People goes ape-poop over the innuendo, but nobody says a word when I suggest that stripping a woman to take pictures is OK if we shoot her first.
Everything that’s wrong about how the church deals with sexuality is present in some form in this discussion. It’s no wonder the world laughs at us.
Tim: Can I look at someone else’s naked wife if I promise not to enjoy it?

I think it’s pretty clear that God made us to 1) enjoy our own spouses’ nakedness but no-one else’s, and 2) be non-violent. The closer we can come to that, the better. Since both are simply forms of love, when Jesus changes the heart these expressions of love become more nearly natural to us. Otherwise, they make us despair.

They simply have to be talked about separately.  The corrupt forms of the two things, and the pathways toward their respective corruptions, are like apples and oranges. More »« Less

Jim’s first paragraph should get some kind of award. Perhaps an Enzyte Smilin’ Bob shirt would be a suitable prize. (And I’ll add a classic AOL “Me Too!” to the point of his post.)

Jim, I am NOT amused by the innuendo in your use of the term ‘issue’. I am ou…ou…OU….OUT!!!...raged.

Oh, and your second paragraph is exactly right (of course).

Jim, and I mean this with no JN, without you, this place would not what it is, it probably couldn’t even pass for a bar….   I do appreciate your contributions to this place….

I made a simple comment comparing the desensitizing effect of depictions of violence with the similar effect of pornography, and all sorts of mischief sprang up erect to demand attention. With my schedule, it’s hard to keep abreast of the intercourse of ideas and viewpoints here on the Tavern, but it’s fascinating to see how we can beat around the bush on this. It seems to me that in our impotence, we’ve failed to penetrate to the heart of the issue.

Sex is a part of the created order. Violence is a result of man’s sinfulness. The Fall corrupts sex, but it gives birth to violence. Even the most twisted, perverse examples of human sexual behavior have a basis (however remote) in God’s original design for mankind; that simply cannot be said for violent behavior, no matter how much the specific circumstances justify them.

Shea, not to pick particularly on you, but I’m curious: if we shoot the model first, can we take her clothes off and paint her?

Just to be clear, I agree with you all on the Buford Pusser point.  So I’m not one of those thinking all is well at the movies if I just avoid nudity.  But just to keep the conversation going, let me ask this.  What about the violence and vengeance in a movie like Mississippi Burning?  Is the rage you feel watching that any more defensible because it is directed at real evil?

On nudity, I agree that there can be artistic representations of nudity that are not lascivious.  I do think everything changes when you get real people involved.  So I do think it would be wrong to paint using a live nude model.  And nudity in film always involves real people getting naked in front of a camera.  How would you counsel your daughter if she were considering being the model for this art class?  Or playing the lead in Eyes Wide Shut?

It’s Friday, sermon day for me, so I won’t be able to defend myself anymore today from charges of prudery. 

[name deleted] has an interesting post today about a Catholic apologist who has left the fold….for the fields of Anti-Vatican II/No legitimate pope Catholicism. You can find it at aomin.org. Here’s to all that “Come Home” rhetoric.

School till 11, which consists of finals, nachos and Rear Window. Then we go pick up Clay 3 hours down the road at Newport, Tenn and deliver him back here for two days. Then he’s off to the Appalachian Writer’s Workshop for a week. I’m off and available for free lunches. If you are around Lexington, I’m preaching at Victory Baptist Church Sunday at 9 and 10:20. Van Til is singing.

There’s nothing wrong with nudity or sexuality. There’s something wrong with us. The sexual appetite is fallen, but the glory of the human body is good. That means that all people can lust whether they are looking at a nude or a burka, and it also means there’s nothing inherently wrong with nudity in the right context. There’s nudity in the Bible, and I assume the author of Song wanted me to think of certain body parts when he mentioned them in certain ways. If human beings understand themselves, they won’t be afraid of what they are, but they will account for what they’ve become.

Looks like Desiring God will begin having a podcast soon. It will be Q&A with John Piper from his radio program. A sample is available here.

Piper may get his share of criticism and maybe he makes up a few too many hyphenated words :) but when he talks like this about Jesus, he’s one of the best preachers I’ve heard.

