From “The Bible” (1966) directed by John Huston
A few months back, Tim Challies posted a piece entitled Sex on the Silver Screen in which he argues that watching simulated sex scenes in films, and the assumed accompanying nudity, is categorically wrong for Christians to partake of. Challies concludes,
The reality is, the Bible forbids what those actors are doing. If the Bible forbids what they are doing, it also forbids your voyeuristic participation in it. If they act sinfully by doing it, you act sinfully by watching it.
This was part of a conversation evangelicals were having that was largely initiated by John Piper in his post Seven Questions to Ask Before You Watch ‘Deadpool.’ A day or so after reading the piece, I encountered a similar article (similar in subject matter, at least) that I felt addressed the subject in a much more detailed, thoughtful way. In their post The Body on Screen, the Catholic Geeks take time to unravel the interconnecting issues, such as “what is nudity,” is all nudity in film intended to arouse, what do viewer and the creator bring to the table and what they are responsible for, can nudity be shown in a film without invoking lust, can real nudity be detached from a recreated image, and much more. It’s over 5,000 words, footnoted, and well-worth the read if you’re interested in a more detailed treatment of this subject. The author concludes:
“…the filmmaker is not responsible for catering to puritans or the overly-scrupulous. Those people like to find temptation and sin where none exists, and they will condemn content in films based on their radical opinions rather than truth. A properly-handled instance of cinematic nudity poses no danger of sin to a normal person, yet the overly-scrupulous carry their temptations in with them, and accuse the film of pornography. The fault is theirs, not the filmmaker’s.”
I linked to that post on my Facebook page while the Challies piece was making its rounds and got some significant pushback. You can see that conversation HERE. One of those who took exception to the post was Gregory Shane Morris, assistant editor of BreakPoint Radio, who left this comment:
I answered him, “Gregory, still seems like a valid objection to me. You’ve done nothing to engage the argument.” To which he replied,
“Mike, if you really equate strip club scenes and softcore porn bedroom sequences involving actual people simulating actual sex acts for your enjoyment to the emaciated, shocking nudity of Holocaust victims marching to their deaths in Schindler’s List, your argument needs no engagement.”
And that was the extent of our interaction — I brought up the employment of nudity in Schindler’s List as an example of the “nudity in film” issue being anything but cut-and-dried, to which he basically dismissed as trying to “equate strip club scenes and softcore porn” to “emaciated, shocking nudity of Holocaust victims.” In my opinion, a very uncharitable mischaracterization of my opinion.
So I was not surprised to see Morris take up the subject more at length, nor was I surprised by a similar rhetorical tone. In his recent article for Breakpoint Magazine, No Buts About It , Morris springboards off of recent discussions surrounding the film Deadpool and Christians apparent dismissal or defense of its gratuitous nudity. His set-up to addressing five common “buts” — common evangelical defenses of nudity in film — looked like this:
The Christian blogosphere has developed a penchant for defending nudity-as-entertainment. A lot of Christians are arguing that the Son of Man would have no problem joining them in front of a 50-foot screen dominated by flesh.
Thus, Morris proceeds to approach the subject with a club not a scalpel. Rather than concede that the issues are perhaps more complex and us “defenders” are perhaps not the prurient reprobates typically made out to be, Morris resorts to rancorous and combative rhetoric, casting those who might disagree as “arguing that the Son of Man would have no problem joining them in front of a 50-foot screen dominated by flesh.”
Defending a less “reactionary” approach to sex and nudity in film (as I am) is not an enviable position for an evangelical to be in.
For one thing, it is easy to see the defender of a more thoughtful evangelical approach to nudity in film as defending sin. Listen, there are very good reasons to err on the side of caution here. Lust, lewdness, immodesty, immorality, and fornication are NOT minor issues in Scripture. In some ways, the life of the puritan (with their endless clinical codes of conduct) should be preferred over the life of the libertine hedonist. Better to go into heaven with one eye, Jesus said, than to be thrown into hell with two. Please be clear, I am not suggesting that all those who defend the traditional evangelical approach to sex and nudity in film are Pharisaical. What I will suggest is that those who defend such a position often frame those of us who counter as hedonists. Or, at best, winking at sin.
Refraining from charging “opponents” as either puritans or hedonists is an important prerequisite to a civil discussion about sex in cinema. Frankly, one reason evangelicals have such a hard time discussing the subject fairly is that both sides seem to have little qualms about framing the other as either Pharisees or Perverts.
