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.
101. Amir Larijani said the following at 11:51 AM on Jun 10:
PLH says:
Even Courtney conceded that it is "soft-core porn", so Ted is only stipulating something that CT had already conceded.
That being the case, now that we have a precedent of a large Christian publication providing favorable coverage to soft-core porn, why should such publications not also review hard-core porn?
To suggest that there were themes and dialogue that made Sex and the City worthy of a favorable review, reminds me of those people who said they read Playboy "for the great articles".
102. George said the following at 12:06 PM on Jun 10:
For the people who say that SATC is just a movie, and there's no harm in watching "just" a movie. I heard this story from a Pastor a long time ago, and I hope that it will open your eyes as it did mine.
There was once a mother and her baby. She was preparing some baby food for him, and accidentally dropped his spoon onto the floor. She picked it up, and saw that there was "just" a little bit of cat fur attached to it. She continued to use the spoon and fed the baby with it. Next morning, she dropped the spoon again, but she picked it up fast and continued using it to feed her baby, although the spoon dropped onto a puddle of "just" a little cat saliva on the floor. The very next day, she yet again dropped the spoon, but this time it touched "just" the cat droppings in the litter box. Before she knew it, her baby was admitted to the ICU due to food poisoning.
If you witnessed all these things, will you say that the she's an unfit parent? Can she be excused because what she did was "just" a little mistake?
I don't know about you, but I'm not going to eat, nor encourage anyone to eat food which has "just" a little bit of animal fur, saliva or droppings in it, no matter how presentable, popular or delicious the dish is.
103. Timothy Durey said the following at 12:33 PM on Jun 10:
Ted,
Thanks for your response and the link to the R-rated movie. I will admit that there are differences between the PluggedIn online review and CT.
That said, I read your post on people being called to review "R-rated" movies, and that didn't seem to line up to me. I agree that there are male doctors who are called to a gynecological profession or people in the military who must, at times, kill. But, my question is this: "When is it necessary, for the spiritual health and growth of individuals, to review an R-rated movie that already says 'For nudity and strong sexual content'?"
On a basic ethical level, my understanding of doctors seeing certain things and military men seeing hard things is because of the greater NEED (the love of others and love of God) - the ongoing health of an individual, the pursuit of justice. And, in these scenarios, they move forward with great discernment. They don't just go participate in these things if they don't have to.
The reality is that there is no need involved in previewing a movie like "Sex and the City." People can be competent in their advice at times without having to see a movie immersed in sexual activity. For example, I don't need to see Playboy in order to tell people that it's bad. You admitted yourself that SATC was soft-core porn. If this movie were rated X would PluggedIn preview it? No. But, it seems that because it's an R-rated movie, PluggedIn feels the need to have someone preview it. But, it's pornographic. So, why would anyone need to preview this film? I believe that any review on this movie should state, "Because there's nudity and provocative sexual scenes, we believe that this movie is inappropriate for any viewer (incl. a reviewer) on the basis of Ephesians 5:3."
This is my personal belief. I know you can feel free to disagree with me. I do agree with you in appreciating people reviewing movies. But, when it comes to an obvious movie where the sins are clear, I think the discerning reviewer needs to say, "There's no point in me reviewing this. It's blatantly against God's character."
104. Emily said the following at 12:56 PM on Jun 10:
Thank you for shedding light on the CT review!
To those of you who think "well, its just like any other hollywood move" I would say--why are you watching those movies? The question of "is it that bad" is the wrong question. Is it good for you? How is SATC good for my walk as a Christian? It is not good. Do I want my husband dwelling on other women's sex lives? NO! I want him cherishing me!
How quick CT was to quote Lewis, when I don't think Lewis would have approved. Lewis wrote about topics Christians should not delve into, or even read about--thus proving Lewis knew our minds need not dwell on sin in order to see through others eyes. My husband and I do not need to watch soft-core porn in order to understand "forgiveness and fidelity" or any of the other "virtues" some of you are trying to find.
105. Nick said the following at 12:57 PM on Jun 10:
Amen.
Thank you for writing that letter Ted. As Paul & James tell us, those in leadership are held to a higher standard and will judged more strictly.
Woe to those who lead others to stumble. I'm thinking how easily this could cause struggling brothers and sisters feel "justified" in watching this, and end up sinning (I Cor 8).
I hope your letter serve the purpose of II Tim 2:24-26
106. IMO said the following at 12:58 PM on Jun 10:
Timothy #103
You make a good point. I sometimes have wondered those same things when reading the reviews...
Maybe it's already posted somewhere but I would love to hear commentary from PluggedInOnline about this..
107. PLH said the following at 1:02 PM on Jun 10:
Amir-Please read my post carefully. I didn't say the fact that it was deserving of a favorable review. But equate watching sex and the city with watching pornography misses the larger point. People don't watch Sex and the City for sexual arousal-they usually watch it for other reasons such as the city aspect, the fashion,female relationships, male relationships, etc, but I'd wager a small minority is watching for the mndity and sex scenes. Yes, we should be concerned about the presence of nudity in the film, to equate it with porn is like comparing apples and oranges.
108. Raj Sharma said the following at 1:03 PM on Jun 10:
I was depressed when I realized how many people here were PRO gay marriage.
Now, I want to jump off a cliff.
Clearly Courtney is nuts but when the content of a movie like Sex in the City becomes debateable, it is time to pack it in and go home. Whatever culture war Dr. Dobson is fighting is over. We have lost.
109. Amir Larijani said the following at 2:08 PM on Jun 10:
PLH says:
Tell that to Camerin Courtney. She's the one who called it "soft-core porn". Like I said, neither Ted nor myself are referring to it by terms that she herself didn't.
Raj says:
I doubt that Dobson started FotF as a basis for launching a "culture war", although I would surmise that--like other religious conservatives--he got drawn into it whether he wanted it or not.
That said, you are right; the culture war is over, and the Religious Right lost. While they made a few blunders that helped speed that defeat, I'm not sure that the outcome was altogether preventable.
While most Americans probably do not consider homosexuality to be morally equivalent to heterosexuality, I'd surmise they don't wish to see gays demonized either.
While most Americans are not convinced that abortion is a good thing, even pro-lifers like myself are not completely united in terms of the best resolution to this issue. Example: Mike Huckabee wanted a Constitutional Amendment whereas Ron Paul--of whom I was and am very much a supporter--wanted to remand the issue to the states.
While few Americans would suggest that porn is a good thing, few Americans are thrilled about the specter of a government that monitors everyone's Internet and cable television usage in the course of regulating a vice that millions of Americans use.
The larger problem with the "culture war" is that the Religious Right traded a Jesus agenda for a socio-political one. That has put the Church even farther behind the 8-ball as America heads toward a post-Christian society.
We know the final outcome--Jesus said that even the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church--but the sooner we face reality, the sooner the tide will turn.
110. Timothy Durey said the following at 2:30 PM on Jun 10:
Obviously there's a lack of definition on the word "pornography." Here's Webster's on-line definition: the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement.
