"'The Blind Side's' removal from LifeWay’s shelves sends an ominous ...unbiblical message: Christians need not only to be 'not to be of the world,' but also must be sheltered from the world’s realities."

If I want to watch a Christian movie from Hollywood, I’ll watch Sgt. York.

Personally, I liked The Blind Side, but it’s a stretch to consider something a Christian film that has no mention of Christ.

IMO, when it comes to Christian films, the Kendrick brothers are the major league and Milltown Pride would be Class A Minor League.

Sgt. York is a great example of serious film-making that does not in any way ignore the reality of sin, nor minimize the tragedy of war, yet is made with good taste. Gritty war films without a single bad word or defiling sexual images or even sickening levels of blood were common in Old Hollywood. Spielberg is actually capable of using good taste that way, as he recently demonstrated with War Horse. It’s too bad he didn’t bless the world with those sensibilities when he made Schindler’s List. Since he didn’t, we don’t need to bow to his failure in the slightest.

So, Jay, to you it is perfectly acceptable for Christians to watch other people engaged in sexual intercourse as a history lesson. Now that you have presented the idea that there is nothing inherently wrong with paying people to simulate copulation in an explicit manner, and for women to be stripped naked for a commercial enterprise, I have two questions:

I’m not sure why or how prostitution came into this discussion, but no, I wouldn’t advocate watching intimate acts on TV, computer, or whatever for any reason. I’ve knocked Mark Driscoll pretty hard on that score on a couple of different occasions on this website if anyone wants to look it up.

I don’t know for sure, but I wonder if the copy of SL that I watched in school was edited. If it was, then I’d need to reassess my position, especially since some of the people on this site know of better alternatives. I know there is nudity in the portrayals of the concentration camps, but don’t remember watching any explicit sexual activity. For the record, I saw SL in 1996, so that was a little while ago.

1) Where do you draw the line? If scenes like that are acceptable for some historical reasons, are they acceptable for serious drama…like Shakespeare? Romantic comedies? Action movies? If not, why not?

How do you handle art and literature, Wayne? I like your book and want to pick up a copy of it eventually - but do we start repainting or covering up Rembrandts and Van Goghs to accomodate things? BJU has a whole museum of fine art - should they shut it down because of the portraits and things that they have? Do we drape a cloth over Michelangelo’s David or other sculptures because they are either partially uncovered or entirely uncovered?

2) On what biblical basis would you claim for treating actresses this way? (How well you think you can “handle” something is not the only issue involved.)

There is NO Scriptural reason to watch, pay for, direct, or endorse in any way either paying actresses for sexual activity or to deliberately exposing one’s mind (especially for guys!) to sexual activity outside of the confines of marriage, especially in movies or theater. Period, end of story.

By the way, Schindler’s List did not add any historical light on the holocaust that other excellent films haven’t done already… such as Judgment at Nuremberg. If Schindler’s List did not exist, the world would still know about the holocaust, without moral compromise. A godly Christian girl in our church recently had the Schindler’s List matter thrown at her in her public High School. She refused to watch it, and asked to be allowed to substitute other films. I gave her a list of five or six worthy alternatives. Permission was granted. Since she is an excellent student, so it was a fine testimony to her moral standards.

Thanks for pointing out alternatives…I’ll be happy to use them in place of SL if I ever have the desire or need to watch something about the Holocaust.

Chip - yes, you’re right…there is a massive difference between reading and watching the same events.

Just to clarify, the school version of SL was edited and the gratuitous pornographic scene was removed. Needless to say, said scene is a shocker to the homeschooler who purchases the video for their curriculum. BTW, Hollywood, while capable of stirring emotions, is not known for historical accuracy. (i.e. Pearl Harbor, Red tails, etc.)

Thanks, Ron, if there is an edited version, that may be a cause for some level of confusion here between Jay and me. Do you know if all the other nudity not directly related to prison camp regimen was eliminated as well?

I know Spielberg has been very much against cuts to his “art,” and NBC showed it uncut in prime time…the first explicitly pornographic scene on network, broadcast TV. Of course, that is the open door.

Interestingly, in an interview Spielberg himself said about the concentration camp nudity: “the worst days came any time I had to have people take their clothes off and be humiliated and reduce themselves down to livestock. That’s what tore me up the most. It was the worst experience of my life.”
Doesn’t this suggest that something wrong is going on here? That this is going beyond art into exploitation?

