|
mingram
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Michael
Birthday: 4/29/1985
Interests: God, music, good art, one-at-a-time people, Puritans, Schumann, poetry, all things German
Expertise: reading, writing, speaking, playing the piano, conducting, moving chairs, deep conversations, ellipses
Occupation: Student
Message: message me
Member Since:
3/23/2004
|
|
|
SEXUALITY IN FILM
Two Dialogues – Two Views
1*
Phil – Wow, what a great movie! That’s the best one I’ve seen in a long time.
Bridget – Yeah, it was alright…I guess.
P – Oh, you didn’t like it?
B – No, it’s not that. It was pretty good. It’s just that…
P – What?
B – Well, there was that one scene.
P – That one scene?
B – You know, the bedroom scene.
P – Oh, I see. Did that offend you or something? I mean, it’s in every movie these days. I guess I’m just used to it. I don’t want to let one little five-minute scene ruin the whole movie. Besides, they didn’t even show anything. It’s not really that big of a deal, is it?
B – For me it is.
P – How come?
B – Well, for starters, putting sex on the big screen is turning something essentially private into something public. It just doesn’t belong there. You probably don’t want to see a five-minute scene of someone using the bathroom, do you? That’s kind of a bad analogy, but both acts are supposed to be private, and when we make them public, it’s just not right.
P – Hmm, I sort of see your point. But is that little detail still enough to prevent you from enjoying the film?
B – That’s not the only reason. Broadcasting sex like that also takes something sacred and makes it casual. Besides that fact that movie sex usually ‘just happens’ and it’s usually extramarital, it also turns something precious and sacred into something casual and entertaining. In real life, sex is an act of tremendous significance and seriousness; in the theater, we watch it while munching popcorn and skittles. You see? A sacred thing has been imported into a casual environment. Do you follow?
P – I think so.
B – And if you’re wondering why sex is sacred, there are two simple reasons. NUMERO UNO: God created it. He thought it up in his brain and gave it as a gift to humankind before the fall. Sometimes we secretly think that Satan sneaked it into the garden and God’s been trying to exterminate it ever since—or at least make sure that as few people experience it as possible, hence all of those rules. But no, God designed it in all of its pleasurable details, and he likes it. The rules only show how much he likes it. Only an idiot would store his fancy and expensive Italian sports car on cinder blocks in the front yard; if he truly values it as he should, he will protect it with all sorts of covers, codes, alarms, and rules for use. See? Rules indicate value.
P – Okay.
B – NUMMER ZWEI: The most profound purpose of human sexuality is to be a foretaste, a hint, an adumbration (AD-um-BRAE-shun), a mere appetizer of our future union with the Godhead. The craving, the intimacy, the exhilaration, the deep oneness—all of it points to the utterly superlative quality of our union with God in Christ by the Spirit that will come to its fullest flowering in the age to come. In other words, the consummate carnal experience is a sign of the consummate spiritual experience. If that’s not sacred, I don’t know what is.
P – I guess that makes sense.
B – On top of that, remember how I said that movie sex usually ‘just happens’? That’s just one example of how movies can lead us to believe false things about sexuality. Something real is idealized such that viewers without a heavy dose of discretion can easily be misled into thinking that sexual encounters are some sort of fantasy where the world slows down, the music swells, and everything is pure magic.
P – Hmm.
B – Now this is not always true, but for the most part, your average action flick with the obligatory bedroom scene does not even mention things like protection, contraception, STDs, emotional impact, etc., etc., etc. So people—especially young people—who see sex in the movies as an isolated, magical event may not realize that there are real-life, messy consequences to letting sex ‘just happen.’
P – I see. But what about for us adults? We know that sex isn’t really like that—you know, the same way we know that Ohio Smith didn’t really get shot in the arm. Isn’t it ok if we just enjoy the entertainment without having to take it so seriously as if it were supposed to be real life?
B – You have a point, but I think it can wear us down morally. The most obvious point that people usually bring up is that movie sex is usually extramarital. That’s not biblical. Why should we be entertained by unbiblical behavior? And besides that, why should we let our appetite be whet before the proper time? I don’t think either of us will be having sex any time soon, so why should we let a dumb movie get us excited about it and thinking about it before the proper time? On top of all of that, movie sex is usually presented as the great goal of romantic relationships. Romance climbs and climbs until it reaches the mountaintop of intercourse; after that, it’s all downhill until we climb a new mountain. That’s not biblical, and that’s not even real. The great goal of romantic relationships should not be a brief ecstatic act, but a life-long commitment involving both pain and pleasure. Again, it’s just not right and it doesn’t fit.
