# The Role of Entertainment in a Christian's Life



## Authorised (Jan 10, 2005)

In a few threads, a few assertions were made about two recent movies: 

Pastorway's analysis of Meet the Fockers was :

"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."

and LawrenceU said this of White Noise:

". . whatsoever is lovely, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report;

I don't see how movies like this fit. . . "



I would like to pose this question to both who said these things, and the whole board. How do we begin to classify and identify movies into categories which are acceptable for the Christian and those which are not. What are the criteria for each? How can we know of the content if we have not been exposed to such material already? What peculiar properties make certain movies sinful to watch?

Please, qualify your statements and generalizations regarding appropriate movies.


----------



## turmeric (Jan 10, 2005)

In my humble opinion It should have Redeeming Artistic Value - it should be well-made and profoundly moving or profoundly hilarious! It should widen your view of life.


----------



## Authorised (Jan 11, 2005)

But that is far too subjective and open to even begin to define what is appropriate. Is there scriptural reasoning that we can use to determine what should be viewed or not?

Pastorway has salty sounding soundbytes, but hasn't proved anything regarding this. What does our present culture's obsession with entertainment have to do with a sinful movie, anyhow?

Questions yet abound...

[Edited on 11-1-2005 by Authorised]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 11, 2005)

I think we know the answer but are afraid to say it aloud. Afreiad of what, I don't know. Being called "legalistic" maybe? I am as guilty as anyone, so please know that before I continue.

I partake of entertainment with sensulaity. I excuse it because it isn't "nudity" or sex. People in the shows I partake of commit adultry, fornication, lie, cheat, and act rebellious. But I don't see any body parts, and hey the good guys win most of the time so it isn't all bad!

in my opinion that's just foolishness.

Eph 4:17Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that *you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds.* 18They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. 19They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20*But that is not the way you learned Christ!*-- 21assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22to put off your old self,[c] which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

Eph 5:3But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness *must not even be named among you*, as is proper among saints. 4*Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.* 5For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no 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. 7*Therefore do not associate with them*; 8for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light 9(for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), 10and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. 11Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. 12*For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret.* 13But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, 14for anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says,

We are told that it's shameful to even *DISCUSS* what sinners do in private! We not only discuss it, we watch it.

We need to repent, allow me to be the first one to do so,


----------



## turmeric (Jan 11, 2005)

Is it wrong to view art? To read Aeschylus?(Talk about shameful things!), To listen to music that's not Christian?

I'm not interested in lobbing labels at anyone, but there is common grace in this world. Jesus told us to be in this world but not of it. What does that actually look like, a visible separation from everything non-Christian? In my view, this has simply led to the Evangelical Marketing Niche and the Christian Bookstore, which in my opinion is way more sinful than an Ingmar Bergman film! Here we are, watching BAD afterschool specials, ignoring the fact that they're not in the least profound,( and we're not giving God our best when we produce this tripe) and feeling very righteous. We've added philistinism to our idolatry!

How about some GOOD QUALITY God-honoring art on film that contributes to the conversation we're all having in this life, and makes people have to think deeply about life, and death, and maybe...who knows where it could go?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 11, 2005)

> How about some GOOD QUALITY God-honoring art on film that contributes to the conversation we're all having in this life, and makes people have to think deeply about life, and death, and maybe...who knows where it could go?



That sounds great.

Now, where is it?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 11, 2005)

Ok, sounds good. I am sure there are a few we could discuss. Listing them would be a great resource. Sadly though I doubt there are many to list.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jan 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> We are told that it's shameful to even *DISCUSS* what sinners do in private! We not only discuss it, we watch it.



I agree with what you are saying, and I think we too often make excuses, but does it necessarily conclude that because we are not to discuss such sins (and surely Paul doesn't exclude discussing them for teaching purposes--that is, to say that we shouldn't do them--since he does this himself) that we are not to watch them? I agree that it's probably a logical conjecture, but speaking (presumably favorably) about something is not necessarily of less offensiveness than watching it. (BTW, I think you're right... I'm just being contrary.)

