Clarifying My Open Letter to Christianity Today
by Ted Slater on 06/16/2008 at 2:52 PM
Last week I wrote a blog post imploring the editors of CT to reconsider their ongoing advocacy for the movie "Sex and the City."
Since then, a number of folks have joined in the conversation, which I think can be helpful. Sadly, some of them have mistaken what I was calling for, have gotten distracted by my "sanctimonious" deference to Scripture, and have misunderstood my motivation for writing that post.
Let me clear things up.
I wasn't condemning those who choose to watch this movie. I wasn't even primarily challenging Camerin Courtney's review of this movie. I was calling on the editors of CT to re-think their stance on media consumption, summed up in the following quote: "It's good to see what the world looks like through the eyes of even the depraved."
(As if we're so unfamiliar with sin that we need a movie to introduce us to the concept. To be honest, when I need to look through the eyes of "the depraved," all I have to do is open mine. I don't need a movie to help me understand what breaks God's heart and disrupts lives.)
Let me condense my concerns down to two points:
1) The original review observed that SATC is "soft-core pornography," perhaps made more palatable because the characters explore themes relevant to single women. The thing is, in order to have "enjoyed" this movie, in order to find the themes "refreshing," you'll have had to endure "a lot of sex and nudity," "a threesome, a naked man in a shower, some steamy makeup sex," "sex scenes between married folk," and so on.
2) The defense of this review encourages CT constituents to engage media that allows them to "enter into the minds" of "the depraved." In this context, that means that CT is encouraging their constituents to view SATC, an admittedly "depraved" movie. Sitting through the "muck" of SATC is "good," they are saying.
Put point 1 and point 2 together, and what we have is a prominent Christian publication clearly saying to their constituents that watching pornography is "good." There are other worrisome things about their review of this movie -- the cynicism about Christian messages regarding sexual purity, for example, or the demeaning objectification of men as "eye-candy" -- but this diminishing of the dangers of pornography is what I was primarily drawing attention to in my blog post.
I felt that that was a watershed moment for CT, and felt that I had to draw a line in the sand.
I'm embarrassed for CT. And for the sake of their constituents and their credibility, I've called on them to change their position, to, by definition, "repent."
Sometimes we have to choose not to watch something that will pollute our souls, even though that thing has the potential to help us grapple with important themes. Even though the trailers look fascinating. It's not worth the cost.
All of us have different thresholds; some of us don't watch R-rated movies, some do. Some tolerate sexual innuendo or graphic violence or degrading language, and others choose not to. That's up to the individual's conscience, of course.
The thing is, I firmly believe that there's a point where the content of a film is such that the benefit to our minds is not worth the cost to the purity of our souls. I firmly believe this movie, which I haven't seen, crosses that threshold.
It's my prayer that the stewards of CT's legacy rightly identify that threshold and take a stand for purity and righteousness.
1. Rich said the following at 3:53 PM on Jun 16:
Good word...
2. Lydia said the following at 4:20 PM on Jun 16:
Well said, Ted. I, for one, thought your original open letter to CT was spot on.
I would not opt to see SATC precisely because I profess faith in Christ as my Savior from sin and death and I desire to follow righteousness and holiness. It is challenging enough with my own flesh to battle against. I don't need to feed my mind with corrupt material to tempt me all the more.
As the Apostle Paul to eloquently stated to the Romans,"What shall we say then, shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid." (emphasis mine)
Thank you for the clarion call to righteousness and holiness, without which no man will see the Lord (see Hebrews 12:14-16).
~Lydia
3. Laura said the following at 4:21 PM on Jun 16:
Someone made a comment on last week's post to the effect that the film's support of conspicious consumption is far more offensive and contrary to Jesus' words than any of the sex scenes. I agree.
4. shanka said the following at 5:29 PM on Jun 16:
It's one thing to say, "I'm a single, female Christian and I really like this movie because it speaks to me and about me despite its worldliness." It's quite another to say, "I'm a single, female Christian magazine writer who is promoting this movie to Christian women (who might value my opinion) although I'm perfectly aware of its worldliness." It's about accountability to your readers.
5. Claudia said the following at 6:03 PM on Jun 16:
Thank you for not being afraid to stand for righteousness. More of us need to be publicly out front with it in regard to "those inside" the church.
6. Sarah P. said the following at 8:53 PM on Jun 16:
It's an interesting question. You're absolutely right - Christians need to be holding each other more accountable on these issues. But it's a difficult question...
- A few years ago some of the college kids in my acquaintance at home were having a raunchy discussion in mixed company, and I asked them to consider what they were doing... It all blew up, and I was definitely put on the defensive as the "prude" in the group.
- Even now I am never quite sure what to say when my Christian housemates are watching Gilmore Girls or Friends. I have never watched one of these episodes through, because there is so much sexual innuendo. Yet I have also watched these same housemates display love to others in ways that I can't.
- And I watched the movie Juno, and I mentioned this fact in passing on my blog. An anonymous commenter copied out the entire list of all the smut from screenit.com and then asked me how I could dare watch such a movie. Had I been forewarned, I don't know if I would have seen it. As it was, I had found it insightful into the world of the teens at the teen center where I volunteer. The anonymous comment surprised me, to say the least.
Perhaps the problem here is not in explaining the positive elements of SATC, but in making far too light of the sexual depravity? If I was going to explain Juno, I would say something like, "The movie truthfully shows the consequences of having sex and is generally pro-life, but it is often morally ambiguous, and I am unsure in the end whether it disapproves of or condones immoral behavior."
