CT Review Relishes Sexual Perversion
by Ted Slater on 06/09/2008 at 9:59 AM
What follows is my open letter to Christianity Today Movies.
Last week your movie review came out endorsing the perversion of Sex and the City, giving it more stars than Prince Caspian.
Your review grudgingly admitted that "there is a lot of sex and nudity in the movie." Your disclaimer went on to say that this movie isn't for "some adults." By "some adults," do you mean those who take the call of Christ seriously, to flee sexual immorality and pursue a life of righteousness? And that other, less conscientious adults should disregard the pursuit of holiness and "enjoy" (to use a term from the original review) this portrayal of illicit vulgarity?
A few days after your review was published, and the letters from those who take their faith in Christ seriously started coming in, you bristled and came to the defense of your endorsement of Sex and the City.
Your defense is a study in spin and Straw Man fallacies. You insist that you were simply "reviewing" the film. No, you are promoting it. You say that those who disapprove of CT's endorsement are calling for a boycott of it ("there should be no choice," the prudish Christians bellow, having "decided that no one should see it, period"). No, we're simply stunned that you advocate watching something that you yourselves consider "soft-core porn."
Yes, your review promotes this movie. Consider what you wrote in the defense of the original review: "It's good to see what the world looks like through the eyes of even the depraved." Do you not see that what you are doing is in direct opposition to Scripture, which says, "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter"? By promoting this movie, by denigrating those who reject this movie, by so slyly encouraging your constituents to embrace sin as "enjoyable" ... you are putting yourselves into a woeful place.
"And why not do evil that good may come?" you whisper in our ears. I join Paul in condemning such satanic counsel. I join Jesus Himself in condemning such counsel.
As for me, in the words of Paul, "I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil." Watching SATC does not facilitate being "innocent as to what is evil." Ogling at "a threesome, a naked man in a shower, some steamy makeup sex" and the "sex scenes between married folk" pollutes the soul. Whatever insights one might get into modern society isn't worth the cost of acquiring such pollution.
Bringing in C.S. Lewis to defend your encouragement that your constituents immerse themselves in sexual perversion is a little much, wouldn't you admit? Your conclusion -- "We will 'see through the eyes of others' and yet 'remain' ourselves" -- sounds enlightened, but it's really foolishness. The truth is that "Bad company corrupts good character." Those who want to grow in character, who want to grow in purity and godliness are wise to reject your slick words.
My advice to you, the editors of CT, in the words of Jesus: repent.
Don't make excuses. Don't try to spin what Christians find offensive in this movie. Don't try to point out the virtues of this movie that redeem it. Just humble yourselves and repent, and pull your God-dishonoring promotion of this vile movie.
Editor's note: This blog post has been revised in order to reflect our desire to focus on a specific film review from the Christianity Today Movies team, instead of CT as a whole.
1. Kelly said the following at 10:15 AM on Jun 9
I find this movie MORE full of Christian-themes than most Hollywood films. Topics of forgiveness and fidelity were crucial.
I'm tired of people accusing this movie of being pornography when it is no worse than the majority of Hollywood movies.
At least it's honest about its explicitness rather than hiding it in a steamy scene halfway through the movie. e.g. "The Thomas Crown Affair" - where are the endless rants deriding this movie for exactly the same thing?
I find hidden sin a MUCH bigger threat than SATC because these are the ones that worm their way into our lives without us even noticing.
2. Courtney said the following at 10:22 AM on Jun 9
There have been a number of times that Christianity Today has shocked me with their lack of Christ-likeness. It is for this reason that I never read Christianity Today with the intentions of learning about Christ or His Kingdom. They have become the voice of those who long to be not only in the world, but also of the world and have placed their stamp of approval on things clearly against Scripture before.
3. IMO said the following at 10:32 AM on Jun 9
Thank you Ted.
(Side note: What is biblically worse? To know how bad the movie is and cave in to the temptation to watch it? Or to not even think it's a big deal? Perhaps biblically the 1st is worse and the 2nd should be sending big red flags --Holy Spirit inactive in believer)
4. Miss S said the following at 10:37 AM on Jun 9
Good for you, Ted! Well said! If I could sign on your letter as a petition, I would.
5. Amy said the following at 11:16 AM on Jun 9
Hi! I am thankful for your boldness in writing this letter to CT. I sometimes struggle with making sure there is a distinct line that separates me from the world in my movie viewing choices, and can often become easily deceived by my own flesh that something is really ok, when it is NOT. As for SATC, I am thankful that, although I have watched the series occasionally, the no thought never entered my mind that would justify watching the movie version. The name in and of itself clarifies the contents, and being someone who struggles with sexual purity, I know that this sort of movie would only be a stumbling block in my pursuit of Christ-likeness. I am saddened, however, for some of my friends, and the author of this article, that believe that a small dose of impurity-i mean, "fun"- and unholiness won't hurt them. A little bit of arsenic over a short amount of time can destroy a person's health. Likewise, a small amount of perversion (and disobedience...thank you Ted for your biblical reminder!!)can destroy a person's soul. But, praise be to God, who saves us through the cross from our unholiness and perverse flesh that gratifies itself regularly. How lost I, and my dear friends, would be without Christ's shed blood and victorious resurrection to cover us before a holy God.
6. Carrie (the original) said the following at 11:26 AM on Jun 9
Ted,
First of all, thank you for taking a bold stand for the Gospel. More Christians should be calling other Christians to repent. I do not think that it is wise for Christians to be endorsing things that so obviously stand for something that is anti-Scripture.
Although, I do have a question for you:
The author states at the end of her review "Yes, materialism and hedonism abound. But so does a messy wrestling with complex new realities of life that I wish I saw more of in Christian circles." Isn't that second sentence exactly why Boundless exists? Single believers are told time and time again that they just need to "wait it out" and that their problems aren't that big of a deal because it's just them. (Forunately, that's not true of me. But if I weren't exactly where I am, I imagine I'd hear that a lot.)
I don't want to condone Ms. Courtney's efforts to find "Sex and the City" as relevant to struggling believers. I do understand where she is coming from though. Many believers are receiving incredibly poor direction, instruction, and reproof for their lonely, agonized souls.
What she addresses in this article is the attitude that was discussed not too long ago in the blog post "True Love Waits?".
Shame on her for actually recommending the movie to struggling believers. Let's not go too hard on her, though, because she's hurting like the rest of us.
7. KarlH said the following at 11:29 AM on Jun 9
I consider it to be perfectly acceptable to laud the entertainment side of things. It is a movie review after all, and not a morality review. Just because their movie reviews serve, to a point, as some sort buffer to those concerned about the amount of depravity in certain films does not mean that their primary purpose must be to condemn films and point out every single bit of profane content.
Also, not everyone has the same convictions. "And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away." Personally, I can say that hearing profane words in a movie has no effect on me whatsoever. I don't curse for certain reasons, and as my foundational arguments for this position are strong, I do not struggle with this. However, I can vouch personally for a certain younger sibling, aged 10, quickly exhibits and emulates the profanity he occasionally sees in the entertainment and culture he is exposed to.
I think what I am trying to say is that you have no right to speak for God. You may express your standing of why you think God feels as he does about a certain issue, but you have no right to declare it written in stone.
8. Jerry said the following at 11:35 AM on Jun 9
Amen. I don't really have anything to add to that.
9. BDB said the following at 11:36 AM on Jun 9
My only question: when it comes to giving stars to movies, does each publication do so independently, or is there some kind of centralized rating system done by movie critics?
10. Matt said the following at 11:43 AM on Jun 9
Ted,
Thanks! Will you let us know if you get a response?
And thanks for defending C.S. Lewis! Geesh! Unbelievable!
11. LauraW said the following at 11:51 AM on Jun 9
I find it humorous (in a shocking sort of way) that Christianity Today can so emphatically state that "this isn't a movie for children or teens" but it might be ok for adults. If a 15-year-old shouldn't watch it, why should I?