The greek word porneia refers to all illicit sexual activity (see MacArthur Study Bible notes pp 1798).
Just thought this might be helpful. I understand that there can be varying "street" definitions of pornography. So, I thought I might add this for some potential clarity.
111. niki said the following at 2:46 PM on Jun 10:
I think seeing films like this is parallel to choosing McDonald's for dinner when you have a wealth of other options. Maybe even further than that, it's like you have plans to go out for a tasty, nutritious dinner but while you are waiting for the food to be cooked, you head to the McDonald's across the street and load up on the disgusting by-product labeled "food" at that location and ruin your appetite and your decent meal.
Maybe I just relate all of life to eating!
112. Raj Sharma said the following at 2:47 PM on Jun 10:
Amir (#109) wrote:
"That has put the Church even farther behind the 8-ball as America heads toward a post-Christian society."
My point is that based on the comments ON THE BOUNDLESS BLOG, Christians are leading the charge towards a post Christian society.
I expect filth from the world. Not a defense of it from Christianity Today.
113. brx said the following at 3:01 PM on Jun 10:
Re: Ted (#90), Jess (#89);
Jess writes:
"...I may need to stop reading Boundless for a while, though; this environment is just too hostile."
Ted writes:
"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?"
Ted, saying this movie "dulls your sense of the holiness of sex" is making a bit of an assuming leap. Yes, that media intake can and does often affect peoples' views, is based on statistical study and examination is correct but that does not mean one particular aspect of one particular film had such an effect on Jess. Maybe it did, maybe not. We don't know; so, better to ask the question than make the accusing assumption.
Funny you mention spending time "...with brothers and sisters in Christ who might build you up in the faith?" [Jess, I don't know if you're still reading, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and you can tell me if I'm right] I think Jess is pointing out that reading this blog has not been building her up. Many of the words have been beating people up rather than building them up. I'm not a fan of SATC for probably all the same reasons you're not, Ted. However, depending on the people and situation, it might be more fruitful to actually join a couple friends who are going to see the movie, followed by a 1hr ~ 3hr friendly coffee table discussion with them about what is depicted in the film vs. God's design for sex and relationships -- instead of encouraging them to spend an hour reading this blog.
[alternatively, (again, depending on the people and situation) one might offer to meet the friends at the coffee shop after the film instead of attending it with them -- but beware of conveying a sense of self-righteousness in that situation]
A brother or sister seeing the film is not necessarily sinful. It may be an occasion to ask revealing questions that may expose attitudes, hearts and Truth. That may be building up, but making assumptions and asking with accusatory words will likely be unfruitful and possibly damaging.
I know; I've probably done a lot of damage in the past. Though I was right; I don't think it mattered.
Grace, peace & encouragement
114. BDB said the following at 4:06 PM on Jun 10:
Jennifer (#83) wrote:
>>Neither did watching Star Wars make me want to go out and battle the Death Star.<<
I dunno...I'd kind of like a light saber...
115. Jim H said the following at 5:02 PM on Jun 10:
brx 114
I am pretty sure I am not going to say anything that has not already been said on this thread, but I will offer why I personally have a problem with this kind of material and I don't think I am alone in this.
I struggle with lust. And it does not take much in the way of explicit material to cause impure thoughts - even many network TV programs can cause impure thoughts in my head. It has gotten to the point that there are only about 3 or so network programs I watch on a consistent basis.
Now I am sure not everyone struggles with lust as much as I do, but I don't see how someone can be exposed to this kind of material and remain unaffected. And in my own personal experience, the more you expose yourself to this kind of material, the more you become desensitized and in fact hunger for more. I just don't see how exposing yourself to this kind of material glorifies God in any way whatsoever or advances our sanctification.
But at the end of the day it is not what I think or what anyone else thinks that is most important; rather it is what the Word of God has to say. God is the one we will answer to on judgment day and we will have to give an account for our actions and thoughts. I would encourage everyone to consider this question: what does God think about Christians endorsing this movie (or any other comparable movie)? If you prayed to Him about it tonight, what would He say? We all need to personalize this to our own walk with God.
Getting back to the Word of God, I think these two passages are key and germane to this discussion.
Philippians 4:8 (ESV)
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.
James 4:4 (NIV)
You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.
116. Aren said the following at 5:30 PM on Jun 10:
Since when do the themes prevalent in a film dictate the rating? A film may have some very pro-Scripture themes but ultimately, be a film that is shoddily made and unworthy of endorsement. Reversely, a film like "Sex and the City" has few themes that correlate with scripture, save that of forgiveness, but still be a film of quality and merit. It was well-made.
To dismiss something purely based on the content involved is very ignorant. Should the whole of humanity be disregarded due to our sin? Should God abandon us, because apparently you are suggesting that although God shouldn't abandon us, a lost world of sinners, we should disregard the world, or in this case "Sex and the City" because of the sin involved.
Also, how is violence in films acceptable and sex not. Both are sins, yet we choose to accept the one and not the other.
Finally, I don't attempt to be an expert on Scripture although I try my best, but I feel that be audacious enough to speak for God in condemning things is less than wise. You can personally dislike the film and disagree with it, but don't demonize those that see some value in it.
117. Phoebe said the following at 6:21 PM on Jun 10:
I keep circling back to the phrase in Ephesians 5:
But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people.
Not even a hint
Not even a hint
Not any kind of impurity
Not even a hint
Not even a hint
Improper for God's holy people.
How would Christianity Today define "Not even a hint?"
There are ways to address sexual concepts without being R rated, which SATC is. The Bible addresses sexual concepts without being titillating.
I know myself as a homeschool-raised virgin. Too often and too easily my mind turns to sexual images. I cannot blame these on Satan, but on my flesh. I need to flee immorality, and let no hint of it in. I do not think we have to never watch movies with sexual content, but we have to be honest with ourselves whether they arouse us to immorality, and whether we like it.
118. Phoebe said the following at 6:38 PM on Jun 10:
I also take issue at the way CT applies Lewis' words. They say,
"Lewis is writing mostly in the context of reading books and poetry, but his thoughts on criticism apply just as well to film—or any art form, for that matter."
Is that true? Would Lewis equate watching a movie with reading? I doubt it. Lewis valued highly the logic and mental energy necessary to read and process literature. Movies do not give us concepts in logical form, but in impressionistic form. The effect of watching sin in a movie is much more powerful then the effect of thinking through sin in a book. I think this is a significant difference. Yes, Lewis encourages us to understand the human nature and the heart condition of sinners, but he would never encourage vicarious sin or a 'needing to remind ourselves that we are sexual beings'.
Here are some examples for the Lewis-literate:
In The Great Divorce, Lewis describes the lizard of lust which haunts one of the characters, growing and thriving at the least encouragement. The lizard has to be cut off and killed.
In Perelandra, he describes with horror the sexual self-consciousness the demon starts to give to the innocent Eve-figure.
