This excerpt from a chapter titled “God, My Heart, and Media” by Craig Cabaniss in C. J. Mahaney’s Worldliness got me to thinking about how my son and I watch movies:
All too often, we think about neither what we watch nor how much. Our watching is just inevitable. We watch by habit. We watch because we’re bored. We unwatchingly watch as the TV stays on for background noise. We watch alone or with others. We gather with friends on Friday night and rent a DVD because there’s nothing else to do…
Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying it’s wrong to watch television, rent a DVD, surf the Internet, or spend an evening at the cinema. The hazard is thoughtless watching. Glorifying God is an intentional pursuit. We don’t accidentally drift into holiness; rather, we mature gradually and purposefully, one choice at a time.
Is it possible to glorify God by watching movies and television shows that really have no overt references to God? I think so. But I haven’t always thought so.
My thought process on movie-watching has evolved thanks to my son, Joel. He’s taught me to think about what the movie is before we see it, so rarely are we seeing a movie merely for entertainment purposes only (but certainly we are entertained). Immediately after we see a movie there is often a debriefing about the philosophical/theological implications of the message we have just received.
We’ve had these kinds of engaging discussions after seeing There Will Be Blood, I’m Not There, Synecdoche, New York, Doubt, The Dark Knight, and most every movie we see. They aren’t long discussions. Normally they take place in the car as we drive home from the theatre. But because most movies we see would be labeled by some Christians as “inappropriate” (not because of nudity or profanity, but because there is no overt presentation of the gospel vis-a-vis the name of Jesus being mentioned throughout), they are thoughtful discussions. We are digging together to find truth. Sometimes we don’t agree on what we’ve seen. But we seem to always agree that we are glad we saw whatever movie we saw even if we take different things away from it.
Cabaniss says above, “Glorifying God is an intentional pursuit.” I would also add, in keeping with the thought he is expressing, that glorifying God is an intellectual pursuit. Loving God with our minds is something I have had to work at intentionally. The heart part (emotion) is often the default part of our worship. Critically thinking about art (movies, music, et al) is how we sanctify the ordinary as we offer it back to the God who gives us every good gift. This is the head part (intellect) of worship, which is more rarely used by Christians in their adoration of God.
When God’s word is used to sift through what we are seeing, movie-going becomes an act of worship as our hearts are moved and our heads are engaged to think critically rather than merely being moved emotionally.
HT: Stephen Altrogge
Colin,
I have problems with “Last Temptation,” but I think it’s a very intelligent and sincere work. Because it strongly identifies itself upon the start as a fictional retelling of the life of Christ, we understand there are liberties taken. I think Scorsese did err on the side of making Christ too self-doubting and giving Judas too much prominence in the story. But I think his capturing of the way Christ’s divinity and humanity may have co-mingled is exceptional. Christ was human–did he ever question Himself or His Father? Did he ever have doubts? Is it a sin to doubt or is it a sin simply to follow that doubt into sinful actions instead of resting on God? In fact, can we say we even have a strong faith if we are never tempted to doubt?
As for the handling of the scenes with Mary Magdalene…I think they are troublesome in all the right ways. The scene where he watches her have sex with a client–the point Scorsese is making is that she may have been a prostitute; Christ was intimately aware of her actions. And yet he still loved her.
And the sequence with his “fantasies” while on the cross is one of the most poweful depictions I’ve seen. The dream Christ is having isn’t of lust. It’s the temptation of stepping down from the cross, not dying for our sins and living a normal life as a family man. If we’re told Christ was tempted in all things yet was without sin, then doesn’t it stand to reason that He was tempted even more than us? And wouldn’t that temptation be strongest when He was most vulnerable? Isn’t it likely that when others were yelling at Him to come down from the cross and save Himself, that wasn’t just mockery but was a very strong temptation?
In contrast, Mel Gibson’s movie gives us no context about Christ, presents our Savior as a weakling with no power or strength and spends 2-hours showing us torture and pain with no deeper reasoning behind it.
Yes, Scorsese’s film has problems–as you would guess from anyone trying to artistically grapple with theology…we’re never going to get it totally right this side of Heaven. But I think his boldness and sincerity in taking on this issue is commendable and worthy of some meditation.
“A man can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work. This too, I see, is from the hand of God, “( Ecclesiastes 2:24)
Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day.
2 Corinthians 4:16 NIV
“We don’t accidentally drift into holiness; rather, we mature gradually and purposefully, one choice at a time. ”
Great thought to chew on.
Chris,
Wait a minute! You thinkt he blasphemous last temptation of Christ portrays Jesus better than the Passion? A movie which portrays Jesus as watching Mary Magdelene engage in sex acts with her “clients” and then begs for forgiveness? A movie where he constantly asks people for forgiveness and dies on the cross all while having fantasies about the two marys and martha? Where Jesus is confused and doesn’t know the difference between God and satan but Judas does? You’ve got to be kidding me, I do not think you have an understanding of biblical anthropology nor of the nature of sin, nor of the nature of Jesus. Sorry but that movie is blasphemous.
To see God in everything…the good and the bad…is a gift and truly does lead to deeper worship and maturity…one choice at a time!
Jeffrey Overstreet (who was just on your show) wrote a fantastic book on Christian movie-watching called “Through a Screen Darkly” that I’ve mentioned on this blog before; it’s amazing.
I 100% agree that Christian movie-watching needs to be a purposeful pursuit engaging the intellect and the heart. I think movies that sometimes deal with ‘darker’ themes sometimes are the ones that prompt my heart to worship and introspection the most–There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men and A History of Violence are just a few examples. The challenge is to not just approach a movie for entertainment (although some movies are fantastic entertainment) but also for edification, not afraid of content but always being aware of the context.
Take nudity, for example. In a movie like ‘American Pie,’ the nudity is gratuitious and the theme is deplorable–especially because the movie pays lip service to the idea that “it’s not about sex” right before…letting all the characters have sex. But then there’s a movie about adultery, like LITTLE CHILDREN (2006) that features nudity and some graphic sexuality—I would recommend caution in this movie, but I think that it’s content is necessary to get the point of the film across: that adultery is childish and immature and that adults often act immature in pursuing their own desires, which leads to devastating consequences. A movie like LITTLE CHILDREN or REVOLUTIONARY ROAD have done more to make me think about marriage and conflict than a movie like FIREPROOF, which tells me how to think and feel and acts as nothing more than an ad for a marriage formula.
I know this post is long, but I wanted to ad one more story. When I was growing up, no movie was more despised by my parents than Martin Scorsese’s THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST. In college, I tried watching it and felt guilty just for having it in the house; I turned it off after 15 minutes. As an adult, I watched it again. I think the film has some major theological flaws, and yet is a film that I think provokes me to thought and even worship as I reflect on the duality of Christ–his being all God and all man. Scorsese chooses to take that seriously and in many instances I think he comes closer to the Truth than Mel Gibson or any others. And Monty Python’s LIFE OF BRIAN is a film that I believe is misunderstood as well–it’s not a parody of Christ, but of how the Church gets carried away and is run by fallible human beings.