12. BDB said the following at 11:52 AM on Jun 9
The reason I ask the Stars question is that it seems that some Christian movies (like Facing the Giants) get only two stars because the reviewers don't understand the underlying Biblical themes, so the subtle or overt references are lost.
For example, the Star Wars saga was deliberately based on ancient story themes - a big one being repentance and redeption of Darth Vader. The Phantom Menace got a low "starts" rating, but it was an important part of the six-movie saga. I don't think that Revenge of the Sith could have gotten four stars without the preceding movies that really set the stage to understand Episode 3.
I'm wondering if Prince Caspian got only two stars because reviewers don't get the entire story arc that C.S. Lewis was writing.
13. George said the following at 11:53 AM on Jun 9
Instead of CT's reviewers quoting CS Lewis to defend their viewpoint of reviewing SACT, they should spend their time in Scripture. Lewis is a creation of God, so shouldn't we put the Words of God above the mere words of fallible men?
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' (Matthew 7:21-23) So what is the will of our Father in Heaven? Bearing good fruit as it states in the verses before verse 21.
The fruit of the Holy Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. All believers are called to bear all these. Does SACT encourage the bearing of such fruit?
"Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you. I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty." (2 Corinthians 6:17-18). There's a huge difference between trying to witness to non-believers, and trying to live as a non-believer.
And finally, "Everything is permissible" — but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible" — but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others." (1 Corinthians 10:23 - 24) and "So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God — even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved." (vs. 31 - 32).
Is it permissible for CT to review SACT? According to the Apostle Paul, yes. But is it beneficial? I don't think so. Will it cause Christians or non-Christians who read the review to stumble? There's a big chance of that happening. Is reviewing of SACT for the good of the many, so that they may be saved? I fail to see how it does.
14. PLH said the following at 11:57 AM on Jun 9
See, I don't think Christianity Today endorsed the movie. If they endorsed it, they should retract the endorsement. They evaluated the movie-and pointed out the negative and positive qualities. Sex and the City is such an important cultural phenomenon that with discernment, people should see and evaluate it-not mindless consume it but analyze and critique it. A college professor I had actually a brief clip from an episode in the first class period for a course on women and the city. The clip was very useful for raising questions about how society views women, careers, relationships, and the single life. I can see how one not want to contribute money to such a production-but I don't think the magazine endorsed the movie.
15. PLH said the following at 12:00 PM on Jun 9
Hmm....I didn't think about the star rating system though. That does make it seem more like an endorsement.
16. Jeremy said the following at 12:06 PM on Jun 9
It frustrates me that so many Christians seem unable to distinguish between seeing immoral behavior and condoning that behavior. The act of seeing a film which contains premarital sex does not mean you accept that behavior as legitimate!
Imagine a film which contains a number of graphic scenes: a woman pretending to be a prostitute to seduce and have sex with her father, a man violently raping his sister, an army slaughtering entire cities including infants, millions and millions of people dying. I am sure the more astute reader can see where I am going with this -- the Bible contains each of these scenes. The Holy Scriptures contain depictions of evil behavior, and yet we are able to realize that this does not imply a blessing upon that behavior, nor does reading about it necessitate that we will act in that way (Garbage in, garbage out!). Why are so many Christians seemingly unable to make that same connection with art?
17. trying to stay balanced said the following at 12:18 PM on Jun 9
I was trying to ask this question in the Christian Morality and Public Law post.
I have often noticed that the “sins” that seem to really bug the fundamental/conservative Christian the most seem to center around sex.
Why is that? Doesn't Jesus talk about other things that are much more reprehensible. Regarding SATC, you don't mention anything about the rampant materialism to which the characters seem to be addicted.
Also, I have many friends with whom I keep regular company they see both the TV show and the movie. I have never and would never see either the TV show or the movie. So I did not get corrupted.
At church yesterday the movie was mentioned at the beginning of the sermon; “from time to time the culture gives us graphic images of hell and of human lostness.” For another review that names this movie for what it is check out the New Yorker.
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2008/06/09/080609crci_cinema_lane
The freedom and grace I experience in my faith in Jesus doesn't depend on moral imperatives. I don’t want to see the movie, I won’t see the movie but I don’t presume to make God small by demanding others do what I do. God only needs my help in feeding the poor and caring for widow and the orphan etc. There is the saying; "Do God's work, not God's job". I think that is fitting here.
Sorry to ramble. I just get weary of the self righteous. An area where I struggle as well.
Lord have mercy on us.
18. Ariana said the following at 12:20 PM on Jun 9
I do hope the editors pay heed to that letter. Even if they want to argue some points, I think that they missed the main thing: Sex and the City doesn't offer anything redeemable to its viewers.
The argument that it's good to see life from another person's perspective doesn't apply because people don't go to see SATC to learn what other people think, they go to be entertained, or they go because they relate to it. I don't think that C.S. Lewis would have anything valuable to say about Sex and the City.
On the relating point, SATC does indeed speak to the struggles of that demographic of women. However, it's a shame that CT couldn't point them to a better way of interpreting/dealing with them than the lives and thoughts of the SATC characters. I found myself thinking in response to the reviewer's comments: "Is this all you have to say to women?" There is a need for a more "real" engagment by the church with the needs and feelings of 30 and 40-something singles. But I think that, really in the end, Jesus' answer simply isn't as appealing as HBO's. It's much easier and immediately gratifying to fantasize about being beautiful and carefree and sexually attractive to various men (despite the bumps in the road), than it is to simply take up your Cross and follow Jesus.
The CT reviewer complains that the Church doesn't acknowledge that older singles are "sexual beings." But that raises the question: What do you expect the Church to say to you? Do we think that "Self-control," and "longsuffering," and "the mind of Christ" are maybe just a little too abstract? Perhaps, but helping people to understand their desires in light of Christ is the work of the Church, not comforting us in our immaturity by pointing us to people who are sinfully acting out on the desires we share.
In so many ways, SATC reflects the prevalent despair of this generation--particularly of women. No longer able to expect men to be faithful and honorable, or to pursue them correctly, they give into the madness. Case in point: Carrie's relationship with Big isn't a triumph in the end, it's a screaming testimony to her desperation. It would be completely in-tune with the show for an SATC sequal to be about how Big abandons her, even after they are married. I would love to be able to point women to something more than an emotionally distant and adulterous man. Is it true to life? Unfortunately, yes. But I think that by making such things our entertainment, Christians give into the madness, too, and stop believing in the Lord's power to transform our lives into something better (and not necessarily "better" by the world's standards!). We also start to set our hope on the goods of this world, which the Lord does not promise us at all.
As a woman who may very well be single into her 30s, should I reach that point, I desperately hope that the Church has something more to offer me than CT's review does.
19. Sarah P. said the following at 12:23 PM on Jun 9
I see my other comment didn't make it through, which is OK. It is also OK if you don't want to publish this one. I just wanted to say that, if I was the CT folks, I would find it hard to respond well to this letter the way it is framed. I don't have any especial affinity to that magazine, nor do I tend to agree with them. But I'm just sayin'.
20. Ted Slater said the following at 12:25 PM on Jun 9
Some folks don't see CT's review as an "endorsement." I maintain that it in fact is an endorsement. Consider this sentence:
"SATC offers well-developed characters, smart dialogue, interesting plots and sub-plots, and a ton of heart."
Or the following sentence:
"I certainly enjoyed this meaningful reunion with its beloved characters and their winning friendships."
The reviewer speaks of how "refreshing" this movie is, how unlike it is to her quaint, irrelevant "college church group."
The original review speaks in glowing terms about this movie. The original review approves of this movie, which, by definition, constitutes an endorsement of it.
And the defense of the original review continues to endorse this movie, saying that it is "good" for Christians to expose themselves to it.
