Christianity Today has a story today on two of the most interesting and thoughtful American film makers working today. Warning: if you’re easily offended, don’t watch Coen Brothers’ films. They are often graphic, violent, and profane. They also, however, ask important questions in provocative ways. UPDATE 10-1-09 Darryl Hart weighs in.
Warning: if you’re easily offended, don’t watch Coen Brothers’ films. They are often graphic, violent, and profane.
It’s interesting you mention this. I stopped watching Coen films when they showed body parts going into and coming out of a woodchipper in Fargo.
Are we not called to put away such things as in Ephesians 5 “But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.”
and
“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret.”
I can understand the attempt to apply these verses to this situation but I doubt that it’s certain because you could apply them to get rid of more than a few OT stories!
The situation in which and to which Paul wrote those words, in Ephesus, would shock many today. I cannot recount for you here, without scandalizing many, the sorts of pornography that were on public display in Ephesus. The sort of violence (not pretend but real, actual) violence of the circus is well documented by the pagans themselves.
I’m not suggesting that people violate their conscience by watching things against which they have scruples but I do want to preserve the liberty of those who do watch them.
Dr. Clark,
Interesting reply. I totally agree. Could you give us more background on what these verses are receding to? I think it would be helpful. I’m not suggesting a graphic description, but perhaps show us how this does not apply to these movies and give us some follow up sources. Thanks Mike
All I can say is that there was visible to the public graphic pornography of a sort that one does not see in the most tawdry districts in famously debauched cities.
The larger point is that we should be careful about how we apply these verses to things we find personally distasteful. Personally I would be troubled eating meat I knew to be offered to idols, but Paul speaks to that very case.
Dr. Clark, I agree that Ephesus had a level of sin and idolatry not seen “publicly” in America today. But there is no sliding scale when it comes to watching evil acts. I’m not promoting“moralism” (pleasing God with our behavior), but simply saying that too many Christians have adopted an easy-believism attitude when it comes to our culture today. Of course many suggest that one strong in the faith can handle such things and not let it affect their walk with the Lord. But I suggest it is not a matter of a weak or strong faith, but in this case a matter of discernment and quite the opposite as mentioned in Hebrews 5:14. It is highly unlikely the apostles or the church fathers would say that it’s okay for Christians ‘strong in the faith’ to go to the arena and watch the games, which is equivalent to many films these days.
Also, Mr. Veith makes an important point as well regarding being stewards of our time. As Paul also mentions in chapter 5 “See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil”.
Of course I realize this discussion has hijacked your post, and you probably did not intend for it to turn into a theological debate. Yet, I myself struggled with this for years as a Christian before becoming reformed and changing what I put into my mind.
I do think that people ought to be thoughtful about what they let into their minds but also think they ought to be careful about letting folks set up arbitrary rules about what others can and can’t do. This is especially the case when the rules are grounded in deductions that are not manifestly obvious or necessary. E.g. I’m not at all sure that there is a direct moral equivalence between watching people actually being murdered and the portrayal of murder in film or television. It may not be wise to ingest as much murder etc as hollywood doles out but that’s a different category of analysis.
Michael:
I share your perspective. Additionally, such things, from my perspective, constitute a “theft” of my time. Better to turn some of the electronics off and sing some Psalms for an evening.
Philip
Does this mean Joel and Ethan have finally “made it”?
But showing up in A Secular Faith to make a point about the two kingdoms beats showing up in CT to make points about morality.
I’m more disturbed by Joel Osteen than Joel Coen. Thanks for sticking up for liberty in matters such as this.
In appreciation of Dr. Clark’s thoughts (while also honoring freedom of conscience for professing Christians who feel awkward about postmodern cinema), I would note that it’s good to appreciate cinema, liteature, and the arts of this world as features of common grace – features of God’s creation reflecting His beauty and glory, especially in God’s creation of man as a thinking and creative creature. We should also be mindful of idolatry in the arts as in all of life, in view of the Law and the Gospel from Scripture. The arts themselves aren’t the problem; rather the problem is our twisting of the arts, and all other good things of common grace, to our own purposes apart from God. If we Christians can gently relate with people who don’t know God and don’t necessarily share our values, even within the secenario of sharing the same moviet theater, I think we honor the “imago Dei” in those people, and perhaps even get to invite them to Sunday services of regulative worship in the local church.
The only real eyebrow raiser for me from the CT article was the author’s mention that the Coen brothers don’t necessarily point to Christ, but they don’t have to point to Christ. That seems a bit too close to theological relativism for my liking. But this isn’t necessarily a problem if we appreciate the Bible-saturated, classical Reformed perspective of regulative worship on the Sabbath in the local church. We don’t necessarily want movies or overall media in culture outside the Sunday worship service to point us to Christ. The best place for our encounter of the Biblical Gospel is in the scenario of Sabbath day expression of worship in Word, sacrament, and prayer ecclesiology. We should want the pastor’s preaching and teaching of the Law and the Gospel, the pastor’s administering of the sacraments and edification of fellowship among professing Christians, and Christians’ gathering into corporate prayer to the glory of the triune Godhead in the local church.
If movies or the overall arts in culture favorably mention Christianity, that’s a lovely gesture. We should praise God our Father whenever that happens. But we know that the best place, and the best community, for encountering the God of the Law and the Gospel is in the Sunday worship services and fellowship of the local church.
