What About R-rated Comedy?
CHRIS UTLEY: Saw "Team America". Got some questions for you folks...
1. What are your favorite satire films? Do you prefer satire that's tasteful or satire that isn't afraid to pull the punches.
2. Is there a place for R-rated comedy in the world? How about your individual lives? How does that balance out with your walk with the Lord?
As for me: I love the Lord. I love talking about the necessity of God/Christ in modern day culture. I also love stand-up comedy...R-rated stand up comedy. I've got Richard Pryor/Chris Rock/Robin Williams CD's & DVD's in my collection. I play them often and I laugh my head off every time. Yeah the language is raw, but those comics tell the truth about life and the human experience. Period.
As raw as "Team America" is, it's a blistering funny satire about this whole War on Terror. The rawness of the film helped me to ease the tension brought upon about the whole WMD/WOT debate. Once I allowed myself to ease past my perceived mental...and spiritual...restrictions, I was able to really enjoy the film!
posted by Greg Wright at 4:28 PM
19 Comments:
BENN BECKER: I personally like all humor ... even the "dirty" humor. I feel like with comedy and humor we can talk about things that seem taboo, but may need to be brought out into the open. Take stand up for instance ... it can cut through all our prejudices and the surface and reach us inside and cause us to laugh before all our defense mechanisms can jump up and shoot our reactions down.
Then again I'm not one who really believes in "bad" language ... I should say that there is such a thing ... I think it's something WE came up with ... not God. I would hope God isn't as petty as we seem to be. I guess I feel a spiritual life is an honest life ... concerning everything. I think if we sit in the shadows of pretension for too long, that's where problems begin. We feel alone, separated from each other and thus from God spiritually as well.
To me humor is a connecting point in a world that tries to separate us constantly ... sure we all don't have the same sense of humor, but once again I think it's a very gray area as to what is "right" and "wrong". Laughter is a gift God gave us ... it reduces stress, depression, and makes us feel happy. A natural drug if you will.
LYN MELLONE: To be perfectly honest, I actually have a hard time even with PG comedy these days, much less R-rated. I think I resent being "tricked" into laughing about subject matter that I otherwise consider private or even precious. It seems to me that the more taboos are broken down, making it acceptable to talk about certain things for the purposes of humor, the more we Christians become inured to the ways of the world.
MELINDA LEDMAN: As for language, while we have given many words their negative connotation, it is basically understood that words have had negative connotations throughout centuries and even varying cultures. (Here in America, "bloody" is nothing more than a descriptor for something that has blood on it) I think the point of the Bible is that we should stay away from negative speech, regardless of which word is considered an obscenity this year. True, the words themselves are not bad until they are given a stigma. But once a stigma is given, how are we as Christians to treat them? I guess it depends on what you believe about the Bible.
BENN BECKER: It's my personal opinion that it's MAN'S childish ideas that one word is bad over others. Superstitious beliefs to start way back when... Who decided what words were bad? Where's this list? I think it works much the same as it does with alcohol and sex in OUR culture (with its Christian influence) ... we demonize things and in the long run it causes MORE problems ... misuse all around.
I understand how expressing anger with words in this way can be a spiritual danger b/c that anger can lead elsewhere, but in my opinion it's man's superstitious thinking to believe that one word is bad over another. We gave them their connotations, not God.
MELINDA LEDMAN: I side more strongly with Lynn simply because the Bible places such a heavy weight on the value of words. Nowhere does the Bible condone loose speech. MANY scriptures point to the importance of keeping a tight reign on our words and the wisdom of keeping our speech pure, encouraging, and uplifting. One that particularly comes to mind, which also supports the idea that speech corrupts the soul is James 1:26-27, "If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight reign on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."
Of course, we have to look at the context. That verse comes after a stern warning to not cheapen one's faith or make oneself a liar by hearing the Word and not obeying it.
So, then we must ask, "What does the Word say about our speech?" The majority of scriptures warn against slander, gossip, lying, backbiting and deception through pretty words. And yet, there are a couple of verses we can't ignore: Ephesians 4:29 and 5:4. Ephesians 4:29 says "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen." And if we claim to be Christians, everyone is listening, folks. They are looking for reasons to call us liars, hypocrites and purveyors of an empty mythology. The debate could then lean toward exactly what unwholesome talk constitutes, but Eph 5:1 clears that up, "Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving."
