Mr. Kincaid makes money from his art. Are we equally offended at the NY Times bestselling authors who also sell the movie rights to their story? Are we offended that J.K. Rowling is making millions more from the Harry Potter theme park?
I also happen to agree with you about beauty and its objective nature. I draw the line with art, though, because not all art is beautiful or even intends to be so. But I’ve said before, true beauty exists, and I believe is God created. I’ve heard of people ignoring sunsets before, but never someone who thought they were ugly. Or rainbows, or Niagara Falls or the redwood trees or a Monarch butterfly or . . . You get my point.
Becky
I’m offended that Kincaid made fistload over fistload of money by being drop-dead boring. I’m also offended that Stephenie Meyer made boatloads of money off a dumb love-triangle centered around a character with the personality of the inside of a paper bag. Though what’s offended is mostly my sense of justice.
I can think of others who offend my sense of justice more than Kincaid: drug dealers, Justin Bieber, CEOs who give themselves giganto bonuses, Ray Rice, talk show hosts, lobbyists. I don’t have much offense left over for Thomas Kincaid. 😉
Becky
Let me pursue this line of thought as though it’s winning. Taken to its logical conclusion, I’d stop making art. The argument seems to be it’s not lasting, and what the public sees of it doesn’t reflect real quality. That and the Bible never tells us to write fiction.
My question then is, “What’s left?” Artless story? Rebecca, you began to describe this in the last paragraphs of the piece. What do you imagine that would look like? An idea that occurs to me is story serving its message, like Chick tracts. My friend and I used to collect them wherever we found them as a public service.
But nobody’s reading Chick tracts. It’s not like you just can’t get enough of them, and their richness demands re-reading to dig out all the benefit and meaning that’s to be had from them. There are some stories you can’t get enough of, but these ain’t them.
I wonder what we’d be left with today if Bach shared this line of thought about art.
Matthias, you’re right as far as you’ve gone. The part you skipped over (because perhaps it was a bit convoluted) is that God Himself dictated the structure of the tabernacle and all its trappings and repeatedly included overt statements or inferences that these objects were all to be beautiful as well as functional.
So, artless stories? Absolutely not. I think we should actually be more artful, while at the same time not bowing to the demands of realism in Story where they obscure, conflict with, or override the demands of God.
My emphasis in this article is to counter the “Story is more important than obeying God” notion that seems to be winning in the marketplace of Christian fiction. But I don’t think the alternative is writing tracts. That’s precisely what the “Story over all” crowd accuses writers like me of believing because I think our stories should say something consistent with the clear dictates God has given us.
In reality, good fiction will always say something. It’s part of what makes it good! Not just tracts that carry a message.
Becky
How is it winning?
I mean, you have a very tiny amount of authors who publish independently and who transgress the tropes of Christian fiction. Most authors? Perfectly wholesome YA and middle grade fiction. The CBA market? Bland. I don’t see this an a real issue in Christian fiction.
In film, it’s a particularly bad joke, because we have no Christian speculative film! We have endless end time retreads, but the few fantasy or sf films that get made are Z-grade stuff.
DM, I do see it in fiction. When one author says her publisher wanted her to write “Christian light,” it’s apparent to me it isn’t just in conference speakers and writers’ blogs or Facebook comments (though it’s in those places also), that the philosophy of Christian fiction is being shaped so that truth is subservient to Story.
I’m not suggesting, however, that “the old way was better,” or that novels as tracts are best. I cringe along with everyone else when I get to a patch of preachy writing in fiction. It sticks out like a sore thumb.
But the answer is not to elevate story and push truth to the back seat. It’s to work harder to integrate truth into our stories and not use a slap-and-dash approach to “getting the message across.”
Becky
As destiny would have it, I encountered something today that gives me a new way to read Miller’s post and to agree with it.
The videogame community has been fighting to be recognized as legitimately artistic, much like the CSF community. But not everyone in the videogame community agrees — famous game designer Brian Moriarty argued in favor of film critic Roger Ebert’s assertion that games can never be art. His speech has a lot of relevance for us (you can also read a transcript of the speech).
Most significantly, both Moriarty and Ebert pretty much excluded all pop culture from any artistic merit, including the vast majority of movies. But then, Moriarty went on to define art as “the evocation of the inexpressible.” That definition fits my Inkling fandom well enough, but I think that the Inexpressible (Capital Letter Reverence) can indeed be evoked in pop cultural artforms like movies and videogames and comics.
People used to reject fairy tales and speculative fiction from having any artistic or literary value too — it took the long effort and skillful insight of our CSF patron saints (Tokien, Lewis, Chesterton, MacDonald, etc) to change some people’s minds about that. Even now, I think some super-elitist critics might still sneer at speculative fiction — maybe you English majors can say better than me.
So, I can see wisdom in not attempt to make “great art” if by “great art” we mean sublime art in the elitist critical sense — provided we retain the philosophical romanticism of the Inklings.
I read this post, read the comments, and read the post again. I’m still unsure how this post connects to the general topic of the blog.
As I understand it so far, it opens with the general concern of “what is art”, given that people have different interpretations of great art throughout history. Furthermore, how should Christians respond when the apparent demands of art conflict with the Bible? Since our primary duty is living for God, ….
that’s where I lost the train of thought.