In the Voyage of the Dawn Treader he points to the danger of being curious about the inner thoughts of others. When Lucy opens the magic book that lets them know others inmost thoughts, she is wounded.
O be careful, little eyes, what you see!
119. Ariel G. said the following at 6:42 PM on Jun 10:
Hi Ted!
I found your post and the following thread very interesting. I wrote a somewhat similar letter to Plugged in Online (PIO) a year or so ago where I expressed my dismay that PIO would send Christian movie reviewers in their employ to screen movies such as Saw I-IV, Hostel, Wolf Creek, etc. I could not understand what Christian in their right mind (soul?) would watch torture as entertainment, so why was it even necessary to review the film? I expressed concern about the spiritual, psychological, and emotional damage that the PIO reviewers experienced after sitting through two hours of "gorno". I also stated that it was alarming that the write-ups of these films in PIO simply told in words what I was cautioned against seeing on film!
PIO's response was that they wanted to offer information about the film for parents who might have teenagers who asked to see the film. I understood that, but wondered what Christian parent needs to be told not to send their child to an R-rated film? (Evidently, quite a few)
What concerns me with regard to the CT review and endorsement of SATC is that we, as Christians, are losing even a modicum of sanity about these issues. We are letting the world shape US, rather than shaping the world. We are so regularly inundated with sexuality, violence, and fear in television, video, music, Internet, and print sources that we are hardened to God's standard for purity to the point that if we walked into our homes after work and saw our neighbors making out on the sofa, would we call the cops or go get popcorn?
In my efforts to develop a biblical perspective on the issue of entertainment, I read Wayne Wilson's book "Worldly Amusements" and Josh Harris' book "Sex Is Not the Problem (Lust Is): Sexual Purity in a Lust-Saturated World". These books deal fairly and biblically with what we should put in front of our eyes as "entertainment". Would Jesus want us to be so addicted to popular culture and being entertained that we think nothing of watching people simulating sex on screen? Would Jesus condone an entertainment industry that makes it almost impossible now for a young woman to have a career as an actress without taking her clothes off for complete strangers?
Watchman Nee wrote, "the question is not: Are you a good or bad person? but rather, What is your place of origin? We do not ask: Is this thing right? or, Is that thing wrong? but, Where did it originate? It is origin that determines everything. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit (John 3:6)".
AG
120. Eric Paddon said the following at 6:47 PM on Jun 10:
Thank you! For the last two years I have been increasingly bewildered by how CT's film critics have made a habit of denigrating conservative Christians with objections to the sleaze and left-wing extremism that has come to typify modern Hollywood, while rating these kinds of films higher than they do films that are more positive from a Christian standpoint (these are the people who wouldn't even rate "Passion Of The Christ" among the years best!). Their reviewers and their apologists frequently claim that they are merely defending a standard of judging "art" but this has always come off to me as fatuous nonsense of the first order. And I have also found out on more than one occasion how while they love to dish it out with all kinds of invective aimed at conservative Christian activists rather than anti-Christian Hollywood writers and directors who give us this junk, they are remarkably thin-skinned when they are subjected to some critical scrutiny in return. Moring's response is typical of the arrogance I have come to expect from CT where they equate criticism of their lofty standards with some kind of Philistine ignorance about "art" coming from people they love to malign as "Pharisees."
121. Erica_13 said the following at 8:27 PM on Jun 10:
BDB (#114) wrote:
"I dunno...I'd kind of like a light saber..."
Lol, BDB, I have one. It's blue and lights up and everything! Couple of my guy friends give it to me for my birthday. =P
122. Melissa* said the following at 9:05 PM on Jun 10:
Jeremy (16), said: "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!"
No, of course not. However, the enterprise (Hollywood, etc) who created the film quite obviously has no problem with condoning it and spending millions to most provocatively display it. For that reason alone, I have trouble giving my money to such an enterprise; my dollars would be tacit approval of what they are doing.
After that, why do I need to know about such immoral things? Why fill my mind with things I know are impure and may, therefore, have to battle later? As Phil 4:8 admonishes: "Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things." Simple enough, so spending an hour and a half (if I never thought of SatC again apart from the time in the theater) of my time dwelling on impure things isn't helpful at all. My choices are to battle what I may have seen or to, in some way, accept it. It's not worth the risk.
And, of course, I already know the world is depraved and full of sin. I don't need to pay to have someone graphically remind me of it.
123. Al said the following at 10:08 PM on Jun 10:
Ted, while I am inclined to agree with you that CT's review was likely too positive and not balanced enough with warning and careful analysis of the worldview the movie offers, I am also pretty bothered by your assumptions regarding Jess's spiritual state based on the fact that she finds the tone here hostile.
I myself, despite how much I enjoy a great debate about theology, culture, and issues surrounding singleness, decided to take a fast from boundless-- precisely because I was enjoying contending for and against all the issues tangental to the faith just a little too much. I was valuing my own opinion just a bit too much, and was coming away from boundless more interested in my position and priding myself on my supposed clear thinking than relishing who God is in humility or gentleness.
So frankly, by it's nature of allowing commentors to respond and because it deals with controversial issues-- sometimes boundless builds up. Other times it does not. Though it almost sounds that way, I'm also pretty sure you're not making self-important proclaimations about the boundless talkback page as being the unequivical body of Christ. And I think it's unwise to question a person's spiritual state because they are no longer finding boundless edifying at the moment. *Even* if they admit to having no issues with watching a many of us would have grave concerns about.
To do that would be making leaps concerning the character and spiritual state of a person one hardly knows, and I think questioning that sort of thing, when it's appropriate to do so, should be done in private.
Coming back, I was hoping for more positive edification rather than contention. Hah, then this.
124. lindsay said the following at 11:18 PM on Jun 10:
I'm not sure I understand the comments advocating seeing the movie so that we can having informed discussions about it with non-believers or so that we can understand the world more. ted answered these commenters in his letter before they even posted. this seems to be one of the biggest deceptions of our time, this abuse of being "in the world" in order to reach the lost. an intellegent conversation at a coffeehouse/pub would go something like this:
Non-believer: So, have you seen SATC yet?
Believer: Nah. I really have no desire to.
Non-believer: Oh...Why not? (Thinking the Believer is crazy, but intrigued.)
I'll leave the rest of the conversation up to your mind to fill in. For those of you who care enough to see it for the lost, or to not see it for the lost.
oh, and on a side note, wasn't it c.s. lewis who famously spoke of our desires being too weak? that would work well into one of these hypothetical conversations.
125. lindsay said the following at 11:26 PM on Jun 10:
"A brother or sister seeing the film is not necessarily sinful." (brx)
i am really skeptical of believers seeing this movie in order to understand the world, claiming some kind of christian invincibility to certain types of sins. sin is sin and it's already in all of us. if you go see this movie, you are doing it to pursue lust in your heart. period. you will look no different from the world and will have nothing of eternal value to discuss with a non-believer.
126. Jeremy said the following at 11:41 PM on Jun 10:
"No, we're simply stunned that you advocate watching something that you yourselves consider 'soft-core porn.'"