I think many, many people reading this agree with Benn that moral issues are often grey rather than black and white. Are they rules imposed by man or by God? And why do the rules change with culture? All good questions. In this case, I think we have a second opinion if the Scriptures don't seem to offer sufficient proof. Let's look at Christ's speech. He did not require coarse joking to speak truth or to get past defensive facades. Instead, he refined his speech to address issues of the heart in a manner that honored God. He mastered the concept of Proverbs 25:11, "A word aptly spoken is like apples of gold in settings of silver."
When writing my own script, I battled with this problem of bad language. While I don't actively practice cursing and coarse speech in my personal life, the problem was real when writing trying to draft a secular script. On one hand, it makes the scene more believeable, more realisitic. It connects people to reality. Lines like, "Golly gee, Beev..." just don't cut it. And yet, I look back at some of the most amazing black and white movies from early filmmaking and see how their lines were even more edgy because they couldn't use the bad language. Ultimately, I decided that when faced with a curse word, I should be talented enough to place a line that slices to the heart of the matter or intensifies the conversation with its poignancy. If I can't do that, I shouldn't be writing.
Now, I'm not saying that people who curse don't have any faith and I certainly don't think we should be slapping the wrists of our friends who use bad language. I frequently slip up when injured or in bad traffic. It happens! Life happens!! Each person is on his or her own spiritual journey, and recognizing that is part of preventing that judgemental, pretentious attitude that is often a result of self-righteous thinking. Benn is correct that sitting in the shadows of pretension creates far bigger problems in our testimony to the world. At the same time, I believe that clean speech is something we can and should strive for. I believe that we can strive for purity in all things, and by so doing, protect our minds from corruption and callousness to sin.
I guess all of that sorta answers the questions Chris put forth. For me, I prefer tasteful satire that doesn't pull punches. I believe that you can do both without being crass. As for R-rated comedy, I think there's definitely a place for it in the world. People love it and they always will. But, for me, there's not much room for it in my life. Not only does it bother me to listen to it (particularly because one group or individual is usually being slandered mercilessly), but I consider most of it to be lacking talent. I believe that true comedy can be achieved without stooping. If the likes of Lucille Ball and Bill Cosby can pull it off, why can't today's comedians?
BENN BECKER: There was "cursing" all over in the Bible before it was all tidied up through the years as well to make it more politically correct I guess you could say. A lot of the Bible has been neutered, but I guess this is also the same Bible that in the Old Testament God supposedly said to kill a woman who was raped. Guess I'm kind of trying to bristle feathers here, but I think it all has to be looked at with SOME common sense as well as spiritual insight.
LYN MELLONE:
(Re Benn's statement: In my opinion it's man's superstitious thinking to believe that one word is bad over another.)
Of course you are right, in one sense. It is our culture, not the Bible, that has decided that the F word is vulgar, for just one example. And British culture still will not tolerate the B word, as Melinda has reminded us. And how about all the amusing anecdotes we've read of VIPs trying to say something in a foreign language and instead, because of mispronunciation, saying a "swear" word? (We are talking here only of vulgar language. The concept of taking God's name in vain is a whole other conversation). So those words themselves may not have a "divine stigma" upon them, but they do have a cultural stigma, and because of the cultural stigma, they have associations that cannot be simply cast aside by those who decide that language is a superficial expression of culture.
Think of the missionary to another culture. If the missionary chooses to break cultural taboos because he/she knows they are merely "superstition," the message is an offense and will not reach the people who need to know Christ. When Don Richardson wrote Eternity in Their Hearts (this is the author that inspired David to start HJ) he was not suggesting that missionaries ignore cultural morés, but just the opposite -- that they look for ways to use them to reach people with the Gospel. I think Melinda is right, there are usually ways to work around offensive words, and still get the message across -- sometimes even more effectively.
This statement of yours has me very curious:
"There was "cursing" all over in the Bible before it was all tidied up through the years as well to make it more politically correct."
