I just finished reading
Paul's most recent blog post
Inglorious Basterds, or Why I Don't Care About Quentin Tarantino. After briefly discussing it over cheese steaks and beer at Texadelphia, and after having read it in its entirety I must say that I politely disagree.
It must first be said that my disagreement is not a defense of Tarantino or the genre. My disagreement is with the issue upon which a boycott of Tarantino's films, or a "pornography of violence," is made.
It is fair to say that Tarantino's films indulge in violence. For whatever reason the movie may give us for the purpose of it or how artistically or stylized it may be, Tarantino is notorious for his displays of violence.
It is unfair, however, to boycott films like these because it entertains a "lust for violence." First, lust is a strong word to use in this context. My wanting to see a Tarantino film is not because I have passionate or overmastering desire to see violence. If that is true for some, then they should rightly avoid seeing it but if the boycott is based on the principal and not a
personal conviction then it seems faulty. Secondly, everyone desires something and a lot of people even lust for it whether it be violence, sex, money, love, acceptance, romance, power etc.
Therefore, if the idea is to boycott Tarantino films because of the principle that they fulfill a desire or lust for violence then we should also boycott Nicholas Spark books because of desire or lust for romance. Boycott underdog stories because of a desire or lust for overcoming the impossible. Boycott hero stories because of a desire or lust for justice. Boycott war stories because of a desire or lust for victory. Boycott comedy because of a desire or lust for humor.
While violence is its own animal and, therefore, hard to compare to romance, justice, or victory the issue, then, is partaking in a film or not because of a desire or lust you have. If it is lust, then don't indulge yourself at all. If it is a desire, don't indulge but
tread very carefully.
To elevate gratuitous violence as something to avoid because of a desire or lust while condemning the same action for films with sex or nudity is contradictory. In order for it not to be contradictory, one would need to assign varying tolerable amounts of either violence or sex that tip a film to lust-gratifying or not. Or, maybe more dangerously, justify the partaking in the violence or sex by the film itself meaning that gratuitous violence in
No Country for Old Men is okay because it is "one of the main characters" but unacceptable elsewhere. Or the gritty, urban violence in
The Departed is okay because it is a directorial trademark of Martin Scorsese films. Or simply asking ourselves, "what purpose does this serve?"
This issue quickly becomes one of framing and personal conviction. Framing because I can justify anything that I see in films as acceptable for any number of reasons. Humans are great at lying to themselves, especially Christians.
Personal conviction because, as Christians, the Bible doesn't give a black and white answer in regards to the acceptance or denial of violence and sex in most of our modern culture. Unfortunately, Paul (of Tarsus, that is) doesn't clarify what he means when he says a "
hint" of sexual immorality. Maybe the problem is that we need clarification in the first place. Remember, Christians are great at lying to themselves.
Ultimately, all films seek to gratify human desires, that's how they make money. Whether that be through the promise of romance, the hope for revenge, rubber-necking ultra-violence, or the opportunity to escape reality.
Speaking of escaping reality, let me expound and clarify the
John Piper excerpt included in the blog post. Before that, though, it must be said that to categorize John Piper, the lead pastor of a church and one of the fundamental spiritual leaders of a
church planting network responsible for planting thousands of churches across the world, as Christian subculture is an insult.
Christian subculture is art, music, clothes, trends, etc. John Piper, on the other hand, is a leader of Christian culture for many Biblical reasons to weighty to expound upon now.
With that said, ideally, in a film the viewer would "suspend disbelief" and accept all that they see as reality but the true reality is that it isn't true. This is best exemplified in horror films. We desire to feel scared or that we are in danger but are able to withstand these movies because we know that, in reality, we're only watching a film and not in any danger.
In regards to violence, when watching a film we know that no one is truly being harmed. As gruesome or seemingly real as the violence in films may be, most people can withstand it knowing that no one is truly being harmed. No families are losing a father or a daughter. No wives are losing their husbands. There is nothing real about it.
Real violence, however, is much harder, even impossible, to watch for most, myself included. A film consisting of real murders, real torture, real beatings, real rape etc. would not nearly be as successful as a Tarantino film.
