Whatever Is Pure: Cedarville Requires Professors to Apply Philippians 4:8

….is that it’s not just movies falling under the axe, but also literature. Since a great portion of the classics—Lysistrata, Oedipus Rex, etc.,—are fairly earthy, this more or less puts serious shackles on the classics there. Not to mention, say, frank discussion of the 22nd book of the Old Testament, or for that matter any number of other earthy passages from the Prophets and elsewhere where Israel’s infidelity to God is compared to adultery and fornication.

I understand the urge to “bowdlerize” to avoid needless offense, and I’m no defender of gratuitous violence and sexuality, but I would hope that Cedarville will come to a position where their policies are more sophisticated than just using movie ratings, and that they would realize that when we are talking about being “pure”, that would correspond to the Bible’s definition, not our culture’s.

Put a different way, if an institution cannot differentiate between the violence and nudity in “Schindler’s List” and “Halloween”, I’ve got to question whether a literature/English/etc., degree from that institution would be worth having. Never mind the question of how a strict “purity”/bowdleresque standard might impact seminary education.

All morning, I thought this was a Babylon Bee article!

Strange that a Christian college is trying to apply a well-known Biblical text to the confusing mix we call “culture” and all it gets from other Christians is criticism. Perhaps people should understand the policy thoroughly before criticizing.

I thought it was satire because, honestly, isn’t this a policy a Christian university should already be implementing, in some form?

First, what Tyler says—though to be fair, the headline probably belongs to the writer more than it does to Cedarville.

Regarding my criticism, all I’m getting at is that the policy would seem to prevent not only the teaching of a lot of great literature and film, but if strictly applied would also prevent the teaching of the Song of Solomon and various passages which speak of body parts in no uncertain terms.

Or, again, put another way, I’m all for thinking on that which is pure, but we’ve got to do so in a Biblical way, not just one that derives from our culture. Trying to be “Holier than the Pope” usually backfires.

Being a “classic” doesn’t mean it’s good (or profitable) literature to read. There are many “classic” (i.e. Greek and Roman literature) works that aren’t worth reading. That being said, there are reasons we should study the “classics.” Being exposed to their sexual proclivities shouldn’t be one of them. Of all the classic literature available, why would a Christian literature prof purposely assign lude or sexually explicit works?

Several years ago BJU Press published a little booklet on the use of Objectionable Elements in Christian Education that is absolutely outstanding. I’m not sure who wrote this but it is well thought out and Biblically informed.

https://www.bjupress.com/resources/christian-school/solutions/objection…

In my high school’s (Fourth Baptist Christian School in Minnesota, as some on SI know) American Literature class, one of our assigned readings was Shirley Jackson’s famous short story, The Lottery. This story, seemingly bucolic throughout its majority, abruptly ends with a sinister, chilling twist. The annual lottery in question is a precursor to a ritual killing: https://sites.middlebury.edu/individualandthesociety/files/2010/09/jackson_lottery.pdf

I recall that it generated some fervent discussion in the classroom. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it generated some fervent discussions (albeit of a different nature) outside of the classroom as well. Some parents, and some others within the church, were appalled that the school would assign this story to its students (regardless of the fact that said students were 17 or 18 years of age at the time). Our BJU-graduate teacher found herself needing to explain & defend the story’s educational value within a Christian school context.

How much of the culture we expose ourselves to has always been a difficult area. We have had to deal with this ever since Genesis 3. And since Christ said that He wasn’t taking us out of this world but was leaving us here to be the “salt and light”, every generation of Christians has to figure out how to live in the world but not be part of the world. Many years ago, BJU put in print its philosophy about this (see Andy’s post above), an excellent statement. The CT article was basically a hit piece, biased against conservative Christianity (not surprising considering the magazine). Kudos to Cedarville for putting in print its policy. At least it is attempting to confront a difficult issue. Always easier to criticize than create.

