# Is the acting profession compatible with Godliness?



## JennyG

....I have a long-running internal battle over this one. In my heart of hearts I don't really believe it can be, since it's basically the skill of pretending to be what you are not - surely a kind of deception. Child actors particularly worry me, even in non-offensive productions. 
But then on the other hand some drama/film does seem harmless, and even potentially productive of good.


----------



## Skyler

My question would be if acting the part of an evildoer is itself wrong, or to what extent it can be taken before it is wrong.


----------



## Andres

Skyler said:


> My question would be if acting the part of an evildoer is itself wrong, or to what extent it can be taken before it is wrong.


 
I personally couldn't justify sex scenes or even just kissing any woman not my wife.


----------



## Montanablue

Is writing a piece of fiction or telling a story in the 1st person wrong? I can see some issues with acting and being involved in theatre, but deception is not one of them. Everyone knows that an actor is an actor. Its not as though they're a con person. 

My sister is a set and costume designer (for a secular theatre) and its been very interesting to hear her talk about being a Christian in the art world. There are certainly things that one must be careful about (like in any profession) and she's had to make some difficult decisions about whether she wants to support certain performances. (She's only bowed out of one). In general though, she's been able to work on some wonderful performances that have conveyed truth. I think by using proper discernment and being charitable and gracious when you do have to take a stand, a Christian can be an excellent witness to this community - and to society. We NEED Christians involved in the arts - theatre, music, writing etc. We have a unique perspective that we should be sharing with the world and the arts is one of many ways that we can convey truth.


----------



## raekwon

Acting and lying are not the same thing.


----------



## JennyG

raekwon said:


> Acting and lying are not the same thing.


no....but what is it doing to the actor's own psyche? especially a child actor. I've never acted, but even so a lot of my personal war against sin has involved the struggle to "live in the light" and be transparent always


----------



## Galatians220

The Protestant Reformed Church argues against drama in this manner. I have a pamphlet of theirs that's very good (if I could find it; in order for them to send it to me in the first place, they asked me first why I wanted it and I had to tell them of what church I was a member and they did check me out to make sure I wasn't connected to the secular media). The pamphlet (entitled, I think, "The Evil of Drama") argues vehemently that no one made in the image and likeness of God should pretend to be something they're not. A person who "plays" a murderer or a thief or an adulterer assumes that character for the length of time they're playing the role, and people should not kick open the door to the devil in this manner. All drama is "false-playing," the PRC asserts, and it is evil. Whatever starts out as a lie or a series of lies is not something for a child of God to become enmeshed in.

I don't practice this in my own life, at least not yet. Gradually, though, the range of "drama" that doesn't make me squeamish is getting smaller and smaller. For example, I used to like the movie "Brief Encounter" (1946) with Trevor Howard and Celia Johnson. In watching it recently, I see that for many reasons, I shouldn't be watching it. I own the DVD and so I've put it away. "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" glorifies violence; Lee Marvin, who played Valance, was a remarkably evil villain. Not, then, probably, a "good" movie. 

On the other hand, the PRC does celebrate Christmas and Easter, and one could make an argument that these are man-made fabrications of another sort, so...???

No one's perfect; no one is walking in perfect lockstep with the Lord as long as they're on earth. We keep taking baby steps towards that as long as we're being sanctified. And that's a great blessing!

Margaret


----------



## KMK

If playing a 'role' is ungodly, we better stop our children from playing 'cowboys and indians'.


----------



## JennyG

Galatians220 said:


> The Protestant Reformed Church argues against drama in this manner. I have a pamphlet of theirs that's very good (if I could find it; in order for them to send it to me in the first place, they asked me first why I wanted it and I had to tell them of what church I was a member and they did check me out to make sure I wasn't connected to the secular media). The pamphlet (entitled, I think, "The Evil of Drama") argues vehemently that no one made in the image and likeness of God should pretend to be something they're not. A person who "plays" a murderer or a thief or an adulterer assumes that character for the length of time they're playing the role, and people should not kick open the door to the devil in this manner. All drama is "false-playing," the PRC asserts, and it is evil. Whatever starts out as a lie or a series of lies is not something for a child of God to become enmeshed in.
> 
> I don't practice this in my own life, at least not yet. Gradually, though, the range of "drama" that doesn't make me squeamish is getting smaller and smaller. For example, I used to like the movie "Brief Encounter" (1946) with Trevor Howard and Celia Johnson. In watching it recently, I see that for many reasons, I shouldn't be watching it. I own the DVD and so I've put it away. "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" glorifies violence; Lee Marvin, who played Valance, was a remarkably evil villain. Not, then, probably, a "good" movie.
> 
> On the other hand, the PRC does celebrate Christmas and Easter, and one could make an argument that these are man-made fabrications of another sort, so...???
> 
> No one's perfect; no one is walking in perfect lockstep with the Lord as long as they're on earth. We keep taking baby steps towards that as long as we're being sanctified. And that's a great blessing!
> 
> Margaret


Thank you, Margaret - I realise that articulates a lot of what has been mainly uneasy hunch with me. Maybe it is something that time brings home and makes clearer, too.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Galatians220 said:


> I don't practice this in my own life, at least not yet. Gradually, though, the range of "drama" that doesn't make me squeamish is getting smaller and smaller. For example, I used to like the movie "Brief Encounter" (1946) with Trevor Howard and Celia Johnson. In watching it recently, I see that for many reasons, I shouldn't be watching it. I own the DVD and so I've put it away. * "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" glorifies violence; Lee Marvin, who played Valance, was a remarkably evil villain. Not, then, probably, a "good" movie. *
> Margaret


 
Can you define “glorify” in this context? I’m a huge fan of “Valance” and I fail to see how it glorifies violence at all. Neither Valance’s character nor his actions are held in very high regard throughout the movie. Neither are they glorified. Valance is portrayed as pure evil. Both the Jimmy Stewart and John Wayne characters are tormented with their actions for a long time after the event. Stewart is seen as righting a wrong, and, by that action, gaining a certain amount of notoriety. But I would not call that glorifying violence.

To answer the OP, I see nothing wrong with acting as a profession per se. Being involved with particular individual performances is another matter.


----------



## he beholds

I think that things (most or all) in and of themselves are neither bad nor good--but it is what one does with these things that determines their "morality." I think acting would fit under that umbrella. If one is acting in order to sin or cause others to sin (ie: p0rnography), it is of course wrong. But if one is not causing sin, but exemplifying the good or critiquing sin, then I cannot agree that it is wrong. Even if someone were playing a sinner, I don't think that has to be wrong; in fact, of course he'd be playing a sinner--to be human is to sin.


----------



## py3ak

I have sometimes pretended that I am a loaf of bread. Now in one sense that pretense denied my rational(!), immortal nature, and put a viceroy of creation on the same level as baked, processed wheat flour. It's odd that I don't feel more denigrated by that.

The hypocrisy/pretending is evil argument doesn't convince me at all. There are two other arguments, though, which may have more weight, or at least are shorter roads to condemning the profession of actor in a high percentage of its possible instantiations. One has to do with Skyler's questions: at a certain point, pretending to do wrong becomes wrong doing. It's hard to imagine that you will be held guiltless for taking the Lord's name in vain if you say, "I was just pretending". The other is that the more you find out about the career of any given actor/actress the more lasting the impression becomes that it is practically impossible to act professionally and not, in effect, be a prostitute (in movies: theater and opera may be easier). Of course, that's my impression of the possibilities for an inductive argument, and is not based on any research.


----------



## Berean

Galatians220 said:


> The Protestant Reformed Church argues against drama in this manner. I have a pamphlet of theirs that's very good (if I could find it; in order for them to send it to me in the first place, they asked me first why I wanted it and I had to tell them of what church I was a member and they did check me out to make sure I wasn't connected to the secular media). The pamphlet (entitled, I think, "The Evil of Drama") argues vehemently that no one made in the image and likeness of God should pretend to be something they're not...
> Margaret


 
Is this it, Margaret? The Evil of Drama


----------



## Skyler

py3ak said:


> I have sometimes pretended that I am a loaf of bread. Now in one sense that pretense denied my rational(!), immortal nature, and put a viceroy of creation on the same level as baked, processed wheat flour. It's odd that I don't feel more denigrated by that.


 
That is odd.


----------



## he beholds

py3ak said:


> I have sometimes pretended that I am a loaf of bread. Now in one sense that pretense denied my rational(!), immortal nature, and put a viceroy of creation on the same level as baked, processed wheat flour. It's odd that I don't feel more denigrated by that.
> 
> The hypocrisy/pretending is evil argument doesn't convince me at all. There are two other arguments, though, which may have more weight, or at least are shorter roads to condemning the profession of actor in a high percentage of its possible instantiations. One has to do with Skyler's questions: at a certain point, pretending to do wrong becomes wrong doing. *It's hard to imagine that you will be held guiltless for taking the Lord's name in vain if you say, "I was just pretending". * The other is that the more you find out about the career of any given actor/actress the more lasting the impression becomes that it is practically impossible to act professionally and not, in effect, be a prostitute (in movies: theater and opera may be easier). Of course, that's my impression of the possibilities for an inductive argument, and is not based on any research.


 
Pretending to take the Lord's name in vain is still taking the Lord's name in vain. Even doubly so, if that's possible.
I think sinning (even if it's for an audience) is sinning. But pretending to murder someone is not really murdering someone.


----------



## Skyler

he beholds said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have sometimes pretended that I am a loaf of bread. Now in one sense that pretense denied my rational(!), immortal nature, and put a viceroy of creation on the same level as baked, processed wheat flour. It's odd that I don't feel more denigrated by that.
> 
> The hypocrisy/pretending is evil argument doesn't convince me at all. There are two other arguments, though, which may have more weight, or at least are shorter roads to condemning the profession of actor in a high percentage of its possible instantiations. One has to do with Skyler's questions: at a certain point, pretending to do wrong becomes wrong doing. *It's hard to imagine that you will be held guiltless for taking the Lord's name in vain if you say, "I was just pretending". * The other is that the more you find out about the career of any given actor/actress the more lasting the impression becomes that it is practically impossible to act professionally and not, in effect, be a prostitute (in movies: theater and opera may be easier). Of course, that's my impression of the possibilities for an inductive argument, and is not based on any research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretending to take the Lord's name in vain is still taking the Lord's name in vain. Even doubly so, if that's possible.
> I think sinning (even if it's for an audience) is sinning. But pretending to murder someone is not really murdering someone.
Click to expand...

 
How about when an actor "psyches up" for a role--cultivating the feelings the person he's playing would feel to make a more realistic scene?


----------



## he beholds

Skyler said:


> How about when an actor "psyches up" for a role--cultivating the feelings the person he's playing would feel to make a more realistic scene?


 If he's sinning, he's sinning.


----------



## Skyler

he beholds said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about when an actor "psyches up" for a role--cultivating the feelings the person he's playing would feel to make a more realistic scene?
> 
> 
> 
> If he's sinning, he's sinning.
Click to expand...

 
Touche. Acting isn't an excuse.


----------



## he beholds

Skyler said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about when an actor "psyches up" for a role--cultivating the feelings the person he's playing would feel to make a more realistic scene?
> 
> 
> 
> If he's sinning, he's sinning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Touche. Acting isn't an excuse.
Click to expand...

good call. i think that's a good way to think of it.


----------



## Idelette

I think on some level we all pretend to be people we're not. I mean we read books that transport us to different time periods and situations. We have our online identity that we try to portray, or our career identity at work....etc. We only show certain aspects of ourselves in certain situations. For example, your boss will only see a certain aspect of you where your husband or wife will see greater aspects of you. Is that being deceitful? I don't think so, it's simply displaying what's appropriate in that given context. So with acting, I think there is a context and pretense in which we all know and understand that it is not real. I don't think acting in and of itself is evil because the intent is not to deceive but simply to entertain. If that entertainment was based on sinful things or causes anyone to sin then a Christian has no place partaking in those evils. And there ARE films and writers that do have evil intent in the purpose of making certain films. In those situations the Christian needs to use discernment and honor God first in all things. There have been some excellent educational films such as Luther or fictional films such as Fireproof that can be quite profitable. And I think it's worthwhile to note that even while filming Fireproof, Kirk Cameron did not kiss his co-star, but kissed his own wife in the kissing scene. It's things like that, that the Christian should be known for....honoring God in all things!


----------



## Andres

Idelette said:


> I think on some level we all pretend to be people we're not. I mean we read books that transport us to different time periods and situations. We have our online identity that we try to portray, or our career identity at work....etc. We only show certain aspects of ourselves in certain situations. For example, your boss will only see a certain aspect of you where your husband or wife will see greater aspects of you. Is that being deceitful? I don't think so, it's simply displaying what's appropriate in that given context. So with acting, I think there is a context and pretense in which we all know and understand that it is not real. I don't think acting in and of itself is evil because the intent is not to deceive but simply to entertain. If that entertainment was based on sinful things or causes anyone to sin then a Christian has no place partaking in those evils. And there ARE films and writers that do have evil intent in the purpose of making certain films. In those situations the Christian needs to use discernment and honor God first in all things. There have been some excellent educational films such as Luther or fictional films such as Fireproof that can be quite profitable. And I think it's worthwhile to note that even while filming Fireproof, Kirk Cameron did not kiss his co-star, but kissed his own wife in the kissing scene. It's things like that, that the Christian should be known for....honoring God in all things!



sorry this is  but Fireproof was a ridiculously bad film. Yeah, sure the message was good, but these low budget, poorly-acted "Christian" movies have the world laughing at us and it's not because of the message.


----------



## he beholds

Andres said:


> Idelette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think on some level we all pretend to be people we're not. I mean we read books that transport us to different time periods and situations. We have our online identity that we try to portray, or our career identity at work....etc. We only show certain aspects of ourselves in certain situations. For example, your boss will only see a certain aspect of you where your husband or wife will see greater aspects of you. Is that being deceitful? I don't think so, it's simply displaying what's appropriate in that given context. So with acting, I think there is a context and pretense in which we all know and understand that it is not real. I don't think acting in and of itself is evil because the intent is not to deceive but simply to entertain. If that entertainment was based on sinful things or causes anyone to sin then a Christian has no place partaking in those evils. And there ARE films and writers that do have evil intent in the purpose of making certain films. In those situations the Christian needs to use discernment and honor God first in all things. There have been some excellent educational films such as Luther or fictional films such as Fireproof that can be quite profitable. And I think it's worthwhile to note that even while filming Fireproof, Kirk Cameron did not kiss his co-star, but kissed his own wife in the kissing scene. It's things like that, that the Christian should be known for....honoring God in all things!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry this is  but Fireproof was a ridiculously bad film. Yeah, sure the message was good, but these low budget, poorly-acted "Christian" movies have the world laughing at us and it's not because of the message.
Click to expand...


shhhhh. don't tell my husband! i just got this from netflix and he REALLY doesn't want to watch it! he even called me out on logical fallacies when i said, "you liked growing pains, right? and you are glad that kirk cameron is a Xian, right? SO..."
i am fully expecting cheese, but i'm ok with the occasional slice.


----------



## py3ak

Skyler said:


> That is odd.


 
It was the sectional's fault.


----------



## Galatians220

Berean said:


> Galatians220 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Protestant Reformed Church argues against drama in this manner. I have a pamphlet of theirs that's very good (if I could find it; in order for them to send it to me in the first place, they asked me first why I wanted it and I had to tell them of what church I was a member and they did check me out to make sure I wasn't connected to the secular media). The pamphlet (entitled, I think, "The Evil of Drama") argues vehemently that no one made in the image and likeness of God should pretend to be something they're not...
> Margaret
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this it, Margaret? The Evil of Drama
Click to expand...

 
Yes, it is - and *thank you very much!* Now I won't, of a *lazy* morning, feel inclined to tear through my pamphlets looking for it, because it's online now. Years ago, when I got the hard-copy version, the PRC was very reluctant to let it go to a non-member and I perfectly understood that.

Rev. Klein, could it be that kids playing cowboys 'n' Indians is permissible child's play, but an adult acting out a part like Peter Lorre played in "M" (a movie I mentioned in another thread) is a whole 'nother ball game? We play when we're little; girls emulate their moms and play with dolls, and boys play "tough," which is what they're supposed to be when they're adults, to a reasonable degree. I wonder.

"Fireproof" had a commendable message and Cameron was likewise in agreeing to kiss only his wife, but there were a couple of scenes in that movie that make people who were raised in abusive homes very uncomfortable. The scenes in which Cameron is screaming into his wife's face relentlessly, for example. I felt like walking out of the movie at those points. The message of "Fireproof" makes you gloss over the fact that the script is not at all well-written, the characters are drawn ridiculously broadly and it winds up basically as a caricature of itself. Too bad.

On the other hand, there's nothing commendable about a film like "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" in which Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton essentially played themselves. It's said that there was little "acting" in that movie. But for a Christian, it's unwatchable to the _nth_ degree.

Margaret


----------



## calgal

he beholds said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idelette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think on some level we all pretend to be people we're not. I mean we read books that transport us to different time periods and situations. We have our online identity that we try to portray, or our career identity at work....etc. We only show certain aspects of ourselves in certain situations. For example, your boss will only see a certain aspect of you where your husband or wife will see greater aspects of you. Is that being deceitful? I don't think so, it's simply displaying what's appropriate in that given context. So with acting, I think there is a context and pretense in which we all know and understand that it is not real. I don't think acting in and of itself is evil because the intent is not to deceive but simply to entertain. If that entertainment was based on sinful things or causes anyone to sin then a Christian has no place partaking in those evils. And there ARE films and writers that do have evil intent in the purpose of making certain films. In those situations the Christian needs to use discernment and honor God first in all things. There have been some excellent educational films such as Luther or fictional films such as Fireproof that can be quite profitable. And I think it's worthwhile to note that even while filming Fireproof, Kirk Cameron did not kiss his co-star, but kissed his own wife in the kissing scene. It's things like that, that the Christian should be known for....honoring God in all things!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry this is  but Fireproof was a ridiculously bad film. Yeah, sure the message was good, but these low budget, poorly-acted "Christian" movies have the world laughing at us and it's not because of the message.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> shhhhh. don't tell my husband! i just got this from netflix and he REALLY doesn't want to watch it! he even called me out on logical fallacies when i said, "you liked growing pains, right? and you are glad that kirk cameron is a Xian, right? SO..."
> i am fully expecting cheese, but i'm ok with the occasional slice.
Click to expand...

 
It was cheesy but the message was effective. DH liked it even with the cheese.


----------



## Galatians220

tcalbrecht said:


> Galatians220 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't practice this in my own life, at least not yet. Gradually, though, the range of "drama" that doesn't make me squeamish is getting smaller and smaller. For example, I used to like the movie "Brief Encounter" (1946) with Trevor Howard and Celia Johnson. In watching it recently, I see that for many reasons, I shouldn't be watching it. I own the DVD and so I've put it away. *"The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" glorifies violence; Lee Marvin, who played Valance, was a remarkably evil villain. Not, then, probably, a "good" movie. *
> Margaret
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you define “glorify” in this context? I’m a huge fan of “Valance” and I fail to see how it glorifies violence at all. Neither Valance’s character nor his actions are held in very high regard throughout the movie. Neither are they glorified. Valance is portrayed as pure evil. Both the Jimmy Stewart and John Wayne characters are tormented with their actions for a long time after the event. Stewart is seen as righting a wrong, and, by that action, gaining a certain amount of notoriety. But I would not call that glorifying violence.
> 
> To answer the OP, I see nothing wrong with acting as a profession per se. Being involved with particular individual performances is another matter.
Click to expand...

 
I saw "Valance" in a theater when it opened and people were hooting and yelling and screaming for Liberty Valance to "get it." Undecorous, to say the least. The scene in which the poor newspaperman is beaten to a pulp is something I turn away from when I see it now. "Valance" has always been my favorite western - even ahead of the original "Stagecoach" - but with more viewings, it just seems that the violence in it is a bit gratuitous. For my taste, anyway; maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree, which is fine!


----------



## Kevin

I have a great photo of myself in tights while I was in a Shakespeare production in university, I know that posting it here will turn people off of drama, but I am tempted...


----------



## py3ak

Kevin said:


> I have a great photo of myself in tights while I was in a Shakespeare production in university, I know that posting it here will turn people off of drama, but I am tempted...


 
Please have mercy.


----------



## JML

py3ak said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a great photo of myself in tights while I was in a Shakespeare production in university, I know that posting it here will turn people off of drama, but I am tempted...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please have mercy.
Click to expand...


I agree.

Can someone close this thread before said photo is produced?


----------



## Philip

The Puritan Divines were nearly unanimous in their rejection of the acting profession. During Cromwell's reign they tore down the Globe Theatre in London, believing the theatre to be at best a frivolity and at worst a hotbed of sin. Among the playwrights they blamed were Shakespeare and Christopher Marlowe, both of whose work reflected a clear Christian worldview, portraying humanity warts and all.

Of course, it isn't as if theatre is any worse than other art forms, such as painting, which may require study of humans in the nude. And it isn't as if theatre and film have any more problem with escapism and pretending than do the professions of writing fiction (well, so much for Bunyan, Swift, Milton, Defoe, and Spenser). To write an evil character well, a writer has to, in some sense, enter that character so as to understand him or her (Dostoevsky provides some excellent examples). The ethical questions attendant upon acting seem to me to be the very same questions we ask about every art form. So if we believe that Christians can be called to paint, sculpt, write poetry and fiction, and compose music, why not acting?


----------



## Idelette

P. F. Pugh said:


> The Puritan Divines were nearly unanimous in their rejection of the acting profession. During Cromwell's reign they tore down the Globe Theatre in London, believing the theatre to be at best a frivolity and at worst a hotbed of sin. Among the playwrights they blamed were Shakespeare and Christopher Marlowe, both of whose work reflected a clear Christian worldview, portraying humanity warts and all.



That's the first time that I've ever heard that Shakespeare reflected a clear Christian worldview, in fact, from what I've learned about him it has been quite the opposite. I haven't studied what the Puritans thought about the acting profession itself, but I could clearly understand why they would consider his plays and the theater a hotbed of sin. His plays were laced with homosexuality and promiscuity. And it was rumored that he himself had several affairs while he was married. So, I wonder if it wasn't the immorality itself that the Puritans objected to?


----------



## Wannabee

I like cheese, especially when it's cultured with truth.

How about depravity?
YouTube - FIREPROOF fight scene 2

How about repentance?
YouTube - Fireproof | Caleb's Apology

Of course, this is pretty dramatic.
YouTube - Martin Luther - Here I Stand, I Can Do No Other

Was there really a rich man who stole the sheep of a poor man as Nathan told David? Was he acting? Were all the parables Christ spoke actual events? Just thinking.....


----------



## AThornquist

Wannabee said:


> I like cheese, especially when it's cultured with truth.


 

Ha! Good saying. And by the way, your private message storage is filled. I was going to message you about a mutual friend (Brian Shealy).


----------



## Andres

Wannabee said:


> I like cheese, especially when it's cultured with truth.
> 
> How about depravity?
> YouTube - FIREPROOF fight scene 2
> 
> How about repentance?
> YouTube - Fireproof | Caleb's Apology
> 
> Of course, this is pretty dramatic.
> YouTube - Martin Luther - Here I Stand, I Can Do No Other
> 
> Was there really a rich man who stole the sheep of a poor man as Nathan told David? Was he acting? Were all the parables Christ spoke actual events? Just thinking.....


 
In light of my original commentson the film Fireproof, perhaps I should clarify. I am not the one who said the movie was cheesy. I didn't think it was. I said it was very poorly produced and unless one is naive or doesn't see very many movies, this is a fact. I think it's great a movie would convey the above sentiments, but unless the movies are made on a better scale then Fireproof, most people won't take them seriously.


----------



## buggy

The acting profession requires a huge amount of creativity, lots of thinking out of the box, and in the case of the Christian performer, tremendous amount of spiritual strength to ensure his works conform to the Word of God. 

Some Christians are unable to comprehend such thing and hence I think that is why many condemn acting and the theatre. From the early church fathers (Augustine), to the Puritans and also some evangelical preachers like JC Ryle.

The problem has never been films, music, of itself, but rather the depraved heart and the evils produced (Mt. 15:19).


----------



## Tim

P. F. Pugh said:


> The Puritan Divines were nearly unanimous in their rejection of the acting profession.


 
A useful point. 

Now, my question is whether they were against acting _per se_ or simply because the people in the profession were almost all given over to ungodly things. That is, that the stage plays were vulgar and of questionable themes. If the latter is the case, then we might take the same position today. Hollywood is almost 100% ungodly, and there is very little good material. Thus we might choose to reject the entire profession of acting because of the association it holds.

I have not concluded anything on this subject yet. Although, in effect, my practice is almost a complete rejection of TV and movies because there is very little that I would watch today. It is so difficult to find appropriate things to view that I reject the whole lot because it is not a good use of my time to put in the effort to _find_ appropriate material. 

So, can anyone expand on the Puritan view?


----------



## JennyG

Tim said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Puritan Divines were nearly unanimous in their rejection of the acting profession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A useful point.
> 
> Now, my question is whether they were against acting _per se_ or simply because the people in the profession were almost all given over to ungodly things. That is, that the stage plays were vulgar and of questionable themes. If the latter is the case, then we might take the same position today. Hollywood is almost 100% ungodly, and there is very little good material. Thus we might choose to reject the entire profession of acting because of the association it holds.
> 
> I have not concluded anything on this subject yet. Although, in effect, my practice is almost a complete rejection of TV and movies because there is very little that I would watch today. It is so difficult to find appropriate things to view that I reject the whole lot because it is not a good use of my time to put in the effort to _find_ appropriate material.
> 
> So, can anyone expand on the Puritan view?
Click to expand...

You make some good points, Tim. I'm also still thinking this through, and I take the same approach to TV and movies - screening for things that are ok definitely would take too much time to be worth the bother.
That's a very interesting question, whether the Puritans would have objected to acting in itself, or whether the only problem was the de facto correlation between professional actors and ungodliness.
Next question:
is that correlation (which does seem surprisingly constant even if it isn't universal) just purely accidental?


----------



## he beholds

Andres said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like cheese, especially when it's cultured with truth.
> 
> How about depravity?
> YouTube - FIREPROOF fight scene 2
> 
> How about repentance?
> YouTube - Fireproof | Caleb's Apology
> 
> Of course, this is pretty dramatic.
> YouTube - Martin Luther - Here I Stand, I Can Do No Other
> 
> Was there really a rich man who stole the sheep of a poor man as Nathan told David? Was he acting? Were all the parables Christ spoke actual events? Just thinking.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In light of my original commentson the film Fireproof, perhaps I should clarify. I am not the one who said the movie was cheesy. I didn't think it was. I said it was very poorly produced and unless one is naive or doesn't see very many movies, this is a fact. I think it's great a movie would convey the above sentiments, but unless the movies are made on a better scale then Fireproof, most people won't take them seriously.
Click to expand...

 
We watched it last night and my husband was almost mad at the movie. I guess he didn't think it was fair that the movie was so poorly made, but had good themes, so it was hard to criticize and not feel guilty about it. For instance, the conversion scene was not great art and was terribly acted, BUT, it was a conversion (which is a GREAT thing!) so to criticize it seems anti-Christian. And he was annoyed that this movie, which wasn't even a good movie, made him feel guilty for not being perfect. Whereas reading, for example, some of C.S. Lewis's fiction might make one also feel guilty for not being perfect, but it is so well-written that you are happy to be inspired by it. 

I actually liked the movie well-enough, but I was sort of watching it with people I know with dissolving marriages in mind. So I ended up thinking, "This might be a good movie for so-and-so." My one complaint, though, is that it tried to make up for poor dialogue and acting with highly intensive emotional scenes (like the one fire scene and the yelling at the wife, etc.). It kind of made me think about street preachers who use scare tactics rather than the Gospel to preach. (Which is ironic, since I think Kirk Cameron is a good street preacher!)


