BECOME an
EICC BUILDER
The Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity I N F O R M I N G FA I T H - R E F O R M I N G C U LT U R E
EICC Builders are those individuals and families who have made a commitment to pray for the ministry as well as to give on a monthly basis. This stable base of support enables us to better develop resources, invest in print and Internet-based publishing, and to be adequately staffed.
Will you become an EICC Builder so that the ministry might be further strengthened and expanded? Becoming a Builder is easy; simply complete the attached donor card and mail it back to us in the postage-paid return envelope provided. Your tax receipt will be issued and mailed to you at year end.
The Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity Working to… Restore gospel confidence among God’s people Renew understanding of the scope and power of the Word of God Recover a gospel of redemption that claims all of creation as the theater of God’s glory
Partner with us... become a monthly EICC Builder today! EZRA INSTITUTE FOR CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIANITY PO Box 9, STN Main, Grimsby, ON L3M 1M0
SUMMER 2018
Editor
RYAN ERAS EICC Founder
JOSEPH BOOT
2 Editorial Ryan Eras 4
Redeeming the Arts Colin Harbinson
8
Why the #MeToo Generation Needs Jane Austen Brian Mattson
13
Media Distribution and Christian Dominion Marcus Pittman
19
Enlightened Entertainment: Some Perspective for Navigating Netflix David Robinson
26
Resource Corner
Jubilee is provided without cost to all those who request it. Jubilee is the tri-annual publication of the Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity (EICC), a registered charitable Christian organization. The opinions expressed in Jubilee do not necessarily reflect the views of the EICC. Jubilee provides a forum for views in accord with a relevant, active, historic Christianity, though those views may on occasion differ somewhat from the EICC’s and from each other. The EICC depends on the contribution of its readers, and all gifts over $10 will be tax receipted. Permission to reprint granted on written request only. Canada Post Publications Mail Agreement Number: PM42112023 Return all mail undeliverable to: EICC, PO Box 9, STN Main, Grimsby, ON L3M 1M0, www.ezrainstitute.ca
Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity
To receive Jubilee please visit, www.ezrainstitute.ca/jubilee Or write to us: EICC, PO Box 9, STN Main, Grimsby, ON L3M 1M0 jubilee@ezrainstitute.ca
SUMMER 2018
free!
tear off along here
Help keep
THE GOOD NEWS
THE DILEMMA
Jubilee is entering its ninth year of publication and has enjoyed strong gains in readership. From an initial print run of 500, we have grown to the point where the issue you now hold is one of over 6000 copies. Jubilee lands primarily in North American mailboxes, but many hundreds of copies are also sent overseas to Europe, the UK, the Middle East, Russia, and Australia. The readership is diverse and includes pastors, ministry leaders, Christians in every vocation, politicians, and university students.
However, growth in general ministry revenue (which is how Jubilee is funded) has not kept pace with growth in readership.
Jubilee is free to all who request it. The cost is borne by the general donations and revenue of the EICC. We have no plans to change this model.
THE FIX We need some help to keep Jubilee free. Specifically, a very little bit of help from a lot of readers. If one out of every four of our readers (25%) were to make a donation of $40.00 per year, this would completely cover the cost of Jubilee at present distribution size.
MAKING IT SO If you receive Jubilee and are currently supporting the EICC, then please accept our sincere thanks, you are already helping. If you receive Jubilee and a $40 gift would be a burden in any way, then please continue to receive Jubilee without cost or obligation. If, however, you receive Jubilee and can comfortably help with the cost by way of a $40 donation (tax deductible for Canadian donors), then we hope you will consider doing so. You can use the attached postage paid envelope, or the donate button on our website at www.ezrainsitute.ca.
Yes! I’ll help keep Jubilee free with an annual gift of:
$40
$60
$100
$250
Other ________
detach page & mail to:
PAYMENT TYPE Cheque Visa Mastercard NAME ON CARD
EXPIRY MONTH
CARD NUMBER
SIGNATURE
YEAR
CVV:
SEND TAX RECEIPT TO ADDRESS
TELEPHONE (
CITY
PROVINCE
) ___________________________ POSTAL CODE
A resource of the Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity P.O. Box 9, STN Main Grimsby, ON, Canada L3M 1M0
JUBILEE EDITORIAL: ISSUE 22
2
PAGE NO.
RYAN ERAS RYAN ERAS is Director of Content and Publishing at the Ezra Institute, responsible for developing and producing the EICC’s print and web content, and serves as managing editor for Ezra Press and its imprints, and editor for the Ezra Institute’s journal, Jubilee. He holds a BA in History from Tyndale University, and an MI in Library and Information Science from the University of Toronto, with a focus on bibliographic control and the history of censorship. Ryan has served in several educational and support roles, providing bibliographic research and critical editorial assistance for several popular and academic publications. Ryan and his wife Rachel have four children.
MARSHALL MCLUHAN FAMOUSLY AND incisively observed that “the medium is
the message.”1 This insightful phrase expresses the reality that the means by which we communicate has a direct influence on how that message is perceived. To use an immediate example: from the first issue of Jubilee in 2010, we made a conscious decision to release a hard-copy publication. The digital age was in full swing, and it would have been easy to make Jubilee an online-only resource, but a purely electronic medium did not, and does not, fit with the message of what Jubilee is. With the articles in these pages, we aim to balance two important, mutually-reinforcing, goals. The first is to provide a bedrock of thought-shaping expertise to help readers understand how to think about the issue at hand in a way that consistently places the Word of God at the centre of their minds. The second is to combine these foundations with a degree of ground-level insight for how to live in a God-honouring way with regards to that issue – whether that’s questions of justice, law, economics, sexuality, education, beginning and end-of-life issues, or any other subject. This is a task that we dare not take lightly. Jubilee themes focus on areas where the cultural stakes are high, and where the divide between godly and ungodly thinking, however subtle, is significant. The message communicated by the physical medium of Jubilee is that this task is something to be taken seriously. In the first place, we publish authors with a proven record of both faithful, godly living, and expertise in their fields. They take their subjects seriously, and the articles are heavy at times. A physical copy makes it easier to read an article over several sittings, and often more than once. Second, it involves financial resources to produce a physical product and distribute it around the world. We seek to be good stewards of the resources God has entrusted to us by producing a high-quality journal that, while occasionally heavy, is something that is worth reading attentively. It has become somewhat dated to use ‘the medium’ in the broad sense that McLuhan uses it.
SUMMER 2018
Our contemporary, limited use of the term to refer to film, TV, and other forms of entertainment is a more recent development, coinciding with the dramatic growth of the film, TV and music industries in the past few generations. This is understandable, but we miss the full weight and cultural significance of media if we forget that it refers to a wide spectrum of arts and communication platforms. In the words of film scholar James Monaco, “movies must be considered in the context of media in general – in fact, I would go so far as to suggest that film is best considered simply as one stage in the ongoing history of communications.”2 As Christians we believe in the Lordship of Christ over all of history – including the history of communications –, that God is working in and through historical events and persons to accomplish his eternal purposes which can never be thwarted (Job 42:2). In other words, we take the long view of history. To return to the example of Jubilee, we are grateful for the modern marvel of digital distribution that has allowed the gospel message to be broadcast faster, cheaper, and to a wider audience than ever before in world history. At the same time, cultural reformation is an ongoing process, and we design Jubilee to endure, in order to serve as an ongoing resource for the reformation of culture to the glory of God. We have seen Jubilee grow from an initial print run of 500 in 2010 to a printing of over 6000 copies of this present issue. From our office in southern Ontario we have heard from readers across North and South America, Europe, the Caribbean, the Middle East, Russia, India, and more. Many readers were introduced to us by means of a physical copy of Jubilee shared by a friend, pastor, or visiting speaker. We are thankful for this growth, and rejoice in God’s faithfulness in yielding the increase. As an important corollary, if you can help us cover the rising cost of producing Jubilee for a growing audience with a very modest annual gift we would be grateful. You may use the support card on the opposite page. Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity
Editorial: Issue 22
IN THIS ISSUE
The number of ways that we consume, assess, produce, perform, and otherwise interact with media has grown exponentially in recent decades. The articles in this issue represent a cross-section of the biblical principles and considerations that Christians ought to bring to bear on this subject.
1 Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994). 2 James Monaco, How to Read a Film: The Art, Technology, Language, History, and Theory of Film and Media, revised edition (New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981), viii-ix.
Colin Harbinson exhorts Christians, and churches in particular, to develop a view of the arts that is thoroughly informed and shaped by the Word of God. He articulates some of the temptations to idolatry inherent in the fine arts, and applies the biblical precedent that the only defense against idolatry is to replace it with true worship. Brian Mattson considers some of the recent Hollywood scandals and their fallout, paying particular attention to the #MeToo movement. He observes that the work of the Sexual Revolution to abolish traditional norms and rules regarding sex and relationships has had the opposite of its intended effect. Sexual libertinism is not freedom, as witness Harvey Weinstein. The world of Jane Austen, with its clearly-defined and widely-acknowledged rules for male-female relationships, offers an illustration of the biblical principle that true freedom only has meaning when it relates to a transcendent standard. Marcus Pittman describes the way that media content is produced, delivered and viewed, and demonstrates that the calling of the Great Commission has very concrete implications for the way that Christians understand this sphere. Rather than avoiding media technology, or trying to produce Christianized versions of existing media outlets, God’s people are called to cultivate and develop new and better technologies in the name of Jesus Christ. David Robinson considers the issues of freedom of conscience as they relate to our choice in entertainment. With reference to the idolatry-ridden markets of the first-generation church, and the Roman arenas, he provides historical and pastoral perspective for exercising godly discernment in what we watch. Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity
SUMMER 2018
3
4
PAGE NO.