Jay said:

I’m not sure why or how prostitution came into this discussion, but no, I wouldn’t advocate watching intimate acts on TV, computer, or whatever for any reason. I’ve knocked Mark Driscoll pretty hard on that score on a couple of different occasions on this website if anyone wants to look it up.

I didn’t mention anything about prostitution. I am describing Schindler’s List, and much other typical Hollywood faire patronized by many professing Christians every day in the movies and on cable TV. That you thought of “prostitution” only reveals how far Hollywood has gone. A favorite movie with Christian women right now is Magic Mike. It seems shocking, but if Schindler’s List is acceptable, there’s no rational reason to reject Magic Mike. I suspect Mark Driscoll would see that as Missional Viewing.

Jay also asked:

How do you handle art and literature, Wayne? I like your book and want to pick up a copy of it eventually - but do we start repainting or covering up Rembrandts and Van Goghs to accomodate things? BJU has a whole museum of fine art - should they shut it down because of the portraits and things that they have? Do we drape a cloth over Michelangelo’s David or other sculptures because they are either partially uncovered or entirely uncovered?

Nudity in art other than the photographic is a somewhat related question, but is something of a red herring here. The difference, of course, is that the painted nude or nude statues are representational and not actual persons being used in a degraded fashion. There may be models so misused, but not necessarily. I would point out, however, that Hollywood movies frequently sexualize statue nudity and paintings, usually for purposes of filthy humor. That’s right, those who claim people uncomfortable with nudity in art are unsophisticated knuckle-draggers who are obsessed with sex – those same art lovers themselves see representational nudity with unbridled sexual interest. Surprise, surprise.

Jay said, wonderfully,

There is NO Scriptural reason to watch, pay for, direct, or endorse in any way either paying actresses for sexual activity or to deliberately exposing one’s mind (especially for guys!) to sexual activity outside of the confines of marriage, especially in movies or theater. Period, end of story.

I’m curious here if your clear condemnation of sexual activity would extend to nudity. You didn’t address that. Is it appropriate for film directors to entice young girls to undress for “art’s sake”? Do you know that virtually all Hollywood nude scenes end up on pornographic sites? Would you advise a Christian actress that this is just art, like Michelangelo (whose work probably does not end up on porn sites). and she should just accept where her image goes and what it is used for? Is it good for any performer’s soul if they are stripped and displayed for the amusement of others?

[Jay] How do you handle art and literature, Wayne? I like your book and want to pick up a copy of it eventually - but (1) do we start repainting or covering up Rembrandts and Van Goghs to accomodate things? BJU has a whole museum of fine art - (2) should they shut it down because of the portraits and things that they have? (2) Do we drape a cloth over Michelangelo’s David or other sculptures because they are either partially uncovered or entirely uncovered?

1. Yes

2. Yes, if they will not correct the issue

3. Yes

It makes no difference who is involved. All that matters is whether or not it complies with scripture. I have never understood professing Christians trying to differentiate between nudity in art and nudity in smut. The point is not the genre, but the nudity itself. The first mention of nudity after the fall provoked shame in the newly fallen and prompted God to cover them, despite them still being alone in the garden. Perhaps it is the modern Christian who has become descensetized to what was obvious so soon after the fall.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

[Jay] How do you handle art and literature, Wayne? I like your book and want to pick up a copy of it eventually - but (1) do we start repainting or covering up Rembrandts and Van Goghs to accomodate things? BJU has a whole museum of fine art - (2) should they shut it down because of the portraits and things that they have? (3) Do we drape a cloth over Michelangelo’s David or other sculptures because they are either partially uncovered or entirely uncovered?

Numbers added

1. Yes

2. Yes, if they will not correct the issue

3. Yes

It makes no difference who is involved. All that matters is whether or not it complies with scripture. I have never understood professing Christians trying to differentiate between nudity in art and nudity in smut. The point is not the genre, but the nudity itself. The first mention of nudity after the fall provoked shame in the newly fallen and prompted God to cover them, despite them still being alone in the garden. Perhaps it is the modern Christian who has become descensetized to what was obvious so soon after the fall.

