What's sad is that watching a sporting event requires this level of defense.

I'm not a sports fan by any stretch of the imagination. When the Red Sox won their first World Series in however long it was, I was watching the lunar eclipse. I haven't watched a Super Bowl since 2004. So, that's me. I was making snide comments on Facebook (Rupert Giles' quote about wearing 40 lbs. of gear to play rugby, asking if Super Bowl was one of the Great Lakes Avengers, etc.).

I've seen so many people trying to identify which is the worst ad (Teleflora's seems to be leading that contest) that it seems like it would be more work than fun.

But that's me. I'm glad that you enjoyed it.

Wasn't there some kind of legal squabble about churches having Super Bowl parties?

Thanks Tony, you have a point.....I do get the need to be selective in what people are exposed to when you do a SB party church-wide. You're dealing with a lot of different Christian worldviews in every congregation, so in an effort to not want anyone to stumble, you have to invest some extra time and energy in order to have all bases covered.

I had not thought about that angle.


I'll go a different direction - I don't think the NFL or NBC are jerks. I expect them to do unregenerate and sinful things because they are secular entities. I look to my church leaders to help me navigate that, not shield me from it. Perhaps that's where I struggle a tad with the tone of the post.

I also need to apologize for calling the middle-finger guy an idiot......he did an idiotic thing, but I was guilty of name calling there, which I really want to try to avoid.

Tony,
Thanks for coming to my defense! :-)

Yeah, nhe for better context, imagine being in a church sanctuary with old people, deacons etc... children and teenagers of all ages, while we all sit uncomfortably while a near naked woman suggestively shows off her body in what is clearly supposed to be sexually loaded body language for 30 seconds...in the church sanctuary! If that doesn't make you cringe, then you and I are not only not on the same page, we aren't even in the same book. ;-)

If I weren't able to black that out, we wouldn't show the superbowl at the church.

As far as the folks at the NFL and NBC and the ad company execs and the companies that place the ads being jerks...I stand by it.

Yes, sinners sin. I know that. But when they deliberately do things that offend or harm others, it's still wrong.

Here's why I think they are still jerks. I suspect that they are even violating their own standards. There are certain universal standards that our society deems as wrong...whether one is a Christian or not. Harming children is one. Exposing children to profanity and obscenity and nudity is another.

How many times have you seen an actor say about a movie they just starred in, "I would never let my own kids watch that."?

My point is that if they use their brains, the advertising people (the companies that buy the ads and the air time, the companies that make the ads, the companies that sell the air time) know that minors are watching. Yet they show things that I am pretty certain they wouldn't even let their own pre-teen kids watch if they thought about it. The Bible makes it clear that even pagans have standards, though they may be lower.

Romans 1:18-32
Romans 2:12-15
Matthew 5:47
I Timothy 4:8

In this case, the pagans should know better. There is no excuse for what they are doing.

Shrode,

I'm clear on two things.

We are in the same Book.

We are on different pages.

To be fair - this is a subset conversation of a much larger discussion about having Super Bowl Parties, that include friends and neighbors, at the church building (which I assume to mean you want non-Christians to come). I'm not sure this is the thread for that discussion, so I'll wait for your lead.

I'll tease it by saying I disagree with the stated purpose of this type of gathering pretty vehemently (especially if it is remotely supposed to be outreach related). Again, I don't want to speak on something that I'm passionate about unless I know it to be a direction you wanted to go with the thread.......hope that sounds fair.

Ok, Bill gave me permission to go there....I apologize in advance for where I may be just be misunderstanding Phil's heart in print - I might very well get a whole different vibe in person.

I think my passions are aroused to the point of "vehemence" more in response to Phil's tone behind "NBC and NFL are jerks" and the stated desire to "brag about" & "feel pride in" a filtered Super Bowl experience. I probably wouldn't have used the word "vehemently" if some of that phrasing hadn't caused my blood to boil a little.

First - having a Super Bowl party at church. I don't get it. This is the biggest secular holiday of the year in our country. If there was ever a day to be salt and light IN the environments of our non-Christian friends (and maybe throw back a cold one with them if so inclined) it is THAT day. Phil's a pastor though, so he gets an O'Douls hall pass. :)

I can't think of one non-Christian friend I have (several of whom come to church with me) who would come to a party like that. Honestly, the main reason would be - no alcohol served. Let's assume though that one did come. I'm putting myself in the shoes of that non-Christian who shows up at the church party. I'm first observing that they are screening out out certain commercials. Sorry, to me, in the shoes of the NC, that seems really weird. This is the kind of religious moralism I expected to see here......and they proved me right. Next, they have me watching some film about a Bible character during half-time....again, another preconceived notion confirmed - Christians sit around and watch Veggie Tales and religious movies all the time. They don't intend for me to feel this way, but this is how I would process it as a non-Christian.

So, I'm struggling with this Bill. I struggle with the wisdom of inviting non-Christians to leave what is comfortable on their favorite secular holiday to come to an alarmingly odd Super Bowl experience (at least to most NCs I know).

I struggle most of all with the name calling and calls for contracts and petitions and censorship. It's giving me flashbacks to the SBC Disney boycotts. Those were dark days for the body when we were more concerned about being moral and right than about being Christ to people.

If I'm being unfair, I'm sorry, but this is my honest reaction to the thread post.

**Now, if it was an "in house" event - a holy huddle of sorts that is sanitized for a Christian audience and not for outsiders, then I have less of a problem with it (though it wouldn't be my style)......but that's not how Phil described it.

As far as the ad I liked, you can click on my name - wrote about it yesterday - I would never promote that here, but you asked specifically Bill.

Oh also, nice to see you're blogging! Methinks a spot on our blogroll is appropriate.

And you have a beautiful family :-)

I had people over to my house and we skipped bad commercials too, thanks to the wonders of the DVR. I simply pressed pause when GoDaddy or Teleflora started, let it gather up 30 seconds, then pressed the skip button. Voila: commercial skipped.