Arts
Redeeming the
COLIN HARBINSON DR. COLIN HARBINSON has been involved in many aspects of the arts, Christian higher education, and missions for more than four decades. Toymaker & Son, one of his award-winning stage productions, has been performed in over seventy countries. Colin has been a creative consultant to numerous national and international organizations, including the Disney Institute. Recognized internationally as a pioneer in the arts and faith movement, Colin was appointed as the inaugural Senior Associate for the Arts with the Lausanne Movement. He is a published author, and a sought-after teacher and conference speaker who has lectured around the world. Dr. Harbinson is currently the international director of StoneWorks – a global arts initiative for cultural reformation, and the recovery of the imagination in the life and mission of the Church. He lives in Ontario, with his wife, Maureen, and is an elder at Innerkip Presbyterian Church.
SUMMER 2018
WHEN CHURCHES EMBRACE A bibli-
cal view of the arts as a God-given integral part of life, then art and worship are allowed to form a unified experience. However, it is to the detriment of the church as a whole that it has not developed a coherent framework that validates, or encourages the arts. When spiritual leaders fail to understand or relate to creative expression, Christians are often discouraged from involvement in what is considered to be ‘worldly’ activity. It is encouraging to find artistic expression flourishing within worshiping communities. This is significant, for worship is the only effective safeguard against idolatry, a major distortion in the arts. To come to a fuller understanding of these issues, it is necessary to explore both the validity and the danger of artistic involvement. It is also important to comprehend God’s desire for cultural redemption and the role of the church in this process. IMAGO DEI
The Bible begins with this glorious statement: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1) Stunning in its simplicity, yet profound in implication, this verse first introduces us to God as the Creator, the original artist. He is the creative personality behind all things. Creativity is an essential part of His divine nature. On the sixth day, when He looked at the full body of His handiwork, He declared it to be “very good!” (Gen. 1:31). God was His own critic, and He pronounced all aspects of His creation to be excellent. This creative God made man and woman in His own image: “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created Him: male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). The outworking of
the Imago Dei, the image of God, has particular relevance for our understanding of man’s creative nature. Abraham Kuyper observed; “ As image bearer of God, man possesses the ability both to create something beautiful, and to delight in it.”1 CULTURE FORMING
This Hebraic-Christian vision of man the creator, made in the image of Creator God, formed the ideological framework that resulted in the rich cultural legacy of Western civilization. In sharp contrast, other religious worldviews have often seen the world as a static, ‘closed’ system. Life is perceived as a series of cycles, without beginning or end. The object is to get off the treadmill and break out of the cycle through a process of birth, death and rebirth. There is no incentive to create something new, for the ultimate goal is to find ‘oneness’ with what already exists.2 The biblical view sees God’s creation as a dynamic ‘open’ system. Man is free to explore the new, to be interactive with nature, to use the raw materials of creation to develop culture under God. The end result of the injunction to “cultivate the earth and keep it,” (Gen. 2:15, NASB) is the development of culture. All cultural expression is the product of its underlying religious belief system. Human beings were given the mandate to develop godly cultural expressions, under the lordship of their Creator. To this mandate was added another clear responsibility. The injunction to “keep it,” emphasized the importance of being a good steward of God’s gifts and resources. As Brian J. Walsh and J. Richard Middleton state; “To be a cultural being is quite simply to be human.”3 Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity
Redeeming the Arts
AESTHETIC APPRECIATION
To understand the possibilities inherent in the culture-forming mandate, it is important to recognize that function was not the only imperative. Knowing that the Creator was concerned with beauty also alerts us to the fact that God’s perfect created world has both utilitarian and aesthetic properties. When God placed man and woman in the garden of Eden, He made all kinds of trees to grow, “that were pleasing to the eye and good for food.” (Gen. 2:9). Later, God instructed Moses that the Tabernacle was to be constructed with “artistic designs”(Ex. 31:4), and detailed the design of Aaron’s robes to reflect “glory and beauty” (Ex. 28:40, 41, NASB). There is a tendency for Christian dogma, especially amongst modern evangelicals, to undervalue the aesthetic side of life. This limited appreciation of the value of the arts does little to reflect God’s love of beauty. It also negates our high calling to be a celebrative people, to His glory. In contrast, Old Testament worship modeled a more integrated approach, in which “music, visual art and poetry converged in Temple worship to form a unified artistic and spiritual experience.”4 DANGER OF IDOLATRY
Christianity is a faith based on the “Word” (cf. John 1:1-3). This is a wonderful truth, which sets Christianity apart from the mute, deaf, unmoving idols of paganism (Ps. 115:7). However, it is also another reason for ambivalence amongst Christians toward the aesthetic. Boorstin correctly observes that “Western religious traditions were wary of the seen, of the image, and the Protestant Reformation built a theology on this suspicion of all images.”5 Fear of “image” idolatry has robbed us of a great deal of our creative inheritance. However, concern over this issue is not without foundation in history or present-day reality. For example, soon after Moses received the vision of art for glory and beauty while on the mountaintop, he discovered the potential of art to become idolatrous. Aaron had listened to the people, Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity
and ‘fashioned’ a golden calf. This sculpture was now the object of worship, and cause for music and dance. Worship of the created had replaced worship of the Creator (Ex. 32:1-10). C.S. Lewis saw the ability of art to steal affection away from God, when he wrote that “Every poet and musician and artist, but for Grace, is drawn away from love of the thing he tells, to love of the telling…”6 Art has the ability to draw our affection to itself. It is possible to love our artistic expressions more than we love God Himself. Scripture records another example of the potential of art to fall into idolatrous use. God instructed Moses to fashion a bronze sculpture of “Knowing that a serpent, in the likeness of the snakes that the Creator was were biting and killing the rebellious Israelconcerned with ites. This ‘artwork’ was put on a pole for all beauty also alerts to see, and those who looked upon it were healed, forgiven and restored. It was not the us to the fact that art itself that brought healing and restoraGod’s perfect tion, but God chose to work through this created world has sculpture in a powerful way (Num. 21:4-9). Many years later, king Hezekiah discovered people worshiping and offering incense to the same work of art that God so powerfully used in the wilderness. It had become an idol. The king took the bronze sculpture, and in repentance smashed it to pieces (2 Kings 18:4)
both utilitarian and aesthetic properties.”
CULTURAL REDEMPTION
If art has such a potential for idolatry, would it not be wise for the church to avoid it altogether? In response to this question, let us continue with the journey of the ‘artwork’ that began its existence in the wilderness. In John we find Jesus using this sculpture of the serpent on the pole as a metaphor for His own redemptive work (John 3:14). The obvious question arises how Jesus could use something that had become tarnished by idolatry as a picture of His death on the cross. The answer points to a very important principle that is at the heart of the redemption of all things. That is, when the sin issues are dealt with in any area of life, that area can begin to be restored to God’s original creational purpose. Because of the repentant acSUMMER 2018
5
6
Redeeming the Arts
tion of Hezekiah, Jesus could identify with the illustration of the bronze serpent in its original created purpose of forgiveness and restoration. REDEEMING CREATOR
Confusion over God’s redemptive purposes is to a large extent the result of viewing reality as an unbiblical “sacred-secular” dichotomy. When this dual worldview is embraced, there is a failure to line up our thinking with the Psalm“Because of the ist when he declares: “The earth is the repentant action Lord’s, and everything in it” (Ps. 24:1). of Hezekiah, Jesus There is, however, the correct biblical could identify with distinction between the holy and the profane. The Hebrew words for ‘holy’ the illustration of speak of a clean place, morally and the bronze serpent in ceremonially. Words used for ‘profane’ its original created suggest woundedness, stain and defilepurpose of forgiveness ment. This points to the fact that the and restoration.” object, person, place, or area of life to which the word ‘profane’ refers was, at some point, whole, unstained and undefiled. The Hebraic term JHVH-Elohim, Redeeming Creator, takes on a staggering depth of significance when viewed in the shadow of Calvary. God is in the process of redeeming all aspects of His creation. We are to work with Him in the ministry of reconciliation He has given us (2. Cor. 6:17-18). The arts are God’s good gifts to us. They are not to be feared and avoided because they have become “wounded and stained.” We are to be involved with God in the reclamation process, so that the arts will again reflect His original creational purpose for them, of glory and beauty. In his book, Eternity In Their Hearts, missiologist Don Richardson develops this theme of cultural redemption, within the context of tribal peoples.7 He sees in every culture what he calls the “Melchizedek factor,” that is, the God-given redemptive aspects of His original creational intent. Richardson also identifies what he calls the “Sodom factor,” the sinful perversion of certain aspects of culture formation. The redemptive process involves the calling forth and affirmation of the Melchizedek factors within a culture, and SUMMER 2018
the recognition of, and repentance from, the Sodom or distorted issues. ARTISTIC RECONCILIATION
The hallmark of truth is its universal application. When we talk of the redemption, reconciliation and reclamation of the arts, the same principles apply. Sadly, the only thing many Christians see is the Sodom or distortion factor in the arts. Because of this, the arts are relegated to Satan’s domain, and abandoned to their own woundedness. Many aspects of the arts have become sin-stained and distorted. God wants the church to be involved with Him in reversing this situation. This can begin when it is acknowledged that God is the Creator and source of the arts. Only then can we seek to discern the difference between the holy and profane manifestation of the gift. Calling forth and affirmation are appropriate responses to the former, as are discernment and repentance to the latter. Biblical reconciliation means to ‘bring into harmony’ with God’s original creational intent. When an individual, culture, or area of life is reconciled to God, it is brought into harmony with the principles of His Word. It should still, however, continue to own its individual and unique reflection, mirroring the creative diversity of God, the original artist. THE OPPOSITE SPIRIT
Cultural redemption and reconciliation involves the pulling down of sinful strongholds that have influenced the arts. The spiritual principle of coming in the opposite spirit, illustrated by the proverb, “a gentle answer turns away wrath” (Prov. 15:1), is a key weapon of our warfare. We are not talking here about a reactionary approach to sin. When such an attitude is taken, we allow legalism to inform our faith. Christianity is subsequently defined in terms of what we ‘don’t’ do. Coming in the opposite spirit is the Jesus style. Satan’s strategies are then counteracted, as appropriate spiritual responses render him powerless. In this way, gentleness defeats anger and humility overcomes pride. As we apply this truth, the power of sin is neutralized. This can be shown as we consider the distortion of idolatry in the arts. Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity
Redeeming the Arts
The opposite of idolatry is worship of the true God. If we are engaged in a lifestyle of worshiping the Creator, we will not easily be tempted to idolatrous worship of the created.