P – Wow, you’re right. That was an awful movie. I hated it.
2*
Bridget – So, I went to see the new Ohio Smith movie with Phil last night.
Mark – Oh really? I just saw the matinee this afternoon. Wasn’t it great?
B – We didn’t like it one bit.
M – Really? How come?
B – Didn’t you notice that one scene?
M – ?
B – You know, the bedroom scene—didn’t that offend you?
M – Oh, that. Are you saying one little sex scene is enough to ruin the movie for you?
B – It certainly is. Why, it’s immoral.
M – Sure, I guess so. But can I ask you a strange question? Do you consider yourself a consistent Christian?
B – ?
M – You know, a Christian whose beliefs are applied consistently to life, not randomly whenever you feel like it or when it’s popular or morally faddish to do so.
B – Well, yeah, I’d say I’m a very consistent Christian.
M – Then why were you offended by the sex scene and not by the restaurant scene?
B – The restaurant scene? What are you talking about?
M – You know, the part where Ohio Smith and his friend are chatting over dinner at that fancy restaurant.
B – Oh that. [laughs] Why would I be offended by that? They were just eating.
M – Sure, they were just eating, but the Bible commands us to eat and drink and do everything to the glory of God. I saw nothing remotely God-honoring about their exchange. And they didn’t even pray before digging in! Isn’t that immoral, too, just like the sex scene?
B – Well, er, I guess so…but they’re different.
M – Are they really? Both acts—eating and having sex—are good and necessary when considered abstractly, but both are immoral—sinful, to be specific—when done for anything other than the glory of God.
B – I see your point, but this is kind of ridiculous.
M – Is it really? Paul says that anything not from faith is sin. That’s pretty plain and simple. In fact, that means that it wasn’t only the sex and the food that were sinful for Ohio Smith, it was everything else he did in the movie as well. His waking, sleeping, walking, talking life was one big bundle of sin.
B – That’s a little extreme, don’t you think? Besides it’s just a movie.
M – The Bible is an extreme book, and if you’re going to take one extreme regulation in it (no sex outside of marriage) and apply it to a fictional character, then to be consistent you should also hold him accountable to every other extreme regulation (do everything to the glory of God). Shouldn’t you?
B – Hmm, I see your point. But if all of that is true, how did you enjoy the movie and not hate every single minute of it?
M – Watching a movie requires a certain level of moral suspension. I know it sounds scary to even mention the idea of suspending moral judgment (and I’m not saying that we should never take a morally critical look at film), but here’s what I mean by that. We have to be careful about expecting non-Christians to act like Christians, and we have to suspend our standards to a certain degree when it comes to non-Christians. We should not be shocked that Ohio Smith had sex with a woman he wasn’t married to because that’s normal for non-Christians. For the world at large—or at least for our country—sex is not regarded as the sacred, precious, guarded thing that Christians hold it to be. And we should expect that. We should expect Ohio Smith to say ‘Jesus Christ’ when he gets really upset. We should expect him to lie to his lady friend to save face.
B – But isn’t that just plain old capitulation to the ways of the world? Aren’t we called to a higher standard?
M – We are indeed. I’m not suggesting that we adopt the ways of the world, simply that we should be realistic about how the world is and stop being traumatized when the world acts like the world. It’ kind of silly, don’t you think? As soon as the duck quacks, we Christians freak out royally. But that’s what the world does—it quacks.
B – So you’re saying that we should stop caring that the world is sinful?
M – No, I’m not saying that we should give up our concern for the world or our moral sensitivity. Of course it should grieve us in a deep way to think about the godlessness that prevails in so many places on this earth. Of course it should pierce our hearts to imagine how many are walking in darkness and sin. All I’m saying is that when we sit down for entertainment, we are not sitting down for a sermon or a Bible story. We should be ready for sin and scandal in various guises. If that’s too much for you, don’t see movies.
B – Hmmm.