7. Anthony Chase said the following at 9:49 PM on Jun 16:
There is a clear difference between righteousness and self-righteousness. The latter has been portrayed strongly on this blog.
I am thankful for the work of Christianity Today Movies. They provide artful, intelligent, meaningful and Christ-like reviews.
Christian film criticism must be more than "spot the genital." Films (and the rest of the arts) allow us to find Christ in all aspects of life. This must be celebrated, used and reported.
If I were to characterize the difference between Christianity Today and Plugged In, I would say that Christianity Today is focused on Christ, while Plugged In is focused on sin.
It is Plugged In's reviews that border on the pornographic, as they describe these sins in gratuitous detail that is both inappropriate and condescending to the reader. Plugged In offers itemized lists of potentially offensive content while forgoing any serious look into why these acts of violence, sexuality, drug use, etc were included in the film. Sure many films are complete trash, but those are few and far between when a reviewer actually takes time to look critically, responsibly and intellectually at content.
This blog appears to be afraid of questions that Camerin Courtney's review brings up. Why has the church largely forsaken "singleness," offering little insight other than the occasional banal "true love waits" slogan? Courtney isn't afraid to say that being single is more complicated than that. It's a nice little slogan, but that's where it ends. From what I gathered from the review and her writing, she's willing to say that singleness isn't easy, purity isn't easy. She's grown up. Many Christians still need to.
If this blog is much of a portrait of Focus on the Family, and I fear it is, I think that the company is drifting far from true Christianity and into the turbulent waters of blind fundamentalism.
As for "Sex and the City," I must say that I am more concerned about the materialism and consumerism portrayed in the film. These sins are arguably running more rampant in Christian and secular communities than the sudden urge to have a threesome; and the materialistic/consumeristic mentality is what leads to "rampant" sexuality. The point has been raised that viewers of Sex and the City are not coming for the redeeming factors (which appear to be quite, shall we say, wonderfully rampant) in the film; this is probably true. But I refuse to put God in a box and say that he cannot use a film like Sex and the City to expose the depravity of the world to secular audiences. As for Christian audiences, the choice of attendance is theirs. If they find something redeeming, excellent or intriguing in the film, I say that covers the cost of admission.
8. Samuel PG said the following at 1:08 AM on Jun 17:
After giving it some more consideration, I wonder if so many of us are defensive about a movie that we may not have seen (I have not) because of the implications that a critique of that movies morals might have on our past and future theatre fare. It is not just SATC that is under attack for us, but The Godfather, Pulp Fiction, The Matrix, Forrest Gump, Terminator, Gladiator, Iron Man, 10 Things I Hate About You, Bird on a Wire, Juno, Bruce Almighty, Liar Liar, Bridget Joness Diary, How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days, etc. If we are going to develop a more discerning conscience with this one movie, what does that mean about the rest of those beloved movies which almost always contain objectionable content? What does that mean about what we can see in the future?
It is not that pointing to the sin in one movie upsets us so much, it is more along the lines that we know that our problem is a way of life in how we approach movies and television. And that, Ted, makes us uncomfortable.
-In case this addendum is necessary, I am clearly not saying that making us uncomfortable in that way is a bad thing.
9. Leah said the following at 1:21 AM on Jun 17:
Firstly, I can't believe JJ said the original post was a "bitter rant" and "smear job". He/she clearly doesn't pay much attention to politics or public relations. Your letter was not bitter in the least.
It sounded to me like the author of the CT review was basically saying "the movie spoke to me more than Christians have and I sympathise with the characters, therefore it is a good movie and Christians should wake up and accept it". SHE was the one who sounded bitter. She also sounded very materialistic, raving about fashion labels and men serving as "eye-candy". Christian or not, I'm surprised she's allowed to write that way for a Christian publication.
10. lisa said the following at 2:03 AM on Jun 17:
Ted, I agree with your original post 100 percent. That's unbelievable of CT to promote SATC.
I don't think Christians need to see a movie like SATC to know what goes on in the minds of 'the depraved'. Furthermore, if a Christian wants to go see this movie, I doubt she/he wants to see it for educational purposes like that.
Hello... We get enough anti-godly morals drummed into our brains every day without us trying.
11. Kelly said the following at 5:02 AM on Jun 17:
It's the first point I take issue with, because those points you've mentioned are less than FIVE MINUTES of a 2.5 hour movie. I barely recall most of the scenes that people are in uproar about. (In other words, I think this film has been described through sex-focussed lenses when most blockbuster movies have an equal time-amount of adult scenes.)
Which leaves most Christians with a bit of a dilemma: do you judge something based on what others have said about it? I'm not advocating watching the film if you find those things particularly offensive/challenging, but I find it a little bit hard to swallow that you can condemn a movie for content that is not what you have been led to believe.
As a woman, those scenes in movies are instantly forgettable. They do not cause me to stumble in the way they would cause problems for a male viewer.
But as a woman, I should stay away from ROMANCE movies, because those are the ones that cause me to desire things I cannot have.
Re: SATC, the only adult scene of those mentioned that I actually remember was the scene between the married couple. And that's mostly because I didn't think I should be privy to such intimacy.
Think of it this way: how often have you come across a person who's written off the entire Bible because they quote certain destructive verses OUT OF CONTEXT? And use those few versus to declare that the entire Bible is nothing more than an excuse to commit appalling acts?