Well, Kent just had to mention Buford Pusser. So it is time to confess that I saw all three of the old Walking Tall movies (more than once) and have visited the Buford Pusser museum in Tennessee. There are probably some others of you out there but you won’t admit it :)
But Kent’s posts about vengeance in movies raise a very good point. This is something that is rarely targeted as Christian/culture war types as being bad in film. The Bible spends a lot of time making it clear that vengeance is God’s business. But it is interesting that you take a guy in a story who is overall “good” and gets some really bad breaks. Because he really didn’t deserve what happened he is entitled to his revenge and it is easy to be on his side. The less violent of these kind of movies are often even considered family movies and so on. Anyway, it is an interesting thing, in my opinion that vengeance doesn’t normally raise any criticism from the culture warriors. I think this is tougher issue to take on. Sex or nudity can be identified and marked as bad. It is easy to say “I don’t watch movies with nudity” and check that off the list. But when it gets down to something like revenge, it hits a little closer to home. Every ounce of our human flesh screams “But this isn’t fair! The bad guys deserve what they get.” This one can’t go on a checklist. It is a condition of the heart.

Shea: Is all nudity bad nudity? Can a Christian sign up for a figure drawing class with a nude model? What about nudity in art? The classical masters? Sculpture? Is it immoral if the painter used a real live naked lady as a model? I’m just curious where we draw the line between art and sin. Is there a universal metric you can apply?

Ok, snarky subtexted ones ;-), you’re going to have to spell it out for me.  I don’t understand what you think you’re seeing in my shift from viewing to filiming nudity.  I have a problem with both.  The filming issue just usually brings the problem more clearly to light.

Phillip, your restraint is at once impressive and eloquent.

I’m going to write a longish post at some point (on my blog) about my experience with Accordance but I’d briefly like to share a couple of things. One, the Training DVD is INCREDIBLE! I know, I know: $30 is a lot of coin to drop on a training DVD. However, it has been worth every cent I spent on it. Two, after watching the DVD I’ve discovered just how powerful the User Tools really is. A User Tool is a .txt, html, or .tlg (whatever that is) file that can be imported and then searched. For example, in the last two days I’ve imported pretty much all the scholarly articles on the N.T. Wright Page and The Paul Page I could get my hands on. So, if I want to search the word “covenant”, I can track every place that word is used in all those articles without having to reread the whole thing.

These are things that make the true geek in me truly excited.

Interesting. What started as a statement about watching films has now become a statement about filming them. I’m not saying anything, just noticing that, is all. :-)

God destroyed the world because of violence, not sex. (as far as we know)

I’m not trying to rank sins.  I’m saying that I can imagine circumstances in which I could choose to film a portrayal of violence and it would not be sin at all.  I can’t imagine ever filming another man’s wife (or daughter) in the buff and contriving a convincing justification.

I started to get offended, Michael, but then I realized that I would ban someone for calling me a Baptist so I guess it all evens out :-)

Phillip, I would agree that sexual sin and violent sin are indeed different categories of sin…but I’ll never agree with ranking sin.  Which is, at least part of the point.  Revelling in violence, finding vicarious gratification for rage and/or anger in cinematic portrayals of violent acts toward humans - and I’m speaking of myself here - feeds something that this Christian has learned is sinful to feed.  Much as it would be sinful for me to revel in portrayals or the actual acting out of sexual acts.

This is not an attempt on my part to rank one sin as being better (as if there could be better sins to commit) or worse than another; it is an attempt to make the point that there are many means (or categories) of sinful gratification, and that as believers we are repulsed and accepting in ways that are sometimes more congruent with popular culture than scripture.

I have read Harry Potter as much as an exercise in cultural awareness as because I enjoyed it. The previous books were strong on plot and short on character development; oh, and horribly formulaic to boot. Not to say I haven’t enjoyed them – I have, but great literature it ain’t.

Book 7 seemed like more of the same – strong plot, but the same characters doing the same things. Then Rowling surprised me in the last several chapters – she broke the formula and upped the intensity and interest. Most pleasing.

Throughout the series, I thought that Snape was by far the most interesting character, (and the least two-dimensional). He still is. Best book in the series by far, although you will enjoy the last one more if you have read the others.

Now, to respond to Ken B’s question about the rapture: tell her the rapture is the invention of a 19th century English nut-case and to forget about it. Concentrate on loving God and loving her neighbor as herself. The rest will pretty much take care of itself.