Secondly, it’s easy to mistake (or intentionally mischaracterize) opponents of the typical evangelical view as on a crusade FOR sex and nudity in cinema. As if my goal is to persuade all believers to relax before “a 50-foot screen dominated by flesh” with Jesus at our side. I’ve run into this same mischaracterization before as I have argued for evangelicals to adopt a more thoughtful, less rigid approach to profanity in fiction. Christian publishers are notorious for rather strict language guidelines. Some of those strictures can be rather absurd, striking words like crap, poop, darn it, and hell. Well, part of the downside of my position is that it can often be misconstrued as an argument FOR profanity. As a result, some rebuttals come in the form of, “Why are you on a crusade for profanity?” In fact, the accusations got so bad, that I wrote a piece defending myself entitled The Crusade Against Profanity (And Other Ploys). The same thing can potentially happen with the subject of sex and nudity in film. So let me clarify (before I’m charged with it) — I’m not on a crusade for more sex and nudity in films! What I’m on a ‘crusade’ for is a more thoughtful evangelical approach to art in general.
Morris brings up five common “buts” in his piece; these are what he views as the most common defenses used by Christians who argue for a more nuanced or liberal approach to sex and nudity in film. Those ‘buts’ are:
- “It’s just a movie!”
- “The nudity advances the story!”
- “Schindler’s List!”
- “It doesn’t cause me to lust!”
- “It’s no different from violence!”
I’m not going to attempt to rebut each and every one of Morris’ points. But let me begin by saying… I agree with most of them. At least, I agree with some of the sentiments behind them.
We agree that our culture has slipped into the moral sewer, that we’ve drifted FAR from God’s design for sex and marriage, and that Christians, as have the general American populace, drifted into debauchery and been desensitized to sin. Morris concludes:
We’ve conditioned ourselves to look at pixels or projections and see objects rather than people—objects that exist for our pleasure. But as many a grieving wife and divorcee can tell you, that instinct to treat people as objects rarely stays in the virtual world. It warps the way we look at those around us, and defiles the secret and sacred bed of marriage where God meant us to enjoy nudity.
We agree that labeling everything controversial or sexually questionable as “art” can be a smokescreen. Frankly, I think Christians are a bit too eager to “find the Gospel” in so many works of pop culture. At some point, we simply must employ moral strictures to our art appreciation. Morris writes,
…this objection suggests that art transcends morality, or that merely classifying something as “art” excuses its moral shortcomings. But art, like anything else, can be bent to serve good or evil. Indeed, art has a particular penchant for training our minds how to think, our bodies how to behave, and our souls what to love.
We agree that believers should bring more discernment to what they watch on TV and cinema. Perhaps this is a given per the subject matter, but I’ve personally found it troubling how undiscerning Christians can appear to be about this subject. Even seemingly benign films and programs can subtly shape our values and worldviews.
So in many ways, I’d consider myself and Morris allies in a similar cause.
However, I’ve got some big ‘buts.’
My first big objection to this post is its hostile, uncharitable tone. Sure, that doesn’t address the subject matter. But it taints what engagement there is and immediately paints objectors in an unfavorable light. For example, in answering his #2 “The nudity advances the story!” Morris says,
“What I hear when someone raises this defense is that he or she thinks pornography is dandy–“
Wha–? Do those who argue for a more thoughtful, less reactionary approach to sex and nudity in film really think “pornography is dandy”? This response is so obviously over-the-top it’s hard to not see it as an intentional mischaracterization of an opposing point of view. This is not the only incidence of such rhetoric. On #3 “Schindler’s List!” Morris responds,
“If you can’t tell the difference between emaciated Holocaust victims stripped even of the dignity of clothing, and strippers gyrating on a pole (yes, that’s in “Deadpool”), you have bigger problems than my opinion on your choice of entertainment.”
Please notice that he doesn’t even answer the question. Instead, he questions the challenger as not being able to “tell the difference between emaciated Holocaust victims….strippers gyrating on a pole.” Good grief! And this rhetorical tone continues throughout the piece.
Listen, this is an important conversation that Christians need to have. I am not writing this rebuttal because I “think pornography is dandy” and “can’t tell the difference between emaciated Holocaust victims” and “strippers gyrating on a pole.” My hope is that we can avoid such rhetoric and refrain from insinuating that those on either side are either perverts or pharisees.
Perhaps one of the biggest areas where Morris (and those of a similar position) and I disagree is that the line between what is proper and improper in film, what is sin and not sin, is a lot finer than objectors want to concede. I’ll go more into that in my next post. But by way of illustration, and as a segue, let me recount an event in my childhood that, I think, illustrates the complexity of this issue and why we need to approach it with a scalpel rather than a club.
My parents took me to see a film when I was 9 years old. It was the first time I can really recall being sexually aroused by a film. That movie was John Huston’s The Bible. It was rated G. The scene in question was in the Garden of Eden (duh) and involved Eve (duh). Of course, the nudity was suggested. There were glimpses of skin between the lush flora. And there was faint side boob shots of Eve between her long and conveniently flowing hair. I remembering thinking how hot incredibly Eve was. And — this part may be hard to explain — but part of her “hotness” was the pristine beauty of what she was and what God had made. Here was a perfect Woman who perfectly matched a Companion. There was something good and true and beautiful about her. But like any good red-blooded male, the package of that “goodness” and its visual expression was… stimulating.