I remember in the youth ministry days of church Super Bowl parties we would just rig up an alternate feed and show sports bloopers during all the commercials, then cut back to the network feed when the game came back.

I like and support what you did, Phil, but find it odd that you sound like you invented the idea of skipping commercials. ;-)

Who is Teleflora?.....and why is their ad offensive?....I must have missed it. As for GoDaddy ads, it always makes me think of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry's friend Tim converted to Judaism so that he could get a pass on telling jokes about Jewish people. Jerry went to a Rabbi to complain about it and the Rabbi asked, "so this offends you as a Jewish person?" and Jerry said "no it offends me as a comedian". The Go Daddy ads don't offend me as a Christian, but they are so utterly juvenile and stupid that they offend me as a relatively normal functioning human being.

Bill no, I'm suggesting that all cultures, in all ages have decaying moral codes.......and that desensitization did not come into being with the industrial revolution.

Also, I didn't mean to chase that rabbit - I'd be interested in your thoughts on comment #15.

"I like and support what you did, Phil, but find it odd that you sound like you invented the idea of skipping commercials. ;-)"

Jared, Shrode was more efficient than your casual commercial skipper :) Us DVR folk had to see a bit of flesh before we figured out that it was bad while he was "Johnny on the spot" skipping the commercials.

Nhe and Bill, I'm afraid to jump into your conversation - you guys would chew me up and spit me out :) btw - It's about time for a Karl post, no?

Phil, you do not need any help defending yourself Bro ;)

nhe,
the Teleflora ad was evil. It showed a supermodel in lingerie dressing while the camera ogles her body and she says at the end something like, "Guys, if you give, you'll get." and it's an ad for sending flowers.

I really don't want to get all into why the ad is evil, but there are several reasons beyond just the obvious.

As for the tone of my post. Yes, I hesitated over the word "brag". In fact, I went back and put it in. I did it because I intended for the post to have a tone of a good-natured ribbing. I think that when Jared said, "I like and support what you did, Phil, but find it odd that you sound like you invented the idea of skipping commercials. ;-)"

he matched the tone of my post by giving me some (well-earned) ribbing right back.

As for my calling people "Jerks" that's worthy of a whole post, don't you think? :-) The title could be "Is name calling a sin?"

I wondered if you would say anything about that when I saw that you apologized for calling MIA an idiot. (Though you didn't apologize for calling her a "guy". :-)

I don't know. Perhaps it was wrong for me to call them jerks. I'm not going to die defending that hill. My purpose in using that term was to express how I felt.

I'm feeling particularly defensive lately about our society's attitude towards children, and their apparent callousness towards young ones is offensive to me.

I suppose we could digress and explore the Scripture where Jesus forbids calling someone "Raca" and we could look at the occasions where Jesus himself and Paul call people names. ("As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves." Ouch.)

Hmmm, I remember the Teleflora ad now.......color me pagan, but I don't have a problem with it, given where we're at culturally. But, if my son saw it at 12 (he's almost 18 now) I would have had a conversation with him about it (probably still should)......at the end of the day, it is regrettably no different than some of the PG-13 movies that I let him see at 12.

That's where I just think we're same book, different page Phil. I would just rather spend my valuable time with my kids pointing them to the gloriously good things that come out of every image bearer in our culture (Christian and Non) and reminding them that that goodness is from God and that it points to the gospel of Christ - the greatest goodness of all...than continually run interference for them because of mis-application of Phil 4:8, or an unhealthy hypersensitivity to "be careful little eyes what you see" - I'm all for a hedge of protection - for discussion though - what is the most important thing to protect them from????? - that's where I think Godly, well-meaning people can disagree.

Nhe,
I actually agree with you about guiding and teaching children...my reaction as yours is, is probably colored by the age of my kids. I was watching with a 4 year old, a 6 year old, an 8 year old, and a 10 year old. And that's just my kids. (That doesn't include the other children ages 3 and up who were present.)

Plus though I might be able to "handle" something with the right biblical worldview, doesn't mean that it's even healthy for me to see it. Unfortunately, I saw most of the offensive, but not all, ads because I pre-screened many.

As for what we did at the church, just for clarification: It wasn't an evangelistic or outreach event. We didn't advertise it or intend for it to be that at all. It was a church fellowship. However, as with all fellowships, we encourage members to invite friends and neighbors.(So we always try to expect that someone who doesn't know Christ might be there, just as Paul tells us to in Scripture.) However it wasn't an evangelistic event. It was intended to be a fun fellowship. And yes, as Bill suggested, we had plenty of church members who stayed home and watched from their living rooms. We were providing this as a fun opportunity for those who might want it.

And I have no doubt that we had the best half-time show of anyone in America. :-)

Given the culture of where we live (rural Texas), even non-churched people if they came, would not have been surprised by us blacking out offensive commercials. And spending time with us playing 80's trivia would have proven that we aren't legalistic prudes.

We had a party at my house where the women watched the game and the men sat around talking about relationships and weight loss.

What?

Regarding how Philip spent his, while I'm in agreeance with nhe (whose blog I shall now subscribe to), it's not vehemently so. If Phil were saying "This is also how you Scott and you NHE should have done it" then yeah. VEHEMENCE!

I'd say you need to go one step further. Block out all the commercials. Aren't they all offensive since the only purpose for any of them these days is to at the very minimum cause us to covet our neighbor's ass?

I tend to agree with C.S. Lewis that "the sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins." The more insidious and more deadly sins of materialism, covetousness etc. are on broad display or are being solicited in many of the other "non-offensive" ads, as well as woven throughout the telecast itself. Yet Christians (myself included) rarely get as outraged at those and the damage they may have on our children and congregations, as we do about the fleshy stuff.

this, this, this, this.........this (well said)

BTW Karl - its not that I don't think we should expect anything of redemptive value from non-Christians....I just think that we should expect all people (Christians and Non) to let us down, and not be surprised when they do......we are the stewards of our own souls, and by God's grace we can find covenantal relationships with others who we feel like we can entrust some of that stewardship to - even though we know they will let us down - we also know that the net result will be not only positive, but sanctifying.

