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

[Jim]

My take on Schindler’s List, Titanic, & Saving Private Ryan: Best not viewed in Christian College setting

However I consider all worthwhile viewing for the overall message:

• Schindler’s List: We viewed as a family when it was broadcast. An important anti-Nazi, holocaust (the reality of) film
• Titanic: I took my family to the theater. Important message about the brevity of life & mans’ hubris w regard to technology. I personally found the nudity (albeit brief) unnecessary / gratuitous
• Saving Private Ryan: I took my boys. So many positive messages about sacrifice & patriotism. One of my 2 boys later served 6 years in the USMC (Iraq war) and now is in the MN National Guard (Lieutenant) and is an Afghanistan vet.

Jim,

In your opinion, was the enormous global popularity of Titanic because of a message about “the brevity of life”, or the glorious immoral sexual relationship?

Wayne, you know about nudity clauses because they make the papers and it’s a touch point for you. Reality is that this is a model document from the Screen Actors Guild. Yes, you’ll notice various things appropriate to on screen violence, accomodations, food, and more are covered, and agents and PR representatives work hard on these things to craft the image they want for their client. The more draw a person is at the box office, the more stringent the requirements, right down to what color of M&Ms are in the jar in their Airstream on set.

Now let’s get back to brass tacks; the new Cedarville policy prohibits the use of some of the movies you recommended, and I note that those movies feature huge amounts of violence. OK, let’s ask a question for you; why is it totally wrong to see nudity (whether or not adultery exists or is even implied), but representations of brutal murders are A-OK? Did God take something out of the Decalogue when I wasn’t looking? Is immodesty a bigger deal now than murder for your movie-going pleasure?

Or, as we would infer from the subject matter of the Bible (which features plenty of descriptions of nudity, sex, and violence), does the appropriateness of subject matter in a work of literature or film depend on what is to be achieved with it? Does the nudity and violence in Schindler’s LIst differ materially from that in Halloween? Whether you like the Supreme Court’s “redeeming social value” construct or not, it is a reasonable explanation of why the sexual situations in Scripture differ quite a bit from those in romance novels.

And really, given the miserable record of most “Christian” movies of the past 30 years or so, I would argue that Christians who want to do film can ill afford to ignore films that won multiple Oscars, and if we act as if the objectionable elements in them are the same as those in, say, a slasher film or a romantic comedy, we almost guarantee the filming of God’s Not Dead 3.

This bit of pushback from Cederville’s administration is hilarious:

“Faculty have the sense that policies should be originated by them or driven by them. That’s very much a part of academia—no question about it,” he said. “But Christian schools are distinct. In our handbook, these sorts of policies are driven by the board of trustees.”

“The [Cedarville] administration is not serving the students as much as the parents who are sending the students and the trustees and donors,” another student said.

I appreciate this firm stand. The article continued:

Cedarville president Thomas White launched a campaign last year to bring greater “biblical wisdom and intentionality” to the roughly 1,000 days that undergrads spend at the university.

“God’s Word commands us to be in the world but not of the world,” he wrote, mentioning Philippians 4:8 as a guiding principle. “We must learn about sin, but we should not experience all forms of it. We must teach other worldviews, but in such a way to commend the truth and rightness of the biblical worldview.

“I suspect we are all in agreement on these things, but I commend them to you for your thinking as we move into more hostile waters culturally.”

An English professor from another Christian institution illustrated the other side of this issue quite well:

I’ve also seen verses like this, [if] unevenly applied, have two results: keeping young people from being able to discern the difference between depicting and glorifying sin, and keeping young people from being able to discern between excellence and safety,” she said. “So I’d love to see Christian colleges not focus only on all of Philippians 4:8, but also other passages—such as Acts 17:16-32 [Paul at the Areopagus in Athens] —when they think about their standards.”