Again, I reiterate what I wrote in my original blog post: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil." Again I reiterate to the editors of CT: For God's sake, humble yourselves and repent of your foolishness. Stop reflecting the degeneracy of our culture and live up to your responsibility as a leading Christian publication.
21. Samuel PG said the following at 12:26 PM on Jun 9
Ted,
My only comment for now would be along the issue of the stars. Stars for movies are not generally given for how much the movie reflects the reviewers worldview, but instead for how well-done the movie was (acting, writing, music, special effects, sets, etc.). I have not seen Sex and the City, but I assume that it was a very well-done movie whether or not it had anything good morally. Prince Caspian, on the other hand, had great special effects but had a fairly flat storyline (like the book, the worst of the Chronicles in my opinion), and inconsistent acting. Just a thought.
22. Raj Sharma said the following at 12:34 PM on Jun 9
Thanks for taking this on Ted. You are spot on.
23. Amethyst said the following at 12:35 PM on Jun 9
I wholeheartedly agree with Ted on this. I commend him for his unashamed stand for righteousnessness.
24. Rachael said the following at 12:36 PM on Jun 9
Haven't been following this whole ordeal very closely, though I did just click on the link to the defense of the endorsement for a quick skim...
Never did see or have a desire to see "Sex in the City". I think, though, that a larger issue is culture vs. Christ and to what extent does one engage in the culture to be on the 'same level' as the world and to see redeeming value in it...some may think it's okay to let in a little pollution to engage with the culture, while others will think one has to refrain in entirety...
It's a tough issue. And this day in age it seems that engaging with the culture is a popular thing to do in Christian circles. It's gotta be tough for some to know how to be in the world but not of it...
Where to draw the line will vary from believer to believer...
This morning I was chatting online with another Boundless reader. One thing she mentioned was this: "I just think that the issue is the desire and motivation behind why single christians watch SATC and/or the movie
deal with the root, not just the fruit"...
And I think this is a good point for life in general. We often tear at the fruit with neglecting the root....
I've been thinking about sin lately. Actually I often think about it. But yesterday and today I've been thinking even more about the aspect of fleeing FROM and feeling TO...our sins are not left at the cross. God has given us access to His armor which can fight sin. That is empowering and encouraging to me....
Not sure if this really relates to the CT situation in particular, but I guess when we look at sin in Christians' engagement in the culture, perhaps we can think about the root and how to shift our focus to putting on the new clothes and not just being stuck in the ragged ones....
Again, this might not apply to the CT situation exactly, but it's been on my mind...
You can see a blog post I assembled about the old man/new man stuff here
In all things love,
Rachael
25. Sarah P. said the following at 12:36 PM on Jun 9
(#17): I know that I tend to be most aware of those areas of darkness which God is calling me to touch. So it makes sense that bloggers who are called to write about the blessings of family would be most aware of sexual sin.
Also, sex is fundamental to our very natures, defining most of how we live our lives. It is one of the deepest ways we image God, in the interactions between the sexes. Perhaps this is one reason why sexual sin can appear so hideous.
Jeremy (#16): What do you consider to be the purpose of art? The tradition I subscribe to says that art exists in order to "teach and delight" -- to display truth, goodness, and beauty. The Bible depicts evil behavior that has consequences, which outlines God's goodness and justice. Untruthfully depicting evil without the consequences is the exact opposite.
I do appreciate Boundless addressing SATC. Although I did not plan to watch the movie, I had felt a certain insidious pull. Now I have absolutely no desire to see it.
26. Mike Theemling said the following at 12:41 PM on Jun 9
I agree that reviewing most movies, even if we know right away you should probably not see them, is not necessarily bad. After all, Plugged In reviews movies which obviously have no redeeming value to them, letting the content report speak for itself. So I would not say that reviewing = condoning.
However, as pointed out, giving a positive review of Sex and the City is highly questionable (I'd say 3 out of 4 stars is positive and sounds like an endorsement to me). And the rebuttal posted by Christianity Today tries to deflect that positive review of the movie by simply saying, "We are just reviewing it". But that isn't the issue. If you read the original review the reviewer implies that the movie is a good one despite the gratuitous sex, nudity, and loose morals that are not within an isolated scene or two, but throughout the movie. Granted, I haven't seen the movie, but based on this and other reviews I've read, that is an accurate statement.
Personally, I usually don't take too much issue on what an individual, Chrisitan or not, sees in the theater. But the response from CT is a weak one and doesn't even address why the reviewer rated it so highly. Therefore, although criticisms of reviewing the movie aren't justified, criticisms of its positive review are.
27. Kit said the following at 12:48 PM on Jun 9
Thank you, 7, 14, and 8. Agreed.
Maybe the reason the world thinks Christians can't dialogue on anything cultural or are simply ignorant is because we refuse to have anything to do with it. CT is not promoting the movie. They are reviewing it. There's a difference. I read CT every month, and they are very discerning about Biblical principles. Ignoring the movie will not make it go away.
Answer me this: how can you bash it or have an intelligent, informed discussion about it with a non-believer having never seen it?
It's not so black and white, people.
28. Kit said the following at 12:53 PM on Jun 9
PS--Christianity Today does not Relish Sexual Perversion. This month they had an article touting virginity and its rising popularity among non-Christians. Funny for a magazine that supposedly upholds perversion.
Maybe read it before bashing it. It's a very great magazine if you can get out of your narrow box. Really makes you think.
29. Becky said the following at 1:15 PM on Jun 9
I'm glad CT reviewed it. If CT didn't review it, where would I find a review of this movie from a Christian perspective?
I don't think anyone can credibly critique a movie or book until they've actually seen or read it - otherwise, it's just heresay.
30. Jo said the following at 1:16 PM on Jun 9
Ted,
I can totally understand why you wrote this letter to CT. However, I have to wonder what your motive was for posting it here? We already have another post on which to discuss SATC and the CT review, so I really can't see that there's any value to this addition. It seems unnecessary to me.
On the topic at hand,
I have never seen the show or the film. However, I don't assume that the title tells me EVERYTHING about it. I also agree that the negative aspects of the film are played down in the review, although you could argue that anyone reading it would already know there was sex - why dwell on that obvious point? Still, I think more balance would have been wise. Lastly, I don't think much of their response to the criticism. Not a good defence.
However, I know that when I've seen films with a lot objectionable content, I have usually been left thinking deeply about issues that otherwise don't touch me. What I find, genuinely, is that I really don't glory in the sin I see. Instead, it gives me a stark contrast which helps me to see God's truth more clearly. An example is 'Closer', which I saw a few years ago - not a nice film, at all. But what was embedded in me at the end of it was a powerful sense of Jesus being our only hope of redemption in a world that is truly depraved.
I'm not necessarily saying it's right for Christians to watch things like this. But I do think it's legitimate for Camerin Courtney to have her own honest response to the film. I don't want to see it - but if as a reviewer I was required to see it, I would go without pre-judging it and have my own personal response before God.
It's important to remember that these 'redeeming features' are not always IN the film. Often they're simply the result of mixing our experiences and personality and worldview with what we're watching - and that mix CAN sometimes be beneficial, when we see things through God's eyes, for what they really are. But we can't assume that others will have the same response as us.
Basically, these things are always a judgment call. I don't think SATC is any different in that respect.
31. Ted Slater said the following at 1:18 PM on Jun 9
Kit, you asked, "how can you bash it or have an intelligent, informed discussion about it with a non-believer having never seen it?"
Let me ask you, do you think Jesus was qualified to speak to the woman caught in adultery, or to the woman at the well? Was He irrelevant because He hadn't "enjoyed" being "refreshed" by sexual impurity Himself?
For what it's worth, I'd rather have an "intelligent informed discussion" with a non-believer about Christ than about the relationship between Carrie and Mr. Big.
32. .j said the following at 1:19 PM on Jun 9
"I certainly enjoyed this meaningful reunion with its beloved characters and their winning friendships."