Oh, and setting aside the appropriateness for all audiences of the commercials, I do have to say I found the commercials in general very mediocre this year. Only a few marginally funny ones, and only one with monkeys in it. Not my idea of successful Super Bowl commercials. ;-)

Good conversation,

When it comes to Christian practice (or "praxis" if you want to sound smart) I am finding myself more and more going with a "both/and" philosophy rather than an "either/or" philosophy, and reacting VEHEMENTLY :-) when I get the "either/or".

I find it patronizing and slightly offensive the way we talk about lost people, because I used to be one. The image of a lost person being so completely thin-skinned that they are "weirded out" by, for instance, Phil not drinking beer doesn't compute with me. I think they get weirded out by us going into contortions to not offend their tender sensibilities.

When I was lost, what I wanted was the truth and to be treated like a sentient person, rather than to be patronized (even though for a long time I couldn't handle the truth).

For me, I'm with the elastic side-boots crowd, for the most part, but I'm also good with the edgy engage-the-culture crowd too, as far as that goes. God can use both.

Scott - good call. The tenth commandment is the most ignored one, by far.

And since C.S. Lewis was mentioned, he also compared his culture's attitudes about sex to a normal person's attitude about food and made the point that is certainly more pertinent today. Basically, we've all gone crazy.

Thanks nhe. Lots of food for thought.

Help me here on a few things: is there ever a time that a non Christian might be offended by the genuine moral stance of a Christian? Even one that's unspoken? Or is that to be avoided at all costs?

I was defending lost people earlier against what I see at times as a patronizing attitude toward them. But, on the other hand, let's not forget that they are lost. Every offense they might feel isn't necessarily legitimate. What if a divorced lost person is offended by, say, your nearly unspoken but obvious reverence for the sanctity of marriage? Or what if they are offended because they came to you to ask what God thinks of sex before marriage and you tell them the truth?

I realize this is a different issue than your concerns with the superbowl party.

Also, on Phil 4:8 - you've expressed how it's misapplied. But is there any instance in which it should be applied?

Interested in your thoughts - thanks!

Thanks nhe,

Well, you finally hit on something that I think helps me understand better. When you mentioned that all the new Christians you know were turned off by moralism, that made me scratch my head. The number one turnoff that i've heard over and over again is always the same: Christians not living the way they are supposed to live - in other words, hypocrisy.

The disconnect for me was that there was absolutely nothing hypocritical about what Phil described. And that's what I'm on about here. I think a non-believer who is genuinely seeking and open-hearted can respect a Christian's conviction to not drink, or not watch scantily-clad women sell beer, or whatever. Maybe they'll think that's weird, but if it's the *true* conviction of the Christian, well - what's wrong with that?

The big turn off is always hypocrisy. But, again, Phil isn't a hypocrite.

Let me give you a quick case study. I don't see R rated movies. The reason is simple: they mess me up. I saw the Mel Gibson movie Ransom a decade and a half ago. It MESSED ME UP big time because it had cruelty to children. I was having nightmares for days and that's when I decided, no more. (I did see passion of the Christ, so I'm not a legalist).

Now, this is an honestly held conviction. It's likely that Shawshank would mess me up too. And that's where I get into the no-win situation with people on the page you're on :-) - I don't push this as a conviction to others. Most Christians I know see R rated movies and don't hear anything from me. But I'd be one of those guys your non-believing friends (and maybe you too) would look at with disdain.

Now, if I was telling people that the gospel means no R rated movies, I would be blowing the smokescreen everywhere, definitely.

Regarding Phil 4:8. I don't think that it refers to just how we process things. That makes the assumption (that maybe you are making, I'm not sure) that there is nothing out there that is bad, because it's all created by image bearers. But we are, as Scott at Jesus Creed says, "cracked ikons". I mean, even the non-believing world believes in rating movies, and believes there are things children shouldn't see (Shawshank, for instance). I'm not sure a steady diet of, say, death-metal would be good for me, no matter how much I strain to find some gospel in there. Or, to take some extreme examples, snuff films or child p0rn (or regular p0rn).

So I guess what I'm saying is, surely there are some things that Phil 4:8 would guide us to not consume? All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful.

Sorry for continuing to string this conversation out. Just interested in your thoughts, and maybe understanding if we're three pages away or three thousand :-)

Bill: "But I'd be one of those guys your non-believing friends (and maybe you too) would look at with disdain."

There may be some who would wrongly disdain you for not seeing R rated movies because they mess you up, Bill. But most of the folks I am thinking of wouild respect your personal decision and be fine with it, period. They would only react negatively (disdain might be too strong a word; more likely they would just figure that you'd judge them if you knew them and don't want to subject themselves to moralistic judgmentalism) if you created the perception that all Christians - or the most holy Christians who are closest to what God wants them to be - should refrain from seeing R rated movies.

As an example: if for instance, your church's men's ministry had (as ours does) an informal guy's movie night every 4-6 weeks, where guys meet at a restaurant near the local movieplex at 8:00 on a Sunday night (our church doesn't have evening service) and then went to see a late movie. And if the event was intended to be a good "soft invite" to bring non church attending friends. And if you lobbied for a rule saying "we will never go see an R-rated movie" (as opposed to a general understanding that we won't go see a movie that is clearly just a raunchy comedy or that is otherwise likely to have little redeeming value and that anyone uncomfortable with the movie of the month will just quietly stay home). Then while I still wouldn't disdain you, I'd say that turning a personal conviction or preference into a rule for all "because it's a church event and Christians shouldn't see such things" creates the perception of a blanket moralism on the part of the church.

Exactly where in that continuum hosting a "we'll screen out the dirty commercials and halftime show for you" Big Game party at church falls is perhaps debatable.