Are you sure of this? Is it something you've read about? Or something you've researched yourself?
Thanks Benn, for sharing with us so extensively.
WHITEWAVE: And here was my reply to Lynn...
You are right about respecting the Culture. My question is about which Culture. America (Hollywood's target audience) is multi-cultural. And while the Family friendly content demographic is sizeable, I don't think it's the majority. While I'm not about pandering to majority, I am about reaching the minorities. And when each small sub-culture making up the unchurched is looked at, cussing is par for the course in most. Not cursing. Cussing. Cursing is clearly a moral issue and is looked down upon even in the most vulgar Gang cultures. You could be killed in Prison for it. But cussing is more ambiguous.
[Alert! Gross generalization ahead!]
In the sub-culture I grew up with (not raised with, mind you), the rough
language is associated with honesty. My boyfriend uses cuss words to
compliment me all the time, and I love it. Not lewd stuff, but real and
emphatic. I love it. I feel his helplessness at loving me. It's harder to
communicate that with polite speech acceptable in Christian circles. It
doesn't need to be high and lofty in order to be good. Down and dirty is
sometimes a grace deeply needed because it comes from the gut. Especially for men who tend to compartmentalize their honest feelings (sorry, guys - but I need a handle to communicate the idea). They might hide their true thoughts behind polite "mixed company" speech, but uncover what's in their gut and it tends to come out pretty grungy. Some women do it too. I'm one. But we all know what I'm talking about and the point is understood this way.
David Bruce: Word usage is always changing. I think the “language” of the person we are talking to is more important, in terms of communication, than our own. In the Bible, for example, not all of its books have the same “voice.” Its tone changes with the intended audience.
Examples: The Gospel of Mark is written for Romans and not to Jews and so the author has to explain the Jewish customs. The Gospel of Matthew is written to Jews and therefore never needs to explain the customs. Mark’s tone is vivid, course and centers on narrative. Matthew’s tone is refined and centers more on Jesus’ teaching.
In terms of colorful language in the Bible, indeed it is there, and translators do tend to soften it, at times. Examples:
2 Kings 18:27 in the King James Version, 1611, reads:
“… they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you.”
A milder rendering of “piss” appears in the New Living Translation, 1996, it reads:
“…drink their own urine."
Here is another:
Philip. 3:8 in the King James reads:
“… I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ.”
Dung is translated “rubbish” in the New Revised Standard and “garbage” in the New Living Translation.
Nonetheless, translators do not always soften colorful words or illustrations. For example:
At times Jesus used “colorful” illustrations to make his points, as recorded in Mark 7:19 (NLT) “Food doesn't come in contact with your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then comes out again."
In the Hebrew Scriptures, God gave the prophet Ezekiel an interesting recipe: “Each day prepare your bread as you would barley cakes. While all the people are watching, bake it over a fire using dried human dung as fuel and then eat the bread.” (Ezekiel 4:12).
I understand that one of the strongest swear words in the Jesus’ day was “rhaka” which means, in softer language, “worthless” or “idiot” Another curse word was “moros,” meaning “absurd blockhead” or "stupid." Jesus used both profane words in this context:
“I'm telling you that anyone who is so much as angry with a brother or sister is guilty of murder. Carelessly call a brother 'idiot!' and you just might find yourself hauled into court. Thoughtlessly yell 'stupid!' at a sister and you are on the brink of hellfire.” (Matthew 5:22 -Message Bible)
The idea here is not the use of the words themselves, after all even Jesus did use them, but rather the intent behind their use. It is all about context and audience.
Additionally, in terms of everyday “colorful” language that is not meant to curse or demean another person I can find no Biblical prohibition. But, then again, it is all about context and audience. The word “appropriate” comes to mind. Jesus was always appropriate. A good example to follow!