Kinda makes you think perhaps the reviewer was waist-deep in the world of SATC at the time of reviewing the movie, doesn't it? How could it be such a "meaningful reunion" unless they had been around to witness the original "union" in the first place?
#16 - I somewhat agree with the notion of sin in art. However, there is a difference in worldviews here. The Bible depicts these acts, yes, but doesn't condone them, often shows how even a "small sin" can balloon to form HUGE problems for later generations, and ultimately points towards our need for a savior and redemption. SATC, to my knowledge, presents these behaviors as acceptable and encouraged, and a regular part of life.
That being said, I'm also a bit saddened to see the SEX of Sex and the City getting all the press. From my limited understanding of the franchise, it also seems to boast hefty amounts of materialism, and then steeps the sex+money mixture in a bath of alcohol. I know a handful of friends who went shopping for new, horribly expensive clothes for a showing, and went to drink pre and post-movie to "celebrate" the movie's release. To me, the SATC sex is only one aspect of the lifestyle being portrayed in this franchise that makes it upsetting. Not to say that sex, clothing, and alcohol are inherently bad things, but when they're combined and presented in such a way as SATC presents them, I am troubled for the disciples of SATC.
33. JJ said the following at 1:20 PM on Jun 9
I applaud Christianity Today for their intelligent reviews and will continue to be a regular visitor of the site. It's surprising that folks cannot seem to grasp the concept of a rating for quality apart from the content. If you don't like CT's policies... than don't visit the site - better yet, start your own site or blog. This is not difficult folks... if we have this much trouble with something like this, I have to wonder how you handle the bigger, more important issues in life.
34. Ted Slater said the following at 1:20 PM on Jun 9
Jo, I wrote my post because CT published a defense of the original review. I simply joined them in continuing the discussion.
35. Ted Slater said the following at 1:21 PM on Jun 9
Becky, you asked, "If CT didn't review it, where would I find a review of this movie from a Christian perspective?"
Plugged In Online, of course. They've reviewed it here.
36. Miss S said the following at 1:22 PM on Jun 9
It breaks my heart how callow we are, not only as believers, but as society as a whole when it comes to graphic depictions of sexuality in the movies.
My father taught me at a young age that sexual expression (in marriage) between two people is something private and sacred. My logic has since followed: if it's not right for one's parents to broadcast their sex life for others to see and consume, then why is it right for actors and actresses to be naked with a) other actors whom are not their spouses b) all the people on a movie set and c) the millions of viewers who are watching two real people play-act sex.
37. Samuel PG said the following at 1:23 PM on Jun 9
Fortunately I said that my previous comment was my only comment "for now," leaving me open to comment a few minutes later...
"Trying to stay balanced" made a good point about focusing so much on sexual sin. Sexual sin is, of course, a serious evil, but it is not the only sin and from what I gather it is definitely not the only major sin in Sex and the City. The rampant alcohol consumption, of course, but particularly the endorsement of posh materialism. A Christian should not be watching the "soft-porn" of the movie, but is likely to at least recognize the sinfulness of the activity, even if it dulls their sensitivity to sin. It seems that the ideals of affluence in the movie, however, would silently affect most viewers. While we notice the sexuality (and we should), ideas of idolatry, envy, selfish-ambition, and greed creep in through the back door of the mind. I applaud Plugged In for mentioning this materialism in the review. I think we should also applaud at least part of the CT review for noting that Charlotte's adopted daughter is treated "more like a cute Asian accessory than an actual, living, sippy-cup-spilling child."
38. BDB said the following at 1:32 PM on Jun 9
Jeremy (#16) wrote:
>>the Bible contains each of these scenes.<<
More accurately, the Bible contains a REVIEW of these incidents. We are not required to witness them to read the review and understand what happened.
trying to stay balanced (#17) wrote:
>>Why is that? Doesn't Jesus talk about other things that are much more reprehensible.<<
Do you mean like Pride and denying the Father? I'm not sure materialism is MORE reprehensible than sexual sin, it seems like there are commandments about lots of things. The materialism definitely should be questioned equally harshly.
39. brx said the following at 1:32 PM on Jun 9
Ted,
I think I understand your heart and where you're coming from with this post. Unfortunately, I think your choice of words and tone will connect only with those who already would not watch SATC.
It is very important to realize there are many people, Christian and not, who will identify with characters and themes in SACT -- NOT because it is OK or good, but because they too are in a search for love, not yet realizing they are deeply entangled in the enemy's lies about what real love is and how to find it. The way you've written your letter, I doubt the editor and author will 'get it'. I think it's more likely they will just feel beaten up - or 'thumped'.
Grace, peace & understanding.
40. DP said the following at 1:41 PM on Jun 9
CT seemed to "promote" this movie much more and it features sex and extreme violence. No open letters for this one?
http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/reviews/historyofviolence.html
41. Christina (in green) said the following at 1:42 PM on Jun 9
#17, You said:
I have often noticed that the “sins” that seem to really bug the fundamental/conservative Christian the most seem to center around sex.
This would mainly be because the bible addresses this sin more often than any other sin. Strange it may be, but sexual immorality is also the only sin scripture says to FLEE from. The rest is "resist temptation". Never actually "flee", simply resist.
I think it could be for a couple reasons. From my own brain, I get the idea that sex is one of the most natural things for human beings to do. And it was present in a perfect world. It was created to be beautiful. So, our natural inclinations, no matter how innocent we are, is going to be to have sex. However, we need to be prudent not to indulge in it outside of God's framework...which is marriage. So FLEE, because your flesh is likely the weakest in this regard.
The other thing, which I think is more biblically based, is because it is a sin against your own body.
But yeah, christians do focus mostly on sexual sin for this particular reason.
42. Ariana said the following at 1:52 PM on Jun 9
As far as the "If I don't watch it, I won't be able to relate," that's simply not true. If you want to be able to relate to people, turn off the TV and go talk to someone, hear their story, tell them yours.
I don't buy the "we need to relate" argument for a minute. Understanding and compassion can be learned from real interactions with the people around us much better than from movies and TV shows, which are often unrealistic anyway (the real Samantha would be needing support from her friends on how to live with multiple STDs and emotional problems, not just how to not give into temptation once again).
Besides, if we created a list of the most admired, most world-changing people we could come up with (including non-Christians), we'd probably see that very, very few of them (most of all, Jesus) were "relevant" in the way that SATC is "relevant".
43. brx said the following at 1:58 PM on Jun 9
Too often, I think, the church tries to focus on drawing a visible line between the people inside the church and people outside the church by making themselves look different. Many people on the inside of the line try to change themselves but can't and end up feeling like they have to hide everything that doesn't look perfect. ...not healthy...
I think if we're focusing on following Jesus and loving the way He loved, we will quickly realize the real Christian life is as the author desires to see "...a messy wrestling with complex new realities of life that I wish I saw more of in Christian circles."
Though I haven't seen the SATC movie (and probably won't because I'm already familiar with the show series), I do see a number of topic and theme similarities with Lauren Winner's book "Real Sex; the naked truth about chastity".
Regardless of whether or not one sees the film, I think a follower of Jesus could invite the Spirit to move and work in a discussion about sex and love with people who have seen SATC.
God speed.
44. Kit said the following at 2:00 PM on Jun 9
Ted wrote,
Let me ask you, do you think Jesus was qualified to speak to the woman caught in adultery, or to the woman at the well? Was He irrelevant because He hadn't "enjoyed" being "refreshed" by sexual impurity Himself?
Ted, I said nothing about being "enjoyed" or "refreshed" by the movie, nor did I say it about the immorality depicted in the movie. That isn't the point. You're missing the forest through the trees.
I said it needs to be about being Informed. There's a huge difference. Personally, I've never met an unbeliever who respects an un-informed Christian in today's postmodern culture. If you have, let me know.