Passion of the Christ - Rated R for sequences of graphic violence (original rating)

Unlike whether we ought to only watch movies rated PG-13 or lower, scripture is pretty clear (I would argue) regarding the fact that sex is supposed to be reserved for marriage. I'd support a rule that someone who is ignoring that command shouldn't continue in church leadership. Whether the rule could conceivably be seen by some as judgmental isn't exactly the test I'd use.

On issues where scripture is much less clear, I try to follow what I take to be the example of the One who "came eating and drinking" and who spent so much time with sinners doing exactly that, that it caused the moralistic pharisees to label him a glutton and a drunkard.

On the R-rated movie rule: there are PG-13 and even PG movies that are way worse for the soul than a movie like Shawshank or many other R rated movies. The fact that fewer F bombs are dropped, or that you don't see a nipple, doesn't mean that a PG or PG-13 movie can't be really raunchy or otherwise unedifying. In fact, many of the most crude raunchy comedies are geared to just barely stay inside the PG-13 barrier, in order to get more of the young teen boy audience they want. And I've been shocked by some PG movies too - especially old ones that were made before the PG-13 designation came into being but even some recent ones. The no R-rated movies rule - as a rule imposed on a group of Christians rather than as a personal deal for someone who knows his own limits - just sounds more like a muslim approach than a Christian one, to me.

I make that last observation based on another favorite Lewis quote on mine, regarding temperance. I think it kind of bears on this discussion - probably not on church super bowl parties but at least on the movie rabbit trail we've wandered down:

"Mohammedanism, not Christianity, is the teetotal religion. Of course it may be the duty of a particular Christian, or of any Christian, at a particular time, to abstain from strong drink, either because he is the sort of man who cannot drink at all without drinking too much, or because he is with people who are inclined to drunkenness and must not encourage them by drinking himself. But the whole point is that he is abstaining, for a good reason, from something which he does not condemn and which he likes to see other people enjoying. One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting every one else to give it up. That is not the Christian way. An individual Christian may see fit to give up all sorts of things for special reasons—marriage, or meat, or beer, or the cinema [or R Rated Movies?]; but the moment he starts saying the things are bad in themselves, or looking down his nose at other people who use them, he has taken the wrong turning."

I'd suggest that imposing a rule that "our church men's group may never go see R-rated movies" is either actually taking the wrong turning that Lewis warns against, or else creating a very strong and wholly unnecessary impression that this is where the church is coming from.

Thanks for engaging on this Bill. I'm here because for years now I've enjoyed this blog, and your writing along with that of the other guys. So I hope you don't come to think of me as someone who is just always against you. Same with Phil, because I'm a fan of his too and wish he'd post more often - even if we'd maybe see some things differently. I'd love to talk Harry Potter with him again, and faith/life stuff too.

Please hear me on the moralist thing. You do seem to have a sore spot there, to the extent that when these types of issues come up it appears that you feel personally accused when I had no intention of accusing you - or you feel accused to a degree ("I'd be one of those guys your non-believing friends (and maybe you too) would look at with disdain") far beyond anything I would say I feel toward you.

I'd say of your personal conviction/"rule for Bill" about R rated movies (if I said anything, which I ordinarily wouldn't unless invited to) that it falls right in line with what Lewis describes when he says: "An individual Christian may see fit to give up all sorts of things for special reasons — marriage, or meat, or beer, or the cinema . . ."

Lewis doesn't sneer at that "individual Christian" and call him a moralist nor do I. He recognizes that the person has his own reasons for abstaining and that it would be wrong to ask him to violate his conscience or do something that he knows would be bad for him.

It's when the individual Christian's personal practice becomes a prescription for all, or a rule imposed on a group of Christians not all of whom may share that conviction, that I join Lewis in questioning it. But even if I use strong terms to describe how I see such a blanket rule as too moralistic, I like you and respect your mind and your commitment to walking out your faith. If you say you would implement the rule that "our men's group won't watch rated R movies" and I say "I think a blanket rule like that is too moralistic" I'm still talking just about the policy - I know your heart is good in this and I'm not saying that you Bill are, always and forever and in everything, moralistic. No, you obviously aren't.

I like what Dallas Willard says of the passage where Jesus talks about looking at a woman - Willard says that the best translation is "anyone who looks at a woman IN ORDER TO LUST . . ." So the fact that I see some skin (or just a pretty 22 year old in the pew in front of me) and have a lustful thought momentarily come into my head that is hard to shake off, is not sin. Willard says that a lot of false guilt has been imposed on people because of a misunderstanding of that verse, and I agree. The question is whether the lust is cultivated, whether it's harbored, whether it's sought out or made welcome. Granted some movies or scenes invite the cultivation and harboring of lust. But again I'd say PG and PG-13 movies (or the 2012 slate of super bowl commercials!) have at least as many scenes that invite the cultivation of lust as a typical R rated movie, on average. So unless we're abstaining from all media, I prefer to apply the filter of not going to watch something that is obviously just glorifying something that shouldn't be glorified, but then using discernment about the movies I do watch if they contain elements that I don't agree with. To me that's both better for my soul, and a better witness to my nonchristian neighbors who don't get the impression that I may keel over if I see a boob or hear the F word. I just don't think Jesus spent much of his energy trying to avoid hearing cuss words or to keep from being contaminated by proximity to other people's carnality.

I'd even go so far as to posit that on average, there are a higher percentage of edifying rated R movies than there are edifying PG-13 movies. I'm not ready to statistically defend that statement but it's an impression I've had for a while. But that's a whole separate thread.

Bill said:

Regarding Phil 4:8. I don't think that it refers to just how we process things. That makes the assumption (that maybe you are making, I'm not sure) that there is nothing out there that is bad, because it's all created by image bearers. But we are, as Scott at Jesus Creed says, "cracked ikons". I mean, even the non-believing world believes in rating movies, and believes there are things children shouldn't see (Shawshank, for instance). I'm not sure a steady diet of, say, death-metal would be good for me, no matter how much I strain to find some gospel in there. Or, to take some extreme examples, snuff films or child p0rn (or regular p0rn).

I guess I didn't explain this very well, because it appears that you and Tony are completely missing my point.