"Tell that to Camerin Courtney. She's the one who called it 'soft-core porn'."
... did anyone actually read the review? Here is the sentence in question from the review itself:
"Those queries often elevated the show from mere fashionable fluff or soft-core porn."
She said the show was not soft-core porn. Perhaps you could make the assumption that since the reviewer said that elevating factor was missing from the movie, the movie must be identical to the show and thus would fall under that category, but nowhere did the reviewer herself say that. This seems like it is getting pathetic; people criticizing a review they did not read of a movie they did not see.
But as to the question of nudity in film: perhaps this is an area in which Christians could allow for differences of conscience. Just as some in Paul's day could not eat meat sacrificed to idols without bothering their consciences, so some today cannot look on a naked body without either lusting or bothering their own consciences. That is fine, and those people would do well to avoid seeing such. But perhaps those same people could stop calling into question the faith of the rest of us who are able to handle such things without automatically sinning.
127. Amir Larijani said the following at 4:35 AM on Jun 11:
BDB says:
I want one of those X-wing fighters!
128. dana111 said the following at 6:15 AM on Jun 11:
Louis said:
"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?"
I have to agree with her here. If the Holy Spirit has not convicted people yet for watching SATC, then all your rally and personal piety is not going to do anything. Sorry.
129. Tehilah said the following at 8:25 AM on Jun 11:
Why are we even having this discussion? Isn't the name and reputation of the show this movie is based on enough to cement in any lover of Christ a repugnance for this movie?
I'm surprised we're even discussing it.
130. Christina (in green) said the following at 8:37 AM on Jun 11:
Ted,
Though I definitly agree that CT should NOT be giving an endorsement to SATC, after reading the review I don't think she actually DID.
She wasn't as harsh as perhaps she could've (some would think should've), she did state quite clearly that she was not exactly a fan of the movie.
Now, in your favor, she also didn't say it was a movie that SHOULDN'T be watched. If anything, I'd say she was very mediocre in her review, not wanting to dismiss it and not wanting to embrace it. Which perhaps is what your problem with the review is?
131. Isaac said the following at 9:40 AM on Jun 11:
Just because most hollywood films are about as bad doesn't mean that this film is okay to watch. Perhaps the film is well made, but even a great leader if leading in a wrong direction is not one to follow.
Might the film have redeeming qualities? Certainly. However, I have never met a human being with no redeeming qualities. Does that mean I should be friends with every person out there? No.
I'm actually more surprised by CT's defense. I'm not so disappointed they reviewed it. I'm more disappointed that they treated it as favorable as they did.
I would like to know though, since Mark Morning (who gave the defense as opposed to the review), actually believe that the film presents real world truth? People have sex, that is true, some rampantly. But look at the worldview this film presents. Is it truth? Someone who has seen the film make this case to me please.
132. Kit said the following at 9:46 AM on Jun 11:
Ted,
Yes, "enjoyed" and "relished" were in the review. But I was not talking about the review. In my particular post, I was talking about being informed.
You also wrote, "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."
Right. But they didn't. So how do we engage a spiritually vapid culture if we never challenge it???
133. trying to stay balanced said the following at 10:30 AM on Jun 11:
I asked my husband to check out this thread.
This was his opinion:
If I was a non-believer and I read this thread, based on some of the comments, attitudes, intonations, etc by some of the respondents, it would not exactly make me rush out and consider the claims of Christ.
The assumptions by Ted (and others) of the spiritual condition of the various readers and writers is amazing. How many of the people represented here actually know one another?
134. Jeremy said the following at 10:39 AM on Jun 11:
" if you go see this movie, you are doing it to pursue lust in your heart. period. "
That is a childish and judgmental viewpoint. Perhaps 10 seconds of nudity would be the only motivation for some people to see a film, but applying that to every movie-goer is absolutely ridiculous.
I hate to sound overly bitter, but contrary to many of the comments here, some people actually care more about the quality and experience of film than in counting swear words, blood drops, and boobs.
135. Jake said the following at 10:54 AM on Jun 11:
Lindsay said "if you go see this movie, you are doing it to pursue lust in your heart. period. you will look no different from the world and will have nothing of eternal value to discuss with a non-believer."
Wow, Lindsay - since I'm pretty sure you don't have the ability to look into people's hearts and minds and see their motivation, I don't think you have any basis to make this kind of blanket claim. In fact, I think its a real problem for you to make this kind of statement about lots of people you've never met. Remember to take that log out of your eye first.
It may seem inconcievable to you, but its actually possible that some people don't struggle with the same sins you do. Paul speaks to this issue in 1 Corinthians 8, and seems pretty clear (speaking in this case of sacrificing food to idols) that one's conscience has a lot to do with the sinfulness of their actions. So if I, struggling with lust, go to see a movie like "Sex and the City", that's a problem. But not everyone has that same struggle - and when I project my problem with lust onto them, I assume the part of the "weaker brother". And I don't think the point of that passage is that it is good to be the weaker brother. :-)
136. lindsay said the following at 12:20 PM on Jun 11:
sorry to be making a blanket judgement, jeremy and josh. i have nothing else to add. i still don't think christians should see this kind of stuff. am i saying i will never watch a sex scene in a movie again? no. but that doesn't mean it's ok for us. all i was trying to do was agree with ted that we shouldn't do this to ourselves. no one is immune to sin. and it can take many different shapes and colors, and if your discerning eyes are constantly wittled away by viewing this kind of material, you won't see it coming when it slams you in the face. i'm not saying seeing this is going to make you have an affair, but it could harden your heart. again, didn't mean to offend you, brothers. the "you" was supposed to be understood.
137. George said the following at 12:35 PM on Jun 11:
People, let's put the sin of lust aside for a moment, and consider this from another viewpoint. If you have a weaker brother or sister-in-Christ, and they do struggle with the sin of lust or promiscuity, and they're trying their very best to avoid shows like SATC, which promotes and glorifies those behavior.
Ask yourself this question, and answer it as honestly as you can. Do you think our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ would approve of you watching the movie? Do you think He'll agree with you that you're encouraging your weaker brother or sister, or do you think He would tell you that you're putting a stumbling block in front of them by watching SATC?
Anyone can justify their behavior with many valid reasons (of their own), but Jesus didn't save us and give us unwarranted Grace and Mercy so that we can go around justifying our behavior!
Freedom in Christ does not equate the freedom to do whatever we like, whenever we have the time, nor go wherever we want to.
Yes, Jesus does forgive us when we do things we shouldn't be doing but is this a reason for us to continue or relish the things in the world? No!
It's not our opinion on whether some things are good or evil that counts, it's His Will and Word on whether some things are good or evil which count.
Remember, there's no one good, except Jesus. If given the slightest opportunity, we will all sin and fall away like sheep going astray. Need I remind you that God calls every true, born-again believer to Holiness?