MELINDA LEDMAN: Okay, last comment here, I dont' want to hog the discussion table. First, Benn, thanks for your thoughts. I always appreciate a varying viewpoint. I liked your last response quite a bit even though I didn't agree with all of it. But the great thing is that I don't feel like I have to! Our differences in opinion and perspective are what makes us valuable. If we were all the same, then we wouldn't reach nearly as many people for Christ. Our differences connect us to various cultures, people and situations, and without them, we would have limited access to the world. Many people reading our commentaries will cringe at my comments and nod in affirmation of yours, others will have the opposite response. Great! We have accomplished our goal of opening up discussion and making people think more deeply about their own spiritual journeys. I loved your comment about the importance of a daily prayer life. After all, it is the Spirit who guides us through each day.
As for Whitewave, I quote:
Lyn and Melinda, if you validate the "Eternity in their Hearts" idea, then please consider which "Culture" we are trying to reach here. I think Chris and Benn have a more incarnational feel for it than you guys. You are still talking like America is a Christian Nation. Give it up. If they can get inside this and bring Jesus with them, then they are the ones for this job. I've worked with youth who cuss alot and if you don't just get past it, then you will lose their ear. We can't afford to lose the ears of people who cuss anymore. Personally, I'm glad they are taking the Humor movies so I don't have to. HJ exists to mine the gold out of the gutters. There are some gutters that I'm too squeamish to dig through. Let them do it.
While I do hold to my own opinions without remorse, I totally agree with your assessment that Chris and Benn have a corner on a market that I don't. But, there are many markets. The field is ripe for the harvest and those fields are growing in many, many corners of this nation. There is no overreaching prescription for how to minister and love people, and the tax collectors and prostitutes aren't the only ones in need of ministry. It is ultimately God who draws man to himself, and He does that in a wild variety of ways through vastly different individuals. I couldn't necessarily minister to a victim of child abuse, but give me an alcoholic and I have all the experience, strength and hope in the world to share! Ultimately, God uses each of us (strengths, weaknesses, differences of opinions, life experiences) to show his love to people who don't know him. I think there is great value in respecting the opinions of even the most "narrow-minded" Christians. They have an audience too. Liberal free thinking isn't for everyone. There are thousands of conservative non-christians in the world. We must minister to those God brings to us.
Thank you all for your lively commentaries and interesting perspectives. Admittedly, I have heard some theological ideas this time around that I haven't ever heard before. It's nice to have some new fat to chew. :) I particularly like your idea, Whitewave, that "The bulk of Western Christian history has been built upon the foundation of Reason, but the Origins of it have not." Indeed, there is a mystery to God, one that we have tried to anihilate in favor of understanding everything so that we can further refine our moral code. We do love our rules!
GREG WRIGHT: A very interesting dicussion, which truly highlights one of the strengths of ministries like HJ: the ability of Christians from a wide variety of backgrounds and persuasions to put aside differences in the interest of promoting one thing: Christ.
I, for one, though, am not sure what HJ's readers would get out the roundtable other than that one thing, however. I don't think we've added a great deal to doctrinal awareness. Hopefully, that one thing is enough, though, and I think it is.
It does sadden me that there are parties in our staff who feel isolated from each other, or under attack. Regardless of how we perceive ourselves (conservative, freethinking, liberal -- whatever) I can pretty much guarantee that we are ALL perceived as liberal by the Christian world simply because of our association with the work at HJ.
And this should unite us, because what we are all committed to (or should be, at least, if we understand what we're doing at HJ) is a love for those who are seeking spiritual answers in popular culture. And that's a good thing. That's a yoke we can share equally, and all pull in the same direction, and be confident that everyone's contributing.
My answers to Chris' questions:
1. I can't identify a favorite film satire. In literature, great satires like Swift's "A Modest Proposal" or Heller's "Catch-22" come so close to reflecting reality that the satire is hard for many readers to notice or understand. The humor is very black and ironic, not comedic. Film satires tend to shoot for comedic effect, such that the social commentary is lost or obscured (as in Team America -- I mean, that vomiting sequence is truly hysterical, but what does it have to do with the subject of the movie? Very little.) Satire, by definition, though, is offensive to the social status quo. By and large, however, it's more effective if it avoids gratuitous vulgarity. For example, most adult Americans would benefit from Team America's satirical observations about America's international conduct (both conservative and liberal) -- but precious few outside the younger set could stomach the film's endless sexual gags (which have little or nothing to do with the real subject of the film).