It is so hard to draw specific lines, but I do think that if at any point in a comedy we are laughing at sin, we shouldn't watch it. If we are getting sensual pleasure out of sensuality, we shouldn't watch that, either. If we enjoy seeing fornication or adultery, enjoy watching gratuitous and senseless violence... that's definitely wrong. (Though I don't see anything wrong with skipping particular scenes in, say, _
Braveheart_ to get to the good stuff)

To me the main problem is not so much watching the content itself (aside from nudity--that in itself is a problem) but the fact that we enjoy the sinful content. We get a kick of out seeing people do all kinds of sinful deeds we would never do. And if we don't enjoy watching sin, then why are we watching it? If, even with the Redeeming Artistic Value, it is packed with condonement of sin, how could we possibly enjoy it? Shouldn't we so strongly hate those parts of the film that the entire experience is miserable? But I speak of movies that are so blatantly advocating sinful behavior that this completely overshadows any creative value. A "sinful" scene here and there isn't necessarily a sin to watch (once--probably better not to see it again, knowing it's there)... but it would be a sin to enjoy it. 

[Edited on 11-1-2005 by Ex Nihilo]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 11, 2005)

My convictions have been changing over the years. I used to go to anything (almost) and believe that if I wasn't aroused, or titilated by the sexual stuff then it was no big deal.

Then I began to be more careful and read reviews, etc.

Thirdly I set a ratings limit. Nothing rated R unless it was screened by and recomended by a fellow Christian who agreed with my standards.

Fianlly I just began being very picky over all but still allowed an ocasional slip up to occur.

Now I just feel ashamed to have anything to do with anything that is full of sin.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jan 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Now I just feel ashamed to have anything to do with anything that is full of sin.



I hate to admit this, but sometimes it's a bit of a letdown to discover that we can't enjoy the things we used to anymore... but it is evidence of God's work in our lives, and something to praise him for!


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by houseparent_
> ...



I can relate to you on both points there.


----------



## satz (Jan 11, 2005)

well, this is the second time today i've done this to chris, but i just have to agree with his post! ( and hence adam's and evie's)


Adam, regarding the ephesians passage you quoted, how do you apply this to real life and real people, esp 5:7 Therefore do not associate with them?

How do you manage your relationships with unbelievers?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 11, 2005)

> Adam, regarding the ephesians passage you quoted, how do you apply this to real life and real people, esp 5:7 Therefore do not associate with them?
> 
> How do you manage your relationships with unbelievers?



I have no strong bond with any unbeliever.

But that's not because I shun them as if I am better than them. They just know that I base my life on the word of God (Lord help me) and as such have little to no desire to spend much "quality" time with me. I pray when with them, point out God's word to them anytime I am with them and they openly and arrogantly sin as if it is no big deal, and share my opinions with them in regard to how I feel the word of God sees something they may be discussing.

They know that Christ and His word are the focal point of my life and as such I never "leave Him home". I even have many "Christian" friends who get annoyed with me for "making everything spiritual".

How I try and yeild my life annoys alot of people I am friends with. I've been called more names (legalist, Pharisee, Judge, etc) by the people in my life than I can count. I try and count it all as blessing. Often it is tough but I press on.



> The redeeming character of the above, though, is that sin is presented as sin. For what it is, ugly and dirty. So, we can use helpful guidlines for movies:
> 
> 1. intent: is it the intent to show sin as good? Just showing sin isn't wrong, per se. Glorifying it is, though.



Most movies I've seen often show sin that is "illegal" as bad and that you pay consequences for partaking of it. *BUT* within the same movie, the "good guys" partake of "smaller" sin (not illegal) and it's glorified. In the very least it is seen as "no big deal".



> 2. Depiction: How is sin depicted? The Bible depicts David's sin with Bathsheba, but reports it as sin. Therefore, the mere *depiction* of an adulatress act in a movie shouldn;t be deemed as wrong. it's all how it is depicted.



Often adultry is seen as a "mistake" but clearly not sin. It's never repented of. It is often seen as a "mistake" or "weakness" but not sin that requires repentance. 



> 3. Consequences: The Bible depicts sin: violence, sex, idolatry, blasphemy, etc., but tells us of the consequences. Thus a movie which does the same (bad consequences for sin) has a redeeming value to it. ANd redemption is a Christian theme. A movie that does not do this (Oceans 12) is problematic. It can be used, though, to talk to culture about sin and the view that it is "cool."