I think the point was that anything we do on earth is temporary, but it should still be done well. And our communications should be done with the goal to speak the truth in love….
But I still don’t understand why this topic was addressed. Most followers of this blog would agree with those points–I don’t see anyone arguing for grittyTM just for gritty, or completely shutting down other points of view.
Julie, the article doesn’t specifically address speculative fiction. It does, however, expand on Cap Stewart’s guest post last Friday.
Maybe there is more agreement with the central point than disagreement (notleia would have a different view, I think), but I think it needs to be said, at least for writers, but for readers, too.
Christian novelists have been beat over the head for the last twelve years that we need to elevate our writing. By that, most mean, Make better art, more realistic, like the rest of our culture does. One writer I know has said she’s been asked to write “Christian light.”
Cap Stewart’s article hit a nerve. Why do we think someone’s idea of what a good story is, should overrule what God has said He wants from His disciples?
At the same time, as I wrote my post, it dawned on me that readers need to stop making surface judgments based on peripheral things, and start thinking more deeply. That might have been the more controversial statement for those who agree with what I’m saying to writers.
Becky
To Rebecca:
Let’s start with this. During my quest to learn your views on especially nudity and sex in film and television, sensing some aggravation, I said several times that I was not your enemy seeking to harm you. You finally replied somewhat abruptly by saying:
“(And please don’t tell me one more time that you aren’t mad at me or are my enemy. It’s insulting Greg) “
I took that to mean “of course you’re my enemy. Stop insulating me by saying you’re not”
You have now told me that what you actually meant by this was that my suspicion of your viewing me that way was what was insulting because of course you did not. Not only do I believe you, but I do so with a joyous heart because that really grieved me. When I saw your explanation here and the results of our short offline exchange this afternoon, it made the rest of my day. I told my best online friend who knows how bummed I was back then about how I thought that went. So an actually nonexistent tension is cleared. Praise God 🙂 I honestly don’t think that was anybody’s fault. but to the extent it may have been mine I am very sorry.
Maybe there’s some light at the end of our tunnel here Rebecca, but I cannot let this go just yet. I hope you will soon understand why. Please do hear a calm conciliatory and sincerely constructive tone in all that follows.
You say: “you accused me of wrong doing but offered no evidence, in the same way that you initially did here.”
In this thread my very first post http://www.speculativefaith.lorehaven.com/2014/09/08/great-art-and-story/#comment-140840
began by saying that I may be wrong and hoped that I was.
You say: “For you to approve of what I write about the arts and culture, you want me, in essence, to sign some sort of list of Things That Are Acceptable In Story, and I won’t do it. “.
Actually this started over visual media. Film and television in your review of Brian Godawa’s Hollywood book, http://www.speculativefaith.lorehaven.com/2014/06/02/hollywood-worldviews-and-safe-fiction/ and that remains my focus. There are different principles for written fictitious communication than there are for cinematic productions featuring real living people. I have never asked for a list of what’s acceptable. I’ve asked for your specific criteria for what is UNacceptable where the “performances” of real people are concerned. Godawa’s standard doctrine of “divergent contexts“ is quite unbiblical. You very favorably reviewed his book. I ASKED YOUR view. I have still not gotten it. The conversation is still up at the above link for all to see. Happily, Stephen and I are having a go at a friendship since then.
I see substantial evidence that you are wiling to (unthinkingly) promote the real sin of real human “performers”in the name “art” and “story”. Rather than prematurely conclude that, I asked for clarification, that as I have said, is still not forthcoming. I am absolutely not trying to be contentious or offensive. I am simply saying what I see. This matters SO much to me exactly BECAUSE you are so good on so much else and Godawa’s damaging, crippling view along with his terrible expositions of scripture in these areas, which expositions you specifically support in that review, are in my estimation beneath you and a stain on your character if they are truly yours as well. Were it not for your favorable review of his book, I may never have thought of this. That is the honest truth of my motivation and what started it. Oh how I wish we could have an actual conversation on this.
I saw that you took the trouble to write a very long and detailed explanation of your article for me. You don’t know how much that touched me after all this. That was a very gracious and kind thing to do. Thank you. I don’t think I ‘m going to be able to respond to it tonight though. I have some other stuff to do and I’m very tired. I do very much hope you take everything so far the way meant it.
Greg, I simply don’t have time for this point by point kind of response, but I am surprised you said this:
Do you really want to go with that? Perhaps I should copy and paste the Facebook exchange that preceded that comment—starting with how horrified you were at that post though you would not tell me why. I asked over and over for you to point to what offended you, but you would not. Instead you came up with your litmus test question that you essentially demanded I pass. I’ll say again, Greg. You accused me wrongly and have yet to apologize for it. My great “sin” was quoting someone with whom you disagree.
You mistakenly identify the post in question as a review. It’s not. I was reading the book at the time and came across a section I wanted to write about. A review would have included the entire scope of the book and would have pointed to weaknesses as well as strengths. As it happens, I don’t agree with everything Brian Godawa wrote, but I happened to agree with the part I featured in my post.