I'm talking about Phil 4:8 as a framework for a Christian world view. Lovely, praise-worthy things come at us from sacred and secular places. Awful and decadent things also come at us from sacred and secular places. We're called let our minds dwell on the lovely and praise-worthy things.....but not by creating barriers in our minds between the sacred and the secular and dwelling on the former.

Tony's right, 8-year-olds can't do what I'm suggesting, but I'd rather teach an 8 year old to process it all correctly than to continually delineate the sacred and secular categories - that's part of it, but I think we make that the focal point, rather than building Christian world view into our children - which takes the full 18 years.

I realize I'm thinking outside the box here, but I don't think I'm interpreting the passage incorrectly, just maybe differently than you guys might.

On the R-rated movie subject, just for fun, I'll display my top 10 movie list here, with the rating:

1. Glory - R
2. The Shawshank Redemption - R
3. Searching for Bobby Fischer - PG
4. Unbreakable - PG-13
5. Silverado - PG-13
6. A Few Good Men - R
7. Jerry McGuire - R
8. Gladiator - R
9. Back to the Future - PG
10. Rob Roy - R

This is my ever evolving list. I revise it constantly.

Six of the 10 "just happen to be" rated R. The great thing about those 6 is that all 6 have been on network TV without the R-rated elements, so I can recommend all 6 to Bill. I'm guessing he's already seen most of them though.

I'm personally not bothered by the R-rated elements in any of those 6 films....but Bill might be, and I fully respect that. He knows himself and what diverts him from being able to let his mind dwell on good things. I'm just glad that these films are available in versions that he can enjoy, because I would love to discuss the films with him.

By contrast (and to Karl's point) I'm really bothered by "Bruce Almighty" and "Evan Almighty". They are heralded films by a lot of my Christian friends, but I find them brutally offensive........I can't exactly put a finger on why except that when I saw them, I felt like my faith was being trivialized for mass appeal.

And, allow me to express my disappointment that you left both It's A Wonderful Life and The Lord Of The Rings off your list.

All Christians, everywhere, should see and love those movies. Well, at least the holier Christians, like myself

Bill - Glory was R in 1989/90 when it ran originally, it would be PG-13 now because the standards are different. It's R because a cannon ball literally is shown taking a head off early in the film. By today's standards though, it would be PG-13.

A Few Good Men has more than a few F-bombs.....its a solid R.

I double-checked the ratings on all of these with IMDB before I before I hit enter on the comment.

Bill.......I mentioned my list is ever evolving.....both FOTR and IAWL have been in my top 10.

I'm weird though, one of my main criteria is "how well does it hold up on repeat viewing".....both of those hold up very well, despite their length, but just a tick below how the ones in my top 10 hold up.

Karl

I seem to have seen far more of yours. Here's my take

The Godfather 1 and 2

I think I've seen parts of them. I did read the book, way back in the day, and it was very good.

The Matrix

Saw this on TV. Assume it was cleaned up - really good movie

Braveheart

Never saw it. But I've seen the "They can take our lives, but they'll never take OUR FREEDOM!!!!" scene about infinity times in church youth services and men's conferences.

Saving Private Ryan

Never saw it. This one would have seriously jacked me up, most likely.

Rain Man

Loved it. There's a definite Tom Cruise theme happening between you and your doppleganger, nhe.

Schindler's List

Saw it. Thought I was going to die - it was so very good, and so very awful, all at the same time. I read the book as well. Hard to believe this happened in living memory.

Good Will Hunting

Never saw it.

The Green Mile

Saw it. I pretty much liked it, if memory serves

Good Morning Vietnam

Saw it. Let me just say that a little bit of Robin Williams goes a long way.

and some that were just plain fun movies - for me anyway - that I would be sorry to have missed:

the Terminator 1 and 2

Saw the first one, when it came out. Loved it.

Die Hard - the original one

Ditto. Watched part of it recently. Yes, my filter for bad language was definitely a lot more sturdy back when I first saw it.

First Blood

Saw it, loved it, wanted to be Rambo.

Predator

I don't think I ever saw this one, or if I did, just some pieces of it.

Alien

The quintessential space horror flick. A masterpiece. "So, what's the story Mother?"

Aliens

Saw this with my wife back when we were dating. It was a lot better than I had been expecting. Thought it was awesome.

You'll notice that I do better when the cruelty is between humans and non-humans. The violence in Lord of the Rings doesn't phase me a bit. Neither did the violence in Aliens. Of course the Aliens are bad dudes who eat your brain, but - hey - they're aliens.

When Harry Met Sally

Saw this. Thought it was very clever, redemptive, etc. I think if I watched it again I'd be more sensitive to certain parts of it.

Young Guns

Never saw it.

Trading Places

I *think* I saw this one but don't remember a thing about it.

Seems like we've had about 4 threads worth of topics in this one thread . . .

Bill, you and I agree 100% on Robin Williams....except for Good Will Hunting and Awakenings - he was beyond brilliant in both.


Re: Good Will Hunting......most F-bombs per minute among the films that I love, it's actually pretty jaw-dropping, even for me, I normally have no issue with that.

nhe - For the F-bomb counter you need to watch Boondock Saints or Insomnia. Both excellent movies that turn the air blue.

nhe, I'd put Good Will Hunting and The Departed (another Matt Damon movie) up against each other for that "most F-bombs per minute in movies I thought were really good" prize. Goodfellas might actually take top prize, but it's been a long time since I've seen it so I can't speak to it except saying I remember liking it, though it's probably at least a solid notch below Good Will Hunting or The Departed as a quality movie.

I have a hard time saying I "loved" a movie that was as dark as The Departed, but I am still glad I saw it. Not out of a voyeuristic sense of reveling in the violence and darkness it portrayed, but it reminded me of The Godfather more than any other movie - not like it was trying to be The Godfather but that same sense of "this is a really well done and maybe even an important film and I'm going to have to spend time digesting its impact on me."