I may have seen this on ocasion, but it's seldom seemed as sin being recompensated. Revenge, retrobution, "pay back" is often the message. But true *redemption* is pretty rare. Even if you could list 30 movies with such a message that's still pretty rare.



> 4. Context: Immoral deeds in the Bible always have the context associated with it, namely, that it is immoral. It is not glamorized like, say, "Scream."



"Scream" is an extreme example of the opposite approach , even some could say it is positive as those involved get injured, look foolish, and ultimately arrested in the end.

A ton of movies even have the "good guy" breaking the rules but that's seen as cool and fun. Those who want to follow the rules are seen as idiots or at the best sticks in the mud. Rebellion is often glorified in movies.

I agree Paul that on the rare ocasions that movies or TV shows are found to be wholesome that can be and even should be enjoyed. My point is that this is a very, very, rare thing.


----------



## 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


----------



## pastorway (Jan 11, 2005)

This area it seems to me is the one area where Reformed believers of today are the furthest from the Puritans!

We have been given liberty in Christ but are commanded not to use that liberty for an opportunity for the flesh but instead we are free so that we might "through love serve one another" (Gal 5:13)!

Further we are commanded to be holy. How holy? As holy as God is holy (1 Peter 1:15-16).

Too often then we think, "I cannot be as holy as God is and since Jesus died for me I can live however I desire and do whatever I want." What is the danger here? "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Shall we sin because we are not under law but grace? Certainly not!" (Romans 6:1, 15)

As for entertainment we must remember a crucial fact - we do not have a NEED to be entertained. Does that mean all entertainment is wrong? No. But when we laugh at sin and are entertianed by the things that God hates we are ceasing to be like Christ and indeed are sinning.

Where do we draw the line? Be like Christ. Be holy. Be pure. Think on these things, "whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy..." (Phil 4:8).

Does this mean no movies at all then? I leave that to your conscience and pray that you will be rightly informed from the Word of God so that you will make God honoring decisions. If in doubt - don't!

Again, we don't NEED movies. They often open the door for the flesh and cause us to stumble. They desensitize us to sin and a low view of sin ultimately leads us to a low view of our Holy God. So if a movie stimulates Christ likeness - indulge! If it stimulates the flesh - flee from it.

Is this a hard line? You bet. Jesus was quite radical in His view of sin - "if your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out." We need to stop tolerating sin and stop excusing sin and stop indulging the flesh.

Entertainment after all is really a counterfeit for joy. It, unlike joy, is not permanent or unshaken by circumstances and events. Where did Paul find joy? In the church, in the Word, fellowshipping with saints, praying, discipling, worshipping God. So we too must seek after glorifying God and finding joy. Imagine the eternal benefit to using the money and time we spend on movies instead for prayer, for fasting, for fellowship, for worship, for Bible reading and memorization, for discipleship, for being HOLY! 

It is about Him, not us. He is the focus, not us. Do you see Him, high and lifted up? Does it please Him? Do you seek His face? Or is it only His hand you pursue - looking to God as an heavenly ATM machine set to dispense whatever you want when you want it?

Perhaps it is high time we fast from entertainment that is not God honoring. Perhaps it is time we really chase after being holy. Perhaps it is time we recover a high view of God and surrender our so-called liberty for a higher goal, being conformed into the image of Christ. Perhaps it is time that we take God at His Word.

Now that is RADICAL, isn't it?

Phillip


----------



## blhowes (Jan 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Now that is RADICAL, isn't it?


Yes, and thanks for the edifying post.

Just curious. I'm guessing that you don't totally abstain from all forms of entertainment, but try to keep it in its proper perspective. What types of entertainment do you enjoy most?


----------



## pastorway (Jan 11, 2005)

I enjoy things that I can do with my friends as a group - things that allow fellowship while we are being entertained. One recent example is when 3 families from our church went to the Johnson Space Center in Houston and concluded the day at a carnival and boardwalk down at the coast of the Gulf of Mexico - a time of rides and games, etc. It was great fun and offered us hours of fellowship!

My wife and I (alone or with other couples) do occassionally go see a movie - but that is maybe once or twice a year, or when there is a really good movie to see. We did go see The Incredibles recently and highly recommend it.