2. What makes ANTHING "R-rated," leaving the issue of comedy aside? As we've seen this year, a movie can get that rating with no nudity or profanity whatever. So it's interesting that the bulk of the response to Chris' second question leapt immediately to issues of language and sexuality. That's illuminating. I forget who made the remark (I think it was Melinda), but the real issue is who we're called to minister to, where, and how. Do we ever want to be assimilated into our missional culture? No. We're always ambassadors of Christ. But we'd darn well better be willing to immerse ourselves in that culture, too. We can't be ambassadors if we don't. My own example would be ministry to pornography addicts. I've been there personally, and there's nothing that can surprise or shock me, so I can be of some benefit for those still in the struggle. But it's a ministry that really requires exposing your mind to filth.
Howzzat?
MIKE FURCHES: Some great insight here Greg and I am in agreement. I think the one thing that set off the discussion in part was the use of comedians that are known for their profanity, at least in some ways. Satire is one of those things that I don't know how to explain how I feel. I have been rebuked by some for enjoying it, but that don't change the fact that I can enjoy good satire. It confuses us and challenges us and that is one of the things that can be good about it.
I totally agree with the comment about the humor being out of place in certain situations. I tried to make illusion to that regarding my enjoyment of the American Pie series, we have to look for ways to share the light and sometimes that is difficult, but not impossible. In life we have to find out what are the "critical" or "requirements" related to our faith. That is not always easy and the reality of it is that one persons point don't make it right for another. I think this is part of what Whitewave was saying, and I would agree with that. (as long as it is not something I believe in!) (Satire intended) :*)
This is going to sound crazy, especially from me, but another thing I think this discussion adds is the value of discernment and of, believe it or not, tolerance. I have so much respect for example for Ben and Chris it is unreal. That goes for everyone at Hollywood Jesus, but for some reason, I think because they challenge the norm, especially Chris and Ben. I remember Ben and Chris posting on some of the threads long before they became a part of the family at HJ. Thinking, where are these guys coming from, sometimes thinking yea, sometimes thinking, huh! But then, kind of like God, they were adopted and became a part of the family, a family where we have much more in common than we have in opposition. Those lessons to be applied to the generality of Humanity, not just Christians, is extremely valuable.
The fact that we sometimes feel different is okay, that is to be expected, we are different, for example I am the only formerly long haired, now bald headed, preacher who was a mental health professional reviewing movies at HJ. Maybe Maurice falls into that category but then I would add that I look more like a white guy and so we are different. Differences and feeligs aren't a bad thing, they can be good and help us identify with who we are.
You also make some great comments regarding the ratings systems. I have found for example the explanation to the ratings as of recent more valuable than the ratings themselves. There always seems to be some leeway in the ratings, but the explanation, violence, nudity, adult humor, those types of things have been fairly consistent.
I refuse to evaluate a movie based just on language. 8 Mile for me was a movie with graphic, but appropriate use of a lot of bad language. It presented a real portrayal for what occurs in the streets of Detroit and other inner cities. Movies that have scenes of sex, violence, whatever for the sake of having it is uncalled for. I don't want to even go back there though, just commenting on your comment about ratings.
I am still interested though in the thoughts of others as to what is good satire. I think that was a part of the question Chris asked. I think on of the things that comes into play is that sometimes good satire appears to be more of a "black comedy." While that is not always the case it appears to be some of the time. To answer my own question though, I would consider Shrek, Shrek 2, both filled with satire, we don't see it that way but think about it, they both have it, and they both have it in a rather respectful and tasteful way.
WHITEWAVE: Greg, Yee-haw. Promoting Christ takes all kinds. How ironical.
I'm pretty sure that the sense of isolation will pass. This is why I love "Fight Club". People have been "putting aside" differences for so long that the pile we have put aside ends up being bigger than what's left. Eventually, even we ourselves end up on the pile, and the remains are a hollow pretense of politeness. I think differences must be brought out, but not destructively or gratuitously. More and more I become convinced that this is almost a lost art. The discipline of debate has ruined the art of conversation. Debate tends to reinforce division - it is a Lawyer's art, after all. Conversation should reinforce engagement and connection. Debate is about the issues. Conversation is about the people. I know this is my spin. That's okay. As long as we stay engaged, the isolation will melt.