Whether you realize it or not, Greg, you have a tendency to think the worst of me (and perhaps of others, though I certainly can’t say. I simply doubt that I have earned a special place in your online communications)—evidenced by your reaction to that post, evidenced by your unfounded assumption that I thought you were my enemy (even when I told you I wasn’t), and evidenced by this line: “I do very much hope you take everything so far the way meant it.” You apparently assume I won’t take everything in the way you mean it.
Greg, I can’t control how you view me. I’m sorry. I won’t try to defend myself to you. If you don’t understand something I’ve written, I’ll be happy to clarify to the best of my ability, but sign your code of conduct for fiction or movies? No. You can do with that as you please. I’ll say again, it is wrong of you to ask, even in a backhanded way, though you have asked quite up front and plainly, even saying if I answer your question, we can “go forward.” I will not be bullied into giving you some answer so you can file me into a column of either Bible believers or heretics. This is a serious matter, Greg. God is my judge. You are not. It is not your business to pry into my views apart from the ones I share publicly.
I hope you take this in the spirit of correction with which I mean it. This is not evidence that I think you are my enemy—I don’t think that!
Feel free to respond if you wish. I won’t be able to continue the discussion, however. I simply must give time to my work.
Becky
It’s almost impossible for me to believe that Stephen and I are now getting along better than you and I are Rebecca. You have so grievously misunderstood me AND, in the quote right at the beginning of your response, I was quoting my first comment in THIS thread. The one we are typing in right now. NOT the one about Godawa’s book. So what followed in your above comment about our 2 month old PM exchange was about the other thread, but you yourself quote me quoting THIS one. Please look.
Is it not possible that you are misunderstanding me, after I freely granted that I had misunderstood you? People ask each other’s views on a host of topics ALL the time and I tell them mine when they ask me.
Stephen told me his view and I didn’t even directly ask. I ask yours and you refuse to answer. I say again. I have no authority over you. I’m simply asking
I also can’t control what you think, but I continue to hold you in warm regard.
You know what? Lets just try this. I believe that your view that “properly contextualized” nudity and sex in film using real people is unbiblcal and unfitting a woman of you caliber and character in every other area I’ve seen. That for all the unassailable reason’s I’ve expressed on this site (and others) and that Cap Stewart, a writer on this site now, has also expressed. This tears my heart out because it is a ball and chain on the spiritual ankle of a magnificent woman of God.
Those who feel I’ve arrived at this representation of Rebecca’s view in this area in error are invited again to do a few minutes digging on Brian Godawa and then read this article:
http://www.speculativefaith.lorehaven.com/2014/06/02/hollywood-worldviews-and-safe-fiction/
The outrageous suggestion that almighty God’s divine prerogative of non visual literary reportage regarding sin, somehow translates into an unbelievers right to violate fellow children of Adam on a set and on a screen would be mystifying were it not for my now year long detailed witness of the infiltration of the crippling spirit of sinful cinematic entertainment through a gaping open front door in the church.
Greg, you misunderstand Godawa, but all that discussion was months ago and so rehashing it here is entirely off-topic. I also seriously doubt anyone is paying attention to this grand(?) debate except you and (decreasingly) Becky.
I also suggest you continue to misunderstand Godawa’s view and/or wrongly presume to know what Becky means. This statement, for example, is not Becky’s view:
I do not believe that Becky believes that. At all. Why did you conclude otherwise?
Again I submit that you are allowing a view of yourself “at war” (on the internet?) to inform your approach. Yes, other Christians may need correction, and yes, there is a place for doctrine-wrangling and apologetics and whatnot, but we do these things — firmly and unwaveringly — out of love for other believers, our spiritual family, no matter how wayward they may be, always having previously assumed the best about what they believe and/or their motives for believing it. That’s why I can’t say for sure (as I may have wrongly said before): “Hey Greg, you’re being a troll.” That presumes motivation. That presumes the worst of you. But I can firmly, fairly say, “Here’s how it looks from here; did you recognize that?” I can also say, “Previously your approach has come across like this one” (it’s a great article, and points for the superhero references — especially given the temptation to think one’s self a hero even while failing to realize that with great power comes great responsibility).
My hope is to stop fighting this “war” all the time. Instead I want to swashbuckle with laughter, knowing He has won, and see when I’m actually inside an embassy secure from the worst dangers and can lay down arms. Good soldiers know when to fight and when to make peace. But ill-trained soldiers lash out at everything.
In the meantime I hope you can make peace with Becky, because despite the fact that neither this site nor the internet altogether is the local church, local-church-rules still apply for believers including that Matt. 18 material — though of course the whole SpecFaith exchange (recently and previously) took place in public so any resolutions/retractions about should must also be in public.
This stuck out to me, and I realize Becky was saying it rhetorically:
I think this is the view of a many Christians about art and popular culture, though they may not recognize it. I tried to explore the best construction of this suspicion:
And then broadened the “Great Commission” argument even further:
From one of the most pivotal (for me, anyway) pieces I’ve ever written at SpecFaith:
Exactly. We can’t share the wonders of God until we experience them.
@ Stephen (I’m still not sure what I should call you 🙂 )
These are big topics. We should really continue our conversation here:
http://www.speculativefaith.lorehaven.com/2014/06/20/why-we-condemn-game-of-thrones-porn-and-think-you-should-too/
Please don’t hear any sarcasm or hostility in that. I mean it.