Hi Scott,
Isn’t comparing the situation in Ephesus a bit apples to oranges? Although many evils were present there, I can’t find any indication that Christians sought it out for enterainment purposes. Would there be a record of Christians spending thier free time gathered around watching pagans fornicate in the temple or checking out folks getting killed in the coliseum?
It’s hard for me see how consuming images of violence, adultry and blasphamy for recreation isn’t a clear violation of LC138 & 139. Perhaps our Reformed Fathers were prudes and legalists, but I can’t ever remember reading in Calvin, the Scots or the Purtians an apologetic for this sort of thing, where the Chrsitian actively seeks out depictions of sin for amusement. Maybe I’ve missed it or the Dutch tradition takes a different view.
Q. 138. What are the duties required in the seventh commandment?
A. The duties required in the seventh commandment are, chastity in body, mind, affections, words, and behavior; and the preservation of it in ourselves and others; watchfulness over the eyes and all the senses; temperance, keeping of chaste company, modesty in apparel; marriage by those that have not the gift of continency, conjugal love, and cohabitation; diligent labor in our callings; shunning all occasions of uncleanness, and resisting temptations thereunto.
Q. 139. What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections; all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks, impudent or light behavior, immodest apparel; prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with unlawful marriages; allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them; entangling vows of single life, undue delay of marriage; having more wives or husbands than one at the same time; unjust divorce, or desertion; idleness, gluttony, drunkenness, unchaste company; lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays; and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.
These were the arguments the CRC and others used to make against attending films.
So, are all films out?
What about the seamier biblical narratives?
Who gets to say?
What else is forbidden?
Is all realism in art forbidden to Christians?
Sent from my iPhone
It’s not very hard for me to see how it’s not a clear violation of the LC 138&139. The Catechism condemns “lascivious… stage plays”. That would certainly apply to film, but the question is, are the Coen brother’s movies lascivious? I would take issue with that. Here’s the definition of lasciviousness:
–adjective
1. inclined to lustfulness; wanton; lewd: a lascivious, girl-chasing old man.
2. arousing sexual desire: lascivious photographs.
3. indicating sexual interest or expressive of lust or lewdness: a lascivious gesture.
There is intent and manner involved here. Simply describing or depicting sexual sin does not make something lascivious. If that were the case, then the Bible is incredibly lascivious. I think it is rather undiscerning to react to films like the Coen brothers as if the point is for us to revel in the sins of others. Rather they depict the ridiculousness, insanity, and destructiveness of sinfulness. That was a major point of the CT article that is supposedly being responded to, isn’t it? Furthermore, I have trouble following these applications when there seems to be 1- a low view of what recreation should or at least can involve, and 2-a related low view of what film can or even should involve. Perhaps I’m unfair, or not hearing, but I can’t say I’m hearing anyone here whose criticizing the Coen brothers films interacting with these film makers seriously, on the level of art, literature, mythology and philosophy.
There’s more that could be said I suppose, but I’m relaly not interested in offending or relying up anyone’s conscience more than I may already have. I’m with Dr. Clark here: this is a matter of Christian liberty.
Quite right Adam. Encouraging Christians to actively seek out depictions of sin for amusement is a clear breach of accepted reformed piety. A sad day indeed for the Heidelblog.
Dr Clark : “These were the arguments the CRC and others used to make against attending films. ”
Actually no it’s the Larger Catechism Q139
The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections; all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks, impudent or light behavior, immodest apparel; prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with unlawful marriages; allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them; entangling vows of single life, undue delay of marriage; having more wives or husbands than one at the same time; unjust divorce, or desertion; idleness, gluttony, drunkenness, unchaste company; lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays; and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.
If you are not agreement with the catechism Dr Clark -why not just say so.
Ian,
This form of argumentation is unbecoming.
I affirm heartily the Standards. What I doubt is your application of them to this particular case.
You may be right but right now your net catches too much.
Sent from my iPhone
I would urge the folks commenting on this post to settle down a bit.
I went to Calvin College, where “discernment” was used as a get out of jail free card on most any issue of questionable morality. It even extended to art classes showing slide shows of homosexual pornography. You would have found no bigger critic of such anti-nomianism in my day.
However, we must exercise the wisdom deduced from Scriptural and Confessional injunctions with regard to artistic portrayals. Most every common grace element that we can study has tangible evidences of the Fall at work within it (i.e. most books have either foul language, depictions of sinful acts–graphic or otherwise, or bad theology). If we attempt to withdrawel from engaging those things that are touched by the Fall, we will in effect cordon ourselves off in our own monastery of the mind without seriously (and bibilically) engaging the world around us–using wisdom, holiness, and not binding the conscience of believers.
Stephen,
Good points.
But having spent time on both the Calvin (transformer) and Cornerstone (transformer plus institutionalized legalism) campuses, and even more on secular campuses, I can’t help but wonder if somewhere in the mix is something about the very concept of Christian education. It just seems to me a lot easier to negotiate all these things when there is better clarity on the kingdoms. Otherwise, you either have believers showing each other porn or believers telling each other they can’t drink or smoke without losing their employment or student status. I found the Christian life on the secular campus way less confusing.
I think what we have here … is a failure to communicate
“Well… that’s just… like… your opinion… man.” – The Dude (from The Big Lebowski)