So did the director show too much? Was there a more tasteful way this could be approached? Was this just evidence of my sinful, carnal tendencies? Or was such responses inevitable no matter how careful the director was and how tasteful the representation?
I’ll take this up in my next post.
I was just reading Paul’s lecture about eating meat offered to idols, and the weaker brother. What bothers me may not bother you, and vice versa. But what bothers us is sin to us. If people have problems with all nudity causing them to stumble, they should avoid it. The people who don’t have issues with it shouldn’t shove it down their throats. Respect is a big deal. I think that’s the biggest issue I see in this whole dialogue–lack of respect on either side.
Of course, respectful discourse doesn’t bring the ad revenue. :-p
There you go. 😀
What Kessie said.
The Song of Solomon isn’t precisely G-rated, and the Bible itself has examples of both nude-but-not-erotic and clothed-but-lustful situations and descriptions—so a universal stance against nudity on account of the tie to sex doesn’t make much sense from that standpoint, either.
I’m unconvinced that arousal itself is sinful, even outside of marriage. There’s a degree to which it’s a physiological reaction, independent of actual lust. Is that not a contributor to the feelings of guilt and shame that rape victims can experience?
Scripture condemns lust for money as well as lust for sex, so perhaps the problem’s less arousal itself and more how arousal’s applied. “Be ye angry, and sin not” (Ephesians 4:26)—anger itself is not inherently sinful, but how you apply it can be. Might not arousal be the same way?
Maybe I’m missing something. I don’t experience sexual or romantic attraction whatsoever, so it isn’t as if I’m a good example of people in general, on this matter.
Oh, and as a note, one contributor in this argument is likely differing definitions of “pornography”. I’ve seriously witnessed anything and everything even remotely potentially suggestive shoveled under the “pornography” label—some of whom would’ve also complained about the Eve scene you described, Mike—and anything in the Bible is automatically classified as an acceptable exception that God was able to determine but we humans can’t possibly know where that line is.
Some folks use this argument as a tactic for control, and some folks use and believe this argument because they’ve seriously been taught that they can’t possibly interpret Scripture on their own because they don’t know what they’re doing and/or haven’t been to seminary and/or haven’t had the “right” training, etc. It can all sound oh-so-pious.
Caradee, I definitely think part of the problem here is the slippery nature of defining pornography. Whitewashing all nudity as pornographic is far more easy (and a convenient ” tactic for control”) than simply admitting there is wiggle room, gray area, and a certain degree of individual liberty. This of course is not to suggest that some things aren’t pornographic. Only that conceding different demarcations can get individuals charged with sin and debauchery.
Feeling stimulated is not sin, any more than developing an appetite at the sight of beautiful food is sin. Beauty is stimulating, and physical human beauty and desirability can touch that part of us that responds to the sexual.
It’s what we do with it–what comes from INSIDE of us that is dark, more specifically–that makes a sin.
I am okay if the nudity is always bad folks were consistent. That means you don’t look at art with nudity. No Renaissance or Classical sculptures, frescoes, tapestries, paintings, etc with nudity. Michelangelo’s David or Boticelli’s Venus or the assorted Eves, Graces, Salomes, Apollos, and others that feature naked men and women. Be consistent. If nudity is wrong to view–don’t view any of it. Don’t excuse it as “classical” or “high” art. Nope. It is sculptures and paintings (images) often of real models whom the sculptors and artists were sleeping with or desired or hired (often prostitutes) or were hired to enshrine forever ( mistresses of powerful men who tended to be mighty fetching). Don’t go into the Louvre or the Met or El Prado or the British Museum, because nudity abounds, whether Minoan or Florentine or Impressionistic.
IF it’s bad, and can’t be excused “cuz art,” then forget a lot of our art.
And it may be all bad. I leave that possibility open–though it’s not my current position. In that case, God erred. For Adam and Eve were nekkid from day one and didn’t cover up until, until, until…they sinned. Why were their genitals okay one second and not okay the next? Why was God fine with them running around au naturel and then slaughtered an animal to cover them.
I don’t think it’s really about genitals, any more than kosher rules were really about virtue (or they would persist to this day if they were inherently holy/good/virtuous). They lost something when they sinned, and it wasn’t about their genitals. It was about sin. And God covered their sin—by killing an animal, shedding blood, and covering them.
In the end, if you think it’s sin: don’t do it. There are Christians who think one drink is sin. Ergo, Jesus sinned. There are Christians who think any cleavage is immodesty/sin. I think they are whack.
