# Since we're confessing.... I saw Meet the...you know....



## BlackCalvinist (Jan 10, 2005)

... and it was HILARIOUS!  The PG-13 rating is pretty much deserved because there are some very risque jokes, but very little or no profanity, outside of the obvious 'last name that sounds close to a curse word'. 

You DO have to see the first movie before some of the jokes in this movie (like Jinx the cat flushing the toilet) make sense to you. Overall, it was a nice movie about families, trying to impress folks and living up to someone else's standards. There are some obvious moral problems in the movie (i.e. Greg and Pam live together prior to marriage), but if you simply want a good laugh, this movie's a good one to go to. There's a reason why it's still number one since it's opening....


----------



## no1special18 (Jan 10, 2005)

*First one was better*

I thought the first one was better, but there are some funny parts in this one. I did feel awkward at times though, because I saw it with my girlfriend, and Barbra Strysand is a sex therapist, so you can imagine some things that would come from that to make me feel weird while I was sitting by her.


----------



## pastorway (Jan 10, 2005)

sure - a little sin is good for a laugh now and then...... 

It seems to me that the church in America is entertaining itself to death and will settle for anything to keep us laughing.

Phillip


----------



## Authorised (Jan 10, 2005)

Pastoral Prude?


How do you justify watching Braveheart or any other movie?


Or much less, reading any good literature?

[Edited on 11-1-2005 by Authorised]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 11, 2005)

the Bible isnt exactly 'g' rated plenty of sex and violence there. 

blade


----------



## LawrenceU (Jan 11, 2005)

Aaron,
Do you realise you are rebuking an elder? At least it appears that way.

Blade,
Yes, but the Bible is inspired by God, and sin is never rewarded.

Although, Braveheart was a 'good' movie from the stand point of 'manliness and freedom, it was terrible historically, it contained scenes of fornication that were absolutely unnecessary.

Philip is dead on target when it comes to the lowering of standards that exist within a great majority of those claiming the name of Christ. It is no wonder that we no longer have an effective witness. We are losing our saltiness. Sitting around and discussing theology or the latest interpretation is not the essence of Christian living. As a matter of fact Jesus' strongest words of condemenation were those whose lives mirror a great majority of what goes on in the Church today. We really shouldn't have such a knee jerk reaction of defensiveness when someone points to our lifestyle as is so common now.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jan 11, 2005)

Amen Lawrence.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 11, 2005)

I and others have posted some comments relevant to this issue on this earlier thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=8119


----------



## Ianterrell (Jan 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> Aaron,
> Do you realise you are rebuking an elder? At least it appears that way.
> 
> ...



Good posts from Pastor Way and Lawrence...food for thought certainly.


----------



## no1special18 (Jan 11, 2005)

*True*

I think you guys have a point. There are a lot of movies that I should have walked out on... actually, that I probably should not have gone to, and I would say "Meet the..." is definitely one of them.

What is worse, though, is that I took my girlfriend (who is brand new to reformed theology) with me. I do see an inconsistency between my faith and in the movies that I watch. Therefore, it is my hope (by God's Grace) that I will be more careful in choosing what I will let into my mind.


----------



## pastorway (Jan 11, 2005)

Prude or Puritan? Are we not called to be holy? Lawrence has answered well enough.

And yes, I need to be careful in the movies I watch, just as we all do. In reality here is what caught my eye in reading the description of this particular movie:



> The PG-13 rating is pretty much deserved because there are some very *risque jokes* - There are some obvious moral problems in the movie (i.e. Greg and Pam *live together prior to marriage*)



*Ephesians 5*
3But *fornication* and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; 4neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor *coarse jesting*, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5For this you know, that *no fornicator*, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6Let no one deceive you with empty words, for* because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7Therefore do not be partakers with them*. 



> very little or no profanity



*Ephesians 4*
29Let *no corrupt word* proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers.



> but if you simply want a good *laugh*, this movie's a *good* one to go to



*Proverbs 14*
9Fools *mock at sin*, but among the upright there is favor. 

*Isaiah 5*
20Woe 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! 

So I ask again - is this prudish? Or are we people of the Book?? Jesus had a radical view of sin. He said, "if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire."

Perhaps we all laugh and are entertained by sin because we forget that the wages of sin is still death.

Phillip


----------



## Authorised (Jan 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> Aaron,
> Do you realise you are rebuking an elder? At least it appears that way.
> 
> ...




I did not mean that to "rebuke" pastorway, not at all. I am in no position to do any rebuking here. I realized afterward that the word "prude" may not have had the same connotation that I wished to convey, so I started I separate thread where I hoped this issue could be more fully developed. 

Pastorway, Lawrence, please accept my apologies for being so defensive. I did not at all mean to resort to "name-calling," nor did I intend to "rebuke" any elder here. I should have phrased my statements in this thread far differently than I did.


----------



## Authorised (Jan 11, 2005)

> Good posts from Pastor Way and Lawrence...food for thought certainly.




Amen as well. I admit, I need to be a lot more careful about what I let fill my mind, especially regarding movies.


----------



## pastorway (Jan 11, 2005)

Thank you for clarifying your intent! And for the opportunity in the new thread to really dig in and see what the Bible says about how we entertain ourselves.

Yours and His,
Phillip


----------



## LawrenceU (Jan 11, 2005)

Thanks as well. God will honour that 'digging in'. May we all strive to be holy as God is holy.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jan 13, 2005)

Wow. A lot of 'me too'ism here. 

I sat for a day or three and prayed on how and whether or not to answer this thread at all, especially since I've had or seen discussions on here discussing everything from references to Chappelle's Show, to Law and Order to CSI to Bob Marley. 

We could just as easily say  speaking on CSI: "Oh, so discovering who savagely murdered someone is entertainment now ? Maybe we find it so enthralling because we fail to realize the wages of sin is death...."

As a movie, Meet the..... personswithalastnamethatsoundstooclosetoacursewordtotypeonthisboard wasn't any worse than most things that come on regular TV now, some past 'great' literary works (*coughMacBethOedipusRexAntigonecough*), or (minus the language) some of the more 'R' rated stories in scripture. 

There is a bit of a 'disconnect' between some of the things we ALL watch, read, etc... and Who we profess to serve. I'm a sure a "....... 'good' movie from the stand point of 'manliness and freedom" could've been easily ripped apart with a scripture interspersed every three words in the same fashion.....but I digress.

That being said.... where's the line between holiness and asceticism ? How far do we disconnect from the culture without failing to understand it and no longer be able to communicate to those outside of our doors ? And please - no platitudes about 'the gospel is timeless' - THIS IS TRUE, but _how_ we communicate the gospel is the matter here and how we interact with the culture, including our knowledge of the culture (so that we can properly critique it) is the issue I speak on. John Piper communicates the gospel effectively and truthfully, but without sounding like William Whitacre, Jonathan Edwards or John Calvin (while TEACHING like them...).

I watch movies, listen to various types of music for three reasons. Number one (and most important), I'm an educator, so in order to connect with kids, I _need_ to speak the language and know what's going on in their world. A lot of _their world_ is found in the music they listen to. So what they listen to, I listen to and critique it. There is a BIBLICAL version of 'felt needs' in scripture - that is, where we reach out to those hurting and looking for help AND AT THE SAME TIME present the gospel to them. 

Second, historically, there's nothing too new in the area of entertainment. So I give kids a history lesson in the area of music (for example) when they hear something 'new' and think that no one's ever done it before.

Third is that I critique it as a musician. Some of it, from a musicians' standpoint, I really do find enjoyable and aesthetically pleasing (in some cases, minus the lyrics!). So I point my kids to examples of quality music and garbage music. 

Paul did the same thing at the Areopagus. He quoted a pagan poet who was writing a poem about Zeus.......and related it to the Living and True God. I don't think Paul was simply reading or watching sports in his time strictly looking for analogies to use in writing scripture.

Some things I _can_ listen to or watch by myself or with select people with a clear conscience. Some folks, I can't and _don't_ talk about certain movies and things around.... simply because their consciences might be bothered by it (as it seems to be the case in this thread). Some folks are prudish and believe that anything remotely resembling modern society is evil.... others don't (i.e.- I know some folks in Wva who don't believe in switching their clocks back for daylight savings time.... their argument: "Don't mess with God's time!" ) and while I never discount for one second the depravity of human hearts, I also never discount that God's restraining of human evil allows us to come with some pretty cool stuff from time to time that actually is of use, or a source of pleasure (without necessarily having to be associated with the church) and that some things are strictly for entertainment purposes. I don't plan on 'calling evil good' with my review of MTF listed above (and even posted that there were some OBVIOUS MORAL PROBLEMS WITH THE MOVIE), but as a comedy, the movie was FUNNY. And you've got to be a heartless automaton to not think a cat flushing a dog down the toilet and the father of the groom breaking the entire toilet off and getting the dog out (who is now dyed BLUE from the toilet water) funny. 

As one person rightly posted to me via PM.... sometimes this board does have a tendency to drift toward legalism.

fin.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 13, 2005)

Just for clarification:
I made the reference to CSI on this board and I have not made any comments on this thread until now. I am not going to see it for reasons not yet mentioned: I thought Ben Stiller's character in the first movie was spineless (the gf wasnt much better). If I were he I would have gone country on that whole-family.

I am not saying that movie is morally wrong, per se, I just have grievances against Ben Stiller.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 13, 2005)

Last thing I want to see is you in a camel skin


----------



## sailorswife (Jan 13, 2005)

How come when anyone strives or encourages others to strive for purity they are called a legalist?

I was rebuked by Pastorway's comments, I am too easily looking for entertainment in things I have no business partaking in.

Would any of us sit down and plop in the ridiculous movies we do if we were standing in the presence of our holy Saviour?

I waste far too much time on worldy pleasure, the really sickening part about it is when I am at church and something I have watched on TV or in a movie distracts me from worship. I don't know if this happens to anyone else, but it does me.

[Edited on 14-1-2005 by sailorswife]


----------



## Ivan (Jan 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sailorswife_
> How come when anyone strives or encourages others to strive for purity they are called a legalist?



Pure or legal, to tell you the truth, most of the time I don't even know what everyone is talking about when this TV program or that movie is mentioned, at least not the more recent ones. And I don't know if it's a matter of purity for me, I simply don't have the time for them.

[Edited on 1-14-2005 by Ivan]


----------



## a mere housewife (Jan 13, 2005)

I agree, Anne. I find myself spending so much time looking for my own entertainment, and my time is not my own. And I wander far more in worship to entertainment, than I do during entertainment to worship.

Legalism in Scripture was not holding to higher standards than someone else, or encouraging someone else to hold to them, too. Legalism was attaching requirements to the gospel that were never there: making our standing with God dependent on our works in any way. I don't believe anyone in this thread has suggested that, on either side of the issue.

Paul, I don't think the culture is going to be redeemed that way. But you might live longer...


----------



## MICWARFIELD (Jan 14, 2005)

Sailorswife said:

"when I am at church and something I have watched on TV or in a movie distracts me from worship. I don't know if this happens to anyone else, but it does me."


I've never had that happen to me before, but I do remember very clearly a time in my christian life when I destroyed all my non-christian cd's and refused to go to the movies or even watch TV. All I wanted to do was pray, meditate on the scriptures and not be tainted by anything "worldly".

But then I discovered something. When I went to church, my wicked heart went with me. Even though I cleared my life of all things I understood to be worldly, and would spend hours a day in prayer and communion with God, I would still deal with distraction and evil thoughts on the Lords day.

The problem wasnt movies - it was and is my sinful heart. If the Spirt convicts you about an influence that drives you away from Christ and into sin then you must take heed. But that same thing may not be a stumbling block for your brother.

If I were standing in the presence of our saviour would I be plopping in "the ridiculous movies"? No. I also wouldnt be water skiing, or grocery shopping, or paying my bills. I would be on my face in utter adoration and worship. What else could we do?

Mike


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> Paul did the same thing at the Areopagus. He quoted a pagan poet who was writing a poem about Zeus.......and related it to the Living and True God. I don't think Paul was simply reading or watching sports in his time strictly looking for analogies to use in writing scripture.


----------



## sailorswife (Jan 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by MICWARFIELD_
> Sailorswife said:
> 
> "when I am at church and something I have watched on TV or in a movie distracts me from worship. I don't know if this happens to anyone else, but it does me."
> ...



I don't disagree with you at all here, I could never watch a movie again and still be distracted in worship because of my sinful heart. 

I don't think it is wrong to enjoy movies or entertainment all together but I for one look for it too much and I believe our society in general does also. It also numbs us to sin, for instance in this movie that started the thread, Meet the .....'s, it was stated that the couple lives together. Years ago that would be culturally unexeptable but today it is no big deal at all. I have several non Christian friends who have lived with their spouse before marriage and for them it was completely normal, in fact when I was engaged to Patrick I had one person (who obviously didn't know us well at all) that was surprised to find out we weren't living together before we got married!

I remember when I was a kid, probably only 8 or 9 years old watching the movie Beverly Hills Cop with my older cousins. My grandma happened to walk in the room while we were watching the movie. My grandma was a very sweet little old Christian lady, well she got MAD when she saw what we were watching and the filthy language that was used and of course made us stop watching it. That should be my reaction, not indifference, or even worse feeling entertained.


----------



## sailorswife (Jan 14, 2005)

> Heidi,
> 
> I don't think I mentioned legalism. I just applied the line of thinking to other situations where someone could use the same argument. I find some of it a bit overreactive. Also, if one of us went to apply for a job at say a Christian school and they required no drinking, dancing and smoking for a policy of conduct would we sign it? I say no because man does not have a right to bind my conscious.




I think Heidi mention of legalism was not directed towards your comments but in reference to my comments and I was refering to this comment!:




> As one person rightly posted to me via PM.... sometimes this board does have a tendency to drift toward legalism


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jan 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sailorswife_
> It also numbs us to sin, for instance in this movie that started the thread, Meet the .....'s, it was stated that the couple lives together.



Indeed. 

I'll also admit to having seen this movie with my mom (not that I'm going to launch into a long excuse here)... The biggest problem is that Robert De Niro's character, who stands for conservative values, albeit minus obvious Christian foundations for them, is portrayed as too uptight, unloving, and an all-around jerk. The F. family, who are liberal and loose in their morality, are the "good" guys, and the conclusion has the De Niro character realizing what a jerk he is and admitting that the F.'s are right. 

Now, as Christians, we can look at it and see that nobody is right. The F.'s are (rightly) proponents of affection for children and (rightly) criticize De Niro's (sorry can't remember the character's name) overemphasize on competition and winning. De Niro is somehow under the impression that the correct way to treat a baby is to deprive him of all affection so he learns to soothe himself. This strange idea about babies is rather humorous, but we never see a middle ground. Realizing that we should be loving and accepting (note: I use this term without the "acceptance of sin" connotations) of our family members does not mean we should then abandon all moral standards whatsoever, as the movie would tend to imply.

But then, I don't know how much worse off I am for having seen it, since I don't think I actually bought into that viewpoint. To be honest, most of the funniest parts (such as the blue dog scene) had nothing to do with making fun of sin and everything to do with making fun of characters. There were rather immoral parts, but it would be unfair to say that the majority of the humor came from laughing at immorality. It is, quite frankly, better written than that.

I can see both sides of this debate. I probably won't be watching the movie again, but I think there is ground in the movie on which to engage the culture (as Paul would put it); most particularly, there is an opportunity to discuss the application of conservative values to a genuinely loving family unit and to discuss how we can demonstrate this alternative in our own families. But for those who would be led astray by it (I will add, however, that though there are references to fornication, there are no depictions of it), I certainly wouldn't think you a "legalist" for avoiding it. No one has a Christian duty to see this movie, or any other.

[Edited on 14-1-2005 by Ex Nihilo]


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jan 14, 2005)

Astute observations on the movie, Evie. You pointed out a LOT of good things on the movie that could be used as a springboard into evangelism.

I wouldn't paint anyone a 'legalist' for avoiding it, neither would I necessarily condemn anyone for seeing it. At the very least, someone has to see it to evaluate it. 

I *will* say that I agree that too much sin numbs you to it. I don't visit and see _every_ movie that comes out and there are a few movies that I _won't_ see due to content (language, too many sex scenes, etc....). But your post and your analysis of the movie shows that being able to critically analyze (even after the entertainment is done) a movie down to its' moral components, stereotypes and such and gives you an opportunity (especially with your unsaved friend who might've also seen the movie) to show that the 'conservatives' aren't always uptight, stiff and rigid like De Niro's charachter.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jan 31, 2005)

Paul, I haven't been online in a couple of weeks, so I didn't see your post-- no, I didn't mean by trying to clarify legalism to accuse you of using the term. Actually my thoughts about what you said, were more to wonder whether redeeming the culture is as fundamental as your satire seems to indicate... don't we do things for other reasons, for instance, to lose weight and be a good steward of our bodies? In seeing movies, is my only consideration-- or even my primary one-- whether I can use the movie to redeem the culture?

How does it factor in, that in a movie, it's not just that sin is being portrayed-- but that sin is often being committed by the actors involved? I'm not trying to enforce my point of view, but I do struggle with helping to pay an actor to compromise his or her eternal soul. How does that factor in? It has to come in somewhere.... I just struggle with being entertained by things that the actors are going to have to die for. For me, the most hideous , and maybe the most irreedemable, way that sin can be represented is the way that makes me forget how serious it is: wasn't that the devil's first lie to Eve-- “thou shalt not surely die?” 

I never caught the thread about discretion: can you link to that? Actually I find the verse in Phillippians about “whatsoever things are true,” to be a good rule of discretion. I think everyone is going to have to sit through things that are fairly worthless. But I think the point is to "approve things that are excellent"-- to seek those things, and not the other. I guess I find that there are enough things out there that aren't naïve about the world in which we live, or about the consequences of sin, that I wouldn't have to seek out the ones that are-- really, about both.

I'm sorry for dragging the discussion back out again: but I am interested in the questions raised...


----------