138. Jeremy said the following at 12:54 PM on Jun 11:
"Do you think He'll agree with you that you're encouraging your weaker brother or sister, or do you think He would tell you that you're putting a stumbling block in front of them by watching SATC?"
I think our model should be that of Paul. Indeed, if someone's conscience is bothered by the movie, we should not watch it with them. However, no, I do not think someone watching a movie on his (or, far more likely in this case, her) own puts a stumbling block in front of any brother or sister, nor do I think we should pretend that it is an issue of universal sin rather than an issue of conscience. We should do as Paul did, clearly state that it is a matter of conscience, and in love agree not to encourage others to do anything that bothers their conscience.
And in case anyone is confused about my own viewpoint, let me state again that I am not encouraging anyone to see this movie. I have no interest in seeing it, and I think it is probably mediocre at best (referring to quality, not objectionable content). That does not mean, however, that I am willing to let those comments stand unchallenged that call into question the faith of someone who does see the film.
139. Sarah22 said the following at 1:30 PM on Jun 11:
Why do people always try to use the "pull the log out of your eye" verse on people who are trying to honestly/earnestly ask why you are justifying the need to see a movie full of immorality that we are directly warned against ingesting in the bible? That verse is not meant to discourage believers from promoting the truth of God's word. Argue for different reasons if you like but that just drives me crazy because it's so off base.
Seems like anytime we have to start over-defending/making excuses we're probably involved in sin/lusting after something...I know that's usually the case in my life.
This whole argument honestly makes me ashamed. The fact that anyone on here who is a professing born-again believer in Jesus Christ is WASTING their time on defending SATC for any reason is making a grave error, I don't care if I have a figurative 5,000 foot tall cedar sticking out of both eyes, even I can see that.
140. Al said the following at 1:52 PM on Jun 11:
I also don't think admitting that "SATC offers well-developed characters, smart dialogue, interesting plots and sub-plots, and a ton of heart" is necessarily promotion of the movie. It likely has all of those things, and a movie review that ignores these hallmarks of good moviemaking would be dishonest and remiss.
It so happened that the person reviewing the movie was someone who resonated it with it, based on their stage in life, personality, and gender. And she obviously found some parts of it enjoyable and dared to admit it.
However, I do expect a review in Christianity Today, in serving its readers, to be much more balanced in critiquing the movie's message and where it both reflects and contradicts the gospel and godly principles. It is precisely because certain works of art are well made and speak convincingly with heart that they are able to persuade audiences of their messages, truthful, edifying, or otherwise.
Somewhat tangental, but I also think we can do better than to make simplistic judgements on the nature of people based on isolated data:
A person finds Boundless hostile but can watch SATC, so they must be struggling spiritually.
Miley Cyrus poses semi-nude largely because she watches SATC.
Zach Hunter doesn't go to prom because he is godly. His lack of peer friendship is a likely indicator of his holiness.
All of these conclusions may have large grains of truth about them. Some might not. There might be other factors in play. But if we extended even the same sort of understanding to others that we allow ourselves, we would know that humans are as nuanced and complex as they are sinful. We should resist the temptation to make grave, sweeping conclusions based on limited evidence. I think that's at least part of what's involved in loving others as ourselves.
141. Ted Slater said the following at 1:53 PM on Jun 11:
Jeremy, you make my point for me.
CT, by publishing such an affirming review, and by going on to further affirm that review, are bidding their constituents to watch the movie. If any of their readers' "conscience is bothered by the movie," by promoting this movie as "refreshing" and "enjoyable" and even "good," they are ...
I'll let someone else finish that sentence. I'm getting tired of beating this horse.
142. Jake said the following at 2:05 PM on Jun 11:
Sarah22,
Let's be realistic about what's occurring on this thread. Many of the people here (including Lindsay, who I addressed directly when referring to the "log") are most certainly not "honestly/earnestly asking" anything at all - they are making sweeping, blanket condemnations on anyone who thinks differently than they do about this movie. Please feel free to explain how my reference to that passage was off-base. Jesus is clearly speaking about judging others - which is exactly what is occurring when someone says "if you go see this movie, you are doing it to pursue lust in your heart. period." Lindsay has absolutely no basis on which to make that judgment about people she's never even met - nor does anyone else.
For the record, I haven't seen SATC, nor do I have any plans to see it. My wife did go see it with a friend, and while she did not like some of the content, she did appreciate some of the themes which have been discussed elsewhere (like in the CT review in question).
I also mentioned 1 Corinthians 8 in my previous post - where Paul makes it clear that one's conscience is important in this kind of discussion. Jeremy also mentioned that passage and its application to this situation. I've not seen anyone address this argument yet - instead, it seems like most commenters are content to continue asserting that any Christian who has seen this movie has sinned - without addressing these valid biblical arguments.
143. BDB said the following at 2:29 PM on Jun 11:
Erica 13 (#121) wrote:
>>Lol, BDB, I have one. It's blue and lights up and everything! Couple of my guy friends give it to me for my birthday. =P <<
Oh, I want a REAL one. I'm having trouble with the power source. And the magnetic field. I figure that to both cut through metal and be solid when hitting another lightsaber it must be some kind of superheated plasma inside a magnetic field. I dunno...the engineering is a bit beyond my skills...
As for the SATC discussion...it makes me wonder, when is the movie, Pirates Who Don't Do Anything coming out on pay-per-view?
144. Ariel G. said the following at 4:18 PM on Jun 11:
In response to #126, Jeremy who wrote, "But as to the question of nudity in film: perhaps this is an area in which Christians could allow for differences of conscience.... but perhaps those same people could stop calling into question the faith of the rest of us who are able to handle such things without automatically sinning."
Jeremy, the bible states in Genesis 9:23 that after the flood, when Noah got drunk and lay naked in his tent, his sons (Shem and Japheth) put a garment over their shoulders and carefully backed into Noah's tent and placed the garment over Noah thereby covering his nakedness. The issue was not sex (clearly Shem and Japheth did not want to have sex with their father!) but rather that the naked form, beginning with Adam and Eve's fall in the garden of Eden, is not to be casually looked upon by others. God also required priests to wear pants under their priestly robes (Exod. 28:42; Ezek. 44:18) so that as they ascended or descended the steps to the temple their nakedness would not incite impure thoughts in others. It is clear since the Fall depicted in Genesis that God does not take nudity lightly!
Moreover, Proverbs 6:27 states, "Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not get burned?" 1 Timothy 2:9 also states, "Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments."
Jeremy, it seems to me from reading your posts that you are more and more adamant in defending your right to see nude people simulating sex on screen the more that others debate this issue, so I want to point you to scripture rather than debate my opinion. If you can find a place in scripture where it states that gazing upon a nude woman, one you are not married to, is simply a matter of conscience, then please post it here. This is not an issue related to food preferences as you have tried to argue. Scripture is extremely well versed in dealing with nudity, sex, lust, and adultery so I am sure if you read it regularly you will find ample evidence for putting no vile thing before your eyes (Psalm 101:3).