Bill, I had to laugh at what you wrote about the infinity times you've seen that Braveheart scene at men's and youth gatherings. The overuse of that scene in those venues has definitely kind of ruined it for me.

Yes to The Fisher King. Patch Adams?

Karl, funny about Patch Adams - I had heard that the real Patch Adams is very self-promoting and insufferable (which may or may not be true) so I chose not to see it because I thought I'd go in jaded.....my wife saw and liked it a lot though.

Karl, totally agree.

I love what you said about tacked on redemption - I hate that.....it manipulates and undermines and cheapens better efforts.

I do think though that there is a "reverse redemption" that occurs in some films where the lead character is so self-destructive that his life becomes a teaching tool in a way that is redemptive. Leaving Las Vegas struck me that way - I didn't love it, but I found it important and oddly redemptive.

Tony, its because I used Bill's R movie comment as an opportunity to hijack the thread permanently in that direction.......and Karl of course happily obliged because he rocks

One Hour Photo - Perhaps Mr. Williams' best non-comedic role to date?

One Hour Photo - dark, disturbing, nonredemptive.......not a fan.

Quaid - Them's fightin' words about "The Avengers," you know!


Given the society in which we live, yes, virtually every commercial is going to be a celebration of some kind of sin -- gluttony, materialism, lust, etc..

Let's cut some slack, here. In between watching everything that comes on and not watching the game at all there is an infinite realm of jugment calls. It seems to me like a reasonable standard was being used.

I also don't see the fighting over R-rated movies. Maybe I don't live with Bill's rule, but it's not a bad first step in filtering movie choices. Unless I missed it, he's not saying that everyone has to live by that rule, just that he does.

I don't see what's wrong with that. I don't drink alcohol. Not because I think it's a sin, but because I don't want to. I have a slight fear of alcoholism in my family, but mostly I just don't care to drink. I'm perfectly happy with my existing drink choices.

That has nothing to do with anyone else, unless you're offended for some reason that I'd rather have Pepsi or iced tea than beer. There's no legalism to discuss because I don't drink beer for more or less the same reason I don't drink coffee, lemonade, or pureed onion.

I'm with you on Dr. Pepper.

As for coffee vs. pureed onion ... I'm not sure that I equated them. It might be best if I don't ACTUALLY rate them relative to each other, though. If I'm in peril of banning already, maybe I should stop now.

My wife drinks coffee, though.

You're right, I'm not sure that the exact standard was articulated, so maybe I'm assuming that the line drawn was a reasonable one.

So.....back to Quaid's comment/question ('cause I want to get this thing to 100 comments).......I think it's a good question, especially when coupled with Karl's C.S. Lewis quote about sexual sin being the least of all the bad sins......is, perhaps, the order in which commercial's are blocked out of sequence? I'd put the covetous one's at the top of the block list.........not that I'll ever be inclined to block a commercial....unless I find myself in Europe with kids near by - have you seen some of the commercials over there?

I choose to believe that The Avengers will rock, by faith......I know I'll be first in line.

Edit, by Avengers, I think Bill thinks you mean Uma Thurman and Sean Connery (it was awful)....but I'm pretty sure you're speaking of Tony Stark, Nick Fury and the crew....gonna be awesome

Following up on Quaid's comment, here ...

How many of us block commercials in day-to-day TV viewing?

As I said, I know what GoDaddy ads are from my parents' NASCAR viewing. I've never asked them to change the channel or rushed my 13- and 15-year-old sons, much less the preschoolers, out of the room.

I've only heard of one person that I know filtering commercials for anything other than the Super- ... err, ... Big Game. I've never done it.

I think that just about any standard is okay as long as it fit the audience. For the record, had I been watching with my 15-year-old son and we saw the Teleflora ad (which I have now seen online), it would have prompted a conversation.

Also for the record, I'm an Avengers fan, and I hope that Joss Whedon brings some real brilliance to it.

Tony,

You've hit on something that's been on my mind as this thread has progressed but which I hadn't yet brought up.

Agreeing with Karl and nhe, moralism is bad: the gospel is good news, not bad news, and doesn't consist of "do this, don't do that". Jesus is our righteousness.

And yet we are exhorted in scripture to "put on righteousness", to grow in righteousness, to bear good fruit, to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

Now, righteousness doesn't consist *only* of "don't look at that". And that is certainly not the height of righteousness. But that can certainly be a part of it.

My concern is that well-founded cautions against moralism and legalism can lead to an over-reach (which so often happens) and a diminishing of the call for righteousness.

Notice that Paul says "put on" righteousness. There's an entire post in itself in those words (coming, I think, soon) but the enemy has setup a defense against that through our rather modern and all-consuming fear of inauthenticity.

Bill said

My concern is that well-founded cautions against moralism and legalism can lead to an over-reach (which so often happens) and a diminishing of the call for righteousness.

I don't follow, I'm sorry. Do you have some examples of the over-reach and how it diminishes the call for righteousness?

Also.....it "feels" like you're suggesting that being righteous is being moral........are those necessarily the same thing?

The strongest call to righteousness I see in scripture is in Matthew 25 - and the most is at stake there too......but that righteousness has to do with clothing the naked and visiting the prisoner, etc., which are things that I rarely hear brought up in messages about righteousness.

I'm just not willing to default to do's and don'ts and morality in discussions about what it means to be righteous.......that's certainly part of it, but I don't think it's the lead dog. And when those things are brought up without being bathed in the motivation of grace and the gospel, we breed "older-brotherness".

I love "both and" rather than "either-or." And I agree that we usually swing the pendulum too far in whichever direction we are reacting. I'm also sorry this discussion stemmed out of Phil's post rather than a more neutral example. As much as I tend to agree with nhe on this issue I did think his initial response to Phil's post was a little harshly worded and might be painful for Phil and those who love him and understand where he's coming from.