If nudity is sin, then letting your children run around bare is sin. Then showing your doctor your body is sin. Then showering naked in a gymnasium bathing area with other people is sin. Then taking a shower or bath with a relative is sin.
It is or it is not in all cases. If it is not in ALL cases, then we already set the proposition that there are exceptions. Then leave the liberty to some to make the decision if it is wrong and causes them to lust or not. If it causes you to sin: don’t. Jesus is clear on that. Eye/gouge. Don’t do it. But not everyone falls into fits of passion cause they saw someone’s weewee or booby or hiney.
And weren’t crucifixions conducted with naked prisoners? This has always been my understanding, though we see Jesus with a strategic loincloth in crucifixes.
If so, then all those standing around gazing upon Jesus–John, Mom, Mary Magdalene, etc–sinned? Okay….
It is sledgehammer wielding “funny mentalists” who have no understanding of nuance and no sense of proportion in argument (it would be far too polite to call it debate, let alone, discussion) that have driven me to the point of quitting Evangelical Christianity altogether and considering whether I should quit Christianity. Whether the issue is nudity, science, politics, or any of a multitude of other topics, the funnymentalists insist that their view — and only their view — is correct “cuz the Bible” without consideration of any other evidence.
I’m fed up, worn out, beat down, and ready to quit the church rather than try to reason with these people.
If you no longer believe that Christ is the Savior, Son of God, who redeems you and will come again–then you have quit Christianity, as it were. Though John says something about that in his epistle.
If you believe Scripture, Christ, the apostles, and have the Spirit–are redeemed–then you don’t quit Christianity. You simply have what many folks have had through the ages, differences of opinion/interpretations. If we could keep it civil, nice. But sometimes it devolves into bloodshed.
Look at all the prophets of God killed by the “people of God,” John the Baptist and Jesus preeminently. Just because folks say they believe in and follow God does not mean they won’t be opposed to you or your ideas (and you may be wrong and THEY may be right).
I am Evangelical, but I criticize some of what I see as the Big P in our circles. The truth is the truth, but just because a fellow believer says he’s speaking God’s truth from God’s word, well, maybe I don’t exegete it the way they do. I go by my own conscience, exegesis, study. The pricking of the Spirit. And yes, we all will still sin and mess up. We should forgive each other.
For believers, the Bible is the authority. Jesus and the apostles used it as such–their commentary and deeper revelation of it. If you do not hold to the Bible as revealed truth, then you certainly cannot follow Christ–who did. You may admire him or like some of his words, but you cannot, actually, be taking him fully seriously. He referred to the prophetical writings to identify himselfl, his mission, and speak of things to come. His whole being was a fulfillment of it and will continue to be so.
And we only know his truths THROUGH the Bible. It is where God reveals himself and His Son. I don’t see how it is possible to be a Christian–believe the Good News–without referring to Scripture. “Cuz the Bible” is precisely what a believer–Jew or Christian–must stand on. Faith. Without losing one’s mind.
But it’s in the reading, studying, interpreting that we can gt it right and get it wrong when it comes to God.
If faith in Him and the Word is gone, then yeah, “quit.” Because that is precisely what God demands–reason and faith, both. “Come, let us reason together.” But if it’s just frustration with what you do not think is proper interpretaton or practice, then just find another church, or ask God if you’re the one to start a home group. Church is not just a denomination. If you have 2 or more gathere in His name, He is there. And God worked just fine in home churches in the NT days.
Blessings and peace upon you. I hope the frustration eases, that you forgive the frustrators, and that you find joy in Him. Cause Christianity is HIM….Him above all. People, we screw up. He does not.
I appreciate your Anonymous comment. The one thing I’d say is that the Evangelical church has its rigid fundamentalists, for sure. It’s just a lot bigger than you make it out to be. There are many, many thoughtful, freedom-giving, fun-loving, gracious individuals in the fold. I’d encourage you to try not to superimpose your experience over what is a really big Body. Hang in there, okay?
As always, Mike. Great article and great way to express your thoughts on this. I have to side along Apostle Paul on this discussion.
Here are two Scriptures that keep me grounded when it concerns areas of food, entertainment and reading material(to an extent):
“But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. ” (1 Cor. 8:9-11 NIV)
and,
“Everything is permissible for me, but not all things are beneficial. Everything is permissible for me, but I will not be enslaved by anything [and brought under its power, allowing it to control me]. Food is for the stomach and the stomach for food, but God will do away with both of them. “(1 Cor. 6:12 NIV)
I think God’s Word says it well. Thanks for the post!
The sad thing is that Piper offers really nothing in return. He condemns Deadpool, but it’s not like Christians are making any alternatives. Oh I know guys here are fighting the good fight in their novels, but guys like Piper are drudges and Morris too. You can’t really win people over with no. You can argue against Deadpool, but if there’s no alternative what is a guy going to do? Not ever go out with his friends to watch a film?