M – Another thing about sex in movies is that, while it is often manipulative and self-serving, sometimes it really is a deep expression of love, however imperfect and misguided and incomplete that love may be and however immoral that expression may be. Imagine, if you will, that I’m a foreigner and I only know one sentence in English—‘I want a cup of joe.’ But I fall in love with you (this is theoretical, now), and I want to express that to you. So instead of saying, ‘Bridget, I love you,’ I look deep into your eyes and say, ‘Bridget, I want a cup of joe.’ The expression is all wrong— inappropriate, you might say—but I was simply trying to get across the fact that I love you. It’s similar with love-motivated sex in film, and in real-life, for that matter. If two people feel love for one another (whatever that means) and want to express it, sex is often the best way that they know how. In that sense, sex becomes like a lop-sided pearl that has fallen off the necklace—beautiful and precious as God designed it to be, but messed up as well and away from its proper context. And that last bit is true about any act of human goodness that is not explicitly motivated by love for God. Giving to charity, working to make an honest living, helping old ladies across the street—all of these things are beautiful insofar as they demonstrate the character of God in a way, but they are also lop-sided, imperfect, and out of context whenever they are done by people who are not after the glory of God.
B – I guess that makes sense. But what if movie sex makes you stumble?
M – ‘Stumble’—now there’s a word that Christians (especially men) toss around stupidly. What do you mean by ‘stumble’?
B – You know…think about sex?
M – You might think I’m a heretic here, but thinking about sex is not a sin. Lust is a sin—and you’ll have to discover those parameters for yourself—but simply thinking about sex is no sin. Otherwise God would never have talked about it so much in the Bible. Not only is it mentioned hundreds of times in the law, but he also includes it in the stories—and he gets explicit, too! If the boss from that office show were to read about the encounter between Onan and Tamar in Genesis 38, he would probably shout ‘TMI!’ This just goes to show that God is not desperately trying to keep sex a secret that we never ever think or talk about. After all, it is a necessary part of life. And if I can get really racy here, it’s not sin to watch sex in a movie either.
B – Really? You don’t think so?
M – Nope. If it messes with you and causes you to sin in your mind, then you shouldn’t watch it. But that goes for many things other than sex. If you are obese and eat compulsively, I might suggest that you stay away from food TV. If you struggle with alcohol or drug abuse, you probably shouldn’t watch a lot of gang or bar movies. If you are often tempted to steal or commit acts of violence, then maybe you ought to steer clear of action/adventure flicks. In the same way, if lust tends to wrap around you like a boa constrictor, you probably shouldn’t watch movies that have sex scenes. The point is, if anything in a movie takes over your mind completely or makes it harder for you to love God, you should run from it. Now, don’t get me wrong here—I’m not talking about pornography or erotica of any kind. That’s a conversation for a different day.
B – Wow, that’s a lot to think about.
| | |
|
THE LAST PORN SERMON
A dynamic twentysomething came to speak at our chapel this week. His topic was “A Deeper Passion: Reclaiming Authenticity from a Culture of Pornography.” He explained that the real reason that men get hooked on pornography is because they feel powerless in real life and turn to images over which they can exercise some sort of power or domination. “It’s not lust,” he posited.
And then I realized the real problem with all “Stop Sinning” messages. They always present a real reason why we sin and a real way to stop sinning from now on. But not even the Bible does that. When we look into Scripture, we find dozens upon dozens of reasons why human beings turn away from God and toward sin (deception in Genesis, fear in Exodus, forgetfulness in Numbers, sloth in Proverbs, envy in the Gospels, idolatry in Romans, etc., etc., etc.) and likewise dozens upon dozens of ways to abandon sin and turn back to God. Naturally these all fit into certain broad descriptions (e.g., “Sin is what we do when we stop finding our pleasure in God”), but I think you get the idea.
My point is this: Don’t think that one solution, one resolution (even firmer than the last), or one answer will ever be able to keep you from sinning henceforth. That is not biblical. Biblical is “Return to Me and I will return to you.” Biblical is “For though a righteous man falls seven times, he rises again [and again and again].” Biblical is “Resist the devil and he will flee.” Resolution is not the same as resistance. A resolution comes at one point in time; resistance is a life-long military effort laced with stumblings, failings, injuries, and screw-ups.