But since we're well into the discussion, I guess I'll say that if we're going to start censoring commercials so we can show the Big Game at church, then selectively censoring sexy ones while leaving in ones that glorify (and feed, and tempt toward) American consumerism - which I believe is an even bigger and more wide spread idol that claims countless souls and families and marriages and is more deadly b/c it's so much more culturally acceptable even within many churches - that in itself feels like an "either-or" rather than a "both-and" approach. If we're going to edit out our culture's most deadly idols, let's edit out both sexy stuff AND that which incites material greed/envy/discontent/lust of the nonsexual sort.

Even understanding the good motive and agreeing that sexual sin and addiction cause great damage, singling out those commercials to screen but leaving the others in still makes me kind of wince. Both because of the moralism it seems to convey, and also because of the implicit message that "ok it's safe to watch now because we took out the bad stuff" when plenty of equally bad but maybe more insidious stuff is still on display. Jesus had a lot more to say about the love of money and riches and their use and abuse, than he did about sex. Not to say the suggestive commercials are a total non-issue. But both-and, not either-or.

Maybe that is one reason why I'm not a huge fan of having a super bowl watching party at church. Not that I'd say "It's WRONG to have a super bowl party at church!" But it's one of the biggest secular holidays of the year, and I don't think taking sexy ads out of the mix makes it any less secular or diminishes to any great extent the potential soul-poison that comes out in the commercials and overall telecast. But it implies the "all safe" because "we took out the bad stuff." I'd rather cancel evening church and send people out into their neighborhoods and with their friends, as nhe suggested. Or maybe not cancel church but have a small, regular church service for those who want to attend a church service (if you usually have one Sunday evenings anyway), while giving everyone encouragement and permission to watch the super bowl with friends, neighbors and family instead. But other than discussing it in a place like this, I'm not generally going to go around criticizing churches who host a big game party - unless incited to by their saying things like "our super bowl watching experience was better than yours" and "we're proud of what we did so we're going to brag on it a little". If they do that - as the original post did - I may offer a little bit of (hopefully humble, hopefully not graceless, hopefully gentle) pushback.

more so than other sins? Or do we just hear more about these because they tend to be more overt and quantifiable?

I don't know. Only God knows.

But I have seen the devastation. Haven't you? The worst part is the devastation and ruin is normally borne by the children, and the cycle repeats. Fatherlessness (which has gotten way, way worse in the wake of the sexual revolution) is cutting a path of destruction through our world. Of course, sins of the flesh aren't the only cause of it, but - my gosh - they play a huge role.

But . . .

at this point, for what it's worth, I don't know that I'm even disagreeing with the main thrust of your and Karl's arguments, maybe just more in the emphasis, degree, vehemence :-), and because I know Phil and his church better than you, the pointed nature of the earlier comments. I like both you guys and appreciate your approach, and the conversation.

And, from my point of view I'm not sure that sitting around parsing which sin is "worse" is going to get us anywhere (or at least I don't have any energy for that fight). I think there's an element of us just arguing past each other here. I agree that sexual sins tend to get a lot of attention. They are, contrary to some views, actually given a decent amount of attention in scripture as well. Because they can be deadly. But so is pride (which is the queen mother of sins), and the mutated giant Tyrannasaurus Rex version of it, Spiritual Pride. Plus covetousness (which is also a sin of the flesh), gossip, slander, etc.

I agree that a church that majors in warning against sexual sin to the exclusion of much else and that engages in legalistic practices (e.g., running around with a tape measure to see if the teenage girls at youth camp are wearing shorts that aren't too short - true example) is unbalanced. So is the one that treats sexual sin as no big deal. Because it is a big deal. I'm not saying (and never said) that it's the *biggest* deal, though.

I just think it's a bigger deal than we often think.

And, from my point of view I'm not sure that sitting around parsing which sin is "worse" is going to get us anywhere

You're right, this has run it's course, but I don't think the debate is over which sin is worse as much as it is over whether or not the act of "blocking" the sins of the flesh commercials (over and against the others) is a statement about which sin is worse.

Karl, to help me, can you tell me where specifically I was harsh?

In comment #1, I did make it clear that I disagreed, which for me, is a sign of respect to Phil - I know he's solid enough to not be rattled by the shabby likes of me disagreeing.

"Vehemently" was a poor choice of words which I spent about 7 comments apologizing for.

I have 2 comments that I regret, one was calling the MIA gal an idiot - which I apologized for.....the other thing I need to apologize for is implying that church SB parties are strange or uncomfortably out of the mainstream, I don't believe that and am sorry for implying it.

Was there anything else? - I want to be a more sensitive guy.

Reallly?.......wow........just kidding!

Thanks Karl, that helps.

it's green.

oh, sorry. saw the multitude of comments and thought we were weighing on the color of lemon-lime gatorade...

Stroke, lol

Shrode:

No apology necessary. Seriously. I'm good and I know you (via the past years -decade?- of comments) and know that you are not one to be judgmental. Also, you have not offended me.

For the record, I think it is possible that you could call my party wrong and not sit in judgment of me. Still, I realize that you do not think what we did was wrong. If you had thought what my friends and I had done was wrong, I would have been interested to know why.

I am still interested in hearing what standards you used in deciding what commercials to show and not show. There was an obvious standard of inappropriate sexual content. I would really like to know what you showed and why you allowed those and what you didn't show and why you didn't allow those. I am interested to know where you drew the line and why. That's all.

I really feel bad for taking so much time before coming back to check on this thread. You did not offend and I didn't feel that you judged me. No apology is necessary. I would say that I forgive you, but I took no offense. I appreciate your kindness.

Quaid

Great question.

One thing about this thread is that it continues to bring up larger points. It's like an onion that, as you peel it, it gets bigger.

Of course we could have all just left Phil alone and said either "cool idea" or "well, not for me, but it's his church, so what the hey" and this thread would have gone nowhere. :-)

So, Karl using the CS Lewis quote to enforce his position was a smart move. If you disagree with Karl you'll be disagreeing with CS Lewis.

Are the thinklings going to let Karl get away with this :-) Do you dare venture down the dark paths of picking apart CS Lewis' logic ;-)

"And then there is the multi-millionaire Church-goer who tithes millions over time to the Church earned from that same market."