Yeah, the shared association helps.
I think any humor that rests on silly, obvious gags is lame. I get so tired of it. But that's my bent. I'm a humor snob.
Language and sex. Hm. He originally questioned "R-rated comedy" with the implied reference to satire. That's it. Interesting indeed. But Chris did set us up, regardless. ;-)
The porn thing is wide open. But there is so little being done. I've tried to get folks to talk openly about sexuality at other web-sites but there is this HUGE avoidance. I understand the titillation factor, but there's alot of room to do good before it gets destructive. Alot! I've talked to guys privately who struggle and there's so much communicating that needs to happen just to decrease the momentum. So much can be accomplished at just that level. I can't get all the way in, but I can be a connection point to the outside. Greg, I'm glad you are there doing the inside work. God, bless you and Jenn for letting it happen.
MATTHEW HILL: Hey all:
I know I'm new, and I know a lot's been said already, but I'd like to briefly throw my hat in this ring. Maybe I can add something to the lack of "doctrinal awareness" Greg mentioned.
To Chris' original question, I also find it hard not to laugh at, say, South Park, Kevin Smith movies, and other R-rated, satirical stuff. And I think God knows when something is funny to us, and "remembers that we are dust." Said differently, it's not the end of the world when we laugh at Chris Rock or Richard Pryor.
That being said, I do think that there's an important distinction to be made. While some may see such entertainment as just entertainment, I believe God calls us to do just what Chris implied: glean the positive from the negative. No, of course there's no list of "bad words" in the Bible, but that doesn't mean that there isn't culturally taboo language that God says, implicitly, to steer clear of. The Bible says to watch out for "coarse joking" and "useless chatter." But, getting back to the point, it also says to "test everything and keep what's good." In other words, Christians can be consumers of all media, but I believe our role is that of discerners, not simple receivers. Entertainment must not be just entertainment to a follower of Christ, because we're called to more.
So, can I listen to Eminem? Of course. Can I bob my head along? I think so. Can I treat it just as entertainment, and not think Christianly about it? Or not see it differently than the world at large? I don't think so--not if I want to do what the Bible says to do.
Well, there's my hat. It's mine, and I like it, and I think it makes sense--as much as I respect other hats. I agree with the people that've said we're really agreeing more than disagreeing. At the end, it's all about Jesus--the accoutrements of that is where it gets tricky, and that's what these questions are about.
It's an honor, by the way, to be a part of HJ.com with all of you.
WHITEWAVE: The way conversation happens is of extreme interest to me. Topics are great and I can contribute to many, but I think it's more important to converse in such a way that does not damage relationship than to be right. Being right is overrated. The Church has caused alot of the deafness that this Culture now has because it put too much importance on being right. Wasn't that part of the point about loving the enemy? So I'll get into the ring with fellow Believers before I ever get defensive or offensive with Unbelievers.
Did you read that interview with Ian McKellen over in the LOTR section? I felt for him! I'm gonna go comment on that later, when I have time. He has been conditioned to react that way by us. I've said this a thousand times; I'm not ashamed of the Gospel, but sometimes I'm ashamed of the Church.
I know that Chris and Benn are Believers, but they will represent the Unbeliever's pov more. It's my Momma Bear instinct, I guess.
MAURICE BROADDUS: i was going to sit out this roundtable, but then the rallying cry to bald men went out (ah, the days of my high top fade are long behind me).
to answer the original questions:
1. some of the best/my favorite satires are "heathers", "dr. strangelove", and "blazing saddles". i don't think satire can be good satire if it does pull punches. there is more than a measure of black comedy to them, so the humor isn't often broad. tasteful, however, is in the eye of the beholder more often than not. i mean, "heathers" makes light of the teenage group think mentality by making suicide the cool thing to do.