And for all of us preaching types, may we no longer present the one true cause of sin and the one true solution. Sometimes the people need to hear that Christ is more pleasurable than anything else. Sometimes they need to be reminded that he was faithful to Abraham, Moses, and David. Sometimes they will be lifted up by the truth that he has conquered death for all of time. Sometimes they should be reminded that he sees everything, even acts done in secret. Sometimes they need to hear that the little sins of today will have an impact on their children and grandchildren. Sometimes they need to know that the Holy Spirit offers sin-killing power every moment of every day.
In short, may we draw from the wide range of imagery and exhortation in scripture to shepherd God’s people and lead them in the paths of righteousness.
| | |
|
The Modern World
We have gradually swept away every cobweb from the edges of our understanding, and we know—or at least can know—everything. Even for those few corners of the world that are still wholly mysterious to the average Modern, he is assured that Modern Science (the new deity?) is ‘on’ the problem. That methodical nutcracker, science, with its insatiable telescopes, sonar, and radar is ‘on’ the black hole, the smallest particle in an atom, the exact size of the universe, etc. We have gradually induced the world to vomit up all of her secrets. This is demystification (or ‘disenchantment’), the essential characteristic of the modern world.
In the modern world, the question ‘How does it work?’ frames all of our interactions with the universe—and there is almost always a thorough answer. In ages past, people groups only dared to name and personify the natural cycles by which they subsisted, never presuming to be able to understand them, let alone quantify and control them. The ritual of naming was for the purpose of liturgy, not inquiry. After all, anything (e.g., rain, sun, season) that autocratically and inexorably governs everything that I do must be far too powerful for my puny brain to take in. But in the modern world, simple reverence has been ousted by the question ‘How does it work?’ and by the accompanying determination and technological aptitude to figure ‘it’ out. We still partake in the ritual of naming, of course, but this has become taxonomical rather than liturgical, the currency not of reverence, but of power. Then: ‘I name to worship.’ Now: ‘I name to possess.’
The modern world is the deforestation of the human spirit. All of the energies once slavishly, mystically devoted to the awe and service of the unknown have been harvested for use in the practical, functional, scientific untangling of the unknown. This is a supposed ‘freedom’—of the intellect, of the human spirit.
In the modern world, we have exchanged our kaleidoscope, as it were, for a microscope.
| | |
|
I Hereby Retract (Almost) Everything Negative I Have Ever Said About Non-denom Churches and Their Oft-outspoken Pastors
(a response)
Hello 'Visitor,'
Thank you for your visit to Family Bible Church. The friendly welcome you
received was and is genuine. I am personally saddened to know our sincere
friendliness was dampened by a hurtful off-handed remarks made by me.
Ironically, I believe you would have difficulty finding any or many similar
remarks in previous sermons.
Secondly, thank you also for taking time to firmly and caringly point
this out to me. Your correction in this matter is well received and will be
properly acted upon. Great care has been taken by me to teach FBC members
how to firmly stand on Biblical truth and compassionately minister Christ to
those in need of redemption. Greater care is needed on my part in more
deeply understanding gays and properly modeling that for our congregation.
As to offending you and your friend, I would sincerely ask for your
forgiveness. If given opportunity I would do in person...to you and him. Is
that possible?
Please be assured that your writing me carries the impact of personal
review and change. I also pray your gay friend can be restored to a place of
openness to the gospel of Christ.
Thank you once again.
Humbled,
Richard Rockwell
| | |
|
Non-denom Strikes Again
(an open letter)
Dear Pastor Rockwell,
I am writing you this letter with two purposes in mind. Firstly, I want to thank you and Family Bible Church for warmly welcoming my friend and me as we visited this past Sunday. We had hardly crossed the threshold of the door before we were greeted several times, guided to the Sunday school room, and made to feel quite at home. Everyone was full of smiles. What a wonderful experience for our first Sunday in Ellsworth, Maine!
Secondly, I have something quite difficult to bring to your attention. The friend I brought with me to church is gay. As you can imagine, he was very hurt and confused by the offhanded comments you made about “gays and gluttons and adulterers and thieves,” as well as your joke about the Yankees fan in your church being “outed” when you presented her with a baseball cap near the beginning of the sermon. The former comment especially came off as harsh and unhopeful; in fact, neither one of us could discern what this tangent had to do with your topic of successful base-running and servant leadership. For the first time that morning, my friend and I felt very unwelcome at your church.