Finally, I’ve always found violence on film to be far more objectionable than sex. It is my hope that all my children will enjoy a sexual relationship some day. I have no desire for any of them to ever be involved in violence.

I’ve been trying to decide whether I should challenge the idea that seeing sexual nudity in a film is a different category of sin that seeing explicit violence in a film. I think I’ve decided that even if I’m right, I don’t think I can win that point, even here. So sure, whatever. ;-)

Kent: I agree with that.  I guess I’m not making a contrary point, just a different one.  Subjectively the human heart can find a way to make anything sinful.  But filming people having sex seems objectively wrong to me in a way that filming people pretending to be violent does not. 

My eyes, Macht, my eyes! Now I have to go bury them.

If I’m going to read a book on Pauline theology, I’d rather drop the duckets for Fee’s recent book on Paul’s christology. Chris Tilling is beginning a series of posts reviewing it.

I just banned the first IM commenter in ?? years…..for calling me a Methodist.

TSK has some posters of his own.

I posted the What would JE say about HP? link without comment. I have not read the books (...yet! My kids are threatening terrible things if I don’t get started soon) but I too was disappointed by the all too superficial “Pagan” comment. On the other hand I thought that the article made a good point that the popularity of the books show that the public is interested in dealing with issues surrounding death and that Christians should speak to those issues with the Good News about Jesus.

Our family watched Bridge to Terabithia last night and I was deeply moved by it. See it if you can or read the book. Bring tissues.

Shea, my post expresses that response/addiction to vicarious violence is at times like the response/addiction to vicarious sexuality.  I believe that the definition of pornography specifies sexual gratification, but I’d assert that humans sinfully pursue gratification by other means as well.

First blurb for Piper’s book on NTW.

In general, I agree with these statements against violence and gore in film.  I’m especially troubled by movies that put violence and children in the same room together.  This seems increasingly common.  I have to walk away at that point.  I watch movies be entertained and/or edified.  Neither are happening in this scenario.  There’s no need to suffer through this.  

But I can’t quite see the violence = pornography point.  There is a significant difference in my mind.  An actor can pretend to commit murder, but you can’t pretend to be naked.  If I watch a film with nudity I am really looking on another’s nakedness and this seems to be less questionably wrong.

Bob, I actually agreed with you about Gibson’s work – until you retracted your prior statement.  Though frankly of the three you mentioned I’d only seen The Patriot.  I thought it was an extremely well-executed version of what I like to call the Buford Pusser genre of entertainment wherein the plot line is; a peaceful kind person is through the heinous act of another pushed past their ability to withhold their inner, murderous rage so they go on a spree of revenge allowing the audience to vicariously partake of that rage.

I find watching this genre to be personally damaging to my psyche; as with pornography my response is addictive, self-centered, exploitive of others and that over time I start to rationalize dehumanizing behaviors.  The images stick with me; I’ve worked in ERs and have not seen the stuff I’ve come to regret seeing in films.  I’ve decided that for me the screen is not a place for gore, even if it is thematically congruent.

And I’ve also been exploring the role of revenge and murder in the life of a Christian; sometimes I wonder why dismemberment is ok to watch but sexual intercourse is not.  (jn)

If you don’t have the time, make the time.  Get your priorities straight, mister. (jn)

I don’t have time to make up a bunch of sarcastic posters designed to expose the faults and flaws of the fightin’ fundies, aka reformed baptists, but if I did, this picture would probably find its way in to one of them: More »« Less

Travis, Got it.  That’s what I thought you meant.  I don’t use the word pagan anymore because of those nuances.  But if pagans are reading your blog then you are guilty by association since they are not reading your blog for the glory of God…  I hope you don’t allow them to post! (jn)

Bob, my disagreement is with the claim that the Harry Potter series is pagan, not that, for the most part, pagans are writing better literature than Christians these days (they probably are).

Pagan, by the way, is a title claimed by folks with much more specific meaning than “non-Christian.”  I have several “Pagan” readers at SoG.

Michael:  Argh.  Yes, character assassination for the glory of God is a good way of putting it.  Unbelievable.

Travis, what do you disagree with in the statement that the best work is being done by pagans? (By pagan, I assume it means individuals who are not Christian believers and therefore do not buy Christian truth).
By the way, looking forward to going to your website, but I have to avoid “spoilers” until I can get my hands on our family’s copy of the book….