FAQ: Reviewing coarse cultural products

Here’s a letter from a WORLD member sent to our founder Joel Belz and me:

“I have greatly appreciated your magazine these last 20 years, and have even given copies to friends, pastors, or talked up your publication. Perhaps the state of the world has gotten jaded and coarse, and base; or perhaps I have gotten older and want to read more articles that comfort and edify, so I have a few questions and opinions that I would like to present.

“I know your mission statement says that you report the news, but in your culture section, why are your reporters reviewing movies that few Christians would ever go to see? And why is your music writer writing about counterculture icons (Lou Reed) or greatest hits albums from groups that promoted anarchy or sexual immorality? I grew up in the counterculture ’60s, so I probably know the Leonard Cohens of the world, and the Larry Coryells, but why are they relevant to today’s Christianity? Especially in light of the fact that I see far fewer reviews of Christian music than secular music. (And yes, I do understand how a Cohen, Coryell, or Chuck Berry influenced modern music).

“Where is the line drawn between reporting on a cultural icon that the ‘world’ idolizes, as opposed to educating the uninformed, and next generation about the pillars of contemporary Christian music? Like an article on Larry Norman that I remember Mr. [Arsenio] Orteza writing. Or the 2nd Chapter of Acts, Randy Stonehill, Resurrection Band, etc.? …

“Many of your movie reviews comment that the movie is gory, condones drug use, has an adulterous scene, uses constant profanity, has dysfunctional relationships … and then to tie it up from a Christian angle, they suggest that we as Christians should never forget that Christ is the answer. And, oh yes, apart from the R rating the movie is otherwise a heartwarming, enjoyable, beautifully photographed movie! After reading their reviews, I pity your movie reviewers who have to sit through such anti-Christian values. Why do you even need to tell me, the reader, about these movies?

“A simple sentence or two about some of these movies would suffice. Like: ‘Don’t go!’ ‘You will not like it.’ ‘Doesn’t meet our Christian beliefs.’ BUT: If you want to see a great love/adventure story with a Christian theme, download/rent The Robe, or The Inn of the Sixth Happiness, or Moms’ Night Out, the TV series Bonanza, or the old Christmas classic The Fourth Wise Man. And then write a detailed review of THOSE movies to educate and introduce your audience to media that will edify them. …

“I do not want to come off as condemning, but hopefully I have given you ‘food for thought’ and provided constructive suggestions with my observations. Thank you for your ministry.”

Joel replied first:

“I do want to suggest what I believe is the primary basis for WORLD including editorial matter that sometimes presses the limits of decency. Very specifically and simply: WORLD’s assignment is to call attention, as the Bible itself does, to behavior and actions within human culture that are both obedient and disobedient. When we talk about politics, we reflect the activities and language of those who are both obedient and disobedient to God’s holy standards. When we talk about the world of business and finance, the same obligation holds true. We don’t shrink from reporting on the specifics of disobedient behavior and language. The same holds for education, science, diet and nutrition, sports, etc. … No, we won’t grovel in the seamy muck that some call us to experience. But neither will we ignore it. It is part of our reporting task.”

I concurred with what Joel wrote and laid out three specific reasons for covering non-Christian films:

I also explained, as I first did two decades ago, that our models are Daniel and Paul, both of whom displayed knowledge of the pagan poetry and theology that surrounded them. We respect Christians who want to isolate themselves from worldliness, but WORLD’s primary calling is to cover the world, not the church.

Therefore, our reviews should help our members decide whether to see something that sounds appealing. They should give members some sense of the pictures that are dancing through the heads of their fellow citizens. They should summarize and Biblically critique the worldviews of our key cultural teachers.

Our models are Daniel and Paul, both of whom displayed knowledge of the pagan poetry and theology that surrounded them.

That makes the job of our reviewers very difficult. They need to be both regents (standing in for readers, as their eyes and ears) and teachers. They need the discernment to bring out theological implications and the light-heartedness to enjoy movies that aren’t theological treatises. They need the ability to look at what other people see but then see it more deeply through adept use of a Biblical lens.

I then tried to define three kinds of reviewing: amoral, moralistic, and Biblical. Many reviewers today are amoral, worshiping sensation for sensation’s sake, reveling in slow-motion murder and fast-talking obscenity, not even paying attention to whether films and television programs glorify evil. Some moralistic reviewers appropriately attack the amoral but then push smiley-faced films that preach faith in man’s natural goodness. These reviewers criticize amoral destruction but don’t note how the subtle sapping of moralism can be even more effective in keeping us from seeing our need for God’s grace. They roll over for smarmy products designated as “uplifting”—but uplift apart from Christ is idolatry.

One task of our reviewers is to look for films and television programs that help us to comprehend evil and the need to fight it. They praise unblinking eyes that take in man’s depravity, especially when a Biblically directed brain that shows sin’s consequences controls those eyes. They know that Christianity is not a nice religion. Just as priests used hyssop to spray the blood of sacrifices on the people in Moses’s time, so Christ had to shed his blood, not just preach, to free us from sin. We believe that those who follow Him should not hide from hard realities either in life or on film.