Having recently pushed for my viewers to buy a movie ticket to see The Nativity Story, I was very intrigued by Kevin Bauder’s recent article on the history of fundamentalism and the movies. This first article is primarily history while part two, apparently, will be Bauder’s own assessment of the morality inherent in going to a movie.
With this discussion on my mind, I stumbled across By Faith magazine, and some recent articles they have on movies and drama.
The article entitled “We Do Theater Because We Believe” by Charlie Jones drives home the point that drama has the ability to move us. It tells a story, and stories are powerful, especially in a post modern age like our own! Drama often preaches a sermon, so to speak. It can powerfully communicate a message. And if you look around, there are lots of sermons and millions of listeners. But it is not us Christians who are doing the preaching.
In an interview with Christian playwright and actor Tom Key, Key claims that “art always leads the person to slightly or profoundly more than change, whereas the entertainment that is not art will not experientially, existentially affect the recipient.” So while drama can move us, if it isn’t good art, it probably won’t. Which leads us to wonder with Art Within founder Bryan Coley, “In a media-saturated generation, where are we as Christians?”
I guess these articles (they are all fairly brief) caused me to ponder a few things. First, that the art form of drama and motion pictures is a powerful medium which Christians should redeem, and feel free to experience (with discernment of course). Second, that Christians should be more involved in the production of artful plays and movies. And lastly, such Christian involvement in the production of drama would lead to both a communication of Christian themes to a wider audience, as well as providing a healthy alternative to secularism’s often lustful creations–to “criticize by creating” as Michelangelo and Bryan Coley put it.
∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 \”¢ Rom. 15:5-7
Movies certainly have the ability to communicate a message in a similar way that all story-telling and music have. I believe that Christians who are interested in and talented and trained in the art of film-making should certainly do so as a valid avenue of vocational calling by God, but I have no faith in the medium itself to aid the work of evangelism in any significant way.
While I do believe that any medium which contains a clear communication of the gospel and other related biblical themes can serve as the Holy Spirit’s agent to call the elect to faith, this will more than likely be the exception rather than the rule, and furthermore, as with all other innovative methods to “spread the gospel” which is offered in addition to the method prescribed in Scripture, it may multiply outward professions of faith while seeing a minimum of true spiritual conversion.
If someone were to argue against movies, and do it the right way, they’d throw out epistemological arguments against the theatre. They believe that the theatre, as a means of communication, is inherently dishonest. This is an idea that goes all the way back to Aristotle and Plato.
The reason the contemporary church accepts the theatre now is due to post-modernism. The West has encountered other cultures and has made some major adjustments in its epistemology.
If theatre is inherently wrong, on an epistemological basis, then why was not the old Jewish worship cult wrong for the same epistemological reason? Surely the same sort of “deception” (the signifying of one reality by means of a fundamentally-unrelated reality) stood at the core of the Old Testament worship rituals. The priests were not truly appeasing the Father when they flung the sacrificial blood on the mercy seat; they were just “acting out” the true propitiation that Christ would later effect. The medium of theatre is not deception, it’s representation, which teaches fundamental truths, when the basic hermeneutical rules which applies to it are recognized (and everyone in this culture recognizes the basic rules).
My knee-jerk denial of movies as evangelism comes from my prejudice against the motives of contemporary evangelicals when it comes to topics like this. Having reread your comments at the end of your post, I am able to read what you said without reading into it my own assumptions.
All that to say that I agree with each of your suggestions for their own reasons. Perhaps I misinterpreted your statement about “communicating Christian themes,” as long-hand for evangelism. Movies as effective theme-communicators, yes; movies as effective and guaranteed agents of spiritual regeneration, up to the sovereign Spirit, but there’s nothing inherent in film, or explicit or implicit in Scripture, to lead us to use film for such a heavy-handed reason.
“Message movies” are more often than not too obvious and therefore ineffective in the long run. Christian film-makers should make films for similar reasons that unbelieving film-makers do. The skillful expression of art, not for the sake of religious propaganda. Christian themes can be communicated more effectively when we focus on telling any story well, for the glory of God and for the sake of excellence, and when they are communicated as a by-product, rather than a big, obvious set-up.
Pitchford:
I really am not grounded well enough in philosophy to engage their argument. I don’t buy it for reasons similiar to yours: the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, a language which relies heavily on artistry, where words (LOGOS) do not have a one-on-one relationship with reality (PHUSIS).