----------



## Wannabee

Haven't you ever seen a man yell at his wife like this? I have. In fact, I'm sad to confess that early in our marriage I did so. That seen was more realistic than most of us care to admit. And, quite often, the woman is yelling just as loud or louder rather than backing down in despair.

This movie gave me many opportunities to reflect and ask myself where I'm guilty. Wherever I'm guilty I should be grateful for God showing me for it offers an opportunity to repent. Anger at feeling guilt is a form of pride, unless it's a false sense of guilt. Of course, we should know Scripture well enough to not feel a false sense of guilt as well. This movie, even with it's short comings, is far superior to the trash out there that's called "excellent" by the media and many who claim Christ. I'll have my family watch this before such trash as is often heralded as a good production any time. However imperfectly, it points to Christ. Do we?


----------



## TexanRose

A relevant article by Tertullian: 

C. Dodgson, Tertullian Vol. 1. Apologetic and Practical Treatises. (1842). pp.187-219.  De Spectaculis.

He does argue that acting _per se_ is wrong. I believe this was also the position held by the Puritans, though I can't find any material to back that up. My brother suggests that the evils of acting were kind of taken for granted, so there was no need for them to write about it.


----------



## BertMulder

Galatians220 said:


> The Protestant Reformed Church argues against drama in this manner. I have a pamphlet of theirs that's very good (if I could find it; in order for them to send it to me in the first place, they asked me first why I wanted it and I had to tell them of what church I was a member and they did check me out to make sure I wasn't connected to the secular media). The pamphlet (entitled, I think, "The Evil of Drama") argues vehemently that no one made in the image and likeness of God should pretend to be something they're not. A person who "plays" a murderer or a thief or an adulterer assumes that character for the length of time they're playing the role, and people should not kick open the door to the devil in this manner. All drama is "false-playing," the PRC asserts, and it is evil. Whatever starts out as a lie or a series of lies is not something for a child of God to become enmeshed in.
> 
> I don't practice this in my own life, at least not yet. Gradually, though, the range of "drama" that doesn't make me squeamish is getting smaller and smaller. For example, I used to like the movie "Brief Encounter" (1946) with Trevor Howard and Celia Johnson. In watching it recently, I see that for many reasons, I shouldn't be watching it. I own the DVD and so I've put it away. "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" glorifies violence; Lee Marvin, who played Valance, was a remarkably evil villain. Not, then, probably, a "good" movie.
> 
> On the other hand, the PRC does celebrate Christmas and Easter, and one could make an argument that these are man-made fabrications of another sort, so...???
> 
> No one's perfect; no one is walking in perfect lockstep with the Lord as long as they're on earth. We keep taking baby steps towards that as long as we're being sanctified. And that's a great blessing!
> 
> Margaret


 
This pamphlet, Margaret?

The Evil of Drama

hardly can be, though, as Rev. Smit has not been in the ministry that long... he was ordained in 1996...


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

This is perhaps the pamphlet: THE CHRISTIAN AND THE FILM ARTS, by Herman Hanko. It was brought up in a thread, http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/evils-drama-30417/.

To which I responded with, http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/holiness-world-culture-its-arts-30772/.

This is a very important topic to me — not acting so much as fiction generally — as my primary vocation is as a language artist, not a teaching elder (which I am doing temporarily. I have explained this elsewhere, a number of times — though I must strongly state that the calling of a true elder / pastor is the highest calling in this world). Not that I see fiction per se as evil at all; it is far more nuanced. But later for that. It's bedtime here.


----------



## Galatians220

Well, Bert and Steve, when I say "years ago," I probably mean 1996 or thereabouts. I was converted in 1995 and I started subscribing to the _Standard Bearer_ in 1997 (am still a subscriber), which would have been where I saw "The Evil of Drama" advertised. I'm sure that was its title due to the necessity of having to be interviewed to get it; the one by Hanko also looks good, though, and I appreciate its mention here again. 

Gentlemen, have a blessed Lord's Day!

Margaret


----------

