Awesome post I have never actually heard of this movie before.

Just recently finished reading “The Road” by Cormac McCarthy. It is a great book that continually brings up the fallen nature of man, and how one man and his boy are trying to live in a world that has “let itself go.” That book gave me the heebie-geebies on more than one occasion.
I think that is a gift of Cormac McCarthy. He is very talented at showing the bad to help really contrast the good. Still have not seen No Country for Old Men.

I’m not sure I agree that we need to expose ourselves to understanding the depravity of man.
Do I need to experience something to know how depraved it is? For example, do I need to expose myself to child pornography to know it is utterly depraved and those who pursue it are? No I do not.
This idea can also be taken to an extreme and become a means of rationalization to do what you want to do.
What is the intent behind Paul’s passage? I think you can look at other passages of the bible that point to what is going on internally as the source of our actions. Like James for example which states sin starts with a thought that leads to an action that leads to death.
So that leads us to Pauls instruction to us, yes dwelling on what is good and right is what is best. But, that by no means you separate yourself out somewhere from the rest of the world like the other extreme would be.

Rob

Great post, Brent!

My favorite film of all time is The Devil’s Advocate with Al Pacino. The friend who introduced me to it suggested that a Lutheran had written the theologically-rich story.

On the issue of Philippians 4:8, I do think that Christians (especially American Christians) would do well to meditate on that verse, noting that the qualifiers “seems” and “to me” do not appear anywhere in that immediate text. I have found Ken Myers and his book All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes: Christians and Popular Culture to be tremendously helpful in working through these issues.

I see what you’re saying there, Mr. Blake. You’re right that someone could use that to justify anything. I think the difference comes in where we need to ask ourselves if we are savoring sin as a result of the movie. It’s hard for me to believe that any man could go to a movie displaying sexually-alluring material and walk away unscathed. Douglas Wilson writes powerfully on the self-deception surrounding this subject in “Reforming Marriage”.

With violence, our culture is quite cavalier about it. I’m going to step on some toes here, but Christians, you should not give your time and eyes over to entertainment that revels in violence. I would put things like UFC in this category. Consider Psalm 11:5

The LORD tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.

I can already hear someone saying “you don’t understand, it’s a sport, there’s real strategy involved.” I say look at the advertisements for the UFC to see if they are selling “strategy” or raw violence. The objective of the sport, the “home run” if you will, is to damage the opponent’s body so severely that he is incapacitated or pleads for mercy.

As for fictionalized violence in movies, I’m more open to the idea that violence could be presented in a context that doesn’t encourage the love of gore or vengeance. For example, the Lord of the Rings movies place violence in the context of good triumphing over evil. However, movies like “Man on Fire” put violence in the context of revenge, encouraging you to root for the hero to torture bad guys. I argue there’s a clear moral difference and the same thing holds true with video games.

Interesting post and comments. A challenging subject which requires our engagement, lest we become like a separatist sect, disengaging ourselves from culture, and therefore no longer relevant in our culture. Great post, Pastor. Great response, Jim.

Great post, Brent.

I thought No Country earned its Best Picture at the Academy Awards. One of the most well-made films I’ve seen in a long time. Not a second of wasted space.

Jim, I think that No Country is such a film like you are talking about. The violence in the film is “presented in a context that doesn’t encourage the love of gore or vengeance.”

For those who have disagreed, I think one of Brent’s main points is that Christians are being fundamentally unfaithful to the truth when they make and support only those artistic artifacts that stay away from the brutal, sinful reality of human nature. I would wonder if a century or so of such drivel in Christian art has in part led to the current lack of belief in total depravity among evangelicals…

The challenge in these discussions is the challenge of quantifying one’s position. For example, not everyone is affected in the same way by violent depictions. I wouldn’t expect a person who grew up in a physically abusive household to be able to watch certain forms of violence either real or acted.
UFC is another good example. Guys I know who have been trained in the martial arts and who have competed in tournaments do not see those fights in the same light as one who would simply see it as a festival du bloodbath. Hence, not all who watch UFC are lovers of violence. One could make a similar argument about the NFL and certainly the NHL since both of those sports contain not only violence but also themes of glorying in that violence. That being said, RW Blake raises a good point in that we must examine ourselves as to our motives and guard our hearts. Having a healthy fear of yourself and your weaknesses is a good thing. Up the bayonets!

Here’s how I’d respond on the UFC, Eddie. Sure, there are ungodly lovers of violence who can find something they want in the NFL, but wouldn’t you agree that the tenor of football is generally different? At least those guys are wearing pads and there are penalties for intentionally trying to injure someone. The NFL wasn’t created with this aura of “no holds barred”, “rage in the cage”, celebrating the injury of another God-bearer. Just look at the UFC’s history of rule changes until they could reach a bargain with the public that didn’t make us too ashamed with ourselves to watch en masse. How is there any comparison?

What would you think of a father who sold tickets for his neighbors to watch his two sons bloody each other up in the fashion of UFC? A man who only stepped in to say, “No groin shots, eye gouges, or hair pulls. I used to allow that stuff until it got me in trouble.” Am I way off base here?

I really worry that the Christian church is like the frog in the kettle on this stuff. Are we really at the point where we only feel empowered to speak when someone is maimed or killed?

That being said, it is about the heart. If a Christian is into the NHL, NFL, NBA or whatever because they love violence, we all agree they need to tune out. That’s about the only similarity I see.

I wonder (and I’m just sort of thinking out loud here) if Paul is implicitly condoning boxing in 1 Corinthians 9:26?

Thanks for pointing us back to the Word, Brent! I’m no expert on the textual background, but my two favorite translations (NASB and ESV) render that verse as describing boxing, so let’s go with it. The apostle is in no way addressing the morality of any given sport. It’s also imperative to note that the object of the fighting is not another person, but rather he is explicitly talking about one’s own flesh as cited in the very next verse. I even saw one note about the Greek of verse 27 as literally saying, “I pummel my body and make it a slave”. Fighting oneself instead of fighting another person = colossal difference.

Also, we’d do well to note that Paul talks about enslavement here. If one were trying use verse 26 as an endorsement of boxing, then the same ham-handed methodology would wrongly construe verse 27 as an endorsement of slavery, yet Paul was teaching no such thing.

Instead, let’s understand that when it comes to the struggle against one’s own flesh, Paul uses graphic word pictures of killing, beating, and enslaving to show us the seriousness of sin, not to endorse any of those actions.