Our only answer to them is to ask them to read the entire Bible before judging it and not make assumptions based on what they have heard other people say. And if they don't feel comfortable reading the Bible, then they have no right to comment on the detail of the content.
12. lindsay said the following at 7:30 AM on Jun 17:
couldn't agree more, lisa. well said.
13. Craig said the following at 8:50 AM on Jun 17:
Samuel--that is a really, really diverse list of films, with a pretty wide range of quality. What is it that you think indicts them all?
Kelly--I think you understate the female sex drive, which I've seen a lot of around here. "Men are prone to fall for sex, women aren't..." Are we sure this isn't wishful thinking?
14. Mike said the following at 9:30 AM on Jun 17:
What constitutes appropriate justification for watching a movie with "depravity"? I rarely watch R-rated movies, but a few (very few!) depict a reality with which I should be aware: Schindler's List, Life is Beautiful, Passion of Christ, and Saving Private Ryan. I'd even be tempted to put Juno into this category, but I wouldn't watch SATC. Why?
I'm male and SATC provides more muck than redemption. It uses sex to entertain. I'll let women hash out the balance for them. Juno presents the stark reality of teen pregnancy and its consequences. There's no happy ending - one simply moves on. SATC and its ilk on television rarely deal with the negative consequences of sex outside of marriage, flirting, etc. Ditto for a lot of violence in films (violence without purpose and without consequences). This type of media presents a fantasy world that is more likely to harm than to provide insight into the REAL world of the depraved.
15. Tami said the following at 9:32 AM on Jun 17:
Anthony Chase (7) -- I don't know how frequently you've visited the site, but as a longtime Boundless/Boundless Line reader, I can attest to the fact that there has been no shortage of discussion about the struggles of being unmarried in a sex-saturated culture. If all the answers given here were "easy," trust me -- I would have run far, far away a long time ago.
A glance through prior months' and years' articles will show a great deal of talking about the pain of being single and/or childless despite best efforts to be otherwise; the challenges of navigating this world as a believer; living with Christ at the center of all aspects of our lives (*including* our wallets -- in case you're wondering if they ever address materialism); the struggles of same-sex attraction; and on and on.
Whether you agree with the particulars of their stance on such issues or not, it's pretty impossible to say they've *ignored* them. In fact, not only the writers, but the editors themselves have been willing to share their stories in as transparent a manner as one could expect in such a public forum.
I also doubt that *any* Boundless reader would say that remaining pure or unmarried is easy. If that was the case, they wouldn't be here, as they'd already have all the answers. So the case is quite the contrary -- many blog posts have comments upon comments of men and women sharing their struggles quite candidly.
Before making further statements about the simplicity of this site, I encourage you to take a longer look around. If you are still of the same opinion, fine; it's your opinion to have, and many people would agree with you, I'm sure. However, I would adjure you in the meantime not to paint us all with the brush of needing to "grow up." Thank you.
16. Bonnie said the following at 9:35 AM on Jun 17:
Ted, I think you addressed the bigger question here, which is - how offended should we allow ourselves to be if there is some actual insight to be gained from the movie? This goes way beyond SATC.
This is a very hard issue for me because I love movies and generally have no problem putting up with certain things, so long as they aren't major parts of the movie. But I don't feel like what we watch should be based on what we're comfortable with individually - it should be based on what God would be glorified by. I say that because depending on what we've been exposed to in life, we could be comfortable with some pretty bad stuff. For example, we're all pretty used to hearing about abortion, and most of us aren't as up in arms about it as we should be because we're desensitized to it. Same with movies, I think. Just because we're desensitized to graphic sex scenes and innuendo doesn't make those things right. So hence my question - how offended should we allow ourselves to be if there is some actual insight to be gained from the movie? Are there any objective standards we can hold as Christians? Everything we do in life should be for God's glory; what we do shouldn't be up to whether or not we feel comfortable with it.
17. DannieA said the following at 9:36 AM on Jun 17:
Good morning Ted.
My thoughts are as follows:
I neither approve nor disprove the fact that you wrote a letter to CT. It was an issue that touched YOU and you have a right to write in to the editor. As anyone of us would in any magazine.
I'm curious as to why this particular blog was written. If you felt compelled to write a letter and then chose to advertise it here, then why do you feel the need to defend it? It just seems that you would like affirmation for what you did and didn't get enough affirmation? I don't know, and this may not have been your intention....I'm just commenting on what it appeared to me having read all blog posts and comments about the review since Suzanne started it.
This is why one should always double check internet blogs or e-mails. It may read differently then what it was originally meant to be
18. trying to stay balanced said the following at 9:44 AM on Jun 17:
#7 Anthony Chase - I am quoting
"If I were to characterize the difference between Christianity Today and Plugged In, I would say that Christianity Today is focused on Christ, while Plugged In is focused on sin."
This is the situation in a nutshell. An absolutely brilliant observation. Your whole post is amazing and clear. Thank you.
I find the FotF group to be in large a group that stresses the "us vs. them" mentality. Some of these well meaning folks sure would not draw me to Christ if I were not already a believer.
Thanks be to God.
19. Kelly said the following at 10:25 AM on Jun 17:
Craig - I'm trying to say that most women aren't stimulated by visual images in the way that men are.
Of course women have a sex-drive but that tends to be directed towards their husband/boyfriend; we bond emotionally first. I have absolutely no emotional bonding with '2 random bodies' on a screen/in a magazine/whatever and therefore it is meaningless to me.