Chip…fair ‘nuff. I will disagree with you on almost all of those points, because I believe strongly that the difference between the art I described in my quote above (and I’ll lump in SL here even though I should break it out) is different. Art that contains nudes or whatever does not generally entice or stir up sexual desire in today’s culture; the quote Wayne referred to proves that. Going to see some fine art is a totally different monster than looking to cheapen God’s gift of marital blessing in order to feed the selfish and wicked desires for irresponsible men (and now women, as the success of the 50 Shades of Grey series demonstrates). If a man voluntarily exposes himself to that for the purpose of titillation or lust, then he is in sin and needs to avoid it like the plague as a part of 2 Tim. 2:21-23 and Phil. 4:8. If he thinks that it could cause him to sin, then he needs to follow the advice outlined in Romans 14:23 and avoid it.

I had the opportunity to go to Italy when I was in high school, so I have been able to see some of the works that I’ve described, and I have seen Michelangelo’s David​. I can say without a shadow of a doubt in my mind that if you’ve seen it and walked away thinking about conjugal activity, then you’ve been worshipping Cloacina and need to detox your mind.

@Wayne, I’ll have to get back to you in a bit on your post, but I think you’ve sidestepped my questions. What do you do with fine art?

As for this section - that’s easy. Like Chip, I’ll number the questions:

I’m curious here if your clear condemnation of sexual activity would extend to nudity. You didn’t address that.

1. Is it appropriate for film directors to entice young girls to undress for “art’s sake”?

2. Do you know that virtually all Hollywood nude scenes end up on pornographic sites?

3. Would you advise a Christian actress that this is just art, like Michelangelo (whose work probably does not end up on porn sites). and she should just accept where her image goes and what it is used for?

4. Is it good for any performer’s soul if they are stripped and displayed for the amusement of others?

1. No

2. No - because I don’t watch nude scenes or go trolling on porn sites. Ask my wife, who checks my browsing history and who was watched me walk out of multiple movies or TV shows in the decade that we’ve known each other. I’m also using OpenDNS to block that kind of content so that I couldn’t get to it even if I wanted to.

3. and 4. No - I don’t believe that any Christian actress (or actor) should be willing to be participate in sexual activity anywhere other than in the marital bed, and certainly not for exhibition’s sake. Last I checked Hebrews 13:4 was still in the NT. That being said, I do understand that many actors and actresses are not saved and are not willing to live by any kind of Biblical teaching. Exhibiting sexual behavior for the public is not good for their soul, whether they choose to believe the commands of God or not.

Going to see some fine art is a totally different monster than looking to cheapen God’s gift of marital blessing in order to feed the selfish and wicked desires for irresponsible men (and now women…

Jay,

I think this is the crux of your argument. Can you show anywhere in scripture where God differentiates between the two forms of nudity or is this simply a man-made construct?

2. No - because I don’t watch nude scenes or go trolling on porn sites. Ask my wife, who checks my browsing history and who was watched me walk out of multiple movies or TV shows in the decade that we’ve known each other. I’m also using OpenDNS to block that kind of content so that I couldn’t get to it even if I wanted to.

Brother Joy, my point in the conversation is not to accuse you of anything personally. I’m trying to deal with the ideas this discussion has brought up. I’m just trying to find out where you draw the line on what is acceptable in entertainment and what isn’t. You keep using the phrase “sexual activity,” which I understand you condemn (and I am happy to hear that), and now I am asking if you consider the exposure of a performer’s body as “sexual activity.”

3. and 4. No - I don’t believe that any Christian actress (or actor) should be willing to be participate in sexual activity anywhere other than in the marital bed, and certainly not for exhibition’s sake. Last I checked Hebrews 13:4 was still in the NT. That being said, I do understand that many actors and actresses are not saved and are not willing to live by any kind of Biblical teaching. Exhibiting sexual behavior for the public is not good for their soul, whether they choose to believe the commands of God or not.

See? I was asking about being undressed, and you replied with “sexual activity.” But one of the main points of the discussion above (Schindler’s List and all)is about what Hollywood and the art community would call “non-sexual nudity” and rate PG-13. I believe Scripture forbids that, as common as it is today, and I wanted your take on that.

My point about pornography is that any kind of nudity in Hollywood films and TV ends up on pornographic websites. “Non-sexual” nudity is a cause of lust. Many years ago I worked in a film lab in Hollywood. One of our jobs was to recondition prints going out to “second run” theaters. They had to be cleaned up and repaired, which included checking splices. Almost all nude scenes of any kind, and from nearly every print, would have at least one frame cut out. That means many, many men with access to those prints would steal the tiny image for their own use. It only happened with nude scenes, rarely other kinds of immodesty. These realities convinced me there is no such thing as “non-sexual” nudity when you involve images of persons.