before our Redeeming Creator, the source of all glory and beauty.
WORKING IT OUT: INSTRUMENTS OF WORSHIP
1 Abraham Kuyper, Calvinism (Grand Rapid: Eerdmans, 1943), 142. 2 Peter Jones has written extensively on this subject. See as just one example, “Is Mindfulness Christian?” truthXchange, last modified Oct. 17, 2016, https://truthxchange.com/2016/10/ is-mindfulness-christian/. 3 Brian J. Walsh and J. Richard Middleton, The Transforming Vision (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984), 55. 4 Leyland Ryken, The Liberated Imagination (Wheaton, IL.: Harold Shaw, 1989), 61. 5 Daniel J.Boorstin, The Creators (New York: Random House, 1992), 5. 6 C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce (New York: Macmillan, 1946), p. 81 7 Don Richardson, Eternity in Their Hearts (Ventura, California: Regal Books, 1984).
Corporate worship, or any creative expression of worship, must emanate from the overflow of the secret place, the heart that is rightly fixed on the Lord. David’s dancing before the ark was surely the outworking of his demonstrative worship, recorded in the Psalms (2 Sam. 6:14-15; cf. Ps. 30:11; 149:3; 150:4)). Creative expressions of worship do not readily emerge in a group context; they are first developed as a lifestyle before the throne. A group of trained dancers wanted to use their gift of movement in the service of proclamation and worship. Before being released by the Lord to do this, they learned to use their bodies as instruments of worship. For one year, they practiced dance technique in the mornings. In the afternoons they worshiped God individually and as a group, with an emphasis on movement expression. This became such a natural attitude, that when they eventually performed in public, they did so as an act of worship. As a result, audiences were drawn into the presence of God. GOD’S PLEASURE
A young man with an outstanding international ministry in music and worship leading confessed recently to a major breakthrough in his life. For years he struggled with the need for affirmation following a worship service or a concert performance. God showed him the root of this need: he had never known approval from his father. More importantly, he had never really sensed the approval of God as he exercised his musical gift. From that moment on, he began each day by playing for his heavenly Father. His keyboard became a natural part of his worship. It wasn’t long before he could identify with Eric Liddell, the Olympic athlete whose story is depicted in the film Chariots of Fire, who said that when he ran, he could ‘feel God’s pleasure.’ It is only as worship that our creative expression of the Imago Dei is freed to find ultimate release and meaning Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity
SUMMER 2018
7
8
PAGE NO.
BRIAN MATTSON DR. BRIAN MATTSON is a theologian, writer, speaker, and recording artist. He has a B.A. from Montana State University-Billings, an M.A.R. from Westminster Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. in Systematic Theology from the University of Aberdeen (Scotland). He serves as Senior Scholar of Public Theology for the Center for Cultural Leadership and faculty of the Alliance Defending Freedom’s Blackstone Legal Fellowship. He’s the author of the popular-level books, Politics & Evangelical Theology and The Bible as Bedtime Story, as well as an academic monograph, Restored To Our Destiny, and he blogs at www.drbrianmattson. com. Brian lives with his wife and three girls in the Big Sky country of Billings, Montana.
Why the
#MeToo Generation needs Jane Austen
In 2005 Focus Films released Jane Austen’s Pride & Prejudice, directed by Joe Wright, starring Kiera Knightley and Matthew McFadyen. Austen aficionados everywhere cringed. To many it was an affront because the BBC’s 1995 miniseries represents for them a kind of canonical closure— somebody other than Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy? Kiera Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet? Preposterous. Others worried, understandably, that the novel could not be adequately compressed into the runtime of a theatrical release. Some of these worries were, alas, justified. Ms. Knightley has the starring role and the most screen time, but is the weakest link – possibly more a reflection on the virtuosic strength of the rest of the cast than on her own abilities. And one really cannot forgive the cringeworthy final scene in which the newly minted Mrs. Darcy swoons that she wants her husband to be “incandescently happy” – a line invented by the screenwriter, using a nearly impossible word that only made its first entry into the English language when Austen was nearing the end of her writing career. Few people realize that this saccharine scene was only included in the American theatrical release; this is presumably because the director knew that British audiences would vomit. Nevertheless, the film is easily the most aesthetically beautiful in the Austen canon, and has plenty of greatness to commend it. Despite the worries, MacFadyen’s performance as Mr. Darcy far exceeds that of the former gold standard, Mr. Firth. Director Joe Wright’s four-minute singlecamera shot for the ball scene ranks as one of the most complicated and beautifully executed scenes in movie history. The soundtrack is sensational. And for perhaps the first time on film, Austen’s dialogue is delivered not as a stilted one-at-a-time stage play, but in rough-and-tumble fashion with
SUMMER 2018
actors – just like real people – talking over one another. Mr. Darcy’s first proposal scene is thrillingly pitch perfect: it is visceral and real, not the usual tranquil “polite” version. The film brings back to life a world of strict sexual rules that, to the surprise of the cast and crew, felt positively liberating. The bonus features included with the Pride & Prejudice DVD release offer a short behind-the-scenes look at “The Politics of 18th Century Dating.” (It can also be viewed on YouTube.) One by one, the filmmakers relate observations the significance of which would only be truly realized twelve years later. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NOT HAVING RULES
In October 2017 The New Yorker published an exposé of Hollywood media titan Harvey Weinstein, detailing decades of sexual harassment, assault, and abuse against staffers, girlfriends, female directors and actresses.1 The resulting embarrassment – which involved his ouster from his own company and now a criminal indictment – was not his alone. The entire industry was suddenly implicated by their silence. Although a few dubiously insisted they never had any idea Weinstein was a lecherous predator (e.g., Meryl Streep), by and large the industry took a moment for soul searching. They all knew. The rankest hypocrisy of these so-called champions of feminism and equality had been exposed. Actress Alyssa Milano took to Twitter and asked women to tweet stories of their own harassment and abuse with the intent of exposing the breadth of the problem, and she coined a hashtag for the occasion: #MeToo. It ignited a movement – or perhaps more accurately, a mob frenzy – that would have made proud the 17th century town elders of Salem, Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity
The #MeToo Generation
Massachusetts. Dozens of high-powered public figures were accused, named, and shamed, many of them losing their livelihoods. Time magazine named #MeToo their “Person of the Year.”2
to meet a man or a woman,” says Pride & Prejudice producer Paul Webster. “How do you do it now? There are no rules!” Choreographer Jane Gibson agrees:
Without doubt, it was a very good thing that many of these predators faced their day of reckoning. But mob frenzies never have brakes or set parameters. Wildfires do not honor property lines. Not only were mere accusations taken as gospel truth (oftheard was the maxim that women must always be believed), nobody had any clear idea of what constitutes “harassment” or abuse. Popular comedic actor Aziz Ansari had a less-than-desirable date, and in January 2018, the young lady felt liberated to publish for the world an account of their entirely consensual, if embarrassing, sexual encounter. His every movement was scrutinized for latent “misogyny” or “harmful male expectations.” Suddenly, men everywhere wondered what the rules were and were terrified to ask their attractive colleague out for a drink – indeed, terrified to even publicly notice that she is attractive at all. Any and all flirtation between the sexes came to a screeching halt.