45. jess said the following at 2:00 PM on Jun 9
You don't have to post this comment if you don't want to, but I just wanted to write about my sadness that everyone fighting the CT review seems more scared that SATC could be more relevant than Christian outlets. I saw the movie, and I honestly didn't remember two of the sex scenes summarized above because it was much more of an inspiring story of friends for me. As a grad student in a new city, I miss my college girl friends (3 of them, actually) very much. Even if the things we talk about aren't the same, we still interact in the same honest and fun manner as the SATC girls, and I was encouraged by the positive portrayal of friends. As the opening scene depicts, all of the girls have had trouble finding love, their friends have been there to build them back up and give them courage to try again. For sure, they don't realize God's work in their lives, blessing them with these friends--though he is definitely the one up ahead, leading them and protecting them, even if they don't see.
There were a lot of things that were offensive to me. All of the sex scenes I had to turn away, but I did notice that they often only lasted a few seconds, and then the focus was back on the girls. There was also a good deal of materialism in the movie, most notably when Carrie is trying to pick out her wedding dress. Though I know many Christian girls who have gotten married and the dress is still an important part of their day as well. For sure it is taken to an extreme when you spend thousands of dollars on some fabric, but it is part of the process of preparing as a bride. And actually, now that I'm thinking about it, there were several expensive purchases that were bought as gifts, including the Louis Vuitton bag Carrie buys for her assistant, Louise. Does anyone need a Louis Vuitton bag? No. But we celebrate stories of generosity all the time in church, and just because we wouldn't buy it, I don't see how this is any different. I don't know, I liked the movie a lot. It's a search for love and a sense of belonging--something I'm sure a lot of girls experience. Do the characters go about this search in the right way? No. But that doesn't mean we don't have something to learn.
46. Helkias said the following at 2:01 PM on Jun 9
I'm joining this thread late and I might have missed the entries of other people and hence repeat their points. Ultimately, it comes down to a question of the heart. If one is bent on immorality and wants to see and endorse the film and other media of similar ilk, no-one can stop you. You can dress it up as art or postmodernist expressionism or whatever fad is new these days or use excuses like "It addresses issues that the church is not addressing".
First, thief who steals because he's hungry is still a thief.
Second, I don't see Jesus buying a ticket to see this movie. If you can go and see this movie and come out of the theatre thinking that God has been glorified in it, then I stand corrected.
47. Amir Larijani said the following at 2:03 PM on Jun 9
Ted, you're being way too easy on CT.
While the points you made were indeed good ones, I also find that Courtney's comments are a passive-aggressive pot-shot at Christian men.
If Courtney is the face of the thirtysomething single Christian woman, then that explains why the Christian men aren't flocking to them.
While I prefer to give the women the benefit of a doubt--as I would want the same for myself--I would also suggest that Courtney's underhanded attacks will do nothing to advance the discourse regarding the issue of protracted singleness in a positive direction.
48. Sarah22 said the following at 2:05 PM on Jun 9
The Lord revealed to me awhile ago that watching people on television or in the movies acting out sexual scenes is on level with viewing pornography. You may not feel this way, but it is a conviction that I have carried with me since. I still struggle with it sometimes but the Holy Spirit is enabling me to grow stronger in my faith and now I look up each movie I am asked to see on Plugged In and will not see them if they are filled with junk. If I'm watching television and crap shows up I turn the channel. It's not always easy and this also means the last few movies I've seen are Horton Hears A Who, Prince Caspian and probably the next I'll see is Wall-E. It cuts down your choices a lot, but I don't need to see SATC to talk to an unbeliever.
My pastor was just speaking on Sunday on how some people who are born again believers will someday be ashamed at the second coming of Christ for the things they've done/promoted/been involved in. I feel this type of thing may be a good example. I just pray in my heart that I will not be ashamed when I see His face.
I don't think we can ever go to far in declaring God's HOLY standards for our lives (I'm not speaking of being legalistic). We're called to be set apart, I don't see watching a secular movie like SATC as being set apart from the world. I've been reading through the OT and I'm in Leviticus right now - it's been a good rebuke for me of sin in my life and a reminder of how God has called us to be Holy as He is Holy.
I'm thankful He has high standards He's called us to but that He also extends mercy and gracy that never ends....
:)
49. Kirsty said the following at 2:13 PM on Jun 9
Psalm 101:3
I will set before my eyes no vile thing. The deeds of faithless men I hate; they will not cling to me.
50. Nick said the following at 2:23 PM on Jun 9
I wouldn't have started the letter by lamenting that the film got a better star rating than Prince Caspian. The ratings are based on what constitutes a good film rather than what morals are present in it. It would be akin to rating Left Behind 2 five stars, while rating Lord of the Rings three due to all the violence in it.
(No offence to anyone who enjoyed Left Behind 2)
51. cn said the following at 2:23 PM on Jun 9
Ariana - 18
Good post! Its completely in line with the comments I've made on the other boundless blog for this moving - number 46, and on Candice's Woman Praying Boldly blog.
To reiterate, my biggest problem with the review is the way Camerin Courtey justifies seeing the movie because it does things for her the church doesn't. I would have much rather her just given a rundown of the plot and what she liked and didn't like than to bring to a place of justifying sitting through the "soft-core porn" because at least this movie doesn't insult her intelligence. I'm sorry she has hurt feelings from the church, but seriously, her editor did the body a huge injustice by publishing this article. The way it is written can easily cause other woman to fall into the same deceived thought patterns.
Go deeper into God for validation, not to the world, no matter what your circumstances are.
This makes me so thankful for the good shepherding we have from all of the Boundless contributers. Thanks Boundless crew for taking such a bold stance on this issue among many.
52. Ted Slater said the following at 3:11 PM on Jun 9
Kit, the words "enjoyed" and "refreshed" are in the review for the movie.
As for me, if I had to choose between naiveté about certain cultural artifacts and impurity, I'll do my best to choose the former. We'd all be much better off if Adam and Eve had done the same.
53. Sherry said the following at 3:13 PM on Jun 9
I don't know how Ms. Courtney can be editor of Todays Christian Woman and in good conscience recommend this movie. Frankly, I stopped reading her singles columns when she wrote this one awhile ago: http://www.christianitytoday.com/singles/newsletter/mind50824.HTML
This woman clearly lacks discernment. Pray for her and the editors of CT. Haven't we all been there?
54. George said the following at 3:14 PM on Jun 9
To those of you who wrote that it's impossible to have an informed discussion with a non-believer or to critique something without having actually seen or read it, do you mind if I ask you a question?
Illegal drugs like cocaine or LSD, do you have to try them in order that you can say it's a horrible substance to someone who's using it or to make an informed decision to not use these drugs? Or pre-marital sex, does one have to have actively engaged in it in order to tell non-believers that it's something we shouldn't do or take make an informed decision for oneself that it's against God's plan for married couples?
There are things in life which one doesn't have to try in order to have an informed discussion with non-believers or to make an informed decision on whether it's evil or not.
You don't have to do something which is already recorded in God's Word as a sin in order to know that it's a sin.
55. C said the following at 3:19 PM on Jun 9
I (embarassingly) saw the movie, and had to close my eyes during the sex scenes because they were so graphic.
...and I still am having a really hard time with what I did see.
56. Paul said the following at 3:32 PM on Jun 9
Attaboy Ted! I'm with you a good ol' 95% of the time and you're right on again here!
Look, if a Christian can in his or her conscience, honestly say that they can see this movie and not be attracted to sin or for sinful reasons, I say go ahead and see it. But if so, you are a much stronger man/woman than I will ever be, as I can't put myself in that situation. It's just not safe.
Besides, I really do think that this issue really just comes down to people wanting to have an entertaining show to watch. The bummer is, wading through the immense amount of garbage to get the entertainment. Christ calls us to take a stand, and this has been hard in my life and I've fallen in the entertainment choices I've made recently.