I also urge you to read Wayne Wilson's book "Worldly Amusements" as it addresses what is good art and has an entire chapter devoted to "Is the bible Rated X?" as I noticed in your other posts on this site that you believe the bible is quite racy and in no way 'G' rated! This is a good point, but I think what the bible depicts is far from SATC.
AG
145. Jim H said the following at 4:31 PM on Jun 11:
Jake,
I will address 1st Corinthians 8. Paul was referring to "baby" Christians who were acting more conservatively than necessary due to lack of knowledge, specifically about consuming food sacraficed to idols.
What these "baby" Christians were doing was trying to distance themselves as much as possible from their former pagan practices by NOT consuming food which had offered to idols. This was not a bad thing but Paul considered it unnessary since idols were just pieces of innanimate wood or metal anyway. But Paul nevertheless urged more mature Christians abstain from eating food sacraficed to idols when in the presence of these baby Christians so as to not put a stumbling block in front of them and sear their conscience.
A modern analogy is the consumption of alcohol. The Bible forbids drinking too much alcohol but nowhere does it forbid alcohol consumption outright except for people who have special callings such as some of the prophets and those who took the Nazirite vow. In fact, Paul urged Timothy to take some wine for a stomach problem (1 Timothy 5:23).
But there are some Christians who believe strongly that alcohol is consumption is forbidden outright, so when I am around such Christians, I will not drink at all out of respect for their beliefs that are more conservative than mine.
So the general principle is that on issues where the Bible is not 100% clear or if a Christian is acting MORE conservtive than Scripture calls for, we are to respect that persons beliefs and not cause him to stumble.
However, on matters where Scripture is clear and where people are acting LESS conservatively than Scripture calls for, the Word of God does not submit to your conscience; rather, you should submit your conscience to the Wod of God.
This Sex and the City movie is pornography pure and simple. Watching naked people having sex is pornography. The fact that our rating system only gives it an "R" rating does not make it any less pornographic and is actually an indictment on how far our culture has devolved.
How does watching this movie line up with Pauls exhortation that I quoted on a previous post?
Philippians 4:8-9 (ESV): "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. What you have learned and wreceived and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and ythe God of peace will be with you."
Others have quoted additional passages that there should not even be a HINT of sexual immorality among us. And as Jesus said on the Sermon on the Mount, this does not just pertain to actions, but also to our thoughts and this point is critical for this discussion. Some have said this movie will not cause them to emulate the behavior in the movie, but does it stir up any impure thoughts? God will judge us one day on not only our actions, but on our thoughts, and on how we spent our time - how much of it was spent glorifying him. Being a voyuer to sexual perversion is not glorifying to God.
And you are welcome to dismiss me and that is OK, because you don't have to answer to me. But you do have to answer to God and people should test every action and thought vs. Scripture and whether or not it is gloifying to God.
146. IMO said the following at 9:54 AM on Jun 12:
#91 Louise:
"Why can you [Ted Slater] not accept that some of the commentors on this blog do not agree with your viewpoint?"
Why can't you accept that maybe, just maybe his viewpoint aligns with Scripture? or at the very least, he attempts to align his viewpoint with Scripture?
Do you lack respect for Ted Slater?
Pretty much all your comments seem like that. Not sure if that is your intention.
I'm probably not the only know who has picked up on this.
Just my 2 cents.
147. Louise said the following at 11:33 AM on Jun 12:
Re comment 146, it appeared to me that everytime some one posted a comment that did not agree with Mr. Slater's opinion of the CT review he shot it right back at them.
I have not observed this particular phenomenon with his other posts.
I was merely curious as to why he appeared to be having such a difficult time accepting that some people who read this blog did not agree with him on this particular post.
It is not disrespectful to ask someone why he/she is having a difficult time accepting the fact that other people have different viewpoints.
And as to whether or not Mr. Slater's opinion "aligns with scripture"...well I do not know the answer to that question and to be perfectly honest with you, Mr./Ms. IMO, I really don't care since I have a secular worldview.
If you don't like my comments on this blog, well sir/ma'am, that is your privilege but I really don't care about that either.
148. lewsta said the following at 12:15 PM on Jun 12:
Paul, in one of his letters to the new church, states that "when we see (Him) we will be like (Him)". Seems a principle is being laid before us here. Perhaps a paraphrase, equally valid, might be this: "when we see (SATC) we will be like (SATC)". Or perhaps I am wilfully stretching the point? But then, WHY oh WHY do the Scriptures so often warn us against even "turning down the street where the whore lives"? Either we are following wholeheartedly after the Lord or we are following wholeheartedly after.... what?
I read the first part of Camerin Courtney's review. I quit probably halfway through when I realised she was actually endorsing the film. Sorry, missy, but I get all the "cultural enlightenment" I need reading a daily newspaper once in a while. Knowing, from other reviews on the film and TV series that this film is so steeped in hedonistic, self-centred, me-first culture, I had already realised I have no interest in seeing this, let alone giving my treasure to those who produced it. And any unmarried female who has visions of marrying a REAL man who will love her as Christ loves the church, His Bride, and steeps herself in such thinking and values as protrayed in these works will remain unmarried for a long time, as she is (knowingly or otherwise) thwarting her own desires long-term. Women, if you think there is any redeeming value toward your desire for godly marriage in what is portrayed in these works, my advice is to settle for the first mediocre man who notices you for your (insert selected attribute here). Your dream of godly marriage is a fantasy. And any female who DOES flee such values as portrayed here, be encouraged. There is, somewhere, at least one godly man who will find you worthy of his life being laid down. I know of NO christian man who would marry a woman who "identifies" with what is portrayed in these works. I find it rather appropriate that the very women who claim there are "no good christian men out there" are most often those who have accepted the worldview of SATC as normal.
And Camerin Courtney can endorse this film as being worthy of our attention? When we see (SATC) we will be like (SATC)? Really? There are some who actually fail to see this connexion? Amazing.
149. Louise said the following at 3:07 PM on Jun 12:
To the author of comment 146.
There is nothing in my question which indicates disrespect for Mr. Slater.
I noticed in this thread that he was immediately responding in what seemed to me to be a personal manner to those who did not agree with him.
I never noticed this before with any of Mr. Slater's blog posts and my question was one of curiosity.
As to whether or not Mr. Slater's particular viewpoint "aligns to scripture" I do not know the answer to that question and it is irrelevant to the question I asked of Mr. Slater, which again was why he was seemingly having such a difficult time accepting the fact that others on this blog did not agree with his viewpoint in this instance.
Maybe it is because he feels more strongly about this issue, but I do not know because he has apparently decided not to answer my question, which is of course entirely acceptable.
Mr./Ms. IMO, I get the distinct impression that you dislike my comments. Well, whatever. On a blog like this you are going to get several dissenting views and that will definitely include comments you do not like!
And as for YOUR comment that you are "probably not the only one who has picked up on this"...I have read this sentence about five times now and I cannot determine your purpose in including this.
Are you trying to scare me away from participation on this blog?