Families in our church get together often for games ( there are 2 men at church that I have yet to defeat in chess but neither will play me Scrabble! ), and even a few nights of video game tournaments with the kids. Putt-putt golf, bowling, tennis, baseball, fishing, hunting or shooting, hiking, camping - these are all things that entertain me and all things we have done in the last year with families from church. 

What I react to though is this overwhelming flood of people who run to see every movie out there and sit glued to their tvs all day at home. I know one couple who claim to be believers (though not Reformed) and they see several movies a week! Literaly. Every movie that comes out they go and see. It is like an addiction. It is sad.

The point I want to make is that whatever we do we need to be seeking to glorify God in it. And often the choices at the movies are a waste of time at best and an outright slap in God's face at worst.

Phillip


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 11, 2005)

> Perhaps it is high time we fast from entertainment that is not God honoring. Perhaps it is time we really chase after being holy. Perhaps it is time we recover a high view of God and surrender our so-called liberty for a higher goal, being conformed into the image of Christ. Perhaps it is time that we take God at His Word.
> 
> Now that is RADICAL, isn't it?



*AMEN!!!!!!!!!* 



> The point I want to make is that whatever we do we need to be seeking to glorify God in it. And often the choices at the movies are a waste of time at best and an outright slap in God's face at worst.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> sacred/secular dualists!



Is it really required that a person watch an R-rated movie in order to "engage the culture" ?


----------



## pastorway (Jan 11, 2005)

it is all sacred, it is all for God's glory, and we are called to be separate and holy unto the Lord. Drinking freely of the culture we live in is not being separate! "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness for they shall be satisfied."

Phillip


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> I drew pretty good distinction in my post, I thought, and so these generalizations bug me. Especially when the bible is "R" rated. So, *just because* a movie reports sin does not autimatically make it bad.



Absolutely. I guess the problem with me is that almost no movies actually report sin the way the Bible does - negatively. Almost all glory in it.


----------



## pastorway (Jan 11, 2005)

Paul says not to cause a weaker brother to stumble....and Jesus says if you cause a "little one" to sin it would be better for you to be thrown in the sea with a millstone around your neck. Beside a stronger brother is not a person who can tolerate more sin without as much conviction and guilt.

Reading sin reported in the Holy Inspired Word of God is not the same as watching gratuitous sin in a movie for entertainment.

If the Bible says to flee something and avoid it and not even talk about those who participate in it then perhaps that is not an area of liberty?!

Phillip

[Edited on 1-11-05 by pastorway]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 11, 2005)

often times when I read the bible where it deal with certain sins I deal with I am very tempted a battle between flesh and spirit. So I cant honestly no one is never going to be tempted when read the Word of God not that its the Word tempting us its ourselves. But you see what Im sayng not trying to exscuse watching blatently evil movies. Just saying.

blade


----------



## pastorway (Jan 11, 2005)

Paul, you, as a moderator on this forum and as the number 1 poster with lots of good things to discuss on this forum may very well be leading weaker brethren astray by making them think that it is okay to go see rated R movies. Those who are weaker see you attempting to use these movies to engage the culture for Christ and might think they can do the same and instead be ensnared by temptation by the things they have burned into their memory on the big screen.

And I still don't think one can justify watching these types of movies as an area of liberty much less prove that they are useful to the cause of evangelism. If so, then we could make the logical jump to doing drugs so that we might meet the addict where he is and visiting prostitutes so that we might relate more relevantly to the sexual pervert. 

We must be careful about what we expose ourselves to - whether we are being "discerning" or not - for those things get into our minds and will pop up again in a time of temptation. If you believe you can watch sin on the big screen and walk away without being affected then you are quite simply wrong. The things we put in our minds and imaginations will remain there, for good or bad.

How is it pursuing holiness to drink of the world and its philosophy by watching inapropriate movies? 

Paul said in Romans 16 that we are to be wise concerning good and simple concerning evil. Simple. Innocent. Naive. Sheltered. Untouched. Separate. Holy.

Stay away from sin. Don't invite it is for a cozy visit, hoping you might in its company learn how to warn others about it. You are entertaining a little leaven and the whole lump will be infested before you know it. You cannot take fire into your bosom and not be burned.