Another professor, Karen Prior, remarked:

“It’s important when teaching in an evangelical Christian university to know your audience,” she said. “Contemporary evangelical Christian students do not have a robust theological understanding of art and literature. So I recognize that most students—and some administrators and parents—need to learn how the study of secular literature is not only compatible with a biblical worldview, but demonstrated by a biblical worldview.”

CT did a good job with this article.

Bert, the straw man arguments are getting wearisome. Is that really the choice? Schindler’s List or God is Not Dead? Have you never seen A Man for All Seasons, or To Kill a Mockingbird (as mentioned above), Mrs. Miniver or How Green was My Valley?. Good taste and incredible art have never been at odds. In fact, great directors under the Production code said the limits on what they could show made them work harder and be more creative. It was after the code was in place Hollywood started making really great films, and it only took a few years.

If someone wants to learn about the Titanic, and doesn’t like books, why not see A Night to Remember, a superior and far more historically accurate film than James Cameron’s bloated melodrama?

Film can effectively address sin and the human condition while not assaulting the audience or wrecking the souls of performers. We just saw Water, a powerful condemnation of pagan beliefs behind child marriages and child prostitution in India. Could it have included nudity and sex? Yes, sex was the primary subject of the film. Did they do that? No.

On violence, yes, sex and violence are different in their nature and in the experience of the viewer and the performer. Can film glorify violence? Absolutely, and should be rejected as well. Anything designed to glorify sin should be rejected. Christians should not amuse themselves with Pulp Fiction. But not all violence is evil, as in heroic action to stop evil by law enforcement or on the battlefield. (Glory is a good example) You may want to read the book Ultra-Violent Movies for some insight on extreme violence in film. Directors thought over-the-top violence would have a cathartic effect, but they were very wrong. On the other hand sexuality and nudity are inherently shameful, and violate the performer. Peeking through the keyhole or getting video of someone showering is not the same as a police officer fighting a criminal. Can you see that? You are violating the performer when you patronize their shame. The effect on performers is well documented. Just recently, A-list actress Jennifer Lawrence said this in a recent interview about her PG-13 sex scenes:

Jennifer Lawrence mentioned she did her “first real sex scene a couple weeks ago” for a film called Passengers. She was visibly shaken up talking about it, calling it “a bizarre experience.” How did she get through it? “You drink. You get really, really drunk; but that led to more anxiety,” she said. “He was married…I knew it was my job but I couldn’t tell my stomach.”

As Lawrence noted about her scene, “you don’t know what’s too much; you want it to be real, but…” But not too real

My question is, how is a godly man’s stomach not turned at this being required of her? Simulating sex with another woman’s husband? Yes, Alfred Hitchcock believed actors were cattle, but should a follower of Jesus Christ?

Do you have any limits, Bert on sexuality if the story has a redeeming message? Would you watch a woman’s breasts be fondled? Her legs open and a naked man lying between them? Bending over and being pounded? That’s how Hallie Berry won her Oscar in the “redemptive” Monster’s Ball. Do you have any limits at all? have you ever wondered why your heart is not grieved for such things? Have you seen so many nude actresses it just has no effect anymore?

A couple last points: Scripture is not a movie. Ever hear the expression “the medium is the message”? It is meaningless to say something is recorded in scripture so it should be depicted in explicit detail on film without blinking.

Finally, I recommend reading Amos Vogel’s Film as a Subversive Art. He is not a believer, and thinks film should be subversive. But he explains well how nudity and extreme violence in film overthrow religion and societal norms. Seeing what is taboo destroys the idea that there are norms. It was written years ago, and what he spoke of then is now the norm. Think about it.

[TylerR]

I appreciate this firm stand. The article continued:

Cedarville president Thomas White

Your mentioning Thomas White reminded me that he wrote a chapter in a book I recently reviewed. The book, First Freedom, is on religious liberty, It is a dry book to read, took me forever, it seemed. But some of the chapters are very good, including White’s on religious freedom and the university campus. He demonstrates a really thoughtful approach.

I think that you are seeing the same as this issue is coming out. It’s impressive.