20. Joseph said the following at 10:36 AM on Jun 17:
Didn't Focus on the Family hire someone to watch and review SatC as well?
21. Peter said the following at 10:47 AM on Jun 17:
It's fine to reject the review based on your convictions. I understand your motivations. But then what? What do we do when the only "sanctioned" opinion to have about sex is that it's like sticking your finger in an electrical outlet? Can we really speak intelligently about the world we live in, about ourselves as Christians? Aren't things a little more complicated than "If you do this you will burn in hell"? Aren't we lying when we act holier-than-thou while Christian teenagers are having sex, Christian parents are divorcing, and pornography is rampant - likely among the very commenters here on this forum? Can we really solve deep issues with a sledgehammer?
The complexity that I think exists... is lost on most commenters here. "I now consider CT smut" is a pointless argument that does absolutely NOTHING to help anyone. Too many Christians in the United States live in "Christian ghettos," sealed from the outside world for fear of corruption, not realizing that corruption has already snuck in under their noses in the form of "I'm better than you because I'm a real Christian," rampant materialism (especially in Christian goods), and other such problems.
22. walter said the following at 11:21 AM on Jun 17:
To think that we are even debating whether CT should be encouraging this movie is somewhat shocking. Thank you for stating the obvious biblical position. As those who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ, we really ought to care what the Bible says.
23. Christina (in green) said the following at 11:23 AM on Jun 17:
Craig (13) said:
Kelly--I think you understate the female sex drive, which I've seen a lot of around here. "Men are prone to fall for sex, women aren't..." Are we sure this isn't wishful thinking?
Ain't that the truth =p
24. Kit said the following at 12:35 PM on Jun 17:
Anthony Chase, well said. I like the way you think.
"Blind fundamentalism" is a great way to describe many of the posts and responses to them on here. Very narrow; no 'outside the box' thinking. Excellent point and agreed.
25. Samuel PG said the following at 12:37 PM on Jun 17:
Craig,
I would basically break these movies up into groups like this:
Violence: Godfather, Matrix, Terminator, Gladiator, Iron Man, Bird on A Wire
Sexuality (including innuendo and sexual language): Matrix (all three), Forrest Gump, Iron Man, 10 Things I Hate About You, Bird on a Wire, Juno, Bruce Almighty, Liar Liar, Bridget Jones's Diary, How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days
Of course, language content would involve most of these movies as well. My point is that if we really pay attention to conscience with regard to our movie choices, a whole lot of movies in a diverse range will be indicted. Consider this too: a consistent approach would probably have to impact our viewing of movies which encourage worldviews opposed to Christianity, meaning movies that revel in materialism, selfishness, vengeance, and selfish ambition.
26. Emily said the following at 12:54 PM on Jun 17:
I think Samuel (#8) makes a good point. I know a lot of times when I've been annoyed by something on Boundless or other websites I'm actually just irritated because it cuts a little too close to home. I've never seen Sex and the City and have been baffled by the Christian women I know who watch it -- the name itself, let alone the little bits I've gleaned about the plot from talking to friends or reading magazines, was enough to put me off it, so I applaud Ted for his original post and for continuing to encourage Christianity Today to repent, and I think some of the commenters on the original post should maybe take a look at their reasons for disagreeing with him or for justifying the movie as harmless entertainment.
That being said, I still think Candice Watters was 100% wrong about the Twilight series. :-)
27. Rebecca LuElla Miller said the following at 1:01 PM on Jun 17:
While I agree with your position for myself, because my personal standards seem to be consistent with yours, something you said raised a red flag for me:
You ended your post with this: All of us have different thresholds; some of us don't watch R-rated movies, some do. Some tolerate sexual innuendo or graphic violence or degrading language, and others choose not to. That's up to the individual's conscience, of course.
The thing is, I firmly believe that there's a point where the content of a film is such that the benefit to our minds is not worth the cost to the purity of our souls. I firmly believe this movie, which I haven't seen, crosses that threshold.
You believe this movie has crossed a threshold, but is it your place to decide for other Christians what their threshold should be?
I actually feel that having well-known figures or organizations set up as authorities of what is pure and right is one of the greatest dangers we Christians can buy into. My contention is, Scripture has been given for this purpose.
In verse after verse in the Bible, it is clear we are to discern between good and evil. We Christians. Each of us. But in America today, it seems we Christians want someone else to do our thinking for us. It's a "just tell me if I'm for it" mentality.
If you came out and voiced your objections to the movie and laid out Scriptural support for your position, without the assertion that those who disagree with you have crossed some ultimate threshold, then you would essentially be calling others to think, to evaluate their own standards, to consider what it is they should be looking for in entertainment and to compare that with Biblical standards. (And if you thought the editors at CT sinned, you should confront them privately about that matter.)
Instead, it seems to me, your post ends with the claim that your threshold is the right threshold, implying that others need not create their own.
In my opinion, that idea, if widely followed, will do far more damage than one movie.
Becky
28. Jill said the following at 2:13 PM on Jun 17:
The condemnation is any film that someone hasn't bothered to see reeks of ignorance of the highest order. We're just to take your word for it that it's something that we shouldn't see? That sort of thinking has kept people from seeing films such as the Last Temptation of Christ - which some of us found incredibly edifying. Let's grow up and utilize our God-given ability to discern.