Phillip

[Edited on 1-12-05 by pastorway]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 11, 2005)

Isnt the rating system made by sinners or non christians per se so how can we justify seeing a g rated movie?

blade


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



I'm with you on the over-reaction part. But are you saying here that you would go and see a movie that glories in sin to provide an avenue of contact on philosophical issues?

Are you saying that the Christian should witness and/or (potentially) participate in sin to have a point of contact?

I don't believe you mean that Paul (knowing you). So can you refine your comment a bit?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jan 11, 2005)

Paul...you may be pointing to scripture and saying "R rated" but the context between that and most films are different. One is taking place within the bounds of marriage the other often does not. SoS is not just literal...it also has a strong alegorical side...thus it does have redeeming value.

Let's take two violent movies...The Patriot and Collatoral or some other...In one you do not enjoy the violence and it is pulling directly from history (though fictionalized) the other is let's go see someone shoot others up. 

And yes, ppl can make excuses for anything. I can't tell you the excuses I used to make for historical romances. The things I learned from languages, historical events, and historical costuming.......however, what does it boil down to...p0rn for women.

There are other things out there for us...let's stop making excuses.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



I think I understand you, and I'm not trying to bait you, just flesh out your distinction, because others are reading.

So there is a difference in your mind, for example, between something like the DaVinci Code and Porky's? I ask, becuase it is _possible_ to argue that Porky's is a "point of contact." It might even be _possible_ (and I KNOW you are NOT doing this) to argue that pornographic movies, since it is so ubiquitous in our society, and forms a great deal of the way modern Americans look at relationships, sex, etc., could be a "point of contact."

I know you don't agree, but it is necessary to point out why DaVinci Code is different from some Vivid Video.

[Edited on 1/12/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## pastorway (Jan 11, 2005)

Paul, 
I have read your posts several times through and you digress. You are seemingly now arguing that it is okay to see R rated movies in order to engage the culture. You need to be much more specific in what you are advocating and a little more open to understanding how dangerous mis-speaking on this topic can be for those who are reading! A little less defense is in order.

Phillip


----------



## pastorway (Jan 11, 2005)

what good comes of exposing yourself to things like this: 



> But it is rather brutal, and not for the squeamish



It desensitizes us to sin.

Phillip


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> what good comes of exposing yourself to things like this:
> 
> 
> ...



And yet if if is portrayed in the right light (which everyone here has agreed that it must be, acknowledging that many, many films do not do so), how is it any different from the biblical passages?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jan 11, 2005)

Paul,

Collateral was a guess...pick some other shoot them up movie then...I haven't seen it. I see no point in watching it. And my comment about excuses was to the board at large...not just you. You are right we need to pick and choose each battle. But we also need to be careful.

Where do you draw the line is what I think this thread comes to, why, and does it really hold water in the light of scripture.


----------



## crhoades (Jan 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by pastorway_
> ...



The Incredibles was pretty violent and I never saw them once engage in family worship. Not to mention they relied on their super powers (autonomy) instead of God's providence. The movie might even be allegorized to see the divine spark within that everyone has. Plus the little boy "Dash" ran so fast that he was able to walk on water. Maybe they were trying to demythologize Jesus walking on water.

I'm no Brian Godawa but....:bigsmile: Off to read Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy 

[Edited on 1-12-2005 by crhoades]


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jan 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> what good comes of exposing yourself to things like this:
> 
> 
> ...



I haven't found this to necessarily be so. I don't excessively watch violent films, so when I watch a war movie or something like that, I'm sort of freshly reminded of how horrible it is. Not enjoyable at all... and I have more appreciation for what soldiers go through. 

At the same time, repeatedly watching brutality can certainly desensitize. I've seen Gladiator so many times that very little in that movie bothers me anymore. (Fortunately, I think this is just because I've seen those particular scenes. Similar scenes in other movies still bother me... but I think after a while it wouldn't.)

Maybe the difference is in whether it realistically portrays war violence or whether it glorifies it and makes it cheap entertainment?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jan 11, 2005)

Good one, Evie...I'm with you there


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 11, 2005)

Black Hawk Down? 

Saving Private Ryan? 