Try having more of an open mind, sir/ma'am.
Who knows, you might even learn something!
Louise
150. Jake said the following at 2:07 AM on Jun 13:
Tim H.,
Sorry for my delayed response - its been a busy couple of days. Thanks for addressing my argument. I'm not sure why you assume that I'm going to dismiss you - I don't agree completely with your interpretation of scripture, but I don't think that constitutes dismissal.
I agree pretty well with your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 8. Where I disagree is with your assessment of of SATC. First, the fact that the word pornography keeps getting thrown around is a little overblown. I think there's a difference between what is shown in SATC (again, from what I've been told by my wife - I haven't seen the film) and what is shown in a pornographic video.
Further, Phillippians 4 has come to be interpreted in many Christian circles as essentially "whatever is appropriate for my 6 year old is appropriate for all Christians". A movie can portray something true, even noble and pure, and not always live up to the biblical standard for Christian life. Taking a less controversial example, the movies Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan both include elements that do not align with the ways in which Christians are told to live - but they absolutely convey something that is true, noble and pure. I'm not trying to defend everything contained in Sex and the City, but the assertion that there is nothing in the movie that meets this criteria is at least open to question.
And regarding the passage about not possessing even a hint of sexual immorality (Eph 5:3), I'm again going to have to refer to Paul's comments in 1 Corinthians 8. The assumption that every Christian person who sees this movie is tempted towards lust is just that - an assumption that cannot be proven, and that I would say is false (I already mentioned my wife and the fact that this was not a temptation for her, although it likely would be for me). If seeing such material is not actually causing someone to sin (which of course includes their thought life, as you mentioned) then there is indeed not a hint of sexual immorality. Simply seeing this material no more violates that passage (again, if and only if one is truly not causing them to sin) than it does for me to hear a non-Christian friend use profanity.
Take care.
151. Richard said the following at 11:12 AM on Jun 13:
I support Ted's comments. It is obvious based on Christianity Today's rebuttal that they are far off the mark when it comes to following the Scriptures warning against sexual immorality. Also to give Prince Caspian 2 stars is a fairly sad and inexcusable offense. :)
152. Naomi said the following at 12:29 PM on Jun 13:
This letter is good.
Personally I have seen the Sex and the City movie because of the clothes. I know other Christian women have watched it for some reason or other.
But definitely... Christianity Today's review of Sex and the City should not merit mere tolerance.
Reviewing the movie is one thing. Endorsing it is a different thing entirely.
153. Lindy said the following at 3:01 PM on Jun 13:
Seems there's a good deal of arguing here over whether people who haven't read or seen something have the right to complain about it. I think that all Christians should have firm convictions about what they will and won't expose themselves to, based on what their personal struggle with temptation looks like. But I also think we should be *very* cautious when we spout off about something we haven't explored for ourselves. We shouldn't claim knowledge that we don't actually have--about a work's content OR about the motives of others for seeing it.
That said, I HAVE seen SATC (I reviewed it for Plugged In) and I HAVE read CT's review. Here's my main point of disagreement with the reviewer, Camerin Courtney: She speaks of the SATC characters dealing with real-world relationship issues in a way that's honest, clever, relatable, etc. And I would completely agree with her on that, except for one thing: Courtney makes it sound as if these are issues that everyone can relate to, including Christians. Some of them are. But the majority of the issues addressed are a direct result of deliberate sin. That is not at all clear from Courtney's review. And it changes the way I respond to the film. I think it's unfair for Courtney to lead me, as a reader, to believe that the movie in more pertinent to my life than it actually is. Especially when that also means seriously glossing over some of the most graphic sexual content I have seen in more than three years of reviewing movies.
To be fair, I will also agree--somewhat--with those of you who have complained to Ted that the CT review isn't *actually* an endorsement. You're right. Technically, it's not. But it leaves a primarily positive effect on the reader. In some ways, that's Courtney's prerogative. CT is not the Bible. But in other ways, she ought to know that the effect of such positive words is inevitably going to be to send people to see the movie who shouldn't be seeing it.
Since we're into quoting CS Lewis here, I'll leave you with one of my favorites from him: "...the seriousness with which the other party takes my words always raises the doubt whether I have taken them seriously enough myself. By writing the things I write, you see, one especially qualifies for being hereafter 'condemned out of one's own mouth.' Think of me as a fellow-patient in the same hospital who, having been admitted a little earlier, could give some advice."
154. brx said the following at 4:44 PM on Jun 13:
Lindy (#153),
What a great quote from Lewis! Thanks. I just had to give an affirmation since just this morning I was reasoning through some things and upon reaching a conclusion, thought to myself "and here I am, condemned by my own reasoning." Thank the Lord for humility and His forgiveness and grace!
walk on, humbly with thy Lord
155. J. said the following at 4:53 PM on Jun 13:
PLH (#94) wrote, "It seems to me that a private letter would be more appropriate."
Jesus laid out the way we are to confront fellow believers in Matthew 18. Ted, did you first approach CT individually, then with one or two witnesses, and finally post the open letter so as to "tell it unto the church?" It would be helpful to know the answer to this question.
156. Lynne Davis said the following at 5:43 AM on Jun 14:
If we would all just look at the Scriptures posted and ignore all the comments every one could hear for themselves what God would say of this movie and others like it:
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).
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.
Philippians 4:8 (ESV)
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.
James 4:4 (NIV)
You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.
And as for Christians having different convictions: We all have the Holy Spirit in us as believers. God's view on things does not differ, He does not waiver as we do. It is not that we have different convictions. It is that we respond differently to the convictions of the Holy Spirit. And as we can learn through the Word, when we ignore the Spirit's guidance, we hear Him less.
I pray we would all, who are believers in Christ, will line our lives up for the Word of God, not society or culture.
We are to be a light in the darkness for the lost, salt to the lost. What are we doing in our lives to make others thirsty for Christ if we are living as they (the lost) do? My family finds enjoyment in life in various ways, and God is faithful to give us opportunities that do not grieve Him.If friends (and they do) think we are fanatics (these same friends will spend countless$ on sports team clothes, tickets..) for Jesus, then we have done well. I enjoyed the message in Horton Hears a Who ( a message this country needs to hear: A person is a person no matter how small) and it gave us a lot to discuss afterward. We have discussion with our students about purity, life, and culture without listening to secular music or seeing movies like SATC. All one needs to do to judge if they should view or listen to something is apply Phil. 4:8 to it...
Justification is not what we trech our students. Sanctification, serperating oneself from worldy lusts to be consecrated unto God for His purposes (not our own).
It is the least me can do for a holy God who loves us. He cleans us from our sins...so, why continue to soak in it?