Nudity, however, is real both in film and true reality. There is no distinction between a nude man or woman in a film and one in real life. That is both Piper's issue with nudity in films and my own. Furthermore, the next paragraph after the included excerpt gives further, and more important, reasoning for Piper's "zero tolerance" for nudity in films.
"I’ll put it bluntly. The only nude female body a guy should ever lay his eyes on is his wife’s. The few exceptions include doctors, morticians, and fathers changing diapers. “I have made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I gaze at a virgin?” (Job 31:1). What the eyes see really matters. “Everyone who looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). Better to gouge your eye than go to hell (verse 29).
Brothers, that is serious. Really serious. Jesus is violent about this. What we do with our eyes can damn us. One reason is that it is virtually impossible to transition from being entertained by nudity to an act of “beholding the glory of the Lord.” But this means the entire Christian life is threatened by the deadening effects of sexual titillation."
Any man that is honest with himself knows that one of the hurtful and burdening effects of sexual sin is that we store the sexual imagery we've seen throughout our entire lives. For most men, this imagery has burned itself in our memories no matter how badly we don't want it there. As
Shaunti Feldhahn puts it, most men have a visual rolodex of the junk they've exposed themselves to.
So why continue to stock that rolodex? Even if the images don't cause you to lust or desire after what you're seeing (remember, though, that Christians are great at lying to themselves), why expose yourself to such things if the only nude woman we are called to see is our wife? Furthermore, if Jesus calls us to figurative violence in response to desiring another woman, I can't imagine that he would take it much easier on someone who believes that they could see nudity and sex in films without it causing a desire or lust within them.
What unifies violence, pervasive language, and nudity in films is that God sees all sin the same and, ultimately, all sin is against God only. The distinction, though, is that different sins have different effects and impacts.
More men and marriages are impacted by sexual sin than violence or language. Therefore, the stigma surrounding sex/nudity in films is warranted simply based on our over-sexed culture and the accessibility of sex, which is reason enough to be overly cautious.
The cautionary approach or abstinence from nudity in films is moreso due to an effort towards purity, holiness, and respect for ones current or future wife more than it is an inability to "(see) boobs without dropping to the ground in a lustful, sobbing, drooling pile." As men, we should take "grave offense" to the degradation of women in our society and be disgusted with the impossible cultural standards set forth for our sisters.
Lastly, two things must be urgently addressed. First, the following quote needs attention.
"the most major point of contention being the premise that men...can't do anything but read the Bible to gain understanding or insight on life, which might be the reason (Piper) lacks understanding and insight in so many aspects. (BURN, Piper!)"
What are you basing your accusation that Piper lacks understanding and insight on? That statement is entirely without reason and absurdly irrelevant. Furthermore, the statement itself is borderline agnostic. When compared to the inspired word of God, what else would you argue insight and understanding is gained from? As a believer, any answer to that question other than "nothing" is dangerous.
Secondly, I want to clarify a line from Piper's excerpt. In reference to nudity in films Piper says, "But that lady is really naked, and I am really watching. And somewhere she has a brokenhearted father."
The wrong response is to disregard the sentence or laugh. I don't believe you have to be a father, husband, or a believer to rightly understand the point being made. How about a pop-culture analogy to clarify the point?
In an episode of
The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Hilary is asked by Playboy to pose nude for
a spread on weather girls across America. Uncle Phil vehemently disagrees as a protective, loving father not wanting his daughter to be exposed to the world.
A good father would be brokenhearted about his daughter choosing to further perpetuate stereotypes, disregard her innocence, and tarnish an image of modesty.
With all of that said, rabbit trails and all, ultimately my hope is that we would agree that we are anxiously awaiting Jesus' return to restore a new heaven and earth and fix the brokenness of the sex and violence our culture experiences.
Until that day, though, people will debate and disagree about culture. As believers we must remember that we are called to be in the world but not of it and wrestle with how that plays out for us everyday.
Paul, I love you. I mean it.