29. Nate said the following at 2:15 PM on Jun 17:
For the record I find these discussions (debating how much of our culture we can take in and remain salt and light) vital to our health as Christians. I am excited that many other young Christians like myself are trying to discern how to relate to the culture around us but still maintain personal purity.
I don't think we think critically about what we take in enough- on either the objectionable content level or on the worldview/deeper theme level.
I think far too often it is easy for Christians to accept too much objectionable content in a movie because it "makes us think," helps us "understand a different perspective," or simply entertains us.
At the same time I think too many Christians make the assumption that a movie without a good deal of "objectionable content" and a mild rating is automatically safe- when often this is where the most dangerous ideas sneak in and take root. For instance, many cartoons may be cute and objectionable content free- but contain dangerous ideas that we shouldn't allow to take root in our hearts either- just as much as inappropriate ual content.
How can we as Christians be more discerning and critical ALL THE TIME? That I believe is the real battle that we are in.
30. Eric Paddon said the following at 3:21 PM on Jun 17:
Anthony Chase's comments are for me all too typical of how "blind Fundamentalism" is used as a convenient soundbite to dismiss legitimate objections raised by the conservative Christian community to the increasingly explicit content of what we see in the entertainment industry. This anything-goes attitude on what we see depicted in films has gotten worse and worse ever since the aboltion of the Production Code, and I find the argument that objecting to these trends constitutes a lack of talking about Christ, or is somehow "blind Fundamentalism" a gigantic case of burying one's head in the sand or sticking one's fingers in one ears because they don't like to deal with the reality of what is. If there is a graphic description of the sin in this blog, it's only because as has been noted, the CT review failed miserably in addressing the matter to help aid a discerning audience, and instead decided that its dubious standard of evaluating "art" would provide a deeper meaning of how to "look for Christ"
If something like SATC is how we should be finding ways of "looking for Christ" while burying ones head in the sand about how this explictness reflects a broader problem of what's been wrong with Hollywood for decades, not to mention the destructive element on our culture that this TV show can lead to (a brilliant essay in the American Spectator on June 3 hit the nail on the head about that), then all I can say is God help the times we live in. Some people might want to call that line of thinking "Blind Fundamentalism" but I prefer to call it the maintenance of common sense, which CT has for the last several years shown an increased lack of on so many things.
31. Maggie said the following at 4:52 PM on Jun 17:
Anthony Chase:
I think it's unfair to condemn Plugged In for their detailed descriptions of specific issues in movies. Remember, their primary focus is as a ministry to families. Assuming I had children, I would probably like to know exactly what they would be exposed to before I took them to see a film, so that I could decide whether it was worth weeding through. I find also that the reviewers often plow through some of the issues and point out redeeming features as well as red flags. I have used them many times when I was unsure of whether I wanted to see a movie - not to say that I never see anything someone may call "objectionable", but I'd like to have some idea of what I'm getting into.
As to Candice Courtney making comments about singleness and the church, you're right - they do need to be addressed; however, I don't think that a movie review is the right place to address them. She also writes regularly for the Christian Singles magazine, which is a much more appropriate forum for such debates.
32. L.G said the following at 8:08 PM on Jun 17:
[Quote Anthony Chase] "There is a clear difference between righteousness and self-righteousness. The latter has been portrayed strongly on this blog."
In Complete Agreement.
33. Amanda said the following at 8:15 PM on Jun 17:
I don't see how we can still be talking about whether or not to see the movie. To me it's plain and simple. It's not how close we can get to the line without crossing it...it's how far away we can be. It's not how many sex scenes a movie holds or how many times they use Christ's name in vein. It's the fact that they do that should offend and make you not want to see something.
We're not here to conform to the ways of the world. Yes there are a lot of movies that have an equal amount of sex in them, but that's not what we should be basing our viewing choices off of. The world will offer us many choices, but God also provides an alternate route. It's up to us to pray and seek after God to discern what we should and shouldn't view.
No matter how much you want to say something doesn't effect you and that you just forget it anyway...you're still taking it in. It's still effecting your heart and soul. When something like people having sex on a screen for our "viewing pleasure" doesn't make you cringe...than what will?
34. Leah said the following at 9:48 PM on Jun 17:
Anthony Chase- Plugged In is usually very objective about what it reports. It gives itemised lists to let readers know what to expect in the movie. They are not so graphic as you imply (ie. borderline pornographic).
Now, I'm not commenting on the comparison you've made, because I do not read Christianity Today so I don't know enough to comment. But I do read Plugged In, and not for discernment purposes- I usually read it thinking with mild sarcasm "I wonder which movie they're tearing apart now" or "I wonder what they've said about ".
Plainly: I'm not a big fan of Plugged In, but not for the reasons you state. I'm not a big fan because I think they take offense at relatively trivial things, and mostly because they think something as lame as a few alcohol references and a bit of violence makes a movie unsuitable for teenagers. (I was a teenager not so long ago).
Their opinion of sins included in movies aside, it is their job to tell us what sins and offensive references are contained within movies, so that is exactly what they do. It is a site primarily for parents wanting to make judgments on movies their kids want to see, and the parents want to know what offensive material their children might come across. When it comes to making decisions about what movies kids should watch, then yes, it should be about "spot the genital". You're correct in saying that Christian film criticism should not be all about that, but that's not what Plugged In is for. The site is not meant to be all about Christ, it is simply supposed to help people make Christ-like decisions.