Do you have any limits, Bert on sexuality if the story has a redeeming message? Would you watch a woman’s breasts be fondled? Her legs open and a naked man lying between them? Bending over and being pounded? That’s how Hallie Berry won her Oscar in the “redemptive” Monster’s Ball. Do you have any limits at all? have you ever wondered why your heart is not grieved for such things? Have you seen so many nude actresses it just has no effect anymore?

To be honest, I was wondering where your fixation on nudity and sexuality in the movies is coming from, Wayne. For my part, I’ve not seen any nudity in film since I saw Schindler’s List in the theater. Overall, I can count the movies I’ve seen featuring nudity on my fingers, most of them prior to coming to Christ. Do the math.

(thanks for the unfounded accusations….maybe consider repenting of that?)

And you are just not getting it with the limits. It’s really simple; is there a redeeming point to the overall theme, and do the components contribute to, or distract from, that theme? IMDB tells me that Monster’s Ball is about the ambiguities of race and capital punishment, among other things. As the brother-in-law of a former prison guard who became bipolar, I’d guess due to the stress, suffice it to say that you’re going to have some difficulty making that point without some violence, intoxicants, sensuality, and cursing. Killing people leaves a mark, and that mark shows up in suicide, alcoholism, and sexual looseness quite often.

Not a fan of Thornton’s tuckus or Berry’s decollete, and it’s definitely arguable that you don’t have to show everything, but you’ve got to have some hints of what they’re about to do. And that’s why I’m not in favor of simply looking for “objectionable thematic elements” or simply at the MPAA ratings; it really does not tell you what is redeeming or not about a film or book.

There are some times when you cannot (true story) simply say “we cannot read that book because it features a witch” and the like. The book in question was The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. I still cringe when I remember that.

Personally, I can’t think of any good reason for including nudity or actual swear words in a film. I think any amount is gratuitous and unnecessary. Same with art (for nudity) or books (for swear words). A director, artist, or author should be able to communicate effectively without resorting to such bawdiness.

[Larry Nelson]

Fourth Baptist Christian School did Harvey in the late ‘70’s–I couldn’t give the exact year without looking through yearbooks. The school also did Arsenic and Old Lace around that same time.

The production of Harvey took place a year or two after I graduated in 1980.

[Bert Perry]

Do you have any limits, Bert on sexuality if the story has a redeeming message? Would you watch a woman’s breasts be fondled? Her legs open and a naked man lying between them? Bending over and being pounded? That’s how Hallie Berry won her Oscar in the “redemptive” Monster’s Ball. Do you have any limits at all? have you ever wondered why your heart is not grieved for such things? Have you seen so many nude actresses it just has no effect anymore?

To be honest, I was wondering where your fixation on nudity and sexuality in the movies is coming from, Wayne. For my part, I’ve not seen any nudity in film since I saw Schindler’s List in the theater. Overall, I can count the movies I’ve seen featuring nudity on my fingers, most of them prior to coming to Christ. Do the math.

(thanks for the unfounded accusations….maybe consider repenting of that?)

And you are just not getting it with the limits. It’s really simple; is there a redeeming point to the overall theme, and do the components contribute to, or distract from, that theme? IMDB tells me that Monster’s Ball is about the ambiguities of race and capital punishment, among other things. As the brother-in-law of a former prison guard who became bipolar, I’d guess due to the stress, suffice it to say that you’re going to have some difficulty making that point without some violence, intoxicants, sensuality, and cursing. Killing people leaves a mark, and that mark shows up in suicide, alcoholism, and sexual looseness quite often.

Not a fan of Thornton’s tuckus or Berry’s decollete, and it’s definitely arguable that you don’t have to show everything, but you’ve got to have some hints of what they’re about to do. And that’s why I’m not in favor of simply looking for “objectionable thematic elements” or simply at the MPAA ratings; it really does not tell you what is redeeming or not about a film or book.