Today it is all broken down entirely, and we don’t know what to do when we meet each other. I mean, are we shaking hands? Are we kissing one cheek? Are we kissing two cheeks? Are we not doing anything? Are we slapping each other on the back? Nobody knows. It’s all broken down.3
Perhaps our caricature of the Puritans of Salem might make us think they would have been delighted at this result. But we must ask the far more interesting question: how was all this achieved by the libertine descendants of the Sexual Revolution? #MeToo unwittingly exposed a fundamental truth that belies self-proclaimed sexual autonomy: there is no such thing as not having rules, and pretending there are no rules means, in the end, giving free rein to the Harvey Weinsteins of the world. The entire episode is a perfect case study on the biblical teaching about idolatry: idols always destroy the very things they promise. The serpent devours its own tail. Social media promised friends, but instead made us all into antisocial creatures staring at our phones. The Sexual Revolution promised unfettered sex; it delivered instead oh-so-romantic sexual consent forms and men terrified of asking a woman for her phone number. HOW STRUCTURE BENEFITS SOCIETY
“In the 18th century, because there were rules, you could argue that it was actually a better time Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity
It is worth reflecting on the fact that it was all “broken down” intentionally. This was the open goal of the “free love” revolution. Who needs all these stifling, retrograde, patriarchal, misogynistic cultural constructs we call etiquette? Ms. Gibson’s lament brings to mind a famous and wise warning from G.K. Chesterton in an essay fittingly entitled, “The Drift from Domesticity:”
“#MeToo unwittingly exposed a fundamental truth that belies selfproclaimed sexual autonomy: there is no such thing as not having rules.”
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, ‘I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.’ To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: ‘If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.’4
I am in no way advocating a nostalgic full return to eighteenth-century English manners and customs. Indeed, many reforms of that way of life seem now, in hindsight, necessary and unqualified goods. In Ms. Austen’s world, social rank and class dominated the institution of marriage; and while it is true that in modern times marriage has sadly devolved into a matter of pure sentimentality, there are few who would really desire the opSUMMER 2018
9
10
The #MeToo Generation
posite extreme of Charlotte Lucas’s fate – forced by economic considerations into a marriage lacking sentiment altogether. Nevertheless, we do well to take Chesterton’s warning to heart. Before the sexual revolutionaries tore down the old order of things, they should have seriously considered the why questions. The fences, imperfect though they may have been, served positive purposes. #MeToo is either the day of reckoning for our cultural short-sightedness; or it may be a mere early warning signal of a bigger reckoning to come.
“#MeToo is either the day of reckoning for our cultural shortsightedness; or it may be a mere early warning signal of a bigger reckoning to come.”
Here are three ways I suggest that the structures of Jane Austen’s world benefitted society.
1. A system of well-defined etiquette ensures that everyone understands— and benefits from—expectations. Where there are expectations, there are responsibilities. And where there is a culture of expectations, there is a corresponding culture of responsibility. When a man and a woman and everyone else around understands how courtship is done, it lessens the perils of a power disparity between the sexes. Put another way, in such a context a man is held responsible for his actions, both by the woman he pursues and the social expectations more broadly. Mr. Darcy’s rudeness toward Elizabeth at the first ball (or Mr. Elton’s appalling behavior toward Harriet in Emma) is perceived as rudeness precisely because there are widely understood standards for what counts as “rude.” Matthew MacFadyen says of his experience playing Mr. Darcy: It was very defined, very clear – and really helpful, I think, looking back. You stand up when a lady walks into the room, and you bow. Nowadays we think of it as very repressed or over-formalized. But I quite like that. It gives it something else. I think it’s actually quite releasing.
Where there are strong expectations for gentlemen, there is far less social space for the Harvey SUMMER 2018
Weinsteins of the world to thrive. Of course, there were plenty of rogues in Austen’s time, as she illustrated well with the likes of Wickham (Pride & Prejudice), Willoughby (Sense & Sensibility), and Crawford (Mansfield Park). But they are easier to spot when they stand out from a crowd, as opposed to trying to identify them in a society where no one has any responsibilities. This is obviously not foolproof, as in the case of Mr. Wickham’s dalliance with Lydia Bennet. But at least Mr. Darcy had the measure of the man and Austen’s point is surely that everyone else, Elizabeth included, should have, too. At first glance it might seem stifling for relationship formation to have rituals to perform. But here a profound paradox appears: true freedom has meaning only in the context of rules; it flourishes only within structural boundaries. MacFadyen describes the paradox: If you’re only allowed to have physical contact in a dance, then dancing with somebody is electric. It’s so charged. […] Especially in the dance – playing the little moments between two people within that very formal structure.
And it is worth pointing out, as does director Joe Wright, that a system of rules is inescapable: “I think there are always codes of conduct between young people when they are courting. We like to think that we’ve thrown off the shackles of etiquette, but I don’t think that’s true.” Only in our day, such rules are so ambiguous as to be meaningless. I suspect that modern dating apps have organically developed certain unwritten “rules of engagement,” but one couldn’t possibly know them beforehand and therefore nobody can rely on them. 2. In clear contrast to modern times, there was a line of demarcation between who is sexually available and who is not. A young woman who was not “out in society” – e.g., attending balls – was simply unavailable. We live in a day and age in which there is no obvious differentiation aside from the (rather flimsy) fiat legal age of majority. Our culture has become sexualized to the extent that somehow toddler “beauty pageants,” childEzra Institute for Contemporary Christianity
The #MeToo Generation
pornographic Abercrombie & Fitch catalogues, and the sexual exploitation of young stars like Miley Cyrus, are accepted. A culture without fixed, hard-and-fast, and broadly accepted rules in this respect (or one in which such rules are disregarded) is a culture where young men and women are frighteningly vulnerable. One of Ms. Austen’s themes in Pride & Prejudice is the stubborn foolhardiness of Mr. Bennet allowing the grossly immature Lydia to attend the ball and flirt endlessly with the men of the regiment.
Hugh Hefner himself, founder of Playboy magazine. He built his own sexual fantasy-land with a harem of beautiful “Playmates,” and—to hear them tell it—ended his life a lonely, pathetic man who couldn’t enjoy intimacy even with industrial amounts of Viagra. Science has repeatedly confirmed this phenomenon when studying the effects of pornography on the human brain: the more you reveal, the less pleasure gained.6
In our day even among adults a wedding ring’s power as a symbol that a man or woman is offlimits has alarmingly deteriorated. And abolishing just these boundary lines of demarcation was a stated aim of the Sexual Revolution. The sad result, however, is not a utopian world of happiness and “free love,” but a world of unchecked harassment of women. Harvey Weinstein assumed every female he encountered was a fitting object of his desire because culturally we have come to believe that everyone is a fitting object of desire.
They don’t really touch. Women do not shake hands with men. So the first time Darcy touches Elizabeth is when he helps her into the carriage, which is a really beautiful moment because it is the first skin-on-skin touch. I think today we don’t think twice about that at all. I shake people’s hand, I give them a kiss, whatever. It’s sort of really interesting to think, actually, if you don’t have that sort of tactile nature, how important one touch can be.
3. In 1999 Wendy Shalit wrote A Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue. Understandably, it sparked a firestorm of controversy among feminists. Shalit tackled the topics of hookup culture, date rape, and sexualizing young girls—issues that have not become less relevant in the intervening years. The promotional description for its 15th Anniversary Edition puts it well:
When it comes to modesty and physical propriety, less is often more. A key ingredient in attraction is mystery, and one of the benefits of a culture of modesty is the preservation of mystery.
Today, with social media increasingly blurring the line between public and private life, and with child exploitation on the rise, the concept of modesty is more relevant than ever. Updated with a new preface that addresses the unique problems facing society now, A Return to Modesty shows why ‘the lost virtue’ of modesty is not a hang-up that we should set out to cure, but rather a wonderful instinct to be celebrated.5
And here we discover another counterintuitive paradox: modesty increases romance. This is not conventional wisdom, but it is incontestably true. One of the saddest exhibits is Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity
Ms. Knightley reflects on a much-related theme:
CONCLUSION
Certainly some on the cultural left would read this and be appalled at the prospect of a dystopian world like Hulu’s hit television series “And here we A Handmaid’s Tale, where women are brudiscover another tally subjugated as breeders by a theocratic counterintuitive regime. But as the #MeToo movement suggests, the Sexual Revolution has its own paradox: modesty subjugation problems for which it must increases answer. Along with creating a cultural cliromance. This is mate in which all women everywhere are not conventional sexual objects to be harassed, its open emwisdom, but it is brace of surrogate reproduction literally has incontestably true.” turned a class of women into “breeders.” And such fears are misplaced. There is no law or political program that can revitalize sexual norms and expectations on a cultural scale. Chesterton’s fence cannot be reconstructed by fiat because it was never originally constructed SUMMER 2018
11
12
The #MeToo Generation
by command. It organically emerged in a society that embraced Christian virtues, and “...our task remains so our task remains the same as ever: the same as ever: to to engage in persuasion, to model the beauty of virtue, and to flourish in the engage in persuasion, context of God’s sexual design. to model the beauty of
activity-as-alcoholism-or-drug-abuse-studyshows-8832708.html.
virtue, and to flourish in the context of God’s sexual design.”
It is a daunting task, but we now have in our arsenal of persuasive tools the question #MeToo has so helpfully put to the Sexual Revolutionaries: how is that working out for you?