It's important to find the line that scripture and your conscience allows you to cross, and then to not cross it. But even more important is to look at an action and see whether this is bringing me closer to God or further away? Because, there's no stagnation in the spiritual life, you're either going forward, or going back.
57. ryan said the following at 3:35 PM on Jun 9
Trying to stay balanced (#17)--
I don't know if your specific concern was addressed, so i'll try my best.
I myself have been a little peeved by the tunnel vision we Christians seem to have, but i think that because sex is the only sin that you not only sin against God and others but against your own body (1 Cor. 6:18). The permissiveness guaranteed by political correctness and the rush to approve of sinful behavior will always seem like we are focusing on it too much since this particular sin permeates our culture and we are called to "expose the hidden works of darkness" (Ephesians).
Anyway, the fact it is a sin against one's body--the only one that i'm aware of--and it permeates our culture means we ought to focus on it. Since Scripture is SO clear, yet even Christians themselves always seem so unsure (deliberately or unintentionally) how can we expect the world to be much better?
All the more reason to speak up with a clear voice.
58. Becky said the following at 3:55 PM on Jun 9
Sorry, Ted, but I don't see much difference between the reviews on Plugged In and in CT. The CT review doesn't get into as much minute detail about the content as the Plugged In review does, but then I've never seen another movie review site that does.
Just as you quoted parts of the CT review in this post and called it an "endorsement" of the movie, I could easily take parts of the Positive Elements or Spiritual Content sections of the Plugged In review and make them sound like endorsements.
SOMEONE has to watch the movie to write the review for Plugged In, right? Same goes for CT. They just happened to pick a reviewer who is a single woman and obviously related with certain parts of the movie.
I see both reviews in the same light -personal perspectives on a piece of pop culture. That's it.
59. Becky said the following at 4:03 PM on Jun 9
P.S. BRX, (#39) right on!
I felt myself getting defensive right from the first sentence of this post because of the inflammatory and accustory tone in which it was written.
Ted, your messages would probably be more effective if you wrote in a way that doesn't sound like an attack.
60. Courtney said the following at 4:04 PM on Jun 9
@ Amir (#27) I couldn't agree with you more...once I realized you were talking about the author of the "review" instead of me. :-) Thank you Sherry (#53) for making it clear that Ms. Courtney was the author of the review. I doubt you did that for my sake, but it certainly helped me.
As to the rest of the comments: I am saddened by the acceptance of soft core porn (which, personally...with as much nudity that's in the movie, I'm not sure how it can be called "soft core"). We are, in fact, accepting the "Deep Throat" of this decade. I wasn't personally around to know the conversations surrounding that movie, but I doubt that Christians were readily accepting it or any review of it that *could* be endorsing it.
61. brx said the following at 4:13 PM on Jun 9
George (#54),
Nope, you don't have to do those things to have an informed discussion. However, I have noticed that many people who have been saved out of those things tend to show more grace and love for those people still entangled than I typically do. They are more intimate with the struggle.
If I'm honest, I have to admit that sometimes - just sometimes - I'm jealous and wish that I were that prodigal son seeing the father running out with overflowing love to embrace him. ...then later I realize, sometimes I am.
Grace & peace
62. Anastasia said the following at 4:27 PM on Jun 9
I'd like to expand on what poster #47 said - and I'm a woman.
I've read a lot of whining by Christian women about Christian men and also about their lack of close female friendships among Christian women.
Well, let me ask - what kind of person are you or are all of you that you cannot get over yourself enough to form close friendships amongst your Christian sisters? Are you so wrapped up in your misery and your "quest" for a MAN that you cannot give enough of yourself to another female, forging a friendship that will last a lifetime to help you through the ups and downs of life?
And then I read on CT why married and single women have a hard time having friendships? Why? I don't get it?
To me, there is a pervasive selfishness in SATC and in the Christian women I've been reading commenting on these topics.
As for the CT movie reviewers, don't hold your breath for an answer.
I have a son in the military who was stop lossed. When the movie Stop Loss was reviewed, NOTHING was said about how the military CLEARLY AND FORTHRIGHTLY explains stop loss policy right up front before any contract is signed, and why that movie was such a slander on our military members.
Not a word back. Not a peep. Nothing. Obviously, I'm too stupid as a military mother to understand anything about military doctrine and practice.
I've often wondered about the reviews on CT. I read other sites and secular reviewers who "get it" better than the CT reviewers.
There's some mighty sloppy thinking out there.
63. k. said the following at 4:34 PM on Jun 9
Reviews are supposed to convey the reviewer's impressions -- good, bad, or indifferent. I thought the CT review did a good job of that, and was balanced overall. And I say that as someone who isn't a SATC fan, and doesn't plan on seeing the movie.
64. DannieA said the following at 4:48 PM on Jun 9
I read the "defense of review" link that Ted included in his post...
CT relishes in sexual perversion? Really? I saw nothing in the article that makes me believe that. I think the column person....courtney? made her point as to why they did the review...that's all.
In the other blog post about Sex and the City, I brought up a point that the church buries it's head when it comes to encouraging and praising singles for being committed to the Lord despite the fact that they are still single. Only blogs or praising for the young marrieds and mothers. No one from the boundless editorial has responded that that....I think that's sad.
No I never wanted to see the movie, have never seen the show. My friends were going to watch the ZOHAN movie this weekend and after reading a review of the content decided not to go. I can discern what to watch and what not to watch for myself...I don't think CT's review made people go and endorse it.
I don't know...we can make rules and tell people not to watch it...but the why behind it is important, and if we do....then we have to see why there was a need for taht in a particular individual.
ok thanks. DannieA
65. Matt said the following at 4:51 PM on Jun 9
Jess said: "write about my sadness that everyone fighting the CT review seems more scared that SATC could be more relevant than Christian outlets"
I don't remember when the point of our idea of non-promiscous lifestyles became "irrelevant". They just broadcast a newstory on drudgereport.com stating that 1 in 4 NYC people have herpes! I bet Sex and the City didn't show that? That's pretty relevant I think!
I am astounded at this conversation. As a single male who is 24 I have to say that I expect more from my fellow sisters in Christ. I don't understand how the character that God calls you to in the Scriptures lines up with anything that is presented with Sex and the City.
If you really think this is what Christian men want in a girl then maybe that could explain alot! Cause I know I'm not looking for this!
Amir: You are the man!
George: Great point!
66. Chris Krycho said the following at 4:52 PM on Jun 9
Here's a point that hasn't been brought up yet, I don't think, though Carrie (the original) hinted at it.
As a reviewer, I have a higher responsibility than merely to whether or not I enjoyed a book/movie/etc. I have a responsibility to comment not only on how well the themes were developed but on what those themes are. I have a responsibility in most cases to say something with the review. A review is not merely a thumbs-up/thumbs-down document: it is an opportunity to say something meaningful itself, though it does not exist for its own sake.
I don't care for PluggedIn's reviews a lot of the time, because they don't do that: they make a judgment of the movie based not on the quality of the film and the content but only on the content, in a lot of cases. They've panned some of the best works out there, and they would pan things like Crime and Punishment, because the content is offensive.
But CT has made an equally grievous error here, which is to choose to dismiss the content - indeed, the underpinnings and the weave that holds the show/film together - in exchange for a "well-told" or emotionally satisfying story. The materialism that characterizes the entire SATC phenomenon, the sexual perversion (there is no other description for it), the alcoholism, and the rest of it: these things affect the quality of the film in other ways, particularly since they are glorified. A film could show these things without glorifying them - and a film that was choosing thus would likely not be so explicit as this one - but this is not that film.
And as someone making a recommendation to thousands or tens of thousands of readers, as in the case of CT, the reviewer has a responsibility to those readers: there is no way that the reviewer should have given a recommendation to see this movie. Period.