I’m going to wind up having to put together at least a blog post/s if not a book/let that consolidates this family of related topics into a coherent navigable whole. For now I (just about) totally agree with your friend Cap Stewart.
http://www.capstewart.com/
This is no “context” in which nudity, sexual contact or blasphemous language is EVER not sinful to produce with real people and that has nothing to do with viewer response. Nothing whatsoever. Not Schindler’s List, Not 12 Years a slave” etc, ever. I suspect Rebecca (and you) agree with Godawa and disagree with me in maintaining that there is. Cap Stewart agrees with me, which makes his presence on this site as almost certainly the lone voice for these truths, both curious and refreshing. Yes, I saw his interview with you. I’m asking politely that you address this in the other thread linked above.
Hey Greg, I’d be all right with continuing the discussion there. But I feel I’ve already articulated my views (agreeing with Cap) that yes, sin is automatically involved in the manufacture of any movie that includes nudity. That, however, is a mere subtopic of this article’s even more vital topic: the broader subject of art, creativity, and why Christians should have anything to do with it. In other words: is there anything to say about art, creativity, and popular culture beyond any need to condemn sinful content? What did you think about my questions here about our starting-point, e.g. worldview assumptions about the purpose of “art” altogether?
(Glad you recognize my likeminded view — on the other issue of nekkid people in movies. I think you recognized that, anyway; the comment format obscures things!)
Yet once again, brother Greg, you seem very eager to stand against the dangers of a compromising worldly church That Must Be Stopped At All Costs — and from here it appears this eagerness has colored most of your interactions here (so far).
It may have also caused confusion to you — and your bizarre automatic suspicion of my sister, Becky — when SpecFaith contributors, such as myself, do seek to explore fantastical stories in light of Scripture; we also often challenge the shallow notions of “art for its own sake” as if art gives a special means of enlightenment. Yes, many Christians have swung wild from the former “culture is stained with evil and has nothing good to offer us” notion and swung into the opposite silliness of “culture is AMAZING and might as well be like the Bible for all the good that’s in it!” (Perhaps you are newer to the fact that much of the professing Church is filled with un-biblical notions? I’m not that old but I accepted this fact a long time ago, and I know Becky agrees. That is partly why SpecFaith exists: to help fans of fantastical stories recognize how they can glorify God, and to navigate sin-challenges. And I don’t lose any sleep over the fact that nonsense infests Christ’s church. God is on his throne.)
But let us imagine that we have long since dealt with that problem. Imagine that the “room” includes only biblical Christians who love God’s word, hate doctrinal compromise, and want to explore how non-idolatrous art and creativity glorify God.
In such a place, wouldn’t this discussion have a different tone?
Wouldn’t the whole discussion have a different starting point, as it were, besides There Is a Problem of False Teaching In the Church That Must Be Fixed, Dash It All?
Yes, there is a time and place for dealing with all that false teaching in the Church.
But if we act as if every time is a good time, then no time is a good time.
It may be that you can’t help suspecting people you don’t know because folks keep displaying this kind of behavior in reality. I don’t know; I’m simply trying to put the best construction on your previous perspective of automatic suspicion (especially of Becky). I have found that I grow more to be like Christ when I follow the axiom “trust but verify,” in a biblically informed sense. I’m a lot happier and more restful in God’s sovereignty when I try to trust the motives (even if you do not agree with the content) of professing Christians whose works you read, either here at SpecFaith or at The Gospel Coalition or what have you.
Stephen says: “[let’s] explore how non-idolatrous art and creativity glorify God.”
I said above”
“The view one takes of the scriptures will determine how they assess God’s two and only two uses He has for art in the whole of the biblical canon from Genesis to Revelation. They are, the explicit worship of Yaweh Himself by name, and the explicit edification of the saints one to another in Him. The notions of artisitic evangelism OR art for art’s sake to impress the world are completely unknown in all of scripture.
The bible teaches that art among the people of God is worship. It also teaches that it is a blessing one saint or group of saints to another. With regard to “art” it teaches nothing else. This whole idea of Christian-esque content or general Christian morality and spirituality without the offense of the cross is the arrogant contrivance of a modern worldly church that wants what it wants. This means that yes there ARE universally and eternally binding standards for “art” given by God Himself. We just don’t like them.”
😉
Stephen says: “trust but verify,”
I have tried for 2 months with simple direct honest questions like the one you answered without my even asking you, and I have gotten a steel reinforced brick wall up to this very minute. Verification has been exactly my goal.
While neither is evil in themselves, art and film and television have become, bar NONE, the most deceptive, pervasive and hence successful tool of Satan in the history of planet earth. The good things of God degenerated into a necrofying cancer on the body of Christ. NOTHING I can dig out of the pages of history even comes close. Not even dark age Catholicism.
Please hear me. It is not that these things are innately evil. They are, like every other sin, a perversion and idolatrous exaltation of a good gift of God. In this case certain technologies.
This is not a game to me. It is war. The enemy is not storming the wall. He doesn’t have to. He is both sitting at our table and serving the food. By special invitation of the visible church of Jesus Christ.