Star Wars?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 11, 2005)

htm not jpeg or somehting else-didnt work?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 11, 2005)

Now it ownt open


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by pastorway_
> ...



That's my point! That many, many films (most even in my opinion) are not portraying sin in the correct light.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> http://russell.mcmaster.ca/~bertrand/later.html
> ...



Funny, they don't have "Betrand Russell, the Burning in Hell Years"


----------



## turmeric (Jan 11, 2005)

What is "holiness"? Is it what you watch, wear, eat, drink? What if you get that all correct and see others not doing it, how do you feel about them? Mightn't that be a sin? There but for the grace of God go all of us!


----------



## daveb (Jan 11, 2005)

Coming in to the discussion late...

For myself I error on the side of caution. As a Christian there are many things that I can do, I always stop and ask myself whether I should do them. I avoid many movies because of their content be it cursing, sexuality, or excessive violence simply because I cannot stomach them and will probably walk out. Garbage in, garbage out as they say.

Often I find other things that are more profitable that I could be doing with my time. I do watch movies, but I try to be careful what I allow myself to see. I try to act in such a way as to keep a clean conscience before the Lord and not engage in viewing those things He deems abominable.


----------



## pastorway (Jan 11, 2005)

We are talking past each other here so this is my final summary - 

It is not enough to be discerning while willingly exposing ourselves to things God hates. When you pay your money and sit down to watch a movie in order to be entertained, it is not enough to watch with discernment. We must check our motives for watching that particular movie in the first place. There is nothing wrong with relaxing and taking our minds off things and being amused. But if we chose to flood our minds with glorified sin and minimized holiness then we have made a bad choice.

Some people cannot watch movies with sexual situations or violence. It brings up images in their mind or even plants new ones there that should not be there. Repeated exposure to violence deadens us to the horrific nature of violence. Repeated exposure to sexual sin takes the edge off the true nature of this kind of sin. Watch Saving Private Ryan a few times and see if you are as shocked during the D-Day sequence as you were the first time you saw it. If you find yourself watching to indulge the flesh instead of to further crucify it, then maybe this example is the whole point - why do we do what we do to be entertained? Is it to fulfill the lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, or pride of life? Or is it to glorify God? 

This is a serious enough issue that we need to quit saying that a call for holiness and abstinence concerning movies is overreacting and we need desperately to drop the sarcastic comments and ad homs. There is nothing wrong with not owning a tv or not going to the movies.

If you can watch the movie and at the same time be holy and grow in holiness then go for it. If there is any doubt in your mind whatsoever, listen to the Spirit and your own conscience and flee. If you find movies that are good, pure, helpful, praiseworthy, then watch them. If not, stay away and do something more constructive with your time and money.

Don't think it is enough to be discerning. The Bible says there are categories of things that we are to avoid, flee, refrain from, and reject. You don't avoid something by examining it closely with discernment. You leave your coat in her hand and run the other way. Indeed, if we were truly discerning we would flee the trap in the first place rather than examining the trap to see where it might snare us.

That is all I am saying.
Phillip


[Edited on 1-12-05 by pastorway]


----------



## turmeric (Jan 11, 2005)

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, and I actually do not own a TV or watch many movies. (I also saw The Incredibles,though) The problem is; nobody reads a novel, plays football or watches a movie to crucify the flesh - not even a G rated one. That's not what we're doing at movies or coffee-shops etc. 
I am really not trying to be sarcastic, my point is; if we ask ourselves if every entertainment decision is to crucify the flesh, we'll never do any of it, we'll go to work, clean house, eat stuff that we hope doesn't taste too good, read the Bible & theology books, pray & sleep. I've tried to do that because I really feel guilty when I do something just for fun, and my brain crashes after a while. I have to read a novel or something. It doesn't have to be by Marquis de Sade, though!

If a person can't watch movies without sinning (some people can't be on the computer without sinning!) he/she shouldn't do it or let us pressure him/her into it. St. Paul says in Romans not to do this to each other.

Don't do anything you don't think you should do, but don't make a work that God must be pleased with out of it, God is pleased with us for Christ's sake, not for anything we do. I know, we all know this.


----------



## pastorway (Jan 11, 2005)

One last final note 

just because we enjoy something does not mean it is sinful or that we cannot be crucifying the flesh while having fun!