There are some times when you cannot (true story) simply say “we cannot read that book because it features a witch” and the like. The book in question was The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. I still cringe when I remember that.

Bert, you are a master of evasion.

The article says there was no particular incident that sparked this change, so I’m assuming this isn’t a response to a professor using a text or book that contained “passages that are clearly pornographic, erotic, obscene, or graphic.” And quite frankly, what is and isn’t “pornographic, erotic, obscene, or graphic” is subjective.

But seriously, are we talking skipping over Chaucer, Homer, Dante, Virgil, and even Shakespeare? Just how obscene is too obscene?

Literature and film studies are about more than entertainment. Literature, and now tv and movies, impact culture significantly. Writing and producing shows and movies is a craft, and I can’t imagine studying these subjects without delving in to some books, movies, and television that would not meet the Phil. 4 criteria.

I guess I understand not allowing obscenities/profanities in plays put on by students, if for no other reason than to prevent parent-induced migraines… but overall, this feel like an unnecessary edict. Sort of like including a clause in your church covenant that the congregation is not allowed to rob banks. Who’s planning to go there?

IMO it sounds silly to say “No professors were planning to assign erotica, but now we have a rule that they can’t.” Okey-dokey.

Maybe they are trying to put up a fence to keep out the “academic Left”, but I don’t think it’s a Lefty move to read Ovid, James Joyce, Cormac McCarthy, or Toni Morrison for that matter.

I feel like we are missing a big piece of a puzzle.

Writing and producing shows and movies is a craft, and I can’t imagine studying these subjects without delving in to some books, movies, and television that would not meet the Phil. 4 criteria.

So we are free to disregard Phil 4 for educational purposes of teaching a craft? Which other of our Lord’s commands take a back seat to education? And how do we decide that?

Thanks for excising that one part of my post and not taking it in context.

So—exactly how do we decide what is and isn’t “pure” or “lovely”?

Does it mean we can’t write or read any story that depicts sinful acts?

What about non-fiction? Is it wrong to study crime, mental illness, popular culture, or the lives of people who committed evil acts, or history’s atrocities?

Perhaps what we should be looking at is how sinful acts are depicted and the messages being conveyed by the story/author. And what a coinky-dinky. That’s what lit class is for.

I think Disney’s The Little Mermaid is just about the most horrid story EVER. When most people think about harmful or objectionable ideas, they think in terms of the obvious—obscene language, crude humor, explicit or perverse sexual situations, excessive gore. These things are obvious and usually unnecessary to conveying character and plot. I’m not defending the study of literature or movies that are obviously immoral in their themes or content. And it seems like this wasn’t a problem at Cedarville. So why make a rule for a problem you don’t have?

In addition, the absence of these obviously objectionable elements doesn’t mean a story doesn’t contain problematic themes. So how do we learn or teach without reading, watching, and discussing?

[Kevin Miller]

Larry Nelson wrote:

Fourth Baptist Christian School did Harvey in the late ‘70’s–I couldn’t give the exact year without looking through yearbooks. The school also did Arsenic and Old Lace around that same time.

I was in the production of Arsenic and Old Lace at Fourth. We did edit the play before we presented it. For example, we couldn’t have the little old ladies serving wine in a Christian school production, so we changed it to poisoned tea. (I guess it was okay for them to kill people, just as long as they didn’t do it with wine.)

The production of Harvey took place a year or two after I graduated in 1980.

I pulled out the yearbooks from 1974 - 1979 & 1981 yesterday afternoon. (My sister in Illinois has my 1980 yearbook at the moment.)

Here are the plays Fourth produced during those years:

1973-1974: Tom Sawyer

1974-1975: Peter Pan

1975-1976: The Man Without A Country

1976-1977: Cheaper By The Dozen

1977-1978: The Miracle Worker

1978-1979: Arsenic And Old Lace (A couple of photos of you in character, by the way.)

1979-1980: (unknown)

1980-1981: Harvey