One of the weakest arguments I've heard for Christians watching movies, DVD's, or videos they should not is this: "It's only rated 'R' for violence." As if that makes it any better! First, if the ungodly movie industry restricts the audience of a film because of its content, that ought to send up a red flag for the Christian, whose standards of life and thought should be much higher than the unbeliever (Eph 5:3-4; Phil 4:8). Second, gratuitous violence is supposedly better or more palatable than sexual content, nudity, or profanity. This distinction seems difficult to maintain from a scriptural standpoint.Viewing violent content is simply not compatible with godly Christian living. God hates the person who loves violence (Ps 11:5) and promises to punish violence (Gen 6:11-13; Ezek 7:23–27; Obad 10). God warns the godly man to avoid the "violent man" (Ps 140:1, 4; Prov 4:17; 16:29). He promises to eliminate violence in the coming Millennial Kingdom (Isa 60:18). Furthermore, God condemns both those who commit violence and those who view it with approval (Rom 1:28–32).
Human life is created in God’s image and gratuitous violence cheapens the lives of those for whom the Son of God sacrificed his infinite life. God alone has the right to give and take life. God is the Creator of life (Gen 2:7) and is also in sovereign control of life and death, creating and sustaining each person (Jas 4:13-15; Rom 14:8; Ps 31:15).
Comments
I often marvel when I hear comments like, "Watching [insert gratuitously violent war movie here] is profitable, because it allows us to really understand how terrible war is." I've heard this especially from fathers excusing the fact that they allowed their sons to watch such a movie. However, a boy watching a violent war film in order to “appreciate the seriousness of war” will more likely delight in the gratuitousness of the violence than weep over the depravity of the human condition.
Give him a book. He'll have to work a little harder, apply a little discipline, and he'll come away with a deep consciousness of how terrible sin can be without getting swept up into the passion of it himself.
Do you think all violence in movies is equal?
The point of my post is that the violence displayed is "necessary" only because the viewing public has become so desensitized to violent content. There must be more violence and more graphic violence in order to capture and excite the audience. I find it difficult to see how the graphic and gratuitous depiction of the taking of lives which God created in his image can be glorifying to him.
But it seems to me that violence in movies and sex in movies are two completely different issues. I am not defending movies with violence, or movies with sex, or movies period.
I just wonder if your perspective might not have another side that is not so dastardly as the one you present.
Thanks for letting me express a somewhat contrary view.
Perhaps one reason why we are so idealistic and ignorant about tyranny is that we have forgotten the price that was paid for the war against tyranny in the 40s. But the other side is that we don't want to see it so much we become desensitized to it.
Here is a place where I wonder about the value of the written word vs. the visual word (a picture is worth a thousand words). We read this stuff and "it's okay." But we see it and it isn't? I am not suggesting equivalency. I think reading is different than seeing. But why? And to what extent? Reading is inherently imaginative and seeing takes that away. But seeing is staggering, where reading often is not.
What if we only read about violence? Is that okay? I found Ambroses' "D-Day" to be a great book. I find many violent stories in Scripture, so I assume that reading about violence is not sin.
What if we only hear about it? Hear a veteran describe his experiences? What if someone reads Scripture aloud?
What if we see still pictures?
Where do we cross the line in these things to "moving pictures" are wrong representation violence? And why are a succession of still pictures shown at 24 frames per second wrong, when a succession of still pictures shown page by page are not?
I am not sure what the answer is or all the implications of this are. I think all these things (reading, hearing, still pictures, moving pictures) are different, but I am not sure why, philosophically or theoretically.
Scott's comment about a book making us work harder and come away with a deep consciousness of how terrible sin is might be true, but I find that often the opposite is different. Things we read about do not impact us nearly so much as things we see. That's why reading a news story about a murder is one thing; seeing it is another. Reading can glance off of our hearts and minds with relative ease. Seeing cannot.
Why were executions in the OT public? Was there not a fear factor involved, so that others would see and be afraid?
When I think about WW2, I think of the stories my Grandfather told me of arriving in Tokyo days after the Japanese surrender. Would I want to see still images or video of the carnage he described? Never! I can imagine the scene he described and it is powerful and moving but I would never want to go beyond that.
I watched the PBS special on Auschweitz, and there was nothing especially graphic, but the effect was staggering. The only reason I can think of why it would not be overwhelming would be that we have become desensitized to viewing violence.
At some point we may have to apply Philippians 4:8 to our entertainment choices. Your philosophical questions are interesting, but at the end of the day, I think we need to grapple with the biblical texts and ask ourselves if what we are doing is drawing us closer to God and more like his holy character or not.
Having said that, the Auschwitz special was excellent. Sobering. The moving pictures of piling up dead bodies and the living skeletons lying in incredible physical condition is horrifying. Is it different than an R-rated movie? Sure, to some degree. But how? And to what degree is that a substantive difference that makes one okay (in agreement with Phil 4:8), and one not (in disagreement with Phil 4:8). I think we need to wrestle with that some more perhaps.
Back to the original point, I also think that violence in movies affects us very differently than sexual content in movies. To me, they are not the same. They don't have the same affect. They don't create the same response.
The MPAA rating system is probably inherently flawed since it isn't really objective and keeps moving down every few years. But it is designed to recognize that maturity affects how we process the information in front of us. Spiritual maturity also affects that.
So yes, Scripture needs to be grappled with, but ultimately, we have to step outside of Scripture to make evaluations about these things.
Interesting and thought-provoking conversation thought, at least for me.
Seeing pictures of dead bodies piled up is not the same as watching human beings kill other human beings and pile up their bodies. Seeing a body laid out at a funeral viewing is not the same as watching the person die.
I do not deny the importance of the "theoretical and philosophical." However, I want to do what you said: make the teaching of the Bible the foundation of our thinking, and then build on that.
Thanks for the conversation; I enjoyed the interaction.
I appreciate the perspective the Dr. Priest has pointed out. However, we need not to be slaves to the positions of past generations. We need to evaluate their objections to see if in fact they were objections based on faulty grounds. They may not have been, but they may have been.
I think we need to be carefully discerning both about modern views as well as older views. I think we all agree that the fact that someone believed something in the past does not make it right. The fact that someone believes something now does not make it right either.
It seems like we see a lot of people arguing that believers should not attend movies because historically fundamentalists have always been against the movies.
I was simply saying that is a bad reason. The position may be good, but the reasoning behind it (we have always been against it) is not.
The fact that "an earlier generation considered something repugnant" is interesting and helpful, but anecdotal. We need to go further was my only point. Was it really repugnant? Or just "considered" so? Was it repugnant for universal moral reasons? Or for individual preferences or struggles?
I rather imagine we agree on that.