It astounds me that you could call Ted self-righteous in reference to these blogs. I could find almost nothing wrong with his first post- the letter to CT- and Ted's posts often rub me the wrong way. And this post was simply about clarifying misunderstandings people had about the original post, so I don't see how that is self-righteous. He's not saying anything about himself at all, and self-righteousness is ALL ABOUT saying things about yourself!
35. Ted Slater said the following at 12:04 AM on Jun 18:
DannieA -- you asked, "If you felt compelled to write a letter and then chose to advertise it here, then why do you feel the need to defend it?"
A few bloggers seem to have misinterpreted what I wrote and why I wrote it. I thought it may be helpful to provide clarification. We'll see if they are able to understand my point, or are content to see me as a caricature of all that's wrong in Christendom.
36. Ted Slater said the following at 12:09 AM on Jun 18:
Joseph, you ask, "Didn't Focus on the Family hire someone to watch and review SatC as well?"
Yes, Plugged In Online provided a very astute, very helpful review of this movie.
37. Ted Slater said the following at 12:11 AM on Jun 18:
Peter, I'm trying to understand what you're saying, but you have me for a loss.
38. Ted Slater said the following at 12:27 AM on Jun 18:
Rebecca LuElla Miller, you ask, "You believe this movie has crossed a threshold, but is it your place to decide for other Christians what their threshold should be?"
Please re-read my blog post. I am addressing the editors of Christianity Today, not individual moviegoers. I believe that this prominent Christian publication must adhere to a higher standard; it must err on the side of purity and righteousness, rather than on the side of edginess and passivity -- even acceptance -- toward pornography.
Don't they?
I would hope that CT has a "threshold," a point at which they'd say that a particular movie is just too vulgar, too course, too pornographic, too base, too immoral, too ungodly to laud to their constituents. At some point, they'd choose *not* to conclude a review by calling such a movie "refreshing," something that they "enjoyed."
I assume hard-core porn would be past their threshold. I was hoping that this movie, judged nearly unwatchable by secular reviewers and soft-core pornography by Christian reviewers, would have passed their threshold.
It continues to puzzle me that the editors of CT continue to refuse to come out and say clearly that this movie is destructive to their constituents, that it provides false expectations for their non-married readers and breeds discontent among their married readers, and may very well lead most men to commit adultery in their hearts.
It continues to puzzle me that so many Christians would come to the defense of this movie. They choose to defend this nudity-saturated movie and choose to condemn my call for purity. What an upside down world we live in. Maranatha.
39. .j said the following at 12:30 AM on Jun 18:
Craig(13) - Agreed. While I do think men are more susceptible to those things, the going trend recently has been to recognize woman as utterly impervious to them. Yikes.
I think calling out the movie for 5 minutes of sexual scenes could be a bit legalistic. I think the problem lies in the gestalt of the SATC experience. The comments on the initial post covered a bevy of other problems -- alcohol, materialism, etc. Would a movie where the characters consume exactly 15 drinks receive the same attention? What about a movie that shows exactly 32 minutes of shopping scenes? Again, I believe it is the sum of the parts. The movie also has the added "benefit" of coming with the baggage of the entire series.
Wiki spits this out to me:
"The narrative of the show focuses on Carrie and her three best friends. The women discuss their sexual desires and fantasies, and their travails in life and love. The show often depicts frank discussions about romance and sexuality, particularly in the context of being a single woman in her mid-thirties."
Speaking of the original series, it troubles me too that the original CT reviewer seemed to be a fan of the show prior to the movie. No wonder it was a more favorable review.
I'm surprised to that there seemed to be such a "happily ever after" via marriage message to this movie. Many of the positive reviews seem to focus on that, but I can't help but think of the ground they covered to get to that point...or wonder if the marriages are a setup for the "steamy and adventuresome world" of affairs to be explored in the sequel...
40. Stephen Kloosterman said the following at 12:30 AM on Jun 18:
Anthony Chase:
Right - there is a difference between righteousness and self-righteousness. But whatever sins Boundless have committed by being self-righteousness, I don't get where CT gets off in instructing people that SATC might help them grow in their (genuine) righteousness.
It goes without saying that we learn from our mistakes, we grow even through our sins and that God could use even as unwieldy a tool as SATC to change lives. But as a single male, I don't need to use even a quarter of my brain cells to know that Jesus would not be pleased by watching this movie.
QUOTING:
"As for "Sex and the City," I must say that I am more concerned about the materialism and consumerism portrayed in the film. These sins are arguably running more rampant in Christian and secular communities than the sudden urge to have a threesome;"
--> Get real, man. Lust and pornography are among the most potent temptations for teens and young adults. Don't trivialize those temptations by putting saying the real concern with the movie is commercialism. Don't put pornography addiction at lower threat level than a woman buying too many extra pairs of shoes.
41. Ted Slater said the following at 12:31 AM on Jun 18:
Rebecca LuElla Miller, you go on to write, "I actually feel that having well-known figures or organizations set up as authorities of what is pure and right is one of the greatest dangers we Christians can buy into."
Jesus is well-known. You think it's a great danger that He clearly identified was is pure and right?
Too many in this generation seem to have lost a heart for sanctification. And gained a heart for entertainment. At any cost. Even to their spirits. Goodness.
42. Jeremy said the following at 12:35 AM on Jun 18:
Anthony Chase (#7):
I join the many on here commending you on a very well-written, well-reasoned comment. I submitted a comment making much the same point, although it was either rejected or lost in some other way. I agree with you nearly 100%, except that you seem to imply that Sex and the City is a good film, and although I have not seen it, from reviews and the TV show, I feel fairly confident in my guess that it is not =).