When I hear or read comments to this effect, I have a mixed reaction. On the one hand it's great that a multimillionaire churchgoer tithes and that the money can be used (hopefully) for the furtherance of the Kingdom. I don't think such people are wrong for being multimillionaires as long as they gained their money through legal and ethical means, and if they are rich, I am glad when they give to the work of the Kingdom.

But my first and overriding reaction, is to think of the story of the widow's mite:

"He looked up and saw rich people putting their gifts into the treasury; he also saw a poor widow put in two small copper coins. He said, ‘Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them; for all of them have contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty . . ." (NRSV)

When I'm honest with myself I have to admit I want to be one of the rich people in that story, not the widow. In my daydreams as I pass lotto billboards or imagine what I would do with sudden, unexpected wealth like if I bought a bunch of shares of a cheap startup stock that turned out to be the next big thing (not that I have those daydreams all the time but sometimes) I would love to have so much money that I could give great amounts to Kingdom work - I have all kinds of great ideas - while still improving upon my current standard of living so that the giving doesn't really cause anything but a theoretical "pinch." Now that's not really what my life's aim is, I'm not driven to become rich . . . but to the extent I really "want" to be one of the characters that Jesus and the disciples were watching, my desires have me closer to the rich people than to the widow. And in many of our churches that's who we still most often notice or laud - the multimillionaire tither whose tithe check is huge in raw numbers but has little if any effect on his standard of living. The worship of mammon is pervasive in our culture. And Madison Avenue feeds it. And a large portion of American Christianity has little problem with the consuming of those sorts of media and commercials, as long as they don't use sex to sell materialism.

Bill,

Good questions. I'm not sure that I'd rank sexual sin as a lower rung issue, nor do I think Lewis would. At least not insofar as "lower rung" means "insignificant" or "not potentially destructive." I know I've used that Lewis quote about the sins of the flesh being less bad than some other sins, but while I do agree with him really my point hasn't been to rank sins nor to minimize the potential destructiveness of sexual sin, but rather to point out that there are at-least-equally destructive sins being touted in many of the non-sexy commercials.

But rather than ban all tv watching, I'd prefer to encourage the thoughtful and discerning interaction with our culture and its messages that (I think) nhe was advocating from the get-go. I acknowledge that there are times to guard our eyes and hearts and to simply not take in messages that are bad for us, but in general I think our interaction with the culture around us can be less fearful and can look less like the pharisee's or fundamentalist muslim's moralistic fear of being contaminated by possibly seeing or hearing something bad, and can instead look more like Jesus' eating and drinking with "sinners" in a way that made him compellingly attractive to them.

My point about commercials that promote covetous materialism and self-absorbed image consciousness wasn't to say "yeah we should edit those out too" but rather to suggest the futility or incompleteness and bad mixed-message-sending that I think is unavoidable when you start editing out just the sexy stuff.

I think Quaid makes a good point in #107, one that I kind of verged on a few posts ago, that the whole NFL-super bowl thing is so thoroughly secular and in keeping with our materialistic and hedonistic culture that it's kind of all of a package. So do we shut our eyes to it, or do we take it in discerningly? And the dilemma we're circling around - the impossibility of sanitizing out all the stuff that is potentially harmful and the perceived moralism and mixed message-sending that occurs when we edit out sexy commercials but leave the others in, kind of points to why I don't think I'd be in favor of having a Big Game party at church. It's just too inextricably secular an event, and rather than hold a secular festival at our church and try to sanitize it I'd rather send people out into their neighborhoods and communities to mix and mingle, bringing the light of Christ there having been trained to be discerning about the messages they'll pick up along the way.

Now I'm not banging on Phil for having a party at his church. Even if I would choose differently or if I am not sure it's a great idea, it's not the end of the world to me either, if a church has a super bowl party. My thought when I read his post and there were zero comments yet was along the lines of Bill's suggested "well, not for me, but it's his church, so what the hey." But my internal gut reaction contained (at least the seed of) everything I've posted here; I just didn't comment when I first read the post because Phil was obviously excited about what he'd done and I like him and didn't want to throw cold water on it. I guess having processed it that way is one reason nhe, why I reacted to your first comment the way I did, interpreting it as a bit harsh. But then as the discussion got going and became more about ideas/principles around this issue than about Phil and his church, I felt compelled to speak up and support nhe as I shared most of his feelings about it.

Oh btw, in the case of a Big Game party that does have small children present, as a parent of three young girls I do acknowledge an added discomfort with the sexy stuff. I'm not blind to that - I myself in our home switched the channel for those adds when my girls were with us, and didn't switch it for the non-sexy commercials. But maybe it would have been better to treat it as a teachable moment, than to send whatever message they get when dad hurriedly grabs the remote and zaps to another channel so they don't see whatever that woman was about to do.

Lastly in a really too long post, from what he says in a few places in his letters I've always had the impression that Lewis believed in purgatory, although like most other secondary issues he didn't make a big deal of it and avoided writing publicly about it.

Bill, I feel like I didn't really do justice to your very good question about when do we unplug from our entertainment culture. While I'm still an advocate for seeking to walk in and interact with the culture as Jesus did rather than retreat from exposure to it for fear of contamination, I do get where you're coming from and agree that how much of our culture's media we consume is an issue to be given real consideration. I think a steady diet of that kind of idol-peddling (whether the idol be sex, materialism, greed, image-absorption, etc.) IS likely to be bad for any of us no matter how discerning we try to be. For that reason my wife and I limit the amount of TV that is watched in our house and the amount of internet time per day that our kids are allowed. But it's limiting the amount more than trying to avoid any exposure and while we do watch the content of what the kids especially consume, when we do watch stuff as a family we probably lean more toward letting in more "objectionable content" than some Christians would but using it as an opportunity for a teachable moment, to help our kids learn the meaning and practice of discernment. But I do think most of us could use a little more "unplugging" when it comes to just how much screen time we spend, for any number of reasons.