As for representational art (drawing painting, statuary), which are not real persons, I think the issue is much more complex. I would not forbid it, or paint over it, unless the artist intended it to be sexual, which is sometimes the case. Some artists seem to think the human body represents some sort of universal condition. I never got that myself, and I think it reacts by adding another element into a work. Actually, I have been in some major art museums, and the amount of nudity in classical art is actually quite small. If Bob Jones has nude paintings and statues around, do they use or encourage nude models in art class? If not, why not?

As for representational art (drawing painting, statuary), which are not real persons, I think the issue is much more complex.

Wayne,

Why is the issue more complex. Isn’t the representational art representing nudity, which you already said scripture forbids?

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Going to see some fine art is a totally different monster than looking to cheapen God’s gift of marital blessing in order to feed the selfish and wicked desires for irresponsible men (and now women…

Jay,

I think this is the crux of your argument. Can you show anywhere in scripture where God differentiates between the two forms of nudity or is this simply a man-made construct?

Chip - can you show anywhere in Scripture where God abhors nudity that is NOT in a sexual context?

Yes, it’s a man made construct. So is Calvinism, Dispensationalism and other ‘isms’ that you and I hold. So I’m not sure why that necessarily disqualifies it. To be honest, I don’t think we’re going to be able to agree on this topic.

Wayne,

Why is the issue more complex. Isn’t the representational art representing nudity, which you already said scripture forbids?

Chip, Scripture forbids people from engaging in public nudity. Since a work of art is not a person, it may not be forbidden. I do think representational art of a real individual would be wrong. But nudity representing ideas should probably fall into a grey area. You can make an inference that it is forbidden, and that is a respectable point of view. A case where it may be permissible, just as an example, would be those wretched medieval paintings of the damned. They are always shamefully exposed and in torment. That doesn’t involve real people, it shares a Scriptural view of nudity, and I don’t think it is enticing.

Jay, if I may answer this question for Chip,

Chip - can you show anywhere in Scripture where God abhors nudity that is NOT in a sexual context?

In Scripture, nudity after the fall outside of marriage is always considered shameful –always –without exception. Genesis sets the tone, as the Lord covered Adam and Eve, and Canaan was cursed for enjoying his father’s nakedness, and not covering it as his noble brothers did. In fact, Shem and Japheth not only covered Noah, they refused to look at him as they did so. We have the same concern for exposed flesh in the law forbidding steps on the altar (Exodus 20:26) and the Lord may have invented pants for that same reason: Ex 28:42. And of course non-sexual nudity incited David to commit an act which destroyed his kingdom. That in itself is a very powerful warning. And we have Job’s covenant with his eyes. Otherwise, non-sexual nudity is a sign of judgment and shame.

The thing about acting is that there are some acts that one can pretend to commit- theft and murder would be a couple of examples. They aren’t actually stealing. No one is getting killed.

But you can’t pretend nudity, and you can’t pretend to engage in foreplay and other sexual activities. The actors are actually doing those things. On screen. In front of cameramen, lighting crew, other actors, the director… and then presenting it for sale and the viewing pleasure of thousands, maybe millions of people. Ew.

Even if the nudity is not sexual in nature, and they are depicting the real events that took place, the actors themselves are still walking around naked for hours, possibly days, in front of a bunch of people. I can’t in good conscience ask someone to do that so that I can experience the ‘reality’ of those kinds of tragedies. We certainly don’t ask people to actually get beat up, knifed, break bones, etc… so that we can see the reality of violence. Why do we want them to be naked, smooching and fondling people they aren’t married to, and in public?

If someone uploaded YouTube videos of themselves in their bedroom with their spouse, we’d call it immoral. But when two people who aren’t married to each other do the same for a movie, we call it ‘art’.

As far as the OP goes- If a store doesn’t want to carry a movie because it isn’t consistent with their beliefs or the desires of their customer base, that’s their business, literally. It isn’t a Christian movie. It might be a nice movie with an nice message based on some really nice people, but that doesn’t make it “Christian”. Even if the nice people are Christians.

But whenever someone gets the screaming meemies over stuff like this, with protests and boycotts and ‘demands’, I wonder what they are feeling guilty about. It’s just so over the top.

As the comedian Paul Reiser said, “When you take your clothes off. It’s not acting. It’s a documentary.”

One of the objections from Christians I heard about The Blind Side was its portrayal of Christian schools as place where athletes are recruited. (Oher was recruited primarily as a basketball player in real life.) Sad to say, that such practices are not unusual.