67. Sarah said the following at 5:00 PM on Jun 9
1 corinthians 5
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present.
When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.
Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.
I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."
We are called to judge those in the church and point out to them their weaknesses and sins. If we see them sinning and dont do this, we ourselves are sinning.
We proclaim Him, admonishing and teaching everyone in all wisdom so that we may present EVERY man COMPLETE in Christ!
68. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:22 PM on Jun 9
Maybe I ought to watch some Jenna Jameson movies and review them for CT!
Maybe I might find that she speaks to modern issues that intelligent, accomplished, strong men face, as opposed to the "Christians who insult MY intelligence"?
I might give those movies more stars than The Passion of the Christ.
Seriously...I say all of that with tongue-in-cheek, just to illustrate the absurdity of what Courtney has done, and what CT sees fit to defend.
69. RCCOlA said the following at 5:56 PM on Jun 9
I agree with george (#54). The whole relevancy argument centers on a self- centered premise that unless someone has been where you have, they are not "qualified" to speak into you life or to comment on the profitability of an action or movie or whatever. Would you advise that people to view explicit materials(you know what I mean) to able to help or witness to those who struggle? If you say that is different, I want to know why?
Secondly, it is an old saying but very true "Garbage in is Garbage out". We should be pursuing holiness not trying to see how close we can get to sin. What lessens are there in the movie that have not been played out somewhere else that also encourages Godly living? Personally I would rather spend $10 to have dinner with my friends and experience good friendship then watch a movie about it.
Like another post quoted "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable". Somethings may not be "that big of a deal" but simply a waste of time.
70. PLH said the following at 6:12 PM on Jun 9
Christina, the Bible does not discuss sexual sin more than other sins. Sure, it discusses it but Jesus spent far more time excoriating the Pharisees for pride and hypocrisy and warning about the dangers of weath. Paul did say to flee from sexual immorality but Jesus also said it is harder for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to center the kingdom of God. It's simply not true that sexual sins are given more importance than other sins in scripture.
71. Ariana said the following at 6:24 PM on Jun 9
Sherry (53), was the bit on the plane what turned you off?
I cannot speak for Camerin Courtney's discernment, but I, like Sherry, stopped reading CT's single articles a while back too. I don't think there was any particular egregious error I observed, but again, the articles I read seemed to be more caught up in the trials and tribulations of singlehood than life in Christ as a single person. Again, like was said in comment 18, when we start to focus on our experience itself and try to find value in the experience and the recounting thereof, it's a sign that we've either lost hope or have somehow become distanced from it. It's a sign that we've lost some of our groundedness in our relation to God and others such that we're not quite sure how to get that meaning back into our lives anymore.
I would go on about Kierkegaardian despair, but I'll spare everyone. Walker Percy would have a field day with this review.
***
George said:
"There are things in life which one doesn't have to try in order to have an informed discussion with non-believers or to make an informed decision on whether it's evil or not.
You don't have to do something which is already recorded in God's Word as a sin in order to know that it's a sin."
Great point. This is true because when it comes to issues of sin, it's about obedience to the Lord's command, not a discussion of the pros and cons of such an action. When Jesus confronted sin and interacted with people, He didn't need to experience sinning Himself because our experience of sin isn't the point--obeying the Lord is. Not all unbelievers will care to hear "God said that's wrong," but that doesn't change our message; and those whose hearts are truly open will hear the call to do what God says simply because He said it.
72. Paxton said the following at 7:16 PM on Jun 9
Camerin Courtney has been a blessing and a guide for me over the years -- but she makes a stretch every now and then. I'm a lil' disappointed and I hope she comes back to choosing righteousness over "relevance".
73. Sasha said the following at 10:23 PM on Jun 9
I'm with #39 and #59 -- I agree in principle with what you're saying, Ted, but I think the abrasive tone you strike in this letter is unlikely to persuade your intended audience.
74. Nicole said the following at 10:33 PM on Jun 9
I watched this movie online just to see whats causing such a fuss and I really don't get it. Im not a fan of sex and the city, in fact ive never even seen one single episode, and I even went into it expecting to really dislike it. In the end I thought it was kind of a sweet freindship/love stories. Not that any of these women were to be really praised, i didnt think any of them really knew what they were doing with their lives, there was a few graphic language and I could have done with out the snippets of sex scene but on the whole...I didnt hate it. Why does everyone seem to be making such a fuss? its a movie, see it if you want, or don't. I guess with there being so many real problems in the world I get really sick of the petty bickering amongst christians about stupid movies that don't really matter. I think its a huge mistake to think that because we take offense to something like this that it means everyone who disagrees somehow loves God less, or has obvious sinful problems in their lives. Its very off putting and not a very good witness in my opinion.
75. Eric C said the following at 10:46 PM on Jun 9
Let's remember: Christianity Today is a publication? How do publications stay in business? Hype and controversy.
From their sympathetic portrayals of the Emerging Church to their endorsements of stumbling block media, Christianity Today has proven itself to be a joke in the eyes of a discerning believer.
76. JJ said the following at 10:57 PM on Jun 9
I echo Becky's comments (59) regarding the tone and intentions of this post. Perhaps I'm just not understanding the intended use of this blog... but forgive me if words like vent, gossip and slander come to mind - hardly beneficial for spiritual growth or an example to others. I've been reading off and on for probably six months and frankly it's been a real eye opener.(and not in a good way) I hope you will use my criticism to rethink just what it is you want to represent here.
77. nikki said the following at 11:23 PM on Jun 9
Sherry - #23,
I read that CT article too and didn't get the same impression. It sounded like she was finding a way to stop wallowing in misery over being single. What did you find disturbing about it?
78. Jeremy said the following at 11:41 PM on Jun 9
"I am saddened by the acceptance of soft core porn (which, personally...with as much nudity that's in the movie, I'm not sure how it can be called "soft core"). We are, in fact, accepting the "Deep Throat" of this decade."
I understand the point you are trying to make here, but the comparison is ludicrous. "Sex and the City" has a couple of brief scenes containing nudity which comprise a tiny part of the film; "Deep Throat" is a hardcore porn.
Not that I am trying to defend "Sex and the City", I have seen the show often enough to know that it is awful and holds zero appeal for males. I do wish, however, that some small percentage of the discussion about it centered on its quality rather than whether or not anyone can see spot a boob.
79. alex said the following at 1:13 AM on Jun 10
Good grief. I hope Mr. Slater never needs 'gentle words of correction'.
80. alex said the following at 1:19 AM on Jun 10
Though I should add that I am glad someone warned me about this movie. I hope some future filmakers are reading Boundless and are inspired to make something worthwhile.
Really, what would you expect from something with a title like SEX AND THE CITY? !?! Worthwhile discussion points? Puhleeze.
81. Paula said the following at 5:07 AM on Jun 10
Good on you for calling a spade a spade, Ted (and a dirty one, at that). Christianity Today has been an important player in Christian media for many years; let's pray that the staff are convicted of the call to holiness in all things, 'entertainment reviews' included.
82. Jeremy said the following at 5:34 AM on Jun 10
Good job Ted, that's a well-written letter. I hope the editors at CT do read it and that it challenges and convicts them. I think the tone of your letter was also spot-on. As Christians we are called to challenge one another about sin, and sometimes that means being direct and blunt - calling a spade a spade. In doing so, we are exhibiting "love of neighbour".
83. Jennifer said the following at 6:28 AM on Jun 10
Has everyone lost sight of the fact that this is just a TV show/movie? I saw the series on HBO and saw the movie last weekend. Not once did it ever make me want to run out and buy shoes I can't afford or have a torrid affair with a co-worker. Neither did watching Star Wars make me want to go out and battle the Death Star. It's fiction, people! Yeesh. I don't get the fans who adore Sex and the City so much that they emulate the characters in the same way that I don't get people who blast the series like it's ushering in the coming of the Anti-Christ. Let's all be calm, breathe and allow common sense to have its say.