Then I’m glad we have reached this point. My only hope is that you might recognize — in belated retrospect! — the offense your initial suspicion caused to Becky. My main role here is that of explorer/writer/blogger, but I also have a peacemaker streak to me. As a longtime netizen though, I am also aware that many folks are out to stir things up and get their jollies, not by trolling necessarily but by going about with sincere zeal (zeal without knowledge?) by reading websites and responding with suspicion — often posting comments to the effect of, “But you didn’t say enough about THIS” — and basically acting as the self-appointed Church Border Patrol. If this stings a bit, note that it stings me first: I’ve done it and am still tempted to do it. 🙂 This is why I fight such impulses by reminding myself, first, that internet discussions are adjunct to the Church and the local church, and second, that all the debating and discussion and patrolling are temporary actions as we await resurrection and creation’s renewal.
This is why I responded with my own impulses of suspicion, and also continue to ask my questions about whether this “hermeneutic of suspicion” you previously showed is based on perhaps confusing the means — doctrine-maintenance, etc. — for the end.
E.g.:
We agree that such things are not evil in themselves. But if you have already assumed that such “tool[s] of Satan” can be quantified, can this not lead effectively to the same intense response to these things that you would have if you did presume that they are intrinsically evil? If someone seems to be saying, “Hey, these things can be used for God’s glory ” — speaking into a context of Christians who are careless or confused about popular culture, TV, etc. — could you theoretically react with another, “Well, you haven’t said enough about THIS” even if the person did say enough about it? 🙂
Now I will risk doing the same as I described above, likely because I’m in a communications industry and get paid to watch my words: it sounds here like you’re blaming the Things rather than the people who have abused the things. It also sounds like you believe this is a once-for-all degeneration (note the past tense). But you did say “the good things of God” so I presume that we agree there. In this case, then, I would simply urge you to see how this comes across to others — you say the things are good, then imply they are once-for-all lost and therefore can’t be used for good again.
Anyway, I cast no blame whatsoever on the “things” — TV, media, popular culture, etc. — for their abuse. And I do not believe that we can elevate any particular abuse of Things as if that’s the worst evil ever to afflict the church. It may have been the worst sin with which you personally have struggled, or with which you’ve seen a lot of your friends struggle — but do not assume that the whole church is the same.
I’m glad we’re agree. I just want to make sure we also agree that anything approaching doomsday rhetoric about such things — they are the enemy’s chief tool to corrupt the church! — both minimizes the Bible’s promises for cultural renewal, and exacerbates the problem. Real-life folks feel freer to reject such responses out-of-hand as mere cultural fundamentalism, and therefore miss the actual point about how their own idolatrous hearts are abusing good gifts for sinful purposes. Or equally as bad, people will not confront their own heart-idolatry but instead enact “do not handle”-style rules about media, television, etc., rules that have no value in restraining sin (Col. 2).
Not on the internet it’s not. The real “war” is in people’s real lives (which the internet and websites, etc., only touches or influences). The real “war” is in relationships, in local churches, and in the atomic-level recesses of the human heart. And the Christian sees that for other Christians saved by the blood of Jesus Christ, the “war” is won.
A few questions, not for rhetoric but for the sake of clarity in further discussion.
See you on the other side of your work day and mine.
Stephen quotes me as saying to Rebecca, in compliance with her wish that I simply state something I believe she has in error:
“I believe that your view that “properly contextualized” nudity and sex in film using real people is unbiblcal”
And then himself responds with:
I do not believe that Becky believes that. At all. Why did you conclude otherwise?
To which I now reply.
Because in the “Hollywood Worldview” article http://www.speculativefaith.lorehaven.com/2014/06/02/hollywood-worldviews-and-safe-fiction/ She specifically cites Godawa’s “contextualization” of Schindler’s list over Friday the 13th. Though violence is what is directly under discussion, Schindler’s List contains full nudity and sex if I am to believe the IMDB report. Godawa condones that movie. Godawa can also be found defending this “contextualization” specifically to young people on Youtube (though it’s been a little while.) His review site also has plenty of movies with nudity and sex. Sometimes he DOES says it’s excessive and doesn’t recommend them (HAHA!! good grief) That can be found out from pagans without any Christian EVER giving God’s time or money to the sin of people we are commanded to love.
Rebecca then asks :
“But the question remains. Should Christians be a party to either kind of film?”
She goes on to use the same argument I’ve heard a thousand times, based upon a shallow misuse of Philippians 4:8 (which we see in this thread too) that the presence of horrific sin in the bible, and the bible being God’s word, must mean that it’s ok for us to partake in Hollywood’s doing so with real people. AS LONG AS, it is properly contextualized AND we do it from a Christian worldview. That’s Godawa’s conclusion anyway
From what I’ve seen of Gadawa and her VERY favorable treatment of his book on these things in that piece, it became a nearly insurmountable conclusion for me that she agreed with him. Her continued refusal to simply say “no, I don’t agree with him” (which would leave huge questions of why the article then) is not helping me in this regard. My sin was in going after her before asking, though from what I’m seeing I don’t know if I can believe it would have made any difference, but I still should have asked first.
SO. Here I am now asking for 2 months. That’s why.
Stephen. I’m enjoying your company. Truly. You do have a breathing conscience. I didn’t see it when we first met. It’s grown over with the weeds of the world, but it IS breathing.