1 Ronan Farrow, “From Aggressive Overtures to Sexual Assault: Harvey Weinstein’s Accusers Tell Their Stories,” The New Yorker, last modified October 23, 2017, https:// w w w. n e w y o r k e r. c o m / n e w s / n e w s - d e s k / from-aggressive-overtures-to-sexual-assaultharvey-weinsteins-accusers-tell-their-stories. 2 Stephanie Zacharek, Eliana Dockterman and Haley Sweetland Edwards, “Person of the Year 2017,” TIME, http://time.com/time-person-ofthe-year-2017-silence-breakers/. 3 “Pride & Prejudice BTS - The Politics of 18th Century Dating,” https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=MSNfl2PUFPc. 4 G.K. Chesterton, “The Drift from Domesticity,” in The Thing: Why I am a Catholic (London: Sheed & Ward 1929), 35. 5 See Amazon listing for Wendy Shalit, A Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue (New York: Touchstone, 1999): https://www.amazon. ca/Return-Modesty-Discovering-Lost-Virtue/ dp/1476756651/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF 8&qid=1531169337&sr=1-1 6 See, for just a sample of the research and conclusions, Scott Christian, “10 Reasons Why You Should Quit Watching Porn,” GQ, last modified November 20, 2013, https://www. gq.com/story/10-reasons-why-you-shouldquit-watching-porn; Adam Withnall, “Pornography Addiction Leads to Same Brain Activity as Alcoholism or Drug Abuse, Study Shows,” Independent, last modified September 22, 2013, https://www.independent.co.uk/ life-style/health-and-families/health-news/ pornography-addiction-leads-to-same-brainSUMMER 2018
Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity
Media
DISTRIBUTION
&
OUR CULTURE IS DOMINATED by
popular media – movies, YouTube, television, Netflix, and music. However, over the past few centuries it has not been Christians who have taken dominion over this significant sphere of culture; and if you look at the past seventy years of technological and cultural advancement in media, Christianity is hardly anywhere to be found. Sure, we can point to a few shadows of evangelicalism every now and then, such as TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network), CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network), or to Billy Graham’s revivals being broadcast all over the world on television, and even some of the great radio broadcasts like Focus on the Family’s “Adventures in Odyssey.” In Canada, Crossroads Communications has been producing well-made media for a Christian audience for several decades. But none of those moments in Christian broadcasting represent a true Reformed and cultural Christianity. How is it that we can serve a King who requires us to go into all the world and distribute content as part of his great commission, and we fail so miserably for nearly a century?
My name is Marcus Pittman, and I am a content creator for Apologia Studios. I make videos for YouTube and Facebook for a living. It’s an emerging career field not just for Christians, but for most of the Western world. That’s good news. There are lots of opportunities to take advantage of, because no one has definitively figured out the usefulness of this new medium yet. The bad news is that the ones who are figuring it out – the trendsetters, the ones with multi-million subscriber counts and million-dollar contracts – are not promoting the worldview of our King. Before I dive deeper into a solution, I need to break down how content creation works. Until Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity
Christian Dominion
recently, content creation has required (at least) three distinct steps. 1. Creation. The creators of content are the directors, producers, filmmakers, writers and cast and crew. These are the guys who put in the long hours of working to make a movie or create a television series, or the author who writes a book.
13 PAGE NO.
MARCUS PITTMAN MARCUS PITTMAN is an independent filmmaker, and Executive Producer and Showrunner at Apologia Studios in Phoenix, Arizona. He lives in Phoenix with his wife, Laura. His work is online at apologiastudios.com and at youtube.com/ApologiaStudios.
2. Distribution. The distributors are the one with the power to take the content produced by the creators and get it into the hands of the platform. Disney distributes old movies from their vault to VHS, DVD and Blu-ray. They are the ones who distribute Marvel and Star Wars movies to theaters. They also make sure that these same movies are distributed to Wal-Mart and Best Buy locations all over the country once their run in the theater has ended. In the world of television, the distributors would be the cable networks. Turner, FOX, Universal/NBC and ABC/Disney/ESPN. 3. Platform. The platform for distribution is the companies who manufacture the DVD player, or in terms of television, owning the cable lines, or owning Netflix, Facebook or YouTube. Most of the time an organization could own two. Disney, for example, owns PIXAR Animation and releases those movies eventually to ABC or The Disney Channel. ABC/Disney is a powerhouse of creation and distribution, but they do not own the cable companies that actually get their content into your home through your television set. They also do not own the movie theater chains. SUMMER 2018
14
Christian Dominion
True dominion of this industry comes when you own all three.
Lord dispersed them over the face of all the earth (Genesis 11:5-9).
With the advent of services like Amazon Prime, we are witnessing the beginning of the end of this segregated three-step model. For the first time in history, the content creators – Amazon – distribute their content on their platform. YouTube, owned by Google, allows anyone to create and distribute content. The forthcoming introduction of internet service providers like Google Fiber or Facebook Internet drones means that every aspect of creation, distribution and platform will be directly controlled by the creators from start to finish. The content created by creators can be distributed by creators, and seen by viewers on a platform owned by the same creator. This is massively disruptive. It’s complete dominion of media.
At Babel we see humanity in complete control of all avenues of media creation. They could think of words (creation), they could speak (distribution), and the listeners could then hear with their ears using their brain as the platform. But they didn’t use this communicative power for good; in fact, they used it in disobedience to God’s direct command to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, choosing instead to gather in a single area (Gen. 1:28). So God placed human communication under a curse, confusing and mixing cultures and languages. It remained that way until Pentecost.
And yet, none of these attempts at massive multimedia dominion are being done by corporations that govern themselves under the crown “...none of these rights of Jesus Christ. If we would see attempts at massive true cultural transformation, Christians multimedia dominion must work to develop and advance meare being done by dia technology to the glory of God.
When Jesus returned to sit on his throne and begin the process of making all enemies his footstool, he commanded his people to do something they could not do prior to the resurrection:
corporations that govern themselves under the crown rights of Jesus Christ.”
Historically and biblically, there is good reason for seeking to submit this sphere of culture to the Lordship of Christ – we have seen what happens when it is in the hands of pagans. If we go back to the Tower of Babel in Genesis chapter 11, we see what happened the last time individuals had complete control of content creation, distribution and the platform: And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech.” So the Lord dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth. And from there the
SUMMER 2018
PENTECOST AND THE BREAKING OF BABEL’S CURSE
Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matt. 28:18-20). Shortly thereafter, he provided the tools required to distribute his teachings to all men by reversing the curse of Babel: When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language (Acts 2:1-6). Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity
Christian Dominion
Suddenly, and permanently, Christians had control of distribution, from content creation, distribution and through to the platform. Although technologically speaking their newfound abilities were antiquated in terms of today’s technology, the human voice being shouted from the rooftops was enough to “turn the world upside down” according to Acts 17. Now that Christ was seated on his throne, and the commission was given for his people to go into all the world and distribute content about his rule and reign to all peoples and nations, technological advancement in terms of communication and distribution was blown wide open. For nearly three thousand years the only means of distributing content had been via papyrus. But suddenly God allowed a breakthrough in the arts and sciences to take place. Paper was invented in ad 105, the printing press finally used the invention of paper when it was invented in the fifteenth century. In 1844 Samuel Morse, a Calvinist, developed the electric telegraph, and its first coded beeps contained the words of Numbers 23:23: “What hath God wrought?” an expression of marvel and wonder at the order and potential inscribed by the Lord into creation. Cyrus West Field, the son of a Congregationalist pastor, created the first transatlantic cable, whose first words in Morse code declared “Glory to God in the highest; on earth peace, good will towards men.” These technological innovations allowed the gospel of Jesus Christ to go forth to all nations with a quickness the apostles could have never dreamed of. We still use Cyrus West Field’s technology to lay down fiberoptic cable across oceans and connect people all over the world. With the invention of the printing press, suddenly Christians could create the content, and distribute it cheaply with freshly-printed books, which could be purchased at all the bookstores owned by Christian businessman throughout Europe. Christians had power early on over the most advanced form of communication the world has ever known. But it didn’t remain that way for long. The humanists of the Renaissance used the same printing press technology to distribute their Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity
man-centred ideas not long after, and these ideas infiltrated the very creation of our government. And then in the mid-1990s, while the world was being swept away by the new fad of the Internet, Christians were being swept away by “Now that Christ another fad being distributed on printwas seated on his ing presses worldwide. The Left Behind throne, and the series, with nearly 65 million copies sold and printed on Gutenberg’s invencommission was tion, taught its largely Christian audigiven for his people ence to escape the world and prepare for to go into all the tribulation.
world ... suddenly God allowed a breakthrough in the arts and sciences to take place.”
Meanwhile the Internet was taking hold, and showing itself to be anything but a fad; it was a technological revolution unlike anything before. While Christians stepped away from the Internet and created Y2K apocalypse scenarios, the rest of the world realized its true power to distribute content created by anyone, to everyone.