43. Naomi said the following at 8:55 AM on Jun 18:
CT's review is an endorsement of Sex and the City.
Boundless's open letter to that has a basis.
The issue is not why CT reviewed the movie. It's how they reviewed the movie.
44. DannieA said the following at 12:03 PM on Jun 18:
Hey Ted. Thanks for clarifying and answering my comment/question.
for what it's worth, I don't think you're a caricature. :)
45. Samuel PG said the following at 12:15 PM on Jun 18:
One thing that may prove useful in this sort of discussion/debate would be for all of us to refrain from dismissing those who disagree with us with a stereotype. It is much too easy to say that those who are opposed to SATC are ignorant, sheltered, blind, deaf, or ::gasp:: Fundamentalist. On the other hand, it is too simplistic to say that those who see redeeming qualities in SATC do not care what the Bible says, about Jesus teaching, about what is clear and obvious to all God-fearing Christians. I am not saying that both sides of the argument are correct, I would just like to point out that it appears that these issues are not equally evident or clear to all Christians and that telling those who disagree with us that they are clearly wrong and just need to see it is neither edifying nor persuasive. Perhaps we can focus more on issues than on the character of commenters we do not know.
46. xeres said the following at 12:52 PM on Jun 18:
Sam (#45) and Naomi (#43),
amen to that :)
47. Rebecca LuElla Miller said the following at 1:32 PM on Jun 18:
Ted, thanks for taking the time to respond to my comment. I certainly think a call for purity is in order, and yes, we live in an upside down world.
I very much believe that Jesus set the standard for purity and righteousness, but He was not just some well-known guy. His word is Authority.
I think I get into big trouble when I take His words and the conviction they bring and apply them to other people, even to organizations I hope have Biblical standards.
For one thing, we cannot assume everyone else thinks the same, especially across generations.
As an example, consider swim wear for a moment. Several generations ago, what now appears as modest swim apparel would have been shocking to a good number of people. Does that mean that suits considered modest by today's standard are OK because they are modest or not OK because they were once shocking?
The answer is, Neither. The question must be resolved in the heart and mind of the person looking on--and in the heart and mind of the wearer, I might add.
So too with entertainment. By stamping something "safe" or "unsafe" (crossing a threshold or not), we can actually deflect attention from the heart of a matter--or the matter of the heart.
It is important for each of us to develop a sensitivity to God's standards as He laid them out in Scripture, but American Christianity seems to be replacing discernment with institutional approval.
Rather than giving or withholding an endorsement, I would much rather see a discussion by the CT reviewers and by Plugged In Online centered on how the themes of the movie were or were not consistent with Scripture.
For one thing, we must never expect the world to produce something with a Christian worldview or with Christian standards. Once upon a time, the Judeo-Christian culture had influence in American culture at large, but even that was window dressing.
Frankly, I agree with you--I don't think, in many cases, that it's all that hard to make a determination about what is or is not consistent with God's word. From what little I know about SiTC, I'd have to be tied up and dragged into the theater before I'd see it.
I can and should express my opinion within my sphere of influence, but not couched as a determinative statement for others.
In essence I would weaken them by doing their thinking for them. My opinion should be a tool that points them to Scripture so they can make up their own mind.
Coincidentally, last week I wrote a short series of blog posts on Safe Fiction. In one I gave an example of a movie that was thematically left unchallenged (to this day it is considered one of the top classic films) but may have had the greatest negative impact on our culture of any movie. Where is our ability to judge rightly?
When it comes to discernment, we Christians are falling asleep at the wheel. More and more we rely on others to tell us what to think.
What we should be doing is uniting to tell people to think for themselves, to examine Scripture for themselves.
How can anything but good come if people are opening their Bibles to see what movies they should go to?
Becky
48. Shannon said the following at 4:37 PM on Jun 18:
Thank God Jesus - divine and therefore the only true example of purity - wasn't as judgmental as others have been about Camerin's review. There's a whole lot of stone-winging in this flock. It's not surprising non-believers find us foolish and undesirable when we so quickly attack our own.
The Pharisees were convinced that they were caretakers of the truth too.
49. Ted Slater said the following at 5:06 PM on Jun 18:
Shannon -- that wouldn't be a stone you just threw, would it? Kinda felt like it.
50. Rich said the following at 5:24 PM on Jun 18:
Shannon,
Ted is right....you are doing the very same thing he's doing. The only difference is that you are doing it passive-aggressively.
There've been a few comments on this blog that do that. I'm surprised more folks don't catch on to how vacuous those responses are.
51. xeres said the following at 5:30 PM on Jun 18:
Shannon,
While it is messed up how judgmental people can be, your comment was a passive-agressive pot-shot. Though I don't blame you for being displeased with 'Blind Fundamentalism' at all, that pot-shot ISN'T any more loving than saying any Christian who are fans of SATC and any other chick flicks are dismissive of sexual and relational issues.
However, I admit that Ted kinda needs to cool off.
52. Samuel PG said the following at 1:41 AM on Jun 19:
I live in California, where gay marriages have been legally performed for a couple of days now. Needless to say, the opinions/letters to the editor section has been filled with people on both sides flinging cliches at each other. Both sides are doing a poor job of helping anything, but those in support of gay marriage (or at least against those against it) have pointed again and again to Jesus' famous point about stone-throwing. I find it sad and a little humorous, because when Jesus was referring to stone-throwing, He was not using a cliche or a metaphor or any sort of figurative speech, but was speaking about the most literal sort of stone-throwing, where chunks of rock were actually hurled by people at people.