Do please understand that I was studying these things when you were in diapers though (maybe before) 😉 I’ve had PLENTY of time for this concrete to harden. Every conversation I have on these topics serves to harden it even further. You my new friend, are no exception. That latest piece you just wrote on the eternal wonders of pop culture is unbelievably bad, but I’m only one guy. 😀
I have to go to work. I did see your other long one here and yes, I do look forward to more conversation with you too. I do very much prefer being friends.
Greg, you mean well in saying this, but you have absolutely no biblical or logical basis to make this judgment. You also have no God-appointed spiritual authority to assume such a position of spiritual “leadership” or counsel of others. I must ask: are you a local church elder? Pastor? Teacher? Even if you are, I fear you have been taken in by the illusion that one can judge a person’s character or even level of “worldliness” over the internet of all places. Again, this is an illusion — a first-person “battle” with enemies or potential allies that are as imaginary as those rendered in Playstation or XBox games.
I’m quite fine with continued discussion. But at any hint of judgment as if from a higher spiritual level — either “hey, you’re wrong!” or “hey, I like you!” — then I say: “Meh. Just another chap trying to play big-spiritual-cheese/pastor on the internet.” Friends don’t let friends treat anyplace as an imaginary church over which they set themselves up as de facto teaching elders and render “discernments” over imaginary congregants. 😛
Edit: This may be a case of simple overstepped personal boundaries. The impression you create is of someone meeting you on the street and putting his arm around you after only a 30-minute conversation. Interpersonal boundaries = crossed. Now I realize that human relationships are a tricky thing and so are human minds, and so is the internet for that matter. Some people may have different sorts of minds and may not recognize when they are being “invasive” or inappropriate in real life, and so it is with the internet. So here’s the picture I’m seeing: Greg is hanging out with me, we’re chatting, just being bros, trying to get a fresh start, etc., and instantly he’s got his arm around me going, “Hey, I LIKE you, ’cause I can tell you’re like this and this and this,” and it’s almost weirder than severe disagreement because now I’m wondering when he’s going to start opening his jacket to sell me drugs or fine “designer” watches.
That’s a loving heads-up from a longtime biblical Christian and internet user, again for the purposes of improving communication/boundaries on the web.
Greg, I’m sorry you think we aren’t getting along. Odd that when you confront me, you don’t see that as “not getting along,” but when I confront you, then we are now not getting along.
I appreciate Stephen’s comments. He’s known me online for many years and read perhaps more of what I’ve written than few other people. I’m sorry you can’t take his word when he speaks to my intent. I’m sorry you have to read into my statements about violence as addressed by Brian Godawa in his book, something about my attitude toward sex and nudity. Since I have not seen Shindler’s List, or Friday the 13th for that matter, I have no way of knowing to what extent nudity is an issue in those films. It simply was not what Brian was addressing in the portion of his book I was commenting on and therefore had nothing to do with my remarks.
In fact, Greg, when you asked me whether or not I agreed or disagreed with Brian, you were asking the impossible since I don’t know what his views on sex and nudity in films is. I wasn’t talking about that in my post. I was talking about Philippians 4:8 and its use (or misuse) in determining what kind of fiction Christians should engage with.
Greg, I’ll say again. You have put yourself in the place as my judge, and that’s sinful. James says
As Matthew 18 commands, Greg, I’m bringing this to you. I am not holding it against you because I believe I am to forgive, even if you don’t repent and even if you continue sinning against me. I will leave the matter in God’s hands. But before God, my conscience is clear.
Becky
Stephen says: “Greg, you mean well in saying this, but you have absolutely no biblical or logical basis to make this judgment.”
Yes I do. All Christians do and it is no illusion. You (and Rebecca) are making judgements about me based upon what I say. Exactly as you SHOULD be. Except that those judgements are supported neither by scripture, nor by my words on this very page. Here’s an example with you first.
You allege:
“You also have no God-appointed spiritual authority to assume such a position of spiritual “leadership” or counsel of others.”
Despite the fact that I have said at least twice now here above:
“Not because I have authority over you, but because I’m asking.” (the 8th at 11:32pm)
and
” I say again. I have no authority over you. I’m simply asking” (the 10th at 7:07pm)
You accuse me (based on wrongly perceived online evidence, though you chide me for this very thing) of an attitude that I have specifically and directly stated that I am NOT taking. Stop that please 🙂 This is also only the latest of several other instances going back to the original conversation where I have consistently denied the possible perception that I fancy myself someone to whom Rebecca may be accountable. I do not. I have seen such wonderful things from her and I desperately want to hold her in the very highest light the evidence will allow. THAT is the motivation for this whole thing for me. I had been (REALLY) enjoying watching her debate and reading her blog when that Godawa piece came along. It was yet another in a long line of heartbreaks, each worse than the one before. My emotionally self defensive attack upon her in the messenger was inexcusable. Wishing I would have proceeded better from the start won’t help.
I sincerely apologize if I’ve made you uncomfortable. I am an extroverted friendly person Stephen. I love people. I love meeting them. I WANT to get along with them. I want them all as my brothers and sisters in Christ. People are different. I actually DO see what you meant in that last part. Probably something I should think more about and be more aware of. It may make me seem like a weirdo sometimes. Thank you for pointing it out.
Rebecca says: “I’m sorry you have to read into my statements about violence as addressed by Brian Godawa in his book, something about my attitude toward sex and nudity.”
Me too. Which is why I’ve been asking all this time that you simply tell me.
Here’s what I said to you in June, copied and pasted from the original conversation about Godawa’s book on Hollywood:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
“First Rebecca, I should not have started this by jumping on you the way I did. Please forgive me. Since then, it appears my attempts to repair the path of discussion have not been successful. I ask only that you hear me out and that take my word that I’m merely asking questions. Not attacking. Please….
…What IF you knew of online instances where I have quoted someone like say, “Willy Wifebeater”?. What if I had reviewed his book “Wife beater Worldview” (bear with me please). Now in this hypothetical analogous situation, I have not cited enough of this book in the review to reveal whether Willy actually believes in wife beating or not. But you see me using the same language and principles in pretty much the same way all other believers in the wifebeater worldview have and do. You’ve read quite a few of them.
You’ve also read Willy’s articles in other places where he has clearly advocated wife beating. Furthermore there are videos on youtube where willy himself is seen advising others on the godly and properly contextualized practice of the art of wife beating.
Alarmed, you now ask me:
“Greg, am I to assume that following Willy you are an advocate of wife beating? ”
That would be a perfectly legitimate question and one I shouldn’t be shocked or offended at fielding. Here we have a man that is everywhere seen to advocate wife beating and here I also am citing him as a positive authority on worldview. That, my sister is the actual parallel to the scenario in this thread. How is it uncharitable to merely ask you if you believe the same thing as the author of a book you have positively reviewed? On top of all that, what would you think if you couldn’t get me to instantly denounce wife beating?” June 22, 2014 at 1:00 am
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Even if totally in error, I had strong, nearly inescapable reasons to at least ask what I did
I also asked you then, 2 months ago, to forgive me for coming after you before asking your view as quoted directly above. On June 24th at 2:59pm you said you had. I stand by the legitimacy of what I drew from the information I had about Godawa and your interaction with him in that piece. and yet continue to lament my poor initial handling of it.
Rebeca says: “In fact, Greg, when you asked me whether or not I agreed or disagreed with Brian, you were asking the impossible since I don’t know what his views on sex and nudity in films is.”
It might not be a bad idea to learn a man’s views are on the “Hollywood rape culture” as Stephen and Cap rightly call it, before positively citing him and his book on Hollywood. That is FAR more serious than a simple disagreement over non essentials. Which is why I was begging God you please explain what was going on to me.
Lastly, James admonition about “judging”, is to those who were imposing their own statutes upon the brethren and thereby declaring themselves an authority higher than and judge of, God’s law. I have done no such thing.
That passage and one in Romans 14 are two that I still intend to incorporate into this brief piece which tells the actual truth about “judging” in the New Testament. It was writtn to a specific group about a specific person and needs some other editing as well. Sorry about that. http://tiribulus.net/judge.html
My conscience is also clear as can be.
“Judging” is not the issue. (Edit: Becky and I are both familiar with and reject the wishy-washy evangelical/non-Christian notion that “Judge not” from Matt. 7:1 is some kind of Golden Rule apart from immediate and surrounding context.) “Judging as if a pastor/teaching elder and as if the internet = a straying church that must be called to account,” that’s what makes folks a bit vexed.
It sounds like your main issue is with Godawa and with a view(?) that you believe no Christian can legitimately hold. It also sounds like your issue is whether a Christian can cite an agreeable statement by an otherwise disagreeable author and not also be implicated or “tainted” by that author’s other views. My twofold advice is thus:
My attempt has been to represent your possible approaches to this issue fairly, and I’m open to any clarification/correction about whether this is accurate. That being said, I think it’s a good time to start wrapping up this lengthy back-and-forth.
Please tell me your take on the following:
—————————————————————————————-
In the 5th chapter of Paul’s 1st letter to the church at Corinth he tells of a situation where a man was in a sexual relationship with “his father’s wife.” The precise nature and relation is irrelevant for this post. The point is it was a most damnable and horrific display of immorality as the apostle there says. They had taken his teaching on Christian liberty to terrible unintended extremes and were celebrating their own tolerance and open mindedness toward it. Paul rebukes them severely for their presumptuous arrogance.
He cries that they should be mourning instead and commands that they put him out and “deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord”. Not because he hated the man, but because he wanted him to be saved. He further decries the fact that the church is being polluted by this evil, represented as it often is by the illustration of leaven. He goes on starting in verse 9 to tell them that his previous instructions about not associating with immoral people did NOT mean those in the world. Because they’re everywhere, just like today, and you’d have to leave the world to avoid them.
He says not to associate with anybody CLAIMING TO BE A BROTHER who is living, like the man with his father’s wife, in flagrant unrepentant sin. He gives a quick list of representative sins (sexually immoral, greedy, swindlers, idolaters, revilers, drunkards) clearly designed to convey the idea that ANY known, public unrepentant sin is what he’s talking about. He then says they are not even to EAT with these people. Then, please hear what he says in verse 12, “For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. Purge the evil person from among you.
Who is inside the church? He just told us. Those claiming to be brothers. Here we have the writer of at least 13 of the New Testament books telling a church that he founded not to worry about the corruption in the world, but you dern well better git yourselves about the business of judging those who claim to be one of us.”
————————————————————————————
Having no specific application to anybody in the present discussion an without trying to read into it where you think I’m goin. Just is this right or not?
Stephen, I don’t think “judging” is the issue when someone is walking in known sin. Scripture says we are to confront a person who sins against us.
The judging I think James is referring to, in context, is one person supposing that another is sinning when there is no evidence. Because there is one Lawgiver and Judge who sees our hearts and attitudes. It is not right for a Christian brother or sister to determine another has sinned when there is no sinful behavior. That was precisely what Job’s friends did. They said, we’re sure you’ve sinned, Job, so repent. But there was no evidence of any sin. They were making a judgment based on their own worldview, not on reality.
Becky
Amen. There is still an unbiblical way to “judge” others and we need to recognize that and avoid it, even as we critique the out-of-context use of Matt. 7:1, etc.
I repeat yet again. it’s important to me that you believe that I have never, ever, even once, for a single second, hoped to find fault with you Rebecca. So help me, it’s been just the opposite. The creator God who knows the hearts of men perfectly, will one day tell you that that was the truth. People whose counsel I value are telling me to give up on this. After your fabulous comment in the other thread, I just cannot do it yet.
I am going to take Stephan’s advice on something though. I don’t know how long it will take.
I have sent the following to Brian Godawa:
“Hello Mr. Godawa.
My name is Greg. I hope that this email finds you well. I’ll get right to the point and be right up front with you. I disagree with your view of Hollywood and film and the Christian life and I have an agenda. This email conversation, IF one happens, is intended for public consumption. I’d like to ask you some specific questions about your views concerning sinful content in movies. Shouldn’t take long. We can do it publicly if you like as well. OR, you can turn me down. I pretend no authority over you whatsoever. Nor do I feel that you are in any way obligated to take me up on this. I’m simply asking. I will be civil, but we will almost certainly be at odds. Maybe I’ve been wrong. This came up in a mildly heated discussion happening over at Spec-Faith.
I appreciate your time and consideration, Sincerely,
Greg – Detroit
I have now the following follow up:
Hello again Brian,
Taking our mutual friends word on your accessibility and the therefore now certain conclusion that you have seen my last communication, I respectfully ask if you would be so kind as to tell me why you are not inclined to take me up on my discussion? I cannot help but be curious. Thank you,
Greg
As it is all but completely certain that, after taking Stephen’s advice, Mr. Godawa is not interested in a short dialog, I now offer the following portion of a review of “Hollywood Worldviews” by Tim Challies: http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/book-review-hollywood-worldviews
===========================================
“It seemed strange to me, as I read the book, that one of the topics that is likely to be most important to Christians as they consider movies is relegated to an appendix. In the appendix we find “Sex, Violence & Profanity in the Bible.” Here Godawa provides some justification for watching sex and violence in film and for listening to the inevitable profanity. His justification is one I’ve seen countless times—that the Bible contains these themes as well. “The depiction of evil and its destructive ends can be just as true, honorable, right, pure, lovely, excellent, worthy of praise and profitable as can the depiction of righteousness and its glorious ends.” He points to the importance of context as we wrestle with with these issues. In many films these acts happen within an ungodly worldview and in a way that is never redemptive. “Context makes all the difference between moral exhortation and immoral exploitation of sin.”
If the book has a failing, it is right here. Godawa simply does not provide a satisfactory rationale for watching movies in the first place—or at least movies that include sex, violence and profanity. He does warn that “we must be careful to draw personal lines that we will not cross, based upon what particular things affect us negatively when we are exposed to them in movies.” But he gives little by way of universal negatives—things that would (and maybe should!) negatively affect everyone. He seems usually to draw the line not with certain acts or with a certain level of immortality, but rather with good or bad filmmaking and storytelling.
Godawa seems to fall into a trap of equating words and pictures. In so doing he ignores the power of pictures and the fact that pictures and words communicate in different ways. It is for good reason, I am sure, that God chose to communicate through a written rather than a visual Scripture. Equating “he knew her and she conceived and bore a son” with a steamy and passionate scene on the big screen is irrational. Simply because God saw fit to include an element in Scripture does not give us license to portray it visually. It is also important to note that the descriptions of sexuality and violence with the Bible typically arise in historical descriptions. And there is a difference between describing history and fabricating a story. A description of the horrors of the holocaust may be necessary in describing and hence in understanding history. Fabricating a story describing those same stories is not in the same category.
So though I appreciated Godawa’s instruction in discerning the worldviews inherent in film, I was less convinced that this is something we should or need to do.”
============================================
Amen Tim. If I might gently assert. It is very tough to believe that anybody who’s read this book didn’t see this apendix. This is the typical story over substance approach used to justify Hollywood blasphemy, blood and pornography. This will obviously directly relate to the conversation Stephen and I are having in the “White Magic” thread. It is also what prompts my questions to Rebecca.
A Clarification From Above. This:
“As it is all but completely certain that, after taking Stephen’s advice, Mr. Godawa…”
…may be misunderstood. I meant that I took Stephen’s advice and contacted Godawa. Not that Godawa took Stephen’s advice and didn’t respond. I apologize for any misunderstanding.