"[W]hen you use a movie illustration, you are unknowingly harnessing yourself to the moral baggage which that movie brings"
I'm going to print that article and keep it in my back pocket. This issue has been a pet peeve for years, and I could not have stated the problems with it any better.
A funny story that this reminds me of- a friend who saw The Shawshank Redemption at a pastor's house, not knowing it was played through a http://www.clearplay.com/ Clearplay DVD player . She started recommending this movie to everyone, including her dad. He rented it, watched it, and blew a gasket. He called the pastor at whose house she had viewed it, and gave him an earful. I think he was about to organize an exorcism of his daughter, when he found out about how Clearplay works. I think it still took a couple of weeks for his blood pressure to return to normal.
Also, people who think Stephen King is the Spawn of Satan will talk about what a great movie Shawshank was, not knowing that it is based on a King short story. It isn't just pastors who need to be careful about the illustrations they use and what they recommend - it's a good idea to search things out a bit before going around recommending stuff to people who might need to get away from it.
I think I like that Jesse Johnson guy.
Although I don't see how his objection #4 (the one way street objection) doesn't apply to literature or, for that matter, everything other than Bible content.
Because the medium used to communicate information has an actual physiological effect/influence, I think it is safe to say that some principles that apply to movies/tv do not apply to literature. It is a much different experience to read "The husband kissed his wife" than to watch two people who are not married to each other pretend to be married and engage in lip-lockery.
But if I ever hear anyone try to make spiritual application using the Twilight series, I'm not just walking out, I'm going to start throwing hymnbooks. 
But if I ever hear anyone try to make spiritual application using the Twilight series, I'm not just walking out, I'm going to start throwing hymnbooks. :p
I loved the article and agree with most of it. But the literature vs. sermon dichotomy needs some tweaking. I agree there is a BIG difference between seeing and reading or hearing. I do not know that there is a big difference between hearing and reading.
I think it would depend upon the literature itself and other variables involved (for example, referring to a scene from the Wizard of Oz to talk about not appreciating the abilities we have -- the scarecrow can think but doesn't recognize that, for example -- is okay because almost everyone has seen it and most people do not find it offensive). I would probably not quote Shakespeare or mention his plays in a sermon just because I am not a high brow sort of guy, but it would not be wrong, per se.
I think our nation has gone movie/video crazy, and I do not want to imply that it is okay to live life vicariously by watching a 2-D screen of some sort. And movies do affect you. Per Dr. Richard Restak, one of America's leading authorities on the brain, we process what we see on the screen as REAL. Why add stress and tension to your life -- and even pay to do it? We would be happier people if we watched fewer movies and carefully guarded our emotions from manipulation. We have overdone it -- even apart from the moral issues involved in the movies themselves.
But that wasn't his point. He says, "The Word of God is a flashlight and it illuminates the moral content of every story, even those told in 3-D." To then turn around and say it doesn't apply to those stories told in blank verse seems a tough sell.
As long as "The Matrix" is exempt.
...
I loved the article and agree with most of it. But the literature vs. sermon dichotomy needs some tweaking. I agree there is a BIG difference between seeing and reading or hearing. I do not know that there is a big difference between hearing and reading.
...
Why add stress and tension to your life -- and even pay to do it? We would be happier people if we watched fewer movies and carefully guarded our emotions from manipulation. We have overdone it -- even apart from the moral issues involved in the movies themselves.
I think there is a BIG difference between hearing and reading. A few years ago a friend and I drove back/forth to/from Chicago from Texas numerous times. To pass the time we started renting audio books from Cracker Barrel .. yep you can do that .. we know every Cracker Barrel on numerous routes .. laugh. Usually we got mysteries. We got one from an author we'd both read before .. I'd probably read 3 or 4 of her books, Frances had read some too. Fairly soon into the story there was a quite graphic scene between a man and a woman. Neither one of us had remembered this author portraying anything physical - much less that graphical. We came to the conclusion that as we read we SKIP those parts. I know when I read (especially a mystery) I tend to skip/fly by the parts that seem inconsequential .. It was disturbing to hear them - and not be able to easily skip. We ended up turning it off it was so uncomfortable.
I rarely watch movies .. I agree why pay for stress and tension .. or comedies that are dirty?
While there are certainly big differences between reading, hearing, and seeing, and how they impact us, the author's major point is still weakened when he claims that his objections to movie illustrations don't apply to literature.
It should go without saying that all means of learning, entertainment, etc., are subject to what the Bible says about what they contain, so "skipping" over objectionable parts when reading is still really not that different from using ClearPlay or similar technologies.
Further, it's obviously true that not all of the listeners have read the material being quoted, or maybe hadn't even heard of it, and for those that have, the interpretations can be just as varied as those for movies. Shakespeare quotes often sound erudite, but when they come from a work that has many bawdy scenes as well, they represent as much of a mixed message as an illustration from "The Avengers."
I certainly can't argue against using illustrations from other parts of scripture, but I would still believe that use of illustrations from literature, or plays, etc. should be just as sparing as those from movies (even completely non-objectionable ones, assuming there is such a thing). The possibility for negative associations has not gone away. Fittingly, even if fewer people object because they don't know the work being quoted, that just means that the impact of the illustration will be similarly blunted.
If the author's thrust means anything, maybe we should just sharply reduce our use of illustrations from popular culture of any kind, and when they are used, keep them extremely general. Paul did use sporting illustrations, but he did keep them to a minimum, and he certainly referred to a large general point rather than to something that would cause the listeners to concentrate on the lessor savory aspects of "big-name" sports stars of his time.
And "12 O'clock High", c'mon, are you really going to take that one from me?
there's "literature" and then there's reading. Book Snobs of the World, UNITE!
I agree that illustrations that reference pop culture are generally not worth the trouble. Unless it's Star Trek.
[img ]https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQBA--OE07ptRnkXALRBnRjftie5QxAMrK4frow9CWJ70wZPuu-[/img ]
I would value his ideas on how to use this medium effectively, since several of his arguments have as much, or more, to do with the communicator than the medium.
I'm just not really buying the idea that we should generally dismiss this area as a means to illustrate truth.
In fact, aside from the easy relatability and cultural connections, engaging this medium might strengthen the idea that we can see, and should be looking for, God's truth in everything we do.
As it relates to objectionable content, conflicting worldviews, etc. I agree, there are pitfalls with this medium, like there would be with any illustrative material other than scripture.
The idea of "looking for God's truth" can mean a couple of things. For instance, I teach my kids, as we read both fiction and nonfiction, that we measure everything by the Word of God, and weigh themes and underlying messages against Scriptural principle. If in the story a young person, in rebellion against their parents, saves the day through immoral or unethical means, this is a message that directly contradicts Scripture. If misdeeds are committed, and consequences, natural or otherwise, follow, then that is consistent with Scripture.
But what some people intend when they say they "look for God's truth" in literature and pop culture is that there are spiritual messages in everything. So... maybe they show a scene from the King Kong remake of a guy getting eaten by giant worms, and compare that to how sin takes over our body, or something like that. (yes, this actually happened)
The problem with #2 is that it completely ignores authorial intent- I don't think the writers or producers of King Kong intended to convey a spiritual message, and I think it is a mistake to try to force a spiritual message out of a secular work.
I agree that there are pitfalls inherent to using literature or movies as illustrations, but I think the main problem is usually the choice itself, and then how it is used. Which is why I said that if someone used the Twilight series to make a spiritual point, I'd be throwing hymnbooks. But if they used Robinson Crusoe or Jekyll and Hyde or Jane Austen, (again, depending on how they made their point), I could probably live with that. The difference is in the quality of the literature/movie itself. Some stuff is trash and shouldn't be used at all, but who doesn't (or shouldn't?) understand if someone makes reference to Big Brother? With all the stuff about hate crimes and restrictions against speaking out about homosexuality, George Orwell was practically a prophet. I could see how a reference to 1984 would be relevant.
What is the goal of an illustration? To tickle the ears of the audience? To make oneself look hip or erudite? To entertain? To appeal to the lowest common denominator? We should simply examine our goals to make sure they are consistent with the purpose of preaching/teaching.
I agree with you here, in fact that was really the main idea behind my first post. I think the pitfalls are in the selection and the effectiveness of the communication, not necessarily in the medium itself.
Again, that is where I generally disagree with the premise of the author of the original post, who, in my opinion, seems to be making the case against a particular medium, instead of how to use it effectively.
I think the premise is still valid, because he lists many of the problems that must be overcome in order to use such an illustration effectively. In the end, it seems like a tremendous amount of trouble for a very limited benefit. Why learn how to use scissors to trim the yard when you have a weedeater - why use movies when you have real people, nature, math, history, science, etc... to draw from? I think a speaker worth his salt is going to go there instead, and eschew modern entertainment as providing helpful and accurate illustrations.
Susan,
.....that statement would be in your and his opinion. I could easily argue the exact opposite, that an illustration using film could be accomplished easily and effectively.
I think we're operating from different presuppositions. You're making a case: this medium is a "less valid" option to use for illustrative purposes and that a speaker who chooses to do so is not "worth his salt" because he has overlooked mediums that are inherently better to be used for communication.
I can't get there and basically disagree with most of where you are coming from.
I'll end with a quick personal anecdote. I recently sat in 2 different sermons by the same communicator. In both sermons, the content was extremely substantive, and was delivered very effectively. In one sermon, the speaker used an illustration from a classic piece of literature. It was a powerful tie-in, and did not teach the truth, but reinforced the truth of scripture. In the other, the speaker made reference to the popular tv show "Swamp People." The illustration was spot on and reinforced the truth being taught excellently.
In both cases, popular and classical, neither the speaker nor the content was diminished in credibility or impact.
Because we can give many examples of a medium being used poorly, it doesn't invalidate the medium, it probably means we were listening to poor communicators.
Although we may disagree on a few finer points, I appreciate the thoughtful discussion.
Depending on what show or movie is used, I am going to be presupposing some things about the judgment and moral compass of the speaker, unless they were clear that their knowledge of the show/movie is based on show synopsis or reviews and not because they regularly watch the show. http://www.commonsensemedia.org/tv-reviews/swamp-people ]Swamp People would be one of those shows I would find highly questionable, and thus its use in church also questionable.
[img ]https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQv7GHkGcAZgnlfEl96yysjwHyPW2VP-uOVXur4NdRDqFuwaT_4[/img ]
I'm hoping you understand that the appropriateness, or lack there of, of "Swamp People" or any specific show/movie is not the point of my argument.
I'm confident, had you experienced the remarks in person and in context, you would have found them to be humorous, appropriate, and useful in illustrating a particular idea.
Something I haven't seen in this thread is that films are works of art. Some are quite expressive and poignant and touch the large themes of humanity, i.e. Tree of Life or (other end of spectrum) Seven. Others aren't worth watching the trailer, i.e. anything starring Sasha Cohen. So when the author attacks the medium, it makes no rational sense. Some films convey gripping stories that clarify truth, or shake us from complacency, or create emotions we try to repress. It is a medium with inherent artistic properties. Art represents life as we know it. Why we would we not pull from everyday life to illustrate something? So the basis for his proposition is skewed and his supporting points seem tangential.
I don't agree with the concept of "looking for truth" in pop culture. But hammering home a truth via movie scene that is pertinent can be quite resourceful.
For good usage of movies & literature, read Philip Yancey or Brett McCracken.
I would have been surprised to see any significant push back from the rank and file of this board. I've seen the use of movies be very effective in teaching and I've seen it distract.
Roger Scruton disagrees with that proposition, or so I'm told. And since I'm only in chapter 4 of his "...Modern Culture," I can't articulate his argument to support it.
And I'm not sure gripping stories that engage life as we know it is enough to support your own assertions.
But accepting your basic proposition at face value, there remains still a difference between the classics of literature (which have been "canonized' over the course of centuries or even millenia) and movies (all of which are under 100 years old, give or take a decade). This isn't merely "the old way is the good way". There has simply not been enough time passed to know what is truly lasting (all the greatest 100 movies ever lists which put Citizen Kane at or near the top notwithstanding.)
I think we have to examine how the medium itself affects the human mind and brain. There's plenty of research to back the assertion that movie/tv viewing has a real, measurable, physiological and emotional effect, which must not be ignored from the pulpit. Thus, encouraging any activity, even in such passive way as using a movie for an illustration, can be problematic when addressing an audience made up of people at different stages of spiritual growth. In our media saturated society, there are enough brain dead people walking around talking like they know something because 'they saw it on television'.
IOW, if given the opportunity to use a pulpit to promote something, I'd far rather hear an encouragement to read quality literature than one that has people saying "Hmmm, I wonder what that show Zombies are People, Too is about. Pastor must like it or he wouldn't have used it in his sermon. Let's check it out!"
We all realize, I hope, that 'reality television' is scripted, right? And thus perceptions of reality are being fed to to folks by media moguls who DO NOT have the public's best interests at heart? And since what we see on tv and in movies is highly edited and controlled, what we think while we are watching is therefore also being controlled? Who wants to sign up for nightly ritual brainwashing by Hollywood and New York? http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php ][img ]http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-confused002.gif[/img ]
Art, like morality, consists in drawing the line somewhere. ~G. K. Chesterton
We're not on the same page (get it
). I'm not arguing that there is no difference between literature & movies. Both remain representations and snapshots of life. Both can be expressions of something greater than ordinary significance. Since then they can be art or artistic, they are a valid medium from which to pull illustrations.
I understand your practical argument that an illustration pulled from some Will Ferrell garbage may be seen as an implied endorsement of bawdy comedies. I also agree that the pastor who seems to be more influenced by Hollywood blockbusters than God's word is probably not in the best place. But the point of the article was that the medium, a movie, is a lame place from which to pull an illustration. And that is simply a sweeping generalization.
I understand your practical argument that an illustration pulled from some Will Ferrell garbage may be seen as an implied endorsement of bawdy comedies. I also agree that the pastor who seems to be more influenced by Hollywood blockbusters than God's word is probably not in the best place. But the point of the article was that the medium, a movie, is a lame place from which to pull an illustration. And that is simply a sweeping generalization.
There are many studies about the effects of media and various technologies on the human brain. And yes, reading books, looking at paintings, listening to music, etc... all have an effect on the mind and brain.
But the effect of tv/movies is always negative, for a variety of reasons. Most http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/19/health/19babies.html pediatricians now tell parents not to allow their small children to watch any television, as it impairs their development in a number of areas. Check out Edward Bernays' theories on the "engineering of consent". Laura Astolfi's studied brain activity during commercials. Jerry Mander wrote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Arguments_for_the_Elimination_of_Telev... ]Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television . None of these people are Christians looking for a way to condemn the "Hellivision".
So I think the premise that illustrations pulled from movies is at heart problematic does make them an imprudent choice in most cases. I won't say always, I won't say never. But the points made in the article show the problems that must be considered before using such an illustration- things that no one has to worry about if they are talking about planting their garden or feeding the cows or fixing the car.
Alex, Matrix is a good one. Don't forget Lord of the Rings.