Of course this passage of Scripture is useful in teaching us many other things than about the proper use of capital punishment for adultery, but we might just be a little too loose in our interpretation of His intended meaning. If, hypothetically, SATC is inherently sinful and does harm to those who watch it and Christianity Today did come across as encouraging Christians to watch it, then by calling that a sin on CT's part and calling on them to repent is really in no way comparable to throwing a stone. Even if Ted is wrong about SATC being harmful or CT endorsing it, that would not make his call to repentance a thrown stone but a call to repentance that wasn't necessary.
While I am at it, please allow me to address one more common Biblical idea that is thrown around too flagrantly in my newspaper (and maybe on this blog). This is constant reminder that "Jesus told us not to judge" (or as one writer in today's paper misquoted the Bible, "Thou shall not judge").
In Matthew 7, Jesus tells us not to judge because in the same way we judge others we too will be judged. This seems to indicate that when we recognize something as sinful as someone else, it proves that we can not claim ignorance when we are judged of that sin before God. Thus, if I know it was sinful for you to steal, then I also knew that it was sinful for me to steal. Jesus, of course, goes on to talk about the plank and the speck of sawdust in the eye, which is also commonly misused. He didn't tell us not to remove the sawdust from our brother's eye, but to remove the plank from our own eye first so that we can see properly to help our brother.
We might also want to take up for consideration 1 Corinthians 5:12, "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?"
If we are to judge one another within the Church for edification, surely it must be done with love and without pride, but I do not see any hint that Ted strayed from those guidelines.
53. Joseph said the following at 6:33 PM on Jun 19:
[Quote]Joseph, you ask, "Didn't Focus on the Family hire someone to watch and review SatC as well?"
Yes, Plugged In Online provided a very astute, very helpful review of this movie.[/Quote]
Ted, the reason why I ask is because of this segment from your entry:
[Quote]Sometimes we have to choose not to watch something that will pollute our souls, even though that thing has the potential to help us grapple with important themes. Even though the trailers look fascinating. It's not worth the cost.[/Quote]
Doesn't the fact that Plugged In Online watched and reviewed SaTC contradict what you're saying? That people shouldn't watch the film?
54. Ted Slater said the following at 10:04 PM on Jun 19:
Joseph, I'm not calling for a boycott. I'm not demanding that Christians not watch this film. That is a caricature that some are creating of me, but that's not what I'm calling for.
Sure, I confess that I doubt the spiritual maturity of Christians who watch this movie to "enjoy" it, but I leave it up to each person's conscience as to whether or not they view it.
We've already discussed Plugged In's reviewing this film. Take a look at this and this to get a sense of my thoughts on it.
Maybe also check out this post by Gene Veith for a good overview of pretty much what I believe. Note, especially, point number 3.
It seems like you're trying to play "gotcha" here. Is that the case, or are you sincerely wrestling with this issue?
55. Abigail said the following at 3:57 PM on Jun 20:
Hmm, they say that viewing the world through the eyes of the depraved is good. Do they ever consider that we, not only the non-Christians, are depraved (not being glorified yet)?
56. Keith Walters said the following at 8:17 PM on Jun 24:
In a way I find this whole ordeal ironic. After all can you even trust a magazine or its film critics if they both claim to be Christian and watch soft-core porn. Maybe they should change the title to Christianity Yesterday because any "Christian Organization" who would ask individuals to watch pornography so that other Christians could know that this porno had a plot clearly has issues.
Shouldn't we look to "Chrisian film critics" to help us discern things in pop-culture and yet by their viewing this film they have clearly demonstrated a complete lack of what we are looking to them to demonstrate.
57. Cassandra said the following at 12:51 PM on Jul 2:
One of the issues that seems to be coming up is whether or not a movie is worthwhile viewing for Christians despite its immorality if it depicts Christian values such as forgiveness, community, etc. This has come to my attention recently as my church has started showing secular movies after our Sunday evening service and leading discussions afterwards. I object to that idea on two grounds. Firstly, something good or worthwile appearing in a film does not inoculate the promotion of sin in that film.
Secondly, and perhaps more concerningly, is this idea I'm seeing everywhere (from Christians) that goodness is achievable without Christ. What value are feel-good concepts such as love and forgiveness without Christ? Do we achieve goodness on our own without Him? Who is going to come to Christ by watching a woman forgive her friend in a film? People come to Christ because of Christ. So then what's the point of "Christian values" if their author isn't even addressed? Can Christians evangelize through the culturally safe and palatable concept of love, or do we need to hold up the God from whom that love flows? And then accept His other teachings, such as fleeing temptation and sexual immorality?
58. Felicia Nomiko said the following at 8:59 AM on Mar 20:
Hello. I'm new to the podcast, just found it a could of days ago. I'm zipping through them to catch up and just wanted to say, you were right on. No self respecting christian should be endorsing this show. There is nothing that I saw in the few clips I've seen. It certainly doesn't glorify God in way shape or form. Kudos to you Ted for speaking your mind.
59. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 9:26 AM on Mar 20:
CT has long been "neo-evangelical", and every year it's becoming more and more "neo", and less and less "evangelical".