Note: Before reading the following arguments, please understand that they are not what I believe. On Wednesdays, I deliberately argue for wrong ideas, challenging my listeners to call and defend the obvious right answer, which is usually far harder than one would expect. This is a summary of what Wacky Andrew will be arguing, not a representation of what real Andrew believes.~Drama has historically been an industry full of immorality, both shown and in the people who produced it. This is why early Christian converts were told to leave their acting professions.
~The film industry, in particular, is so vulgar that no Christian should be associated with it.
~Is it acceptable to God to utter pretend profanity, pretend immorality, or pretend blasphemy?
~Every good plot needs a villain. Should Christians practice being villains so well that they can’t be discerned from them?
~Method acting is the idea that you don’t act like you’re angry, you become angry. Does this seem like an excellent character habit?
~We aren’t supposed to be partners with non-believers in our endeavors.
~The Greek word Hupokrites (an actor) and Latin hypocrita (a stage actor) derive our word hypocrite, which Jesus did not use to praise the Pharisees who “put on a good show.”
~Someone who is good at acting is good at misrepresenting who he really is.
~How can you do those things on the screen and then tell your children to not do them? There are a lot of movies you would act in that would not be suitable for your own children to watch. How can that be correct: doing a job your children aren’t allowed to observe.
22 comments:
Can you name a movie where people did not have to sin to create the movie or cause others to sin by watching it? I used to be an actor and the Lord convicted my heart. I now am in the category that you described as neither acting or watching movies. It is amazing when you are convicted of something and give it up, how the Lord opens your eyes. I don't think that television is evil or anything, but I don't believe that acting is of God.
I would be concerned about someone swearing or committing adultery to show a truth and someone creating a G movie that does not promote truth.
I think the basic question here should be not be wether movies are right or wrong but: Is it right to sin in order to communicate Truth? And is that what Jesus would have us do?
I encourage you to rethink and pray about your position towards theatre.
I like your questions, and I think they engage good issues, but I'd reverse your second-to-last one. Instead of asking whether it's right to sin in order to communicate truth, I'd ask whether communicating a truth can ever be sinful?
See, what you've done here is played a trump card, so to speak. "God convicted me of..." and "when the Lord opens your eyes" are stakes-raising gambits. If I disagree with you, then either I'm denying your revelation or showing that I'm out of touch with God. So, instead, how about this: perhaps it's unwise for you to be in the movies. But personal conviction (even when genuinely Godly) does not equate to a mandate for all people. Also, your encouragement to pray and rethink strongly implies that I didn't pray the first time...or since... and that other Christians who participate in the industry or enjoy the industry are equally short on prayer or accurate insight.
Of course, you're not alone in your viewpoint that movies are inherently problematic, but you don't seem to recommend a good alternative for communicating to this culture. The movie really is a language this culture speaks, and if we refuse to speak it, we render ourselves irrelevant as well as sounding very nutty. Now, sounding nutty isn't always so bad, but be sure you're doing it when it really counts.
There are a lot of Christians who have turned off or discarded their televisions (and Internet connections as well, at least to YouTube, etc., I suppose) for very sincere reasons. But again I have trouble seeing how this will effectively work to rescue a culture so desperately in need of being impacted for the Gospel.
When Christians have abandoned posts of influence in the culture, it has always harmed the culture, and we're just now in the last 15 years recognizing this.
From my perspective, every invention throughout history has been opposed by some Christians claiming Divine opposition to it. There are times when such opposition is valid. I would apply it toward contraception, for instance. But this consistent voice of opposition functions a lot like the religionist who cried wolf. "Artwork is idol-making." "Modern music is demonic." "Dancing is just sex with your clothes on." Eventually we (even we Chrstians) begin to hear this as an opposition to new things rather than a real Biblical objection to some particular new evil. You didn't, of course, mention any of these. And the errors behind them don't, of course, tarnish the actual merits of your view. But there is a theme of ascetic purity from the tainting influence of this world which runs behind all of them that's born of a dualism (spirit good, body bad) that is simply false. Now I've gone on a terrible tangent here, but the short version is that many people who object to such things (including TV) are really motivated by a desire to create a set of rules which will control the dangers of life in such a way that we don't have to depend on God's Spirit for guidance through this material. "Some TV is bad, therefore we should avoid all TV." This is not a good pattern.
As for naming a movie that doesn't involve sin in the production, I'd say that I don't believe I can name a single product made on the Earth that doesn't involve sin in the production. People make movies, and as such, movies are tainted by the same sin that taints people. And the desire for a sinless movie may actually be the desire for a sinless person. Only Jesus qualifies. Put it another way. Books and movies are really just the product of people at a distance. If we reject the product for impurity, we also wind up rejecting the people for the same reason. Again, my tangent rants on. Sorry.
One final thought. Much of the Bible would be R rated at least. It sounds like your opposition to films would include even direct portrayals of Biblical stories in film, TV, or plays.
But, as I said before, I respect someone who is consistent on these issues, as it sounds like you are. But consistency isnt' the only test of the validity of someone's viewpoint. Sometimes more than one view can be internally consistent.
Thank you for your posting. It was fun to reply. =)
I agree that just because some TV is bad, it is not to be utterly avoided and chalked off as inherently sinful. TV is just a tool. Neither good nor evil.
There is a large difference between what is contained in the Bible and what is acted out in order to create a film. To follow a script for example, that is using the Lord's name in vain or requiring you to have sexual interludes would be sinful we can both agree. But if it communicates a "higher truth" does it make it ok?
There are other ways to communicate with the world rather than conforming to it. Certain conformities are ok, but you have to look at whether it would be pleasing to God. The way you dress is a perfect example. To fit in, you need to dress appropriately, right? But it would be wrong to where satanic signs, profanity, or sexually provocative images just for the sake of "fitting in to reach the lost"
I think there is a reason that Jesus told parables and didn't have his disciples get up and act them out. Could you imagine him telling James to pretend to choke John when acting out the parable of the servant that owed the master more than he could pay?
I also agree that consistency does not validate someone's view point. Views should be validated by the Bible.
Understandably, all products are made by imperfect people, so we can't reject a hamburger because someone swore while making it. But acting requires actors to engage in sin in order to create the final product. You cannot have a movie or TV show without a protagonist. It would not be interesting.
Jesus referred to the Saducees and Pharisees as Hypocrites, you probably already know what the name hypocrite means. Play actors. He always used it in a negative connotation. I'm not saying that in and of it self proves that acting is not good. But it is something to think about.
And to answer your question whether communicating a truth ever be sinful? Yes. Satan communicated a truth to Eve in the garden, but mixed it with lies. I believe that acting is very similar. Plus, he came in the form of a serpent, Satan was acting right from the beginning. What if someone communicates a truth that Jesus is Lord by spray painting "Jesus is Lord" on your house and car, that would be sinful, although they are communicating a truth right?
The other thing is that many people say "its the way it affects you, its ok to watch if you don't let it affect you." That is inconsistent with what Jesus taught. We are supposed to turn our eyes and ears from evil, not listen and try to filter and stay unaffected. That is how we can get desensitized.
I used to participate in the industry both watching and participating as a Christian. So I am not trying to imply that you have not genuinely prayed about this. I used to pray before every performance. But there were certain ambitions and sins in my life that were keeping me from hearing from God.(And I know that this would imply the same for you but that is not what I am trying to say) My conscience was seared. There is nothing wrong with checking in with God to make sure that what you are doing is right.
An alternative to communicating to this culture: How about Christians speaking their faith by their actions and not just by their words. Loving our neighbor as ourself. It is amazing how many people's lives my 82 year old neighbor has touched just by helping people. It makes you irrelevant with people when they recognize you as a Christian but you do mostly the same things as they do. What's the difference? They look for a difference to see if you are the real deal or a hypocrite. I've tried that, it doesn't bring them closer to God, it brings you farther from God.
I didn't intend to type this much, but I hope that if you recognize even one point that I have made as being valid, that you would carefully reevaluate your view of acting.
I also hadn't intended to write so much. I'll try for better brevity this time. Here's one place we thoroughly agree: the best thing for every Christian to practice is individual acts of charity toward our neighbors. Call it a simple, obvious, non-negotiable for all Christians.
I think one place we diverge is on the distinction you want to make between watching a film and reading a book. If I read a book, I am imagining the scenes. If I am watching a movie, the imagining is largely being done for me. But both involve me forming mental pictures of at least sometimes sinful behavior (true even of reading the Bible). Why is it okay to read the book and not to watch the movie? And if it's okay to write the book, why wouldn't it be okay to act in the movie?
Your question about Jesus having his disciples strangle each other for effect doesn't move me. That strikes me as a perfectly fine theatrical device, so long as the audience knows it's unreal...which is precisely the case with movies.
Though I agree there are limits to what a person may do to conform and also to portray a role, I'm not convinced that it's sinful to portray sin. Likewise, I'm not convinced that it's sinful to watch sin. Enjoy it? That's another matter. But avoiding sin produces no immunity to it whereas enduring it produces the ability to not be polluted by it (and also risks becoming seared in your conscience regarding it, I know).
It seems that if I am so at risk of being contaminated by sin, I'm very weak and vulnerable and hence limited in what I can do in this world for good. If I'm not at risk in this way, I'm much more able to reach out and do good in places that would otherwise be too tempting for me. This ability to resist temptation is very different from the habit of simply avoiding it altogether.
I'm really enjoying this dialogue, but I should be honest with you in that it's very unlikely you'll persuade me to abandon movies. In case you don't already know: andrewtallmanshowmovies.blogspot.com. =)
We certainty do agree that to truly love God and love our neighbor as ourself is our ultimate, "non-negotiable" way to live.
I understand what you are saying about imagining a scene in your head(from a book) and seeing a scene in person(on a screen). What is the difference? The key difference is the need for actors right? In a book, there is no need of an actor to act out whatever may be in it. In a movie, an actor in required to "act out" the script. That is a huge difference, because for entertainment, we are asking people to act things out that would be against our own consciences. In acting, to be a good actor you have to internalize the character. You become 90% or more of that character. There are many different forms of acting but generally you "become" the character. It is totally different than a book. What is the difference between paying someone to make out with someone for a movie and just paying someone just to make out? If the movie communicates some Truth or higher purpose, it still doesn't make it right no matter how you look at it.
It is not sinful to see sin, but it is sinful to enjoy watching sin or watch it for entertainment. We should not willingly subject ourselves to sin for entertainment.
1Cr 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
1Cr 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
1Cr 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
Who said that enduring sin produces the ability to be polluted buy it? To purposefully and willingly endure sin is to engage in it. We should run from sin when we have the option. Certainly we will see things that are sinful, but we should not run to them. I understand that in life we see things and are in places that sin happens we can't avoid it. But to just stare at sin for the sake of entertainment is contrary to the gospel. Also, to justify engaging in sin in order to reach the lost is also contrary to the gospel.
I firmly believe that acting has been rationalized and justified to meet the cravings of our flesh. We can rationalize just about anything that we really want to do.
Many Christians, when justifying something pull the "grace card". They say," Well, I am under grace and what I am doing is helping people. So it is ok for me to sin because I couldn't reach these people without it." Jesus did not have to sin in order to reach anyone. God's grace does not give us free license to sin for the greater good.
Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
Rom 6:20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
Rom 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Enduring sin does not produce the ability to not be polluted by it. If anything it increases the likelihood of falling into it. We are very much at risk of falling into sin, why did Joseph flee so quickly when he was presented with sin. He didn't wait around and think " the more I am subjected to this, the more immune I will be later". I can assure you that you can do much more good by avoiding sin rather than embracing it(or just tolerating it in your life).
To portray sin is to sin. I used to be an actor and I can assure you that portraying sin is sin. Can you get up every morning and portray a sinful act or even say something sinful over and over again, and it not create sin in your heart? Don't try it, but I can assure you that portraying sin is sin. Did Jesus ever portray sin?
Your last comment was very interesting because I was going to ask you a question kind of pertaining to that. It seems like, what you are saying is that it is unlikely that I can persuade you because of your love for movies and/or your blog on movies(correct me if I am wrong). All debate aside, If you knew that acting was sinful and that God could use you better without movies(and such) would you accept it???
Oh, yes.
And it's fair to admit that I am heavily invested in believing that the arguments you're making don't add up to a compelling case in the end. Similarly, you find yourself heavily invested in the viewpoint you are espousing at this point.
The reason I mentioned the blog and my own love for movies is so you would be aware of the full set of facts. Also, so that you would know I have thought about these things many times and (I hope) fairly deeply. As in, what you're up against with me isn't the ordinary naive and unreflective bias that movies and television are okay which most people have. I may still be wrong, of course. So may you. =)
I generally agree with your assessment of the portrayal of romance in movies, by the way. It's virtually impossible to distinguish romantic scenes from prostitution, and even worse than it perhaps because of the emotional connection which must be simulated. It's no accident that so many Hollywood romances begin with intimate movie roles.
But is it a sin to portray sin? I don't think so. Does it pollute a person's soul to emulate evil for the sake of a movie role? Yes, in some cases. No, in others. If a Christian is making films with no redemptive value (perhaps 60% or more of them) and emulating sin for the purpose of entertaining people, even I wouldn't say that's acceptable.
But films (again, being about humans will necessarily mean being about sin) are not all the same, and motives are not all the same. As a Christian actor, I could well see my role in this film as sending a useful message, though the producers view it differently. I don't know what percentage of Christian actors are this conscientious, but certainly not all of them are.
This discussion reminds me a lot of the question of whether a Christian may be a bartender, given that so much of the profit of a bar is on drunkenness and the environment is so essentially unhealthy. Nonetheless, I say yes, cautiously. Only if you say alcohol is inherently sinful can you say never on this question. Likewise, only if all acting (even non-sin-oriented in redemptive stories) is evil should we abandon the entire industry.
Now, I'm under no illusions about the propriety of motives of most actors, even Christian ones. But there are improvements to be made to everyone's perspective in most all industries. A man may well be sinful in any job, and perhaps most are, but this doesn't mean the job is sinful.
From the way you talk about it, I would liken you to the alcoholic who now despises alcohol for himself or anyone else. But since you are alleging such a massive self-deception on the parts of all the Christians engaged in the movie industry and in us who consume it, your arguments need to be beyond interesting to totally compelling. As yet, they aren't.
Nonetheless, everything you're saying has some truth in it and many of your concerns I share, though not to your degree.
Here's a final thought for comparison. On Wednesdays on my show (I don't know whether you're a listener or not), I argue for things I disagree with. I do so enthusiastically, playing the Wacky Andrew part as well as I can. This is generally agreed to be the most useful and interesting day of the week on my show by listeners. Your analysis would indict this practice as well for overlapping reasons. Your conviction that acting is wrong for you could not possibly be stronger than my own conviction that Wacky Wednesday is right for me and what God wants me to be doing. But I wouldn't encourage it for everyone to try, and some people I woudl actually discourage from trying to do what I do on Wednesday.
On a different note, given a Christian culture which is so obviously enthralled with movies, since I cannot find merit in the idea that they are inherently wrong, I am committed to teaching people how to navigate through their movie watching wisely than teaching them to just abstain from a thing that I find so rich in value as an art form...at least some of the time.
One other thought just occurred to me. I perceive a strain of thought in your posts that movies are nothing more than entertainment, and that the only reason people watch (or make) them is for the purpose of entertainment. They surely are this, but they are far, far more than just that. This, by the way, is a very common premise that Christians have, especially when they feel guilty about their consumption of television or movies. To me, movies are art (and entertainment) and instruction and a lot like studying people, quite frankly. But I just wondered if your view starts from the assumption that entertainment is the only end of movies/television. If so, I strongly recommend you read Jeffrey Overstreet's excellent book, "Through the Glass Darkly."
I believe that your stance on movies is much more thought out and considered than most. I appreciate that. And I also appreciate you listening and considering a different point of view on a subject that you are passionate about. I think we both definitely can agree that this subject is perhaps the most influential and important subject in this day and age. More people are influenced by what is on TV/movies that any other medium. With that said, I once thought very similarly about this subject. I am glad that you have thought about these things fairly deeply.
Any person emulating sin for any reason is still emulating sin. We are to emulate Christ and not sin. And to justify emulating sin to edify Christ is contrary to Christ. He did not teach that we are to edify him by all means necessary. There have been many people throughout history that have tried to convert people to Christ by all means necessary. I'm sure you can think of a few just off the top of your head.
I can assure you that an actor cannot emulate or portray sin and be unaffected. They can say they are unaffected but it is not much different than the actor that says they can do a sex scene and not allow it to affect their marriage. They might stay married, but their marriage is affected negatively.
Portraying sin is what desensitizes you and makes you feel unaffected. If something is numb or desensitized, it by definition feels unaffected by things that DO affect it. So when an actor says that he is unaffected I firmly believe it is because he is completely desensitized so he now feels unaffected.
When I was an actor, I felt unaffected. What happened on the stage, stayed on the stage, so i thought. I felt unaffected, because I was desensitized. It was only when I chose to walk away from it, that I slowly started to become more sensitive. It didn't happen overnight, it was a slow process. Admittedly, there are not very many Christians that share my view, but that does not discredit it just because of the fact that a plurality of people today hold differing views. The views of the plurality should never be the litmus test for what is right and wrong.
I'm not going to argue the question of the Christian bartender. But if you are making people drunk and you are a Christian bartender, I would consider this verse.
Hab 2:15 Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to [him], and makest [him] drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!
I realize that bartenders don't usually want to see someone's nakedness, but you get my point. I don't believe that alcohol is evil, but what bartender doesn't get people drunk?
I see your correlation between alcohol and acting. After my views on acting had changed I found a article by A.W. Tozer. He articulated some of the things that I had been thinking and brought up points that I had not heard of. As you can imagine it was difficult to find Christian articles against acting. I just wanted to know what other reasons that other people had cited as cases against acting. I am sure you have heard some of the cases he cites but it is worth the read. It is actually about the Religious Film, written many years ago, and coming from his time, it is interesting that many of the things that he said would happen, has happened.
http://www.biblebb.com/files/tozermovie.htm
One day I asked myself a question.
I had to ask myself, "Will this job(acting) require me to sin in order to complete the job." The answer was yes. But the answer is no to many jobs. And if the answer is yes, then it is not a job worth having. But will I sin while on any job? Of course, I try not to sin, but I am not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. For example if a job requires someone to lie, cheat, or steal, should one say "well I'm going to sin while on the job anyway, so I'll take the job." ? That job would be sinful because it requires you to sin in order to do. Another job that would not require you to sin would be better, although you probably will sin almost every day while you are on the job(again, we are not perfect). We should try not to sin, not just accept it as a part of our life.
I have argued for an issue that I was very much against in a class back in college. To my regret, I won the debate and probably influenced people to do something very wrong. But I was acting and everyone knew that I actually held views totally opposite. I know you feel that your Wednesday programs are useful and the most helpful to people and I'm sure it has been useful and interesting. But have you thought about the people that it will have the opposite affect on? I haven't heard it, but I am guessing that you are basically playing devil's advocate in order to speak truth and enlightenment, am I right to say that? I just don't think to tell a lie in order to tell the truth is a way that we should share the gospel. I realize that you don't feel that it is a lie since everyone should know that you are just "acting" but I can assure you that it does not always have that affect.
One question(actually 2) I have is why "acting as an art form" automatically seems good and acceptable because it is an "art form"? It seems like referring to it as an art form gives it credo. Among people in the acting industry, it is referred to as an "art form" in a very lofty manner. Why is that? It's an honest question that I really don't have an answer to.
As far as your question about movies being nothing more than entertainment. I know that many movies are made for more than entertainment. But it is not as easy for you to justify sinful entertainment as it is to justify a movie with a purpose or truth in mind(that might just happen to have some sin in it). That is why my thoughts were geared toward the entertainment aspect, because it is much more difficult to justify. But you can much more easily justify seeing something that may be sinful if there is a greater good in mind.
In fact I am well aware of the Tozer piece, and I'm surprised we didn't link it on this page. I haven't been able (or sought to so much, honestly) to verify that Tozer actually penned it, and here's why I'm suspicious. Tozer was such a giant of the faith, but this particular piece is extremely badly reasoned. I remarked on it during this show (back in October) precisely because I thought it was so unstable logically (full of fallacies).
Nonetheless, neither the ineptness of a particular piece nor (as you rightly point out) the minority of an opinion have any real bearing on the validity of the actual idea.
Bartenders should avoid serving the intoxicated or even making them this way. Doing so is difficult, but can actually be a legal requirement in some situations. Nonetheless, certainly an issue. Could I work at a Borders and sell heresy, porn, and immorality at least some of the time? These are far more difficult questions than most people acknowledge.
Regarding art, no, being art doesn't justify every expression of it, nor even the artform, necessarily. All I was getting at is that there is more to movies than mere entertainment, and I had worried that your analysis didn't allow for this possibility. I know many Christians who haven't thought deeply about art and movies and have this same view (of it as mere entertainment), and I was just airing my suspicion. By art, I mean something that provokes thought and shares meaning and even experience, especially in an indirect way. Certainly, some films do this, and many do not. But much of the act of art depends on the discernment of the viewer rather than the intent of the director. I find deep meaning in films that many (even most) people dismiss or scoff at, and fail to see it in ones they cherish. So it goes for art, usually.
I'll give you an example. The movies Alfie (Recent version) and Knocked Up were both filthy movies, but they both wound up targetting exactly the sort of people who needed to hear their message, which was about the real dangers of promiscuity in both cases. I have no idea how many of the watchers of these movies were deeply affected by the moral of the story, but I'm glad the movies were made. Even though I don't recommend decent people watch them.
When you say that being an actor requires the emulation of sin, I'm interpreting you as meaning that someone in the film has to portray sin or else you can't have a film. And it's unfair of one actor to say, "Not me" while his job requires others to say, "Okay, I'll do it." Here's a similar case, I think. My friends went on a mission trip to the Caribbean and put on an evangelical play involving the devil. Someone had to play the devil, clearly. My friend did so, and found it to be an extremely meaningful experience/contribution. Did he become tainted from this? I don't believe it for a moment. Do I become tainted by reading heresy so that I know how to respond to my opponents? It's certainly a risk, but again I don't see it happening.
By the way, I'm going to mention this dialogue in my daily emails so that other people interested in this issue will possibly begin to participate in the discussion.
Well, I just don't believe that "acting as an art" is part of what Jesus would want us to do. If it is such an effective form of communicating the gospel, I firmly believe that it would have been used by Jesus or one of the apostles. They preached the word is spirit and in truth.
Also, how can you be an actor and Bridle your tongue or keep yourself unspotted from the world?
Jam 1:26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion [is] vain.
Jam 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, [and] to keep himself unspotted from the world.
I will just reiterate that acting out sin does affect you, and it is sin.
As an actor your goal is to "become the character" and/or make it believable to the audience. If you are not accomplishing that, you are basically a bad actor. It has to be believable. To make something believable that is fake, is untruthful and deceitful, even though people know it is "acting", they still believe it to a certain extent. You can't deny that. How many people fall in love with Hollywood stars because of the way they portray themselves on film. Or they believe that an actor must be the same in real life. Many people believe that the actor is exactly like the character they portray in the movie.(they are shocked when they hear otherwise)
Look at how recent actors were affected by the roles that they played.
Whatever the reasons I may bring up against acting, the fact of the matter remains that it is SO people are so entrenched and enthralled by it, that people cannot imagine their world without it. The most compelling argument in the world cannot overcome someone's perceived need for something.
I hope that help change that perceived need.
I'm curious, throughout this dialogue, What two things that I have said have been the most compelling?
You reference to those two movies, it seems like you are basically saying that because some people may understand the real dangers of promiscuity from watching these movies, that it justifies all of the filthiness that was necessary to act out. Plus the filthiness that is seen by the viewer.
The mind(heart) is much like our bodies, garbage in, garbage out.
And if you are still convinced that you can watch it and be unaffected, what about the people will be adversely affected. Many people do what they see and what is around them. And if what I may do will cause someone to sin, I will not do it.
I am glad that you are mentioning this dialogue in your daily emails.
The dialog is interesting. I had a couple of thoughts in reading it through.
First, is there a biblical prohibition against acting? I can't find one. And there was acting in the days of the Bible. So I worry when someone decides that something is a sin when nothing in the Bible supports it.
Second, while it is undeniable that lots and lots (can we even agree "most") movies involve sin (sinful themes, sinful actors, etc.), does that mean that all involve sin? I'm thinking of movies like those put together by Billy Graham's organization intended to share the gospel, the Jesus movie from Campus Crusade for Christ, or the recent Facing the Giants.
Finally, while it is entirely feasible that "God told me not to" on any particular subject, does that necessarily carry over to "and you must not either"? Sounds too much like Eve, who made a rule God didn't when she said told the serpent they weren't to touch the fruit ... or the Pharisees and many of their rules.
Just a few thoughts on the topic.
Well, the Bible does not spell out everything that we should not do. There isn't a list of prohibitions.
I believe that the Bible does not support acting. Just because something appears in the Bible doesn't mean that it is good. Astrology was in the Bible, and so were many other things that we must not do. When acting is referred to in the Bible it is in a negative connotation to describe the Pharisees. When was acting used by God in the Bible? Whenever it is mentioned, it is never in a good context.
I'm still trying to get myself crystal clear about where you do and don't draw the lines on portrayals. For instance. We woudl both agree that reading the Bible for ourselves is good. You believe that portraying the Bible in a movie would be wrong because, even if the text is followed verbatim, someone will have to portray sin since all Biblical stories involve sin unless they're just reenactments of a sermon given by Paul or Jesus, presumably. But what about a person just reading the story out loud to others dramatically? In order to do this effectively, I must take on the persona and represent it to a degree even in my speech. Is this offensive to you? I have trouble imagining you would say this is unacceptable, but I'm not clear how your principles would solve it for you either. So I'm curious. I'll eagerly grant that verbatim Bible movies are a rarity in the industry, but I think that's the hardest case for you to refute, as Stan mentions.
As for the reference with the Pharisees being hypocrites, this is a denunciation of their false portrayal of their own hearts with regard to God, not a denunciation of all acting. Religious hypocrisy is the issue here, not movies.
Two other curiousity questions. You mention that the word and spirit are enough. What about radio and the Internet, which we're obviously using right now? These are technological innovationst that long postdate the Bible and weren't anticipated by it. Should we use them in our lives? The Internet, especially has so much filth on it...
The other question is about magic tricks and illusionry. These are deceptions perpetrated on an audience that wants to be amazed by the deception. Everyone knows there's no real magic going on. So long as there isn't any actual demonic activity, would you oppose this as a form of deception as well? Again, I'm mostly curious how your principles play out in other scenarios.
Also, it's good to see some others participating. And I added a mention of this discussion on the top of the movies blog as well.
It is not just portraying sin, but portraying something that you are not ,that I believe we should not do. Let me ask you a question, is it ok for us to tell a friend something that it is not true, and then say no, I was just joking with you?
Yes, you might be just trying to cheer him up or something, but you are telling a lie to follow through with your initial good intention. Does this seem far fetched? And if I feel convicted of doing something like this and believe that it is a sin to , is it wrong for me to tell my brother that he should not do so also?
About the hypocrites referred to by Jesus, I understand what you are saying, and I agree to an extent. But it still doesn't explain why he never used theater or encouraged his disciples to do so. It was available and known at the time. And you would think if it was good, it would have been a perfect tool to share the gospel with the greeks. But it was not. Paul rather came to them in spirit and in truth. He came humbly sharing the gospel by word and deed, not by theatrical presentation. This was to the Greeks, if any culture was entrenched in acting, it was the greeks.
Radio, TV, movies,internet, are all tools, it is what you do with them that matters. They can be used for good or evil. These tools were NOT available back then. Acting was, however.
The reasoning seems a little odd to me. You said the Bible doesn't spell out everything we shouldn't do. Then you wonder why the Bible never uses acting. Isn't that contradictory?
But I'm curious about what Andrew asked as well. You said, "portraying something that you are not, that I believe we should not do." When I sat with my kids at night and read them stories, I read them in character (Bible or otherwise). I used voices for the various individuals in the story to bring the story to life. I "portrayed something that I was not." That would be sin? How about dramatic readings of the Bible? That would be sin? I'm just wondering (like Andrew was).
Stan, I said that the bible does list a prohibitions to answer Andrew's question if there is a prohibition for acting in the Bible. It does not say "you shall not act". But I believe that there is Biblical evidence to support that we should not be actors. Does that make sense?
I don't think that voice inflection when reading the Bible is wrong, but I really don't think that it is very good to try to act out all the various characters.
You said something very key, you said that you used voices for the various individuals in the story
"to bring the story to life".
Thats what I am talking about. God's word does not need to be brought to life. It gives us life, it is healing to our bones. We don't need to add to it to bring it to life.
My wife and I were actors and thought that we were going to recreate the Bible in Movie form. Word for Word, not straying from the Bible in any degree. Well, in my quest to do so, I discovered that it would not be good to do so. Who would we get to play goliath and curse the name of God, or play Delilah, the list goes on. It was starting from there that lead us to where I am now. Even the "good guys" or Jesus, would it be right to have someone pretend that they are Moses or Jesus? Would God want us to try recreate these events? We concluded no. I know that it sounds very extreme to you, and it would have to me to. It took a long time to reach this conclusion with a lot of prayerful consideration.
Do you have any Biblical evidence to support the theater?
This is an interesting thread and I'm glad that Andrew flagged it in his daily Thought of the Day.
C, I'm having a little bit of trouble figuring out exactly what universal principle you are attempting to espouse. I can imagine three possibilites:
1) You are against any impersonation or portrayal in any form whatsoever
2) You are against any portrayal that protrays a sinful act
3) You are against any portrayal that involves the actor to actually commit a sin.
Can you clarify which is your belief?
We have talked about all three of the different possibilities that you mention.
Well,
some believe that it is ok to portray a sinful act, I have stated reasons why it is not ok.
Some believe that it is ok for the actor to commit a sin , I have stated why it is not ok.
And, Some think that impersonations or portrayals are ok, I don't agree on this either. Although I do understand to an extent, saying ," so and so said such and such." But pretending you are someone else, I just don't think it is good. Jesus used parables to talk to the people and saw no need in impersonating characters.
Does that clarify it?
"That's what I am talking about. God's word does not need to be brought to life."
You had said that it is a sin to present yourself as someone you're not. I asked about reading. You say that God's word doesn't need to be "brought to life". Would you argue that nothing else ought to be read to your children? (Understand, I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm trying to understand.)
When my children were little, I'd pretend to be a dog and chase them around the house. They'd laugh and we'd have a good time. Or I'd be a horse and give them rides. They'd laugh (and I'd be sore). I am neither a dog or a horse, but I played the part of both. Is that wrong?
"Do you have any Biblical evidence to support the theater?"
Since there is no biblical mention of theater at all, of course not. (I'm sorry, but using "hypocrite" as an example isn't a good choice. It's not exclusive to theater. It's a concept illustrated from theater. To say that "the use of the word from theater proves that we shouldn't do it" would also require that we don't use curtains because they use them in theater and we don't use stages because they use them in theater and so on. It's not a particularly helpful approach.) Since there is no actual biblical injunction against playing a part, and since Paul does say, "To the pure, all things are pure" (Titus 1:15), my argument "for" theater would simply be "whatever is not from faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23). For you, it's sin. For others, I don't think you can argue from Jesus calling the Pharisees "hypocrites" that all acting is sin.
Why would that mean that you can't read anything else to your children?
I know you are looking at this from the perspective of playing with your children and you see no harm done. But, look at what the Bible teaches us. There is nothing to support acting like someone else. If anything there is loads of evidence against acting like someone else. We are to become more Christ-like, but not pretend we are Christ or anyone else.