2. we live in an r-rated world. we have an r-rated bible. let's not kid ourselves. as "the passion of the christ" illustrates, many of the stories that we would make from the bible would draw an r-rating. that being said, "team america" was originally nc-17, until they cut down some of the marionette sex (when was the last time any of us had to use the phrase 'marionette sex'?). but the ratings system is a joke. as trey and matt (the creators of "team america") complained about, not only was the rating for their movie in the hands of basically one woman, but more often than not, a large studio can just make a call and have its ratings adjusted.
my whole life is one precarious balancing act. i am a scientist by vocation and training. i am a horror writer. i will be entering the ministry field full time next year as part of a pastoring team for a new church. there are stories that i tell that require strong language to stay true to the characters. if i am doing my job as a writer, i am staying true to the demands of the story. it's not about having the talent to not use profanity, sometimes it's about having the talent to know when (and when not) to use profanity (or sex, or violence, or whatever the debate of the moment is). i tend to approach stories, movies, and television much as i would people: meet them where they are and try to build bridges.
bad language, again, is in the eye of the beholder to a high degree. i use the word "bloody" every so often. nothing to you guys probably, but many of my family, myself included, is from england. "bloody" is the equivalent of dropping the f-bomb. just like me using the word "bomboclot" might amuse you (it does sound funny out loud), but, much of my family also being from jamaica, that's the height of vulgarity. i am in the middle of preaching a two part sermon called "putting your life back together after its been blown to crap", a deliberately provocative title. but it gave me the excuse to remind people that philipians 3:8, the word is today translated "rubbish", in the king james translated as "dung", and in reading the passage, i dare say that paul was trying to be as shocking as possible to make his point. [another example would be in the song of songs. not to be too crass, but i doubt that a woman's "navel" is what the author to never lack "blended wine"].
we do need to wrestle with what the bible has to say about coarseness (probably sexual joking) and unwholesome talk. but we also need to know that some words are bad because society has deemed them so (if i remember right, the s-word used to be perfectly acceptable, but because a certain people group used it, the majority people group deemed it offensive. i think this was one of those brit things.) i think this goes back to balancing meeting people where they are, while staying true to your conscience. your conscience, not mine.
yeah, sometimes i feel like i'm at odds--not isolated, per se--with some of you, too. i am heartened by the fact that we can continue to disagree with one another while still accepting one another. i want you ALL to know that i hold you in the highest regard.
peace and i'm out,
MARK EZRA STOKES: Wow.
For the last hour-and-a-half, I've been offended, excited and completely enamoured by the things I've read on this roundtable discussion--things, I might add, that seem less and less about TEAM AMERICA the further we go.
I haven't seen the movie, so I can't contribute much there. I don't read enough theology, philosophy or satire to even come close to hanging with y'all, so I'm not gonna try that either.
What I wanted to say is that THIS is the body of Christ.
I've strongly agreed with and disagreed with bits of things every one of you has said, and I find that incredibly enlightening and faith-building. I realize my post won't contribute much new information, but I just needed to let out my admiration for the earnestness with which all of you pursue the truth of Christ.
I realize only about two or three of you even know who I am, so all this might not mean much. I'm just a fairweather film critic and a stupid kid with much to learn, but I have been inspired today. Thank you. Thank ALL of you.
I envision the day in Heaven when all of the HJ gang gets together for the first time, unfolds a circle of holy metal chairs and goes at it. When you continue to openly express your differences as has been shown now. And when it's all over, you embrace and shed tears of joy over the God who brought each one of you together. And there I'll be: Hiding somewhere between Mike and Whitewave, my head spinning from all the insight with the biggest, goofiest grin on my face--a grin I'll maintain for eternity.
Again, thanks, Mark Ezra Stokes
P.S. You don't have to debate the unlikelyhood of having folding chairs in Heaven. That's just what I saw in my head.
WHITEWAVE:
LOL,
I just got the funniest picture in my head too. All ya need for a meeting is a coffee pot and a resentment, ay, Mel?
"Hi, my name is _________ and I'm a recovering film critic." "Hi, _________."
It's gonna be good!
GREG WRIGHT: Mark, that is one of the most beautiful things I have read in a long time. My emotions are pretty close to the surface these days, but I'm pretty sure that would have brought tears to my eyes on just about any day. It's a vision I truly long for...
Post a Comment
<< Home