I think opponents of the theater would snicker at your comparison of Old Testament rites to theatre.
But it’s really all above my head.
John (AKA Captain Headknowledge),
I agree that explicit evangelism is not normally going to happen with movies. But telling noble stories about Christian themes (think Narnia or Lord of the Rings, for example) captures the imagination and can create evangelism opportunities eventually. The Passion, for instance, created an awareness and a conversation concerning Jesus. The environment that was created was extremely conducive to evangelism. The movie by itself would not have been sufficient.
I think it is fairly clear (if you read the articles above) that many a secular movie or play was made with an obvious message in view. And often the productions were successful in driving that point home and effecting change. I don’t think it would be wrong or ineffective to use theater to drive home a message of our own.
Basically, I am just affirming the usefulness of theater. It is a powerful venue or medium for conveying the power of stories.
Thanks for your thoughts. I for the most part agree with you.
Yeah, we’re on the same page.
Ryan,
Sorry, I got the impression you were arguing for the non-use of theater on an epistemological basis, so I thought you would be able to flesh out the argument a little more fully. I’m not sure how exactly one would frame the epistemological argument against the theater, either. When Bauder continues his series, I have a feeling he’ll be arguing on an epistemological level, though, so maybe I’ll figure out what contra-theater advocates have to say from his future articles.
At any rate, it’s an interesting discussion, and I’m not even sure exactly how I feel about the whole issue yet. I think I would agree with usefulness of theater as “a powerful venue or medium” — but I’m just not sure how I feel about its use for evangelistic purposes.
I’m personally curious to see Dr. Bauder’s second essay on the subject. His colleague, Dr. Roy Beacham, wrote about the ‘evils’ of watching movies/theater in another thread on SharperIron about a year ago. That caused an uproar– even on a fundamentalist blog like SharperIron– where fundamentalists are divided over movies/theater. I just hope that Dr. Bauder will not resort to the same guilt-by-association arguments posed by his peer. I’d suggest making comments at SharperIron if you are able to do so there. Much light is needed, not smoke and heat.
As far as the visual performing arts are concerned, any ‘style’ can be redeemed for the glory of God. I’m still rappin’ with Shai Linne’s CD “Solus Christus Project”, and that genre has been transformed/redeemed from its taudry genre of Hip-Hop/Rap. As believers, we’d better realize that such unbiblical, emotionally charged nonsense doesn’t convey a persuasive argument against ‘such and such’ because it’s associated with the ‘worldly style of [insert genre here]’.
Larry,
Thanks, that was a needed reminder. I fully recognize the truth of what you said, but sometimes my old knee-jerk fundamentalist conditioning shows through.
By the way, I’m still enjoying Shai Linne as well. I’m amazed at how much deep, substantive doctrine will fit on one cd.
Pitchford:
Well, you’ll have to think back to college English class and remember the Greek theories on the theatre, catharsis and all of that. Augustine would be against the theatre, as he understood what it was in the ancient Greek context.
I’m hesitant to take the fundy position on this because we don’t live in ancient Greece, and I’m not sure that all of our movies function in exactly the same way as the four primary genres of ancient Greece. I don’t think that ancient Greek dramas are a true analogue for all 20th century American movies.
In any case, I do know a couple of conservative Christian folks with advanced degrees in philosophy who are likewise well-read in church history, and they have no problem with the theatre.
Larry,
One one hand, there are a few people who actually know something about epistemology and church history and can make an intelligent case against the theatre, rock music, etc.
On the other hand, there is a large number of people who do not really know what they’re talking about but are still very zealous. Having little or zero (most likely zero) exposure to Plato or Augustine, many of these must resort to bluster and guilt by association.
Ryan,
It’s correct to state that church history does show evidence of Christians’ eschewing of theater (and more recently, movies in the modern and post-modern era). Dr. Bauder tackles this in his second essay at SharperIron. You can read it here: https://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=4218
Dr. Bauder has some more comments to make, and his second essay (which became available this morning, 12/12/2006) discusses church history and his personal memoirs of doing theater in high school. He ends his comments with a poem, written by someone in the 19th century. I think this will eventually garner a lot of blog-talk in the future, and I’m thankful that this is being addressed by one of fundamentalism’s best scholars.
Larry,
Bauder is leaving us hanging again! I am interested to hear his conclusions, too.
By the way, a comment by Pitchford above was directed to you, but for some reason it ended up in my spam folder, so it wasn’t visible until now.
Just wanted to point it out.
God bless