[Bert Perry]

Put a different way, if an institution cannot differentiate between the violence and nudity in “Schindler’s List” and “Halloween”, I’ve got to question whether a literature/English/etc., degree from that institution would be worth having. Never mind the question of how a strict “purity”/bowdleresque standard might impact seminary education.

I think most godly Christians through the ages would regard watching people stripped naked and engaging in simulated sexual intercourse as violating the “pure” standard of Philippians 4:8, regardless of context. Remember, the holocaust was used in the sixties to shatter all cinematic codes of moral decency in the movies. Once barriers are down for “art” they are gone forever.

[Wayne Wilson]

Bert Perry wrote:

Put a different way, if an institution cannot differentiate between the violence and nudity in “Schindler’s List” and “Halloween”, I’ve got to question whether a literature/English/etc., degree from that institution would be worth having. Never mind the question of how a strict “purity”/bowdleresque standard might impact seminary education.

I think most godly Christians through the ages would regard watching people stripped naked and engaging in simulated sexual intercourse as violating the “pure” standard of Philippians 4:8, regardless of context. Remember, the holocaust was used in the sixties to shatter all cinematic codes of moral decency in the movies. Once barriers are down for “art” they are gone forever.

First of all, if we say “I think most godly Christians….would regard”, what we’ve done is first of all set ourselves up as the standard, not Scripture, and we’ve also committed the basic logical fallacy of appeal to popularity—bandwagon effect. To draw a picture, it is also simultaneously true that most “godly” Christians (and Jews) through the ages have decided that the Song of Solomon could not possibly be what its words portray it as. Does that mean we ought to have a policy of “two Bibles” (to borrow a concept from Teachout and Brumbelow) where things that “we” consider “objectionable” are spiritualized, but other things are not?

Before you do, remember that this will not be the only place where this kind of hermeneutic will be applied—it is a fast ride away from the first fundamental and Sola Scriptura, to put it very mildly.

Others have asked what could possibly be the reason for featuring literature like “Schindler’s List” or many of the ancient Greeks, and there are two answers to that. First of all, if it’s not far worse than what we see in Scripture—that would include the rape of Tamar, the wedding songs of Song of Solomon, and graphic descriptions of the genitalia of the pagans—I don’t know that we can consider it out of bounds on that alone. Second, the reason to suffer through some of the perversity of the ancient Greeks is because western European culture since Roman days has been based on these writings—if you don’t understand them to some degree, you don’t understand your own culture.

One final note; if anyone seriously thinks that the Holocaust was the occasion that allowed nudity and sexuality into movies, even respectable ones, that would, again, be why they need to read some of the ancient Greeks. The occasion for nudity in theater, besides opportunity and sin, really started the same place that nudity in art in western Europe began—with the Greeks, especially with renditions of Aphrodite/Venus and the consorts of Zeus, along with the cult of the eromenos among men.

[Wayne Wilson]

Once barriers are down for “art” they are gone forever.

Exactly what I was thinking on my visit to the BJU Museum & Gallery, with the (arguably indecent) artwork I saw on display.

(Larry dives for cover………..)

[Bert Perry]

Wayne Wilson wrote:

Bert Perry wrote:

Put a different way, if an institution cannot differentiate between the violence and nudity in “Schindler’s List” and “Halloween”, I’ve got to question whether a literature/English/etc., degree from that institution would be worth having. Never mind the question of how a strict “purity”/bowdleresque standard might impact seminary education.

I think most godly Christians through the ages would regard watching people stripped naked and engaging in simulated sexual intercourse as violating the “pure” standard of Philippians 4:8, regardless of context. Remember, the holocaust was used in the sixties to shatter all cinematic codes of moral decency in the movies. Once barriers are down for “art” they are gone forever.

First of all, if we say “I think most godly Christians….would regard”, what we’ve done is first of all set ourselves up as the standard, not Scripture, and we’ve also committed the basic logical fallacy of appeal to popularity—bandwagon effect. To draw a picture, it is also simultaneously true that most “godly” Christians (and Jews) through the ages have decided that the Song of Solomon could not possibly be what its words portray it as. Does that mean we ought to have a policy of “two Bibles” (to borrow a concept from Teachout and Brumbelow) where things that “we” consider “objectionable” are spiritualized, but other things are not?