Let me be quite plain in saying that I, like you, firmly hold to the traditional interpretation of the Biblical texts dealing with homosexuality. I believe that the homosexual lifestyle is sinful, whether it be monogamous or promiscuous. I believe that Christ can and does stretch out His hand to heal homosexuals. I believe that in some cases, He does not heal, but rather allows this “thorn in the flesh” to linger so that His strength might be perfected in weakness. I should also mention that I reviewed your sermon video online to be sure that I was hearing and remembering accurately.
I am quite reluctant, of course, to presume to offer advice or correction to a seasoned minister of the Gospel such as yourself. However, as a man who has homosexual friends of varying religious views, many of whom are deeply bitter towards the church; as a man who has been a lay minister to children, teens, young adults, and prisoners for many years; and most importantly as a brother in Christ, I am compelled to bring this matter to your attention and urge you to consider a few thoughts…
Never bring up the issue of homosexuality spontaneously in a sermon. Such a controversial and emotionally-charged topic should only be handled from the pulpit with the most careful forethought, study, counsel, and prayer. It should never be an impromptu aside. Obviously, I cannot be sure whether your comments were extemporaneous or premeditated; they came off, however, as quite extemporaneous.
When preaching or teaching on the topic, be sure that your motive as well as your tone are love. I believe that your motive on Sunday was indeed love, but your tone did not convey that. Instead, your manner of communication made it seem like you had a serious bias against all “gays,” even though you added a disclaimer about “not picking on some particular group.” There was no mention of reaching out to homosexuals. There was no mention of Christ’s transforming power that can work in them also. There was no mention of personal support from the church for people wrestling with homosexuality. There was only a reminder that “you’ve got major trouble—judgment’s coming to your door.” As a result, my friend felt that he had been “bashed” rather than blessed by your sermon simply because of that one-minute detour.
Never make jokes or puns about homosexual issues. (“You are now outed. Kelly is out of the closet…”) This sends a mixed message. Young people in the church might easily conclude that homosexuality is a laughing matter, or that it is ok to mock gay people at school for instance. My friend was also confused after the service and couldn’t figure out why “he was using ‘our’ language” one minute and speaking out against “gays” the next minute.
This may sound strange, but make some gay friends. You cannot understand them simply by reading the Bible. We find precepts therein about homosexual behavior, but we do not find personal narrative about homosexuals. You cannot understand their struggles by reading Christian books either. Believe me—I’ve read the evangelical narrative and self-help literature about homosexuality, and it simply does not match what I have seen in my friends’ lives. Please take advantage of opportunities to meet homosexuals and learn their struggles face to face.
Be aware that there are gay people in your church. Statistically speaking, there are between 3 and 12 members of your congregation who either struggle with homosexuality or who would identify themselves as homosexuals. You may not know about them because anti-gay comments cause these people to hide their struggle and deny it to themselves and others. Godly counsel, prayer, confession, Scripture study, community support, and healing ministry are all Biblical responses to such struggle; secrecy, fear, confusion, and denial are not. What happens to these people, particularly if they are young? They end up thinking that there’s something terribly wrong with them—something they must never tell anyone, something that can never be fixed. Others feel irreparably scarred and simply abandon the church and religion altogether.
If you can accept nothing else in this letter, at least know the unfortunate results of your comments: My friend was hurt, and my heart ached with him. Neither of us heard anything else you said after that point in the sermon—we were simply too distracted, uncomfortable, and alienated to absorb the rest of your points on servant leadership, which were probably as Bible-based and engaging as your first points.
I write so forcefully only because I could clearly see from just one visit at your church that it is your sincerest desire to honor Christ by teaching His life-changing principles to all who may come. This Biblical goal was clouded, however, by the comments you made. I am a preacher myself, and I know that I would certainly never want to unknowingly drive a person or group of people away from the Church because of a few casual comments or a joke.
Let me once again affirm that the deep, real, tangible joy and kindness of Christ is present in your congregation—there is no doubt about that. Visiting Family Bible Church felt much like walking into the front door of my home. Thank you for cultivating this kind of environment. Thank you for your faithfulness to the Gospel of Christ. And thank you for your thoughtful attention to this letter.
Sincerely,
A Visitor
ps_If you would like to dialogue any further about anything I have presented to you in this letter, I am certainly willing. You can reach me via email at this address.
| | |
|