Amazon allowed anyone to create and distribute books, iTunes allowed anyone to create and distribute music, and Uber allowed anyone to distribute people. All distribution models from transportation to commerce to music were suddenly turned on their head. Distribution of books was no longer dependent on publishing deals with six-figure contracts. Musicians no longer required record labels to get their music heard. The upload button became the single most powerful technological revolution the world has ever seen. Then came Netflix, who uprooted Blockbuster’s distribution model. Prior to Netflix, in order for a movie to be made it had to be funded by a studio and distributed by a distributor to a platform like a theater chain. Blockbuster didn’t own the studios. When Netflix started streaming their own content on demand they upended the way people create and consume media. Suddenly the studio (Netflix) was the content creator (Netflix) and the platform for distribution (Netflix). They were the movie maker and the movie theater. Broadcast television companies like ABC and NBC SUMMER 2018
15
16
Christian Dominion
needed their content to air to a live audience but also had to negotiate contracts with their new competition in order to stay relevant to younger audiences who had long since ditched cable packages. Today every cable company sells Netflix and HBO-on-Demand packages. For the networks, this is the slow death equivalent of buying an Amazon gift card at your local Walmart. THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNICATION TASK
And yet in the midst of all of this technological upheaval, Christianity took a backseat while the social justice warriors at Netflix, Amazon, Google and Facebook created terms of service designed to eliminate the uncomfortable reality of a Christian worldview. Instead of Christians building privatized television networks, we took the free bandwidth provided by the government, forcing ourselves out of any capitalistic endeavours and any real profit. Instead of creating major film studios we created terrible Christian movies that played well to the 35-year-old soccer moms picking up an overly safe movie for their children while they wait in line for the newest Beth Moore study. Those films, by the way, are distributed by the same major motion picture studios, like Sony and Lionsgate, that mock your faith on the big screen with much larger budgets than they are willing to spend on your direct to DVD faith-based release.
“...in the midst of all of this technological upheaval ... Netflix, Amazon, Google and Facebook created terms of service designed to eliminate the uncomfortable reality of a Christian worldview.”
SUMMER 2018
How did this happen? How did the King of the universe give us all authority in heaven and on earth to go into all the world and distribute our content, and we fail so miserably at it? How was it that the foundational technological innovations, created by Christians for the express purpose to bring forth peace and good will towards men are now being used suppress the Christian worldview?
it is Christians being booted from their place of employment for holding to their Christian convictions, or bakers being robbed of their business for standing up for biblical definitions of marriage, the very tools God has given us to advance his gospel are constantly reporting back to us how poorly we are doing at it. What’s worse is that our response has not been to sharpen our blades and fight harder, instead we place our swords back into the sheath and look towards the sky awaiting rescue as we declare “come quickly, Lord Jesus.” God will not answer the prayers of a defeatist church, there will be no escape from this war until the only sounds of weeping from the battlefield are coming from the wounded enemy. Christ will return, but he will return when the Church has declared victory over the entire world and that won’t happen until Christians have complete control over the distribution of message from the King. We must win the culture war. The opponents of Christ understand this. Think about how thoroughly they control all means of distribution. They control everything from education, entertainment, news and information. They run Netflix, as well as the internet companies that bring it into your home. Not only do God-haters own the companies that create your favorite watered-down Christian music, but they own the radio stations on which your music is aired. The same with movies. The same with your news and information. Our source of water is being poisoned from the very top of the mountain and we are drinking it up with every sip. We must regain control of the mountaintops again.
The answer is defeatism.
The only way to do that is to regain market dominance in areas where the anti-Christian worldview has taken root, and that cannot be done with an escapist mindset. It will take years of hard work, money, and toil, the fruit of which you probably will not see, but your grandchildren might, and we can start the process now.
Every day on the radio, television, and our Facebook pages we are inundated with stories about how Christianity is being suppressed. Whether
In order for the Christian worldview to dominate the earth we must have control over all points of worldview distribution. This means that we Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity
Christian Dominion
must create businesses that are innovative and competitive. But it also means that we need Christian-run industries that are not Christian. What I mean by that is that biblical dominion requires the complete and utter destruction of any and all competitors to the gospel of Jesus Christ, in all areas of industry. But too many times I hear Christians discussing their desire to be the next great Christian filmmaker who will finally get around to making a truly great Christian movie. Or they plan to start the latest and greatest Christian podcast with hopes of stomping out Joel Osteen under the religious section of iTunes. But all of these ideas are truncated views of dominion that assume that Christians can only be great at businesses catering to Christians. They are poor business models which no real investor would ever take seriously. Imagine if Hobby Lobby decided to only sell paint brushes to Christians. Or ChickFil-A didn’t profit off of homosexuals looking for an amazing chicken sandwich. Their business models would be unsustainable. So is the mentality that Christians should only make content – be it film, music or television – that can be distributed to Christians and for Christians. True Christian dominion in media and arts requires creating content that is so amazing that even the unbelievers will purchase it despite their hatred of you. Exactly like Chick-Fil-A. We are in the opposite situation right now. The secular world creates content that Christians can’t pass up. Christians love watching new Star Wars and Marvel films as much as the unbeliever in the seat next to them. We love PIXAR films. We are obsessed with pulling theological truths from episodes of Breaking Bad and films like A Quiet Place, as well as pulling out theological falsehoods from the latest Oscar-winning movies. Christ’s enemies have complete dominion over the entertainment that Christ’s people consume. But even worse is that these same secular studios have created evangelical studios that appease our Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity
desires to see our worldview on screen. Sure, these studios see that Christian media is a neglected and hungry market. But for them, creating a Christian film studio allows for Christians to compete over there, in those small circles and keeps them away from fighting with the big boys. They’ve distracted us. The same strategy for prevention of distribution works in the beer industry. Budweiser, Miller, and Coors are completely happy controlling a majority of the industry even though they know that the craft beer industry has a better product. So what does Budweiser do when they see people start to abandon national chains with major distribution for local micro-brews with limited distribution? They start making deals and buying local micro-brew companies. They let these micro-breweries get space on their distribution vehicles. Never enough to enable them to compete with them, only enough to keep the demand from turning the industry on its head. Either way they get money from every sale and in addition they create an entire new product category that gives them more shelf space in the store. A few years ago a new product category was invented within the realm of Christian media called Christian hip-hop. Because of the nature of the Internet being a distributor of musical content without the need for major record labels and music store shelf space, a completely new genre was formed. This really upset the industry because the Christian radio stations, owned by secular companies, had spent years creating and refining a distinct “Christian Sound” that could be played on Christian radio stations. Christian Hip-Hop didn’t sound like KLOVE. Christian hip-hop didn’t fit into the tidy little Lifeway bookstore categories. There was nowhere to play that music except the Internet, and there it found a larger and more diverse audience than any traditional recording distribution deal could have offered. The growth and development of Christian hip-hop is an example of what it looks like for Christians to truly take dominion in the sphere of media; we need to create new technologies and innovations that benefit the entire world in such a way that the technological empires of old beSUMMER 2018
17
18
Christian Dominion
come obsolete and suddenly depend on us. This happened with the Internet and later with YouTube, Netflix and Uber. The creators of content became the distributors of content. The result of each turned the industry on their head.
down every jot and tittle while unbeknownst to them, the first page of the Gutenberg Bible had just been printed.
In the short term we need to think small. We need to create viable competitors to the distribution of worldview. Perhaps that’s a rival to Netflix. Perhaps it means creating a more open Facebook or less hostile alternative to YouTube. But in the long term, true dominion requires completely overhauling the foundations of technology, much like the car replaced the horse and buggy. We should not think of true Christian dominion of media technology in terms of the next great Christian website, or even the next great website for all people. Christians “True Christian should be trying to figure out, for the dominion in media sake of the gospel, what new technology will make websites obsolete. and arts requires What technological innovation has creating content that is God not yet allowed man to create so amazing that even because he is preserving it for a time the unbelievers will that its development will be credited purchase it despite towards the Christian worldview and their hatred of you.” the glory of God alone? A hundred years from now, when your children’s children are walking through a museum looking at an archaic model of what people used to call “The Internet,” will the museum be able to explain its creation without any reference to the Christian worldview of its creator? Will the airline industry become obsolete when a godly Christian man with a heart to ease the burden of mission work creates the ability to teleport people anywhere in earth? These are grand ideas to be sure, and there’s no guarantee that any of them actually being plausible in God’s created order but it is this kind of thinking, a thinking that seeks to so uproot the current model of distribution for the glory of God and the advancement of the crown rights of Jesus in such a way that entire industries and kingdoms created by pagans are suddenly without jobs, much like the scribes who were painfully writing SUMMER 2018
Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity
Enlightened Entertainment:
Some Perspective for NAVIGATING
NETFLIX
THE WORD “ENTERTAINMENT” COMES from a combination of two Latin
words: inter (between/among/during) and tenere (to hold/keep). Entertainment pulls us in and holds us. It’s a powerful force. It can be addictive. It can control us. We should pay attention and give wise consideration to anything that pulls us in and holds on to us. And yet, many Christians exercise little discernment when selecting what they watch. Such docility towards entertainment is dangerous. I’ve been a Christian my whole life. I grew up in a Christian home. My parents were wise about what we watched on TV and the music we listened to. I wasn’t allowed to watch G.I. Joe, but I was allowed to watch Transformers. When I was ten or eleven, I remember returning from the mall with two music singles on 45 records. It was the late ‘80s, when CDs were just coming out and most people listened to music on cassette tapes, but singles were still put out on 45s. The two singles I’d bought were INXS, “Devil Inside” and Bobby Brown, “My Prerogative.” They were immediately confiscated. My parents weren’t prudish, however. One Friday evening my Dad rented Rambo: First Blood for me and him to watch together. I was in my early teens and this was a rite of passage. Throughout the movie, my Dad provided social and cultural commentary on what we were watching. I plan to lead my sons through a similar rite of passage, although I think we’ll watch Master and Commander. My parents taught me that entertainment requires discernment. Some shows are better than others. Some movies are worth seeing, others should be avoided. I’ve written this article to encourage Christians to be more discerning in Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity
what we watch. I’m not going to tell you what to watch and what not to watch. There will be no index of prohibited shows and movies appended to the end of this article. I’m not even going to set criteria for choosing which movies and shows to avoid. My aim here is to give some perspective, not issue directives. Perspective has to do with how we look at things. Right perspective aids good judgment. In order to gain better perspective, I’m looking first to Scripture and the apostolic counsel concerning our engagement with the world, and then to what two later Christians, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian of Carthage, say about the entertainment of the Greco-Roman world. I conclude with a call for enlightened entertainment, that is, a call to be more attentive and discerning when we watch shows and movies. APOSTOLIC COUNSEL: WATCH WITH DISCERNMENT AND A CLEAR CONSCIENCE
Although Scripture doesn’t give us explicit instruction for navigating the world of popular culture and online media, God’s Word gives lots of instruction about wise and godly living in a fallen world. The apostle Paul exhorts us: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom. 12:2).1 And the apostle John warns us: “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world – the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life – is not from the Father but is from the world.” (1 John 2:15-16) Here we see the general exhortation
