Oops, wrong thread. Sorry.
Posted on 02/13/2015 5:04:26 AM PST by Gamecock
There is nothing gray about whether a follower of Christ should see 50 Shades of Grey. This is a black and white issue. Don’t go. Don’t watch it. Don’t read it. Don’t rent it.
I don’t even want to talk about it. Another blogger and I went back and forth for several weeks about how we could write a satirical review panning the movie and skewering those who think they need to see it in order to be relevant. We couldn’t do it. There was no way to make the humor weighty enough to sufficiently condemn such a vile film.
And no, I haven’t seen the movie. I haven’t watched the trailer either. I haven’t read a single page from the book. Reading about the premise from Wikipedia and the IMDb for two minutes convinced me I didn’t need to know any more. Sex is a wonderful gift from God, but like all God’s gifts it can be opened in the wrong context and repackaged in ugly wrapping. Violence against women is not acceptable just because she’s open to the suggestion, and sex is not open to all permutations, even in an adult relationship. Mutual consent does not a moral philosophy make.
Sex is a private matter to be shared in the privacy and sanctity of the marriage bed (Heb. 13:4). Sex, as God designed it, is not meant for actors who pretend (or not) that they are making “love.” The act of conjugal union is what married couples do behind closed doors, not what disciples of Jesus Christ pay money to watch on a screen the size of your house.
As I’ve said before, we have to take a hard look at what we put in front of our eyes as men and women seated in the heavenly places (Col. 3:1-2). If 50 Shades is a problem, by what standard do we give ourselves a pass on the rest of the sensuality we freely consume? To be sure, awareness of sin is not by itself the problem. The Bible is full of rank immorality. It would be simplistic and morally untenable—even unbiblical—to suggest you cannot watch sin or read about sin without sinning yourself. But the Bible never titillates with its description of sin. It never paints vice with virtue’s colors. It does not entertain with evil (unless to mock it). The Bible does not dull the conscience by making sin look normal and righteousness look strange.
Christians shouldn’t try to “redeem” 50 Shades of Grey. We should not get cutesy and advertize a new sermon series on “50 Shades of Grace.” We should not give both art and holiness a bad name by thinking that somehow something as dark as 50 Shades is worth viewing or worth reviewing. According to Paul’s logic, it is possible to expose sin and keep it hidden at the same time (Eph. 5:11-12). “A good man is ashamed to speak that which many people are not ashamed to act” (Matthew Henry).
Some movies do not deserve sophisticated analysis. They deserve sober repudiation. If the church cannot extend grace to sexual sinners, we’ve lost the heart of the gospel. And if we cannot tell people to stay away from 50 Shades of Grey, we’ve lost our minds.
A Christian's faith should be strong enough to see the movie and make good moral decisions about its content.
It would be so much better if the crusade were against movies with recreational drawn out overly graphic violence.
Hollywood’s idea of romance: a billionaire uses his wealth and power to seduce a woman and persuade her to be used to satisfy his fetish of inflicting physical pain on his partner.
Happy Valentine’s Day! /s
I’ve no interest in watching it and it’s not based on religion but based on the film just isn’t worth my time as it will be the usual Hollywood romance sex crap they put out all the time.
You must go “Behind the Green Door” to watch 50 shades of gray.
Oops, wrong thread. Sorry.
I’ve read compelling examinations of the book that clearly make it look like a story of pedophilia. Although the girls age is said to be over 20, throughout the book her language is more akin to a 9 year old.
It's not a matter of faith, but of protecting your "witness" - watching other people have sex is not sane activity for anyone, let alone a witness for Christ.
Wouldn’t it be better to be upset about movie such as Saint Vincent, which could be excellent movies for families to watch except for an unnecessary sex scene?
I don’t need to try crack cocaine to make good moral decisions.
We are warned not to give the Devil a foothold. Don’t need to crawl into a sewer to know I’ll get slimed if I do so.
Having once been forced to read a couple of pages of this drivel by a couple of female friends, I can say I have no interest whatsoever in reading more of it or watching this movie. If I remember correctly, I think I actually laughed at it, I thought it was so ridiculously bad and trashy.
What has been seen, cannot be unseen.
As has been suggested elsewhere, condemnation alone is not enough. In addition, there should be an explanation of healthy and normal sexual relations in the context of faith and marriage. And I would suggest another element as well.
A major reason people engage in such sadomasochistic behaviors is because they have no warm, loving way of relating to those of the opposite gender. Sexuality for them is cheap and unfulfilling, because it lacks commitment and love.
The reason for this is that they were never properly socialized with children of the opposite gender (while chaperoned) for most of their young lives.
They are in the same predicament as are dogs that are raised apart from other dogs, and who thus see them as hostile outsiders. When mature, they still want to mate, but it is “sleeping with the enemy”, with an undercurrent of deep hostility.
People of this sort consume huge amounts of pornography, but live miserable lives of loneliness. They want to go through the motions of mating, but nothing else. And sexuality this way is empty and mean. They despise and dismiss those they want to have sex with.
Again, the way around this problem is for parents to socialize their children with other children, in a safe and friendly way; and not so distracted with work assigned by adults that they can ignore each other.
Do not assume that this happens in school or church, because there, children are kept busy, so have no time to socialize with each other at the depth they need to achieve understanding.
Great post Gamecock. A believer isn’t called to wade through filth to prove he or she is washed clean by Christ’s blood.
I got about halfway through the book.
If anyone could get a halfway decent script out of that mess of a book, I applaud them.
My beef with the book was not the content. It was the writing. It was an unedited, poorly constructed mess.
What you (the third person you) do in your bedroom, or dungeon is cool with me as long as I don’t have to watch it or hear it.
I am sure what my wife and I do with ice cream is of no interest to you or anyone else.
Lets keep it that way.
Do you have to smell feces to know that it stinks?
WRONG.
It's not a movie review; it's not any kind of review.
It's an outright condemnation of a film whose published premise is evil.
And it's 100% correct.
This is the liberal ‘Passion of Christ’ movie.
I have no intent on seeing it, but it sounds kind of creepy telling others not to see it in the name of their standards.
I guess I’m too preoccupied with my own soul to be worrying about somebody else’s.
Pity the Christian who can’t see this movie and see the vapidness it represents.
**but it sounds kind of creepy telling others not to see it in the name of their standards**
The author is a pastor, and is the shepherd of at least one flock of souls.
In out current world the only preaching most will tolerate is the vapid blather of Joel Osteen and company. That is scary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.