What is the motive? What are we exposing ourselves to? What are we thinking on? Training our flesh - beating our body into submission - crucifying self - these do not mean that we cannot enjoy things. 

The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. This is not a joyless, hurtful, bitter exeperience! Whatever you do, do it to the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31).

Now I am really finished. Really. I mean it.
Phillip

[Edited on 1-12-05 by pastorway]


----------



## turmeric (Jan 11, 2005)

Now THAT bugs me! It ain't funny if he's burning in Hell, it could as easily be me!


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



That is true, we don't know for sure. We don't know *for sure* that Nero, Hitler, or Pol Pot are either.

But I'm not going to lose a minute's sleep tonight over Mr. Russell.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> Now THAT bugs me! It ain't funny if he's burning in Hell, it could as easily be me!



I meant funny as in "odd" not in laughable. The title of the web page was "Betrand Russell, the Famous Years." Oh, to be famous for blaspheming the living God. What a legacy.


----------



## satz (Jan 11, 2005)

> I have no strong bond with any unbeliever.
> 
> But that's not because I shun them as if I am better than them. They just know that I base my life on the word of God (Lord help me) and as such have little to no desire to spend much "quality" time with me. I pray when with them, point out God's word to them anytime I am with them and they openly and arrogantly sin as if it is no big deal, and share my opinions with them in regard to how I feel the word of God sees something they may be discussing.
> 
> ...



Adam, 

thanks for the response. Not wanting to beat a dead horse, but how do you define 'strong bond'? Going out for a meal togeater? Inviting them over to your place? etc etc

I am not trying to be a nag here, but this is also something i really want to sort out in my own life. I have many relationships with unbelievers formed in the past and i sometimes really don't know what to do about them. My current opinion is that there is no need to cut off these relationships as though these people had suddenly developed the pox, rather we should just lead holy, Christ centred lives without compromise, and we can continue to 'relate' to the extent these people will tolerate us. 

Don't get me wrong, i am definitely not trying to be self righteous here, i know fully that but for God's grace i would be no different than they are( and indeed i am not nearly as different enough as is). 


oh...any just in conclusion...apologies for this OFF TOPIC POST

[edited to clean up excessive dead horse carcases that were messing up the screen]

[Edited on 1-12-05 by pastorway]

Thanks Pastorway...sorry bout that

[Edited on 12-1-2005 by satz]


----------



## turmeric (Jan 11, 2005)

I'm having trouble reading this page, it's not loading correctly, it's filling up my screen & the posts are running off the page


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 11, 2005)

> My current opinion is that there is no need to cut off these relationships as though these people had suddenly developed the pox, rather we should just lead holy, Christ centred lives without compromise, and we can continue to 'relate' to the extent these people will tolerate us.



That's exactly the way I see it!

However, if you truely live an uncomprimised Christ centered life, from my experience, they will cut you off. Or, as you have said, they will no longer tolerate you.

Pray before every meal, a strong, proud prayer of thanksgiving asking for the Lord to bless the food, you, and your friends. Including when you are in a resteraunt! See how long they will tolerate that.

Refuse to discuss anything that is unacceptable to the Lord and tell them why the subject must change and see if they still want you around.

Tell them how it dissapoints you when they say something crude, rude, or ignorant. Watch the eyes roll with that one.

Now, do all of that with a soft, loving attitude of course! I am not saying you act like some know it all self-righteous jerk! But in love share your life for Christ with them in all areas.

The only time Christ rejecting friends tolerated my company on a regular basis were times that I comprimised my walk. Every time I hold firm to my calling I have been rejected by all who reject Him.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Sorry,

Theoretical mind games don't interest me. To me, Russell is just another arrogant God-hater. If I want to read pagan authors (and I do) I'll have a couple hundred (or thousand maybe) or so ahead of him.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> I was playing off the words "loose slepp at night," Fred.
> 
> On a serious note, hopefull when you pastor a church some young teenager does not ask you these questions and all you give him is, "theoretical mind games do not interest me."
> ...



I know, and I'm not upset or anything, just continuing to play along.

For me (seriously) I think the bigger problem for the teen (for example) is that he is more interested in such things than real life. My experience is that most people use those sorts of conversations to wall you off from the real problems or concerns of their lives. I don't play that game. (I don't play it with Homer either).