157. Paul said the following at 3:23 PM on Jun 14:
I am a 43 year old Christian who believes in and practices celibacy, based on the verse 'know ye not that no adulterer, fornicator, profane person, liar, thief....has NO PLACE IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.' Yes i am a 43-year old virgin. But I have found no support system in any of the churches I have been part of and still am part of, for single Christians (men or women) whose experience is the same as mine. There are groups for Divorcees and Married people but little or nothing is done to help singles find their soulmate according to God's will. To me this is a travesty in the modern church and it is partly a cause for the unravelling of the social fabric and a prime cause for the lost remaining so. It is difficult enough to work for money in this world rather than serve God (as most Christians seem committed to believing in, rather than actually sincerely following the Great Commission); but to seek to live ALONE or serve God ALONE for the rest of your life as a sincere believer...how does the church answer for its total failure to build up disciples in this manner??? By that I mean, the church itself does not value sexual purity the way it should and it serves the needs of those who already have a 'legitimate' outlet for their lusts; but it leaves single Christians who are passionate about their faith to rot. I have been part of at least ten different churches on two continents and nothing has changed over the past many decades. But by despising and ignoring the most faithful amongst itself, the current 'contemporary worship' but spiritually dull or cold church is sowing the seeds of its own devastation. Muslim suicide bombers find an outlet for their faith; admittedly, they are making a grave mistake in what they do. But the bitterness and hatred they have for the ungodly, I understand. It is a similar hatred that the righteous virgins have for the sexually licentious 'Christians' and those Christians who are married and enjoying 'legitimate sex' but who do not one thing for their fellow believers who have the same needs as them. May God reward such people for their callous indifference (you see!)
158. Joy said the following at 9:20 PM on Jun 14:
Ted....
God bless you for the boldness with which you have spoke the word of God. Coincidently i stumbled upon the CT review of SATC today and i was so shocked and baffled that a webzine that proclaims the word of God could be so blind. No matter what "values" CT says that obscene film has, it is buried underneath the rubble of filth, immorality, depravation and sin the movie entails. Ohh my heart is so sad,let us not be a stumbling block to our brothers. This saddling of the fence has to STOP!
To you guys who claim that some seconds of nudity or curse words dont affect you... the bible say the no one can press a hot coal to his chest and not be burnt...
159. Simple Mann said the following at 10:56 PM on Jun 14:
I actually posted a rather lengthy rant of my own (extremely meager) blog site. If anyone is interested in the full post, you can find it at simplemann.net. Here's a couple of snips I thought I'd share here, though...
What exactly is the problem here? I think it is sad to say that the vast majority of people who call themselves Christians would probably (at least silently) agree with the reviewer. Many people who call themselves Christian (some of whom even attend church fairly regularly) enjoy watching shows and movies like Sex and the City, Desperate Housewives, the myriad reality-tv shows that exploit and exhort “common tendencies” (aka cultural values) like sex and promiscuity, arrogance, avarice, selfishness, and sin.
We feast ourselves at the table of the world when we should be fasting and taking much better fruit not from the table of worldly feasts, but from the Living Vine we have been called to abide in. Woe to us who have made a bedfellow of this world and a stranger of Christ, who lay claim His name and dishonor Him twice. “Christianity Today”. Indeed. This is the state that we are in. It is sad and sorrowful, but the truth of the matter is that by and large Christianity Today has much more in common with “Sex and the City” than with the traditional Christian values and influences that once separated the Church from the Culture. May God help us abandon the sinful sensuality we have all too comfortably embraced and begin to live again as strangers in a strange land—-as aliens again. Let today’s scripture reading be the entire second chapter of Peter’s first epistle. Take heed, fellow believers, and choose carefully what you believe.
160. donna said the following at 3:57 AM on Jun 15:
KarlH it's God who speaks for God and we the believer are wise to apply what He has to say to our lives be it verbally or how it's lived out. Our personal convictions shouldn't be the standard of how we judge what we will and will not abstain from rather it should be the word of God.
Because what we chose to do or not do doesn't always have an internal backing to it on our part. What I mean by that is I don't have a personal conviction when my boss gets under my skin and I want to talk to a fellow coworker about it behind her back, but I do have the word of God telling me not to gossip so I have to avoid it on the basis of what the word says not how I feel about it.
Same applies to this movie it only takes a little leaven to spoil the lump and once that little gets in even if there was a personal conviction one can become numb to this and move towards sin thinking they're perfectly fine because it doesn't feel wrong.
161. JJ said the following at 5:32 PM on Jun 15:
Great question J (155), and it's what most concerns me about blogs like this. I'd like to know the rationale for being able to openly criticize fellow Christians if no steps were taken privately first - very clearly laid out in scripture as you mentioned. Technology has it's benefits but it doesn't take the place of common courtesy in how we converse with people.
Just imagine for a second, if Boundless had approached CT personally about it's issues...had a private back and forth...and than made that interchange public for us to see the (hopefully) positive outcome of it. Unfortunately we didn't get that, what we have is imo a bitter rant and smear job. The results of which can be seen by all in the 150+ comments above.
162. Ted Slater said the following at 5:53 PM on Jun 15:
JJ -- not sure why you submitted your comment for all to read, rather than sending me a private e-mail expressing your concerns. Can you explain why you felt impressed to share your thoughts publicly rather than in a personal correspondence with me?
163. BDB said the following at 6:02 PM on Jun 15:
Here's a way that CT could have responded to the controversy without seeming like they were endorsing the movie: simply pointing out that it was their policy to allow their reviewers wide discretion when writing a review. Feel free to quarrel with the individual reviewer, but allowing the writer discretion need not be the same as the publication endorsing the movie.
They chose not to go that route, which added fuel to the fire.
164. JJ said the following at 11:35 PM on Jun 15:
Ted - repeating my question(s) back to me is not answering sir. You have made this issue public through your initial post and subsequent comments. If you would rather answer privately that's fine, I'm sure my email's on file.
Also 'J' was the first to bring this issue up, I was merely adding to it. So any follow ups should be directed towards him as well.
165. Ted Slater said the following at 11:54 PM on Jun 15:
JJ -- I truly am interested in knowing what motivated you to publicly question the wisdom of my writing a public response to CT's defense of their review.
J -- If you're up to addressing the same question, that'd be cool!
JJJ -- if you're out there, maybe you could answer the same question. ;-)
Seriously, JJ, there are times when one should approach someone privately about their sins. I've done that very thing in some cases. And then there are other occasions, modeled in Scripture, when it is appropriate to publicly call for someone to change their stance (aka, "repent"). I deemed this to be an appropriate time to publicly call for CT to apologize for what they've published, and clearly say that Christians should not "enjoy" this movie, should not simply dismiss the nudity and sex as acceptable elements of the plotline, that the themes of "forgiveness" and "anti-materialism" and "friendship" don't raise this soft-core porn movie to the level where they should speak so positively of it. Seriously, JJ, do you think I was wrong to call CT to task for their irresponsible support of this vulgar and demeaning movie?
166. jeff said the following at 10:31 AM on Jun 16:
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/14089
World Magazine publishes non-condemning review...
167. Ted Slater said the following at 3:52 PM on Jun 16:
I appreciate your interest in this difficult issue. Please read my clarification over here, and then feel free to leave your comment there. Thanks!