Before you do, remember that this will not be the only place where this kind of hermeneutic will be applied—it is a fast ride away from the first fundamental and Sola Scriptura, to put it very mildly.

Others have asked what could possibly be the reason for featuring literature like “Schindler’s List” or many of the ancient Greeks, and there are two answers to that. First of all, if it’s not far worse than what we see in Scripture—that would include the rape of Tamar, the wedding songs of Song of Solomon, and graphic descriptions of the genitalia of the pagans—I don’t know that we can consider it out of bounds on that alone. Second, the reason to suffer through some of the perversity of the ancient Greeks is because western European culture since Roman days has been based on these writings—if you don’t understand them to some degree, you don’t understand your own culture.

One final note; if anyone seriously thinks that the Holocaust was the occasion that allowed nudity and sexuality into movies, even respectable ones, that would, again, be why they need to read some of the ancient Greeks. The occasion for nudity in theater, besides opportunity and sin, really started the same place that nudity in art in western Europe began—with the Greeks, especially with renditions of Aphrodite/Venus and the consorts of Zeus, along with the cult of the eromenos among men.

So let’s see, if we want to learn why nudity was allowed in the 1960s into movies, when it had been banned for decades, and banned for centuries in western theater, we need to read the ancient Greeks. It’s probably more enlightening to read a history of film. They have nothing to do with each other, except sex sells then and now. Here’s a question Bert: If your wife or daughter or sister were an actress and required for art’s sake be stripped nude and made to ride a naked man for the world to see… would you approve? Why or why not? It’s a serious question.

And the universal testimony of the church regarding indecent theater, based upon many Scriptures, naturally (lust and shame, you can look them up), is to be discarded because that’s an appeal to popularity? So away with all moral consensus and all creeds. Mere popularity. Every man should do what he wants with his own eyes.

One more thought, most people realize there is a vast difference between reading that Tamar got raped, and hiring some starlet to act it out for our entertainment and enlightenment. What effect do you think that has on the person? Oh, yes, movies are made with persons!

This is a wise and sensible policy. It seems more like a framework within which the university can make appropriate curriculum decisions. I’m surprised it hadn’t been implemented before. I have no problems with this new policy.

Wayne, yes, I’ll come out and say it; “universal testimony” of the church means nothing if it is contradicted by Scripture. Ironically, Protestants universally used to believe that. :^) It’s a logical fallacy and it contradicts the first Fundamental and Sola Scriptura, and it’s worth noting that the church “universally” used to hold to works salvation, veneration of the saints, and a host of other doctrines we now abhor. Thank God for Sola Scriptura!

So once again, if we are going to place restrictions on secular literature that we wouldn’t, or at least shouldn’t, place on the reading of Scripture, we are in clear sin.

Not that we need to look at every mosaic from Pompeii to figure things out, or read every pornographic writing of the Greeks, but inasmuch as their culture defines ours, it’s good to know about some of it. And if we can tolerate the Prophets, certainly this will not irrevocably harm us.

Regarding the question of how actors are treated, absolutely, and it really all depends on the context of what people are trying to do. If one tells me “I’m casting for a slasher movie and I need some eye candy”, well, that’s the “sex sells” thing. On the flip side, let’s imagine someone is casting for a movie that will remind another generation—a generation rapidly forgetting Shoah—that the Holocaust was real.

Now I think the directors did those scenes wrongly—real residents of KZs and ghettoes would have been far leaner—but if I were, say, a cancer patient who actually looked the part, I might be willing to sign up for it. The world seeing my tuckus vs. a greater possibility of a repeat of the Holocaust? After all, David danced before the Lord, and Isaiah showed himself when God was displeased, no?

Same basic thing for the violence in Glory or Saving Private Ryan. OK, at least as long they were only using dummy bullets and such! Which really illustrates the problems with any mechanistic rule going by motion picture ratings, IMO.