19 PAGE NO.
DAVID ROBINSON REV. DR. DAVID ROBINSON is Fellow for Patristics and Pastoral Theology with the Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity, and Senior Pastor at Westminster Chapel, Toronto. David has a Ph.D. in Theology from the University of St. Michael’s College (at the University of Toronto), where he studied the history and theology of Early Christianity. His doctoral dissertation translated and analyzed an early Christian commentary on the book of Revelation. He has presented papers at various academic conferences and has published articles in Studia Patristica, Worship, Theoforum, Humanitas, and Revista Vida y Espiritualidad. David also serves as the Ontario/ Quebec regional president of Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) and as senior fellow for the Centre for Ancient Christian Studies. David teaches courses in historical theology and biblical studies at Tyndale University College. He lives in Toronto with his wife Megan and three children, Samuel, Leah and Lucas.
SUMMER 2018
20
Enlightened Entertainment
of Scripture: Conversion to Christ requires the conversion of our hearts and minds. Our loves must be reordered and reoriented. Our thinking must be transformed. Entertainment holds us and, if we’re not careful, molds us. The shows and movies on Netflix are shaped by and give shape to the pattern of this world, which we’re called to renounce. The apostles warn us to test our heart and see whether what we’re watching is enticing the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and the pride of life. Test what you’re watching and discern what is good and acceptable and perfect. Scripture defines what is good and acceptable and perfect. Some of us can quote “Although Scripture The Simpsons more readily than the doesn’t give us Scriptures. Some of us are zealous evangelists for the latest Netflix seexplicit instruction ries, but are reluctant evangelists for for navigating the Christ and his kingdom. That probworld of popular ably means we’re a little too comfortculture and online able in the world, which means we’re media, God’s still conformed to the world. We’re Word gives lots of called to renounce conformity to the world and be transformed by the instruction about renewing of our minds, so to begin wise and godly living with, we should temper our enthusiin a fallen world.” asm for the latest series and be a bit more conversant with God’s Word. The purpose and evidence of this renunciation and transformation is discerning what is good and acceptable and perfect, which also means recognizing what is bad and unacceptable and imperfect. Whatever you watch, you will view content that is bad and unacceptable, and you will view content that is good and acceptable. Sanctified viewing discerns the difference. My concern is that some Christians are not discerning enough. We give unequivocal approval to shows which portray and celebrate much that is bad and unacceptable and imperfect. I sometimes hear Christians giving unqualified endorsements to shows like Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones. If we’re conformed to the world, we’re comfortable in the world, but if we’re being transformed by the renewing of our minds, we should be discerning, and shows like that should cause some discomfort. SUMMER 2018
THE QUESTION OF CONSCIENCE
This raises the question of conscience. Our conscience often signals discomfort about what we’re watching. The apostle Paul addresses the question of conscience in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, and Romans 14. These chapters concern issues of conscience related to what we eat; however, the apostle’s teaching about conscience and food may also be applied to what we consume from the menu on Netflix or at the theatre. Choosing what to eat and choosing what to watch is often a matter of conscience. Paul says, “each one should make up his own mind” (Rom. 14:9), but then warns, “each of us will give an account of himself to God” (Rom. 14:12) and promises, “blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself by what he approves” (Rom. 14:22). Paul ties conscience to faith. We must act in good faith, with a clear conscience. Again, he warns, “whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23). Likewise, you must make up your own mind about what to watch, knowing that you’ll give an account to God for it. If you have doubts about what you’re watching, you’re sinning. But that’s not all Paul says in these chapters. Our conscience needs to be increasingly wise and sensitive according to knowledge of the truth and love for God and neighbour. First, our conscience must be informed by increasing knowledge of the truth. When Paul addresses the question of eating food sacrificed to idols, he begins with theology: we know that there is only one God, the Father and one Lord, Jesus Christ, and that the idols and the so-called “gods” of the pagans don’t exist (1 Cor. 8:4-6). Most meat in the ancient world was cut from animals which had been sacrificed to idols; however, since idols are nothing, we shouldn’t worry that that meat is somehow spiritually contaminated. Paul reassures, “eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience” (1 Cor. 10:25). Our conscience is strengthened as it’s informed by knowledge of the truth. Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity
Enlightened Entertainment
Meat is meat, but there is one qualification. Where you eat meat matters. Eating in the presence of idols in temple dining halls is strictly forbidden, because pagan idolatry is demonic: “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?” (1 Cor. 10:21-22) Likewise, we should avoid entertainment that glorifies and celebrates the demonic or that is wholly given to gratuitous sex and violence and profanity. Some choices are not a matter of individual conscience. Don’t eat in a pagan temple dining room. Don’t watch Fifty Shades of Grey. Paul also writes that our conscience should not be bound by the conscience of others: “For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?” (1 Cor. 10:29b30) Our conscience is bound by the Spirit of God according to the Word of God, not by another’s opinions. Again, “each of us will give an account of himself to God” (Rom. 14:12). We’re accountable to the Lord and our decisions are motivated by his approval. We’re not accountable to another’s conscience, and our decisions about what to watch should not be motivated by the approval of others. That said, we are accountable for the conscience of others. A stronger conscience is more sensitive to another’s conscience. On the matter of food, Paul exhorts the Corinthians: Some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled…if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity
will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble. (1 Cor. 8:7, 10-13)
Likewise, Paul warns the church in Rome: “if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil.” (Rom. 14:15-16) What we eat and drink and what we watch is not simply a matter of individual conscience. We need to be sensitive to how our viewing choices affect others and sensitive to what their conscience permits. Don’t let another’s conscience bind you; however, be ready to freely give up your freedom for the sake of the weaker brother. Listen to the apostle’s guiding principle: “Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor” (1 Cor. 10:25) and “let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding” (Rom. 14:19). If you’re hanging out with a friend who has stricter criteria for what’s appropriate to watch, let her pick the movie. When I was a teenager, family friends from the United States came up for a visit. Their youngest son was about my age and one af“The apostle ternoon we went to the movies. I chose the Paul addresses movie and assured him it would be okay. It the question of wasn’t, and both our consciences were defiled. Parents, don’t cause your children to conscience ... stumble by what you allow them to watch. related to what we Screen time should be wisely regulated and eat; however, the closely supervised. If we cause a brother apostle’s teaching or sister in Christ to stumble because we about conscience endorse a show or movie, we sin against and food may our brother or sister and sin against Christ (1 Cor. 8:12). also be applied to A clear conscience is a conscience informed by knowledge of the truth and sensitive to the weakness of others. Above all, a clear conscience is a conscience fixed on the honour and glory of God. For Paul, the guiding principle is doxology: “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31). And again, “The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God” (Rom. 14:6). We should do all things
what we consume from the menu on Netflix or at the theatre.”
SUMMER 2018
21
22
Enlightened Entertainment
in gratitude, for the Lord’s honour and glory. Whatever you watch, watch it with thanksgiving, convinced that your viewing pleases the Lord and mindful of the apostle’s warning: “each of us will give an account of himself to God” (Rom 14:12). PATRISTIC COUNSEL: WATCH OUT FOR ENTICING ENTERTAINMENT
The apostle Paul exhorts us to engage the world with discernment and with a clear conscience, mindful of our neighbour’s conscience and the Lord’s honour and glory. How did the earliest generations of Christians in Late Antiquity apply this apostolic counsel to the entertainment of their day? Two early Christian writers address the question of Christian engagement with the circus (chariot races), the arena (gladiatorial games), the stadium (athletics), and the theatre (plays, mimes, etc.). Clement of Alexandria (ca.140/50–ca.220) was a Greek writer, living in Alexandria, one of the cultural centres of Hellenism. Tertullian of Carthage (ca.160–220) was a Latin writer, living in Carthage, the centre of Roman North Africa. They were contemporary Christians, living in very different ethnic and linguistic contexts; however, they agreed in their assessment of pagan entertainment.