You say there is no BIblical mention of theater at all. But that does not justify it by any means. You can look at principles in the Bible that justify acting?
You can't justify it by saying that "whatever is not from faith is sin" or that "to the pure, all things are pure" because then you could could try to justify anything you wanted. That's taking those scriptures out of context.
Tts 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
Tts 1:15 Unto the pure all things [are] pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving [is] nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
Tts 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny [him], being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
2Pe 2:18 For when they speak great swelling [words] of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, [through much] wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
2Pe 2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
2Pe 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
2Pe 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known [it], to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
2Pe 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog [is] turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
I firmly believe that acting allures people through the lusts of the flesh, no matter what the good intention may be.
Phl 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things [are] honest, whatsoever things [are] just, whatsoever things [are] pure, whatsoever things [are] lovely, whatsoever things [are] of good report; if [there be] any virtue, and if [there be] any praise, think on these things.
Phl 4:9 Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.
I know you may disagree on the finer points of acting or pretend but I must go with what Paul says, "Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do" . He preached to the Greeks(people that loved the theatre) not by acting but by speaking, preaching, and reasoning with them. He did not encourage others to do so either. So whatever what one may say to justify speaking to this culture through theater, I can't agree.
Also, nobody has answered my question from before, do you think that it would it be ok to deceive(by acting) your neighbor and then say you were just playing around? Does your intention justify the deceit?
C, thank you for clarifying your position. I think the first two points, that actors shouldn't commit sins while acting and that actors shouldn't portray sin, have some merit. The most interesting point to me, therefore, is the third one, where you contend all that portrayals are sin. You have not, in my opinion made a convincing argument in favor of this third point. In the interest of dialogue I'd like to share some thoughts.
You say, "Jesus used parables to talk to the people and saw no need in impersonating characters." I can agree that I there is no Biblical mention of Jesus or his disciples ever acting out a part to make a point. I don't see how one can make the inference from that however that therefore we as Christians are prohibited from acting. The mention of a practice in the Bible, or in this case the failure to mention a practice, is not sufficient grounds to draw moral principles from. First, the Bible is not a complete record of historical events. Jesus may have acted and it may not have been later recorded into Scripture. Second, even if Jesus never acted, his not acting proves nothing about the mortality of the practice. There is no Biblical mention of Jesus singing either. Even if he never sang, that does not make singing a universal sin. With regard to Jesus' actions we can only make inferences in the positive, i.e. Jesus preached truth, therefore it cannot be a sin to preach truth since Jesus never sinned. This does not work in reverse.
I have no trouble believing that for you to act in any way would probably be a sin. What I'm not convinced of is that it is a sin for everyone, i.e. a sin in the universal sense.
"Also, nobody has answered my question from before, do you think that it would it be ok to deceive(by acting) your neighbor and then say you were just playing around? Does your intention justify the deceit?"
I think the way you have worded your question needs to be addressed first. This question seems out of place for this topic of discussion since "acting", at least in movies or on stage in a play, etc., does not "deceive" anyone. Deception involves convincing someone that an untruth is true. Now, some movies may "deceive" by presenting moral evil as moral good, however I'd like to limit this post to your contention that all movies are bad, not just the *bad* ones. =) No rational person is deceived into believing that what is happening in a movie or on stage is happening in actual reality. Even in magic shows, no rational person really believes that actual magic is taking place. In the same way, I doubt that Stan's children were really deceived into believing that their father became a horse. These things are diversions, not deceptions. It just occurred to me, however, that this may be the root of our disagreement - that you draw no distinctions between deception in the true sense of the word and portrayals done for artistic effect. If so, I'd like to talk about that some more with you.
Even so, I still haven't really answered your question. What if a neighbor deceives another in the true sense of the word by making him believe that an untruth is true? This has actually happened to me and it was perpetrated by the people closest to me that I love the most. For my birthday, my closest friends threw me a surprise party. The fact I was walking into a surprise party was hidden from me and I was made to believe, by insinuations, that I was walking into an entirely different situation. Of course, my closest friends knew I would enjoy it and I was moved by the obvious effort and affection put into it. So, in this case, the deception was very short-lived, done in love, and I don't consider it a sin against me. Clearly, this is different than the proverb:
"Like a madman shooting
firebrands or deadly arrows
is a man who deceives his neighbor
and says, "I was only joking!"
I would indeed consider it a sin if my neighbor attempted to swindle me out of money and then when caught in the act claimed that it was just a joke.
I doubt that I'm going to convince you to believe any differently than you do now and I doubt you'll be able to convince me. I'm grateful for the posting though because they have made me think.
C, another question:
Do you believe that the prophet Nathan sinned in way he confronted David about his adultery and murder?
Post a Comment