84. Timothy Durey said the following at 7:41 AM on Jun 10
I really have some similar thoughts to post #58. While I agree with you, Ted, that people shouldn't be seeing movies that they know are sexually explicit, why do Christian organizations feel the need to give reviews to some of these (like SATC)? If they know that they should be wise as serpents and harmless as doves and that there should not be even a hint of sexual immorality or impurity (Eph. 5:3ff), why would they knowingly put themselves in that position for the sake of other Christians' viewing pleasure? That doesn't make sense and that logic seems to put "other Christians" in the blame for Plugged In Reviewers putting themselves in the position of sin....
That said, I appreciate your boldness in saying the movie is wicked. We cannot compare movies with movies and say one movie is better than another because it is less open in its wickedness. We have to compare movies with the Scriptures and God's infinite holiness.
85. Tom Neven said the following at 8:25 AM on Jun 10
Hmmm, a side of the story we seldom hear about from Hollywood.
86. Ted Slater said the following at 8:43 AM on Jun 10
Becky and Timothy,
You really don't see much of a difference between the review on CT and the one on Plugged In Online?
A fundamental difference is that the one on CT is quite subjective and first-person, and contains general affirmations of this movie as being "refreshing" and "enjoyable." These are the personal feelings of the author of that review.
The review on Plugged In Online is more objective, with no general affirmations about the movie being "refreshing" or that the reviewer "enjoyed" it. All Plugged In Online reviews have a "Positive Elements" section, and the reviewers always try to put something there. But the overall sentiment about this movie is that it's perverse on many levels.
The CT review mentions forgiveness as a positive theme in the movie, but the PIO review points out that the movie presents a flawed sense of forgiveness, and not true repentance.
The CT review does acknowledge that the sex and nudity are problematic for "some adults" (but not all, of course). The PIO review points that out, but goes on to elaborate that such trivialization of sexuality will affect us so that "we'll all become just a little bit more comfortable with our own sinful selves."
I see a significant difference between the reviews on CT and on Plugged In Online. One leaves you giggling at how cute and refreshing and enjoyable the movie is. The other laments how this movie can make us more comfortable with our sin.
Judging from some of the comments here, too many Christians have grown comfortable with their sin; some don't even recognize when the glory of humanity, our sexuality, is so abased through this movie. They don't seem disturbed in the least that our sexuality is so trivialized by this movie.
Timothy, please check out this blog post to see why I think it's good for Christian organizations to review all popular movies. I appreciate their taking the bullet for me so that I don't have to.
87. Dan *real name* said the following at 9:05 AM on Jun 10
I second/third several comments (#47, #62, #68) made here about how watching these kind of movies make our sister's in Christ less attractive in our eyes. Does watching porn (i.e. porn for males) make us men more attractive in the eyes of our sister's in Christ? The book "Marriable" by Hayley and Michael DiMarco calls romance novels and chick flick FEMALE PORN. You are more marriable if you stay away from porn. And I am not stating this from some "holier-than-thou, I have never even slipped up in this area" position.
And no, I don't need to see this movie/show to be aware of what is going on in society (I have seen bits and pieces, and that is all that is needed. Open up your eyes and ears to what is going on in your environment, and you can see this kind of lifestyle being lived out, and this is especially directed toward you who are still in college - I KNOW that you hear about and witness these kind of behaviors all the time. Don't fool us into believing that someone has to see this movie to be aware of our culture.
As I said in my response on the previous SATC posting, I think it is sad that Christian women have to get their validation as singles from Hollywood, and not where it should come from.
88. Ted Slater said the following at 9:08 AM on Jun 10
Jennifer (83) -- it's *never* "just a movie."
The scriptwriter had an agenda, beyond just making money. The actors are being sexually active with people they're not married to. The audience is put in a place where they, voyeur-like, peer into the most intimate of places. And through it all, our sense of the holiness of sex is abased.
No, it's never "just a movie." Oftentimes, it's an opportunity to feed and relish in our sinful nature.
89. jess said the following at 9:44 AM on Jun 10
Blah, I don't like all this fighting. I really did think the movie had some redeeming qualities, and in thinking and praying about this a lot, I still don't think it was a sin to see it. I do think I may need to stop reading Boundless for a while, though; this environment is just too hostile.
90. Ted Slater said the following at 9:48 AM on Jun 10
Jess -- are you not disturbed that you feel more comfortable spending time with a sexually perverse movie than with fellow Christians? That you'd rather spend time with a movie that dulls your sense of the holiness of sex than with brothers and sisters in Christ who might build you up in the faith?
Yes, the Christian walk can feel hostile sometimes. We each are in a personal battle against sin. And that can be uncomfortable.
91. Louise said the following at 10:10 AM on Jun 10
Mr. Slater, you did not like CT's review of this movie.
You wrote the magazine a letter about it and have made your opinion abudently clear to everyone on this blog.
Why can you not accept that some of the commentors on this blog do not agree with your viewpoint?
92. carmen said the following at 10:18 AM on Jun 10
Thank you Ted for your earnest contention for the faith! We are easily enticed & sidetracked. I pray that your message, which indeed reflects the message of Christ Jesus, brings the perpetrators to repentance.
93. (Christian) Carrie said the following at 10:31 AM on Jun 10
Wow. This may be one of the most sanctimonious columns I've ever read.
94. PLH said the following at 10:40 AM on Jun 10
Again, I see the concerns of the movie but I don't think calling the movie porn (it's not) and being so vocal about the opposition to the review is good. If anything, more people probably want to see the movie now because of the controversy. It seems that a private letter would be more appropriate. WE are supposed built each other up through love not shaming or slamming someone's review.
95. Dan >>real name said the following at 10:47 AM on Jun 10
jess post #89:
I agree with you, and I am not always happy to see many of the Boundless blogs turn into arguments either (which most of them do when they adress sex or relationships/dating). But I do think that some things are worth "fighting" for. For me this is personal because of my past with sexual immorality (BELIVE!!!! me when I say that women are turned off by christian guys using/viewing "male" porn - this is from personal experience). And it continues to distress me to see how the church will NOT for the most part (some do, BTW) validate single men and women and welcome them as part of the family, so the singles go to secular outlets to find a voice.
Again, a book I would recommend for singles is "Marriable" - this is written by a married couple and they encourage and take to task BOTH sexes in regards to becoming marriable without alienating certain Christians or using inflamatory rhetoric.
96. tami said the following at 10:53 AM on Jun 10
Ouch - I understand, respect and agree with your view point, but you're quite harsh in your wording.
97. Lydia said the following at 10:57 AM on Jun 10
Well said Ted! I applaud your boldness & commitment to holiness.
98. jack said the following at 11:02 AM on Jun 10
Sanctimonious, true. But this also strikes me as a tad ... prepubescent, I suppose? I remember making arguments like these when I was going through puberty. Sex seemed like a pretty big deal then.
Give the author a few years. High school is a rough transition time.
99. Jennifer said the following at 11:19 AM on Jun 10
I, for one, love the debate. We in Christian circles should be discussing these things -- no matter how much we disagree.
With that I must say, Christianity Today gave 3 stars for Sweeney Todd... a movie/musical that depicts murder graphically. They also gave high marks to "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" that had full on male nudity. Funny how Boundless didn't get up in arms then. Is it only morally corrupt women that bother you? Are certain sins easier to point out than others?
100. Sarah P. said the following at 11:29 AM on Jun 10
alex (#80): I hope some future filmakers are reading Boundless and are inspired to make something worthwhile.
Funny you would say that. I am teaching myself moviemaking through short films and production of useful projects right now, with the purpose of working my way up to a feature script about the clash when two Christians from different courtship/dating cultures become "friends." :D I started writing it a year before I found Boundless, and since then I have been even more inspired to keep heading in that direction. And if someone else gets to it first, that's OK too.