“How did the earliest generations of Christians in Late Antiquity apply this apostolic counsel to the entertainment of their day?”
We begin with Clement, who wrote a three-volume work on ethics entitled Paedagogas (“The Instructor”).2 The Instructor is Christ and Clement’s Paedagogas presents wide-ranging practical advice for Christian living. In the school of Christ, we learn about table manners, clothing, cosmetics, hairstyles, proper decorum at dinner parties, how to care for our bodies, how to decorate and maintain our houses, and how to behave in the bedroom (the 19th century editors saw fit to translate this section into Latin, rather than English). He even gives advice on how to walk: “we must abandon a furious mode of walking, and choose a grave and leisurely, but not a lingering step” (Paed. III.11). Clement applied Christ’s teaching to every aspect of life. On the topic of popular entertainment, Clement writes, “the Instructor will not then bring us to
SUMMER 2018
public spectacles” (Paed. III.11). Both Clement and Tertullian refer to the public spectacles (the arena, theatre, etc.) as the “seat of pestilence,” which the blessed man of Psalm 1 avoids (cf. lxx Ps 1:1). In Clement’s judgment, such assemblies are full of confusion and iniquity: “For what base action is it that is not exhibited in the theatres? And what shameless saying is it that is not brought forward by the buffoons?” (Paed. III.11). As for those who view the spectacles as mere recreation and who go to the arena or the theatre to unwind, Clement writes: “ease of mind is not to be purchased by zealous pursuit of frivolities, for no one who has his senses will ever prefer what is pleasant to what is good” (Paed. III.11). Finally, Clement also calls on his fellow believers to be mindful of their Christian witness. He cites 2 Corinthians 8:21: “we aim at what is honorable not only in the Lord’s sight but also in the sight of man.” Attending a show in the theatre or arena compromises the integrity of Christian witness. Clement was well-versed in pagan literature and philosophy, and in Hellenistic culture. He was not a curmudgeon, but he found popular entertainment repugnant. It’s easier to accuse Tertullian of being a curmudgeon. He wrote a whole treatise on the topic of popular entertainment, De Spectaculis (“On the Shows”).3 The occasion for writing the treatise was the opposition of pagans, who thought Christians were too uptight about public spectacles, and that the shows in the theatre or the arena were mere entertainment, whose pleasure was an area of religious neutrality: “God is not offended by a man enjoying himself” (de Spec. 1.3). Tertullian wrote the treatise to prove “that these things are not compatible with true religion and true obedience to the true God” (de Spec. 1.3). Pagans insist that there is much to admire in the public spectacles: displays of courage, beauty, and strength. We should not deny our eyes the pleasure of seeing the athlete’s performance nor deny our ears the pleasure of hearing the actor’s song. As Tertullian sees it, such displays of beauty and strength mask poison: “Everything, then, you find there, whether manly or honorable or sonorous or melodious or tender, take it for drippings of honey from a poisoned cake, and do not consider your appetite for the pleasure worth the Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity
Enlightened Entertainment
danger you run from it sweetness” (de Spec. 27.5). What is the poison? Why was the popular entertainment of the Greco-Roman world dangerous? Tertullian identifies two dangers with the popular entertainment of his day: its association with idolatry and its promotion of sinful pleasure. First, Tertullian demonstrates how the origin, administration, and presentation of various public spectacles, whether in the arena, the circus, the stadium, or the theatre, were intimately associated with idolatry. In the Greco-Roman world of Late Antiquity, idols touched just about every aspect of day-to-day life; however, the public spectacles were overtly tied to the rituals of idol worship. Attendance at the spectacles meant de facto participation in idolatry. If the apostle Paul condemned eating in a temple dining room as communion with demons, then participation in the public spectacles should also be condemned as communion with demons. In fact, the spectacles are worse: “If we keep, then, our palate and stomach free from defilement, how much more should we guard our nobler organs, our ears and eyes, from pleasures connected with sacrifices to idols and sacrifices to the dead – pleasures which do not pass through the bowels, but are digested in the very spirit and soul with whose purity God is more concerned than with that of the bowels” (de Spec. 13.5). Second, the public spectacles are dangerous because they entice illicit pleasures. All manner of sexual immorality is on display and applauded in the theatre. Tertullian asks, Now, if we must detest every kind of impurity, why should we be allowed to hear what we are not allowed to speak, when we know that vile jocularity and every idle word are judged by God [Eph 5:3; Matt 12:36]? Why, in like manner, should we be permitted to see that which is sinful to do? (de Spec. 17.5)
These are good questions. Tertullian also warns against the unruly desires stirred up by the chariot races in the circus and the athletic competition in the stadium. At the Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity
chariot races, spectators are carried away on a pendulum of alternating joy and sadness, cheering and cursing. Such outbursts and the obvious loss of self-control is unbecoming for Christians, whom Tertullian calls “priests of peace” (de Spec. 16.4). Tertullian finds fault with the various athletic games and contests seen in the stadium. Boxing disfigures the image of God. Running, throwing, and jumping contests are foolish. Exhibitions of strength are also foolish “...ease of mind is not and they cultivate “an unnatural body, to be purchased by outdoing the craftsmanship of God” (de zealous pursuit of Spec. 18.3). As for wrestling, Tertullian writes that it “belongs to the Devil’s trade: frivolities, for no one it was the Devil who first crushed men. who has his senses The very movements of the wrestler have will ever prefer a snakelike quality.” (de Spec. 18.3) Here what is pleasant to I’ve written, “lighten up!” in the margin what is good.” of my copy of De Spectaculis. Even so, I credit Tertullian for giving careful consideration to what is good and acceptable and perfect in popular entertainment, including sports. We would do well to be more self-aware and critically engaged when watching sports. We may think Tertullian goes too far in his negative assessment of popular entertainment; be that as it may, it’s commendable that he was acutely aware of how enticing it was, and that he was concerned that Christians were compromising their faith for the sake of pleasure. At a time when Christians were persecuted to the death, Tertullian lamented, “you will find more people turned away from our religion by the danger to their pleasures than by the danger to their lives” (de Spec. 2.3). Tertullian concludes his treatise by calling on Christians to recognize and take delight in the pleasures God has given us: “For what is more delightful than reconciliation with God, our Father and Lord, than the revelation of truth, the recognition of errors, and pardon for such grievous sins of the past?” (de Spec. 29.1) As David declares in the Psalms: “You have put more joy in my heart than they have when their grain and wine abound” (Ps. 4:7), and “in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore” (Ps. 16:11). Tertullian’s case against the pleasures of public spectacles is captured in one line: “Our pleasure is where our prayer is” (de Spec. 28.5). SUMMER 2018
23
24
Enlightened Entertainment
CONCLUSION: NAVIGATING NETFLIX WITH OPEN EYES
The preacher says, “The wise person has his eyes in his head, but the fool walks in darkness” (Eccl. 2:14). Christians should watch Netflix with open eyes. Clement and Tertullian called on the Christians of their day to open their eyes to what was on display in popular entertainment. For them, the arena and the theatre were seats of pestilence (Ps. 1:1 lxx), where Christians sat in communion with immorality and idolatry. I don’t know whether Clement and Tertullian would issue a complete ban on Netflix. We haven’t done so at my house; however, should we not be equally attentive to idolatry and immorality? What are the idols of our day? Sex, money, power, individual autonomy and choice – how many shows and movies promote such idolatry? Should we not follow Tertullian’s counsel to guard our nobler organs, our eyes and ears, from pleasures tied to these idols? Entertainment holds us and, if we’re not careful, molds us. The apostles warn us to test our heart and see whether what we’re watching is enticing the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and the pride of life, and to test what we’re watching and discern what is good and acceptable and perfect (1 John 2:15-16; Rom. 12:2). Watching with open eyes means watching with discernment and a clear, informed, and sensitive conscience. You must make up your own mind about what to watch, knowing that you’ll give an account to God for it, and that whatever is not from faith is a sin (Rom. 14:23). If you’re not sure whether a show or movie is appropriate, it’s better to watch something else.
I love God and I’m known by God. He has put more joy in my heart than any entertainment can give. My pleasure is where my prayer is.
1 Unless otherwise stated, quotations from Scripture are from the English Standard Version (Crossway, 2011). 2 English translation: Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theopilus and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), eds. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, The Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, no. 2 (reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 207-298; and online: https://www. ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.html. Subsequent English are from the online edition. 3 English translation: “Spectacles,” trans. Rudolph Arbesmann, in Tertullian: Disciplinary, Moral, and Ascetical Works, The Fathers of the Church, no. 40 (New York, 1959), 47-107. Subsequent English citations are from Arbesmann’s translation.
As I get older, I find my conscience is bothered by some shows and movies I once thought were okay. I don’t think it’s because my conscience is weaker. I’m more discerning of what is good and acceptable and perfect. More than that, however, I’ve come to know more deeply God’s love for me, and his glory and honour matter more to me than they used to. Entertainment still has too much of a hold on me (yes, I watch a third episode when I should be going to bed). Even so, I know that I don’t know as I ought to know, but SUMMER 2018
Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity