"[W]hen you use a movie illustration, you are unknowingly harnessing yourself to the moral baggage which that movie brings"

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.
https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQv7GHkGcAZgnlfEl96…

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.

[dmicah]… films are works of art.

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] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-confused002.gif

Art, like morality, consists in drawing the line somewhere. ~G. K. Chesterton

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.)

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.

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.

Not to be too cheeky, but this is very ambiguous, and really doesn’t say anything negative or positive. Further, wouldn’t there be similar effects from other forms of artistic expression? Beyond that, you seem to assume that measurable, physiological and emotional changes are bad. It seems that your argument is making a presuppositional leap. “I think movies are in general not good. This is dangerous spiritually.Therefore using them as sermon illustrations is not good.” Jesus pulled his illustrations from all over the spectrum of real world situations. A film can represent real world situations. There can simply be no rational reason for not using the medium. I’m arguing solely inside the logical use of a type of expression.

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.

[dmicah]

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.

Not to be too cheeky, but this is very ambiguous, and really doesn’t say anything negative or positive. Further, wouldn’t there be similar effects from other forms of artistic expression? Beyond that, you seem to assume that measurable, physiological and emotional changes are bad. It seems that your argument is making a presuppositional leap. “I think movies are in general not good. This is dangerous spiritually.Therefore using them as sermon illustrations is not good.” Jesus pulled his illustrations from all over the spectrum of real world situations. A film can represent real world situations. There can simply be no rational reason for not using the medium. I’m arguing solely inside the logical use of a type of expression.

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_Tele…] 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.