On another level, your last comment is right. I've spent a pretty fair amount of time in the past with philosophy, and it holds almost no interest for me now.

Somehow, I don't think our Lord would have talked at all about philosophy or thinking with Wittgenstein; he would have immediately gone after the heart.

That is not to say that Christians who know philosophy aren't important, but I don't see that (sorry) as having a huge pastoral role. There was a reason (and this is not a criticism) that Van Til was never (to my knowledge) a pastor. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bahnsen never was either.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> There was a reason (and this is not a criticism) that Van Til was never (to my knowledge) a pastor. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bahnsen never was either.



Bahnsen was in fact "an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church," as stated on the back cover of his _Always Ready_.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 12, 2005)

Oops - Paul, you beat me to it!


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Chris,

Just so you know, an ordained minister is not necessarily a pastor. There are hundreds of ordained PCA/OPC ministers that are not pastors.

I thought I might be wrong about Bahnsen, that's why I hedged.

Paul -- where was Van Til a pastor? Not a minister, but a pastor. It was my understanding that he was a full time professor of apologetics at WTS for decades. I don't recall ever hearing of his pastoral charge.

One last thing - I didn't say Jesus wouldn't talk to Wittgenstein. I said he would not talk to Wittgenstein about philosophy (after the manner of Wittgenstein).


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...



In that case, distinguishing between an ordained minister who is a pastor and one who is not, what are some of the differences in usual cases? Is it that an ordained minister can be ordained by a church for just one specific task, such as teaching somewhere inside or outside the church, but a pastor always has a greater number of responsibilities inside the congregation?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 12, 2005)

Yes. Ordained ministers can be seminary profs, teachers in Christian schools, work for publishing houses, administrators in denominational agencies, and so on.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > One last thing - I didn't say Jesus wouldn't talk to Wittgenstein. I said he would not talk to Wittgenstein about philosophy (after the manner of Wittgenstein).
> ...



Understood. But you're basing it on silence. 



> Van Til was the pastor of a CRC church in Michigan for one year in '27. When he and Machen started the OPC he transfered his credentials for the CRC to the OPC and was a very powerful pulpit preacher for many years there.



So when he was with the OPC, he was not a pastor, but a professor who preached, yes? Again, this is NOT a criticism - the Church needs men with a variety of gifts. But what you're saying to me is that Van Til was a pastor of a church for a year, and then a seminary professor of apologetics/philosophy who occasionally preached for the rest of his life.


----------



## Ivan (Jan 12, 2005)

Speaking of Van Til....

It has dawn on my meager memory that my Christian Philosophy professor at Southwestern Seminary talked A LOT about Van Til. My professor's name was L. Rush Bush. I think he might teach at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary now. Most certainly a conservative professor!


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 12, 2005)

How did we switch topics? Unless I am just too dense to follow how this recent discussion has anything to do with entertainment?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> How did we switch topics? Unless I am just too dense to follow how this recent discussion has anything to do with entertainment?



I was wondering the same thing. That's what happens when mods and admins get to talkin' amongst themselves...j/k!


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> How did we switch topics? Unless I am just too dense to follow how this recent discussion has anything to do with entertainment?



Paul was talking about the value of films in comparing worldviews, naturally including philosophical aspects and differences brought up by such.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



heh heh Is that the proper theonomic punishment?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ...



It will work, unless you're talking to Gary North, in which case you had better have a stone at hand :bigsmile:...but anyway...


----------



## gwine (Jan 12, 2005)

Ransom Fellowship

http://www.ransomfellowship.org/index.html (you'll have to copy and paste)

has articles on discernment that you might find of interest. Their series on Living in Babylon was good, too.

I like books better than movies, because it lets me use my imagination. I can't bring myself to watch The Patriot or Schindler's List. Reality bothers me too much.

I agree with PastorWay about the affects of entertainment. I can't believe all the James Bond movies I watched without a shread of guilt. But, that was then. This is now.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...



Amen - Gary North is more for entertainment...now in this thread, the question to ask is whether or not his is godly entertainment! Well, it must be if theonomy is true...wonder what Godawa would say about it?

OK, I'm done now!


----------

