From: Matt Oquist <moquist AT css DOT tayloru DOT edu>
To: <removed by me>
Cc: 
Bcc: 
Subject: your article in the Echo
Reply-To: 
X-Mailer: Mutt http://www.mutt.org/
X-Editor: Vim http://www.vim.org/

Dear <removed by me>,

Though my email address hails you from Taylor's computer science
department, I am actually an alumnus.  (class of 2001)  My sister Katie
is currently a student, and she clipped your recently published Letter
to the Editor and sent it to me.

I read your letter with great interest, because I underwent an enormous
transition in my understanding and perspective of the arts during my
time at Taylor.

If you would, please consider my response to your article.

> It seems that the general consensus is that it is ok to watch
> whatever one can "handle," if they find the good moral value(s) in the
> movie.  Yet there are others who make no excuses for the things they
> watch.  They just claim that it won't affect them, so they can watch
> whatever they want.
> I belong to a quiety minority at Taylor.  It is made up of people who
> censor what they watch and what they listen to.

As I said, my view on this issue has changed dramatically in recent
years.  When I entered Taylor, I was firmly in your camp.  Before I left
home I purged my CD collection of the handful of "secular" albums I
owned, and I burned the VHS cassettes of *most* of my movies.  (That
was 3 or so cassettes.  :-)

After reading your letter, I realized that there are three clearly
divided categories of Christians.  There are those like yourself (the
"Censors"), who tightly censor themselves.  There are others (the
"Liberals") who claim to have a "higher understanding" of some sort that
somehow justifies breaking those censorship rules, or sidesteps them
completely.  Then there is a middle group (the "Compromisers"),
comprised of people who live like the Liberals but without the "higher
understanding" the Liberals boast.

Your first few sentences outline the ideas and practices of each of
these three groups.

> I am consistently mocked for this conviction and called legalistic.
> This is because I have set a hard rule for myself and I make no
> exceptions...I never thought that I would be mocked at a conservative
> Christian school for being conservative, and that conservativness is
> based on conviction, not on legalism.

This mockery is a great pity.  I can't do anything but apologize on behalf of
others for it.

As far as claims of legalism go, in some sense the word does apply to you.  It
should, however, apply to *every* Christian in precisely the same way.  It
doesn't apply very well, unfortunately, because Christians are generally as
hypocritical as anyone else, and because (in this case) we have the middle
camp of Compromisers, who are (with sincerity) living according to rules they
do not understand.

The fact that your conservatism is mocked at a conservative school is only
evidence that you are, for some reason, significantly more conservative than
your peers.  You can react to this in two ways: you can tighten your mind and
heart, remaining convinced that your view is correct, or you can open your
mind and heart, with willingness to consider whether or not your view is
true.  If you rationally and biblically test the alternatives and your view is
right, then you've gained an appreciation for others' views, and you're back
to your starting point.  If you test the alternatives and your view is wrong
in some way, then you've discovered truth that was hitherto hidden from you.

> First, people say that they learn good moral values and life lessons in
> between the questionable sections of movies.  I dare say that I don't need
> to go to questionable movies to learn these life lessons.  I could learn
> a great life lesson sitting in a homeless shelter, talking with a homeless
> person, investing three hours in that homeless person's life, rather than
> sitting in a dark movie theatre for three hours.

Might I ask why you are spending more than $20,000 per year to learn lessons
in a Christian liberal arts college?  Could you not do more practical good in
one of the world's countless shelters for the poor?  If you are like
I was, you may not have a convincing answer for that question.
I won't pretend to give much of an answer here, but I will strongly
refer you to Arthur F. Holmes's "The Idea of a Christian College".
Holmes was the chair of Wheaton's philosophy department for years, and
he very effectively articulates the biblical *mandate* for the Church
to have people in liberal arts colleges.

That may seem to be an unrelated point, but in exactly the same way
the Church has a biblical mandate to invest itself in the creative
arts including film, literature, painting, sculpting, music, and all
the rest.  I will refer you to other sources to investigate the topic
further, but here is the argument in a nutshell:

Human persons are made in the image of God.  In Genesis 1:27 we read
the following:

    So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he
    created him; male and female he created them.

Much thought has been invested in understanding what it means that we
are created "in the image of God".  While I think it means far more
than this, let us consider the context of that statement.  To this
point in Genesis, we know one primary, overwhelming thing about God:
he is the Creator.  For the author to say that we are "made in His
image" may mean other things, but it most certainly indicates that our
creativity is one of the most fundamental aspects of our living
imagery of God.  We read in Matthew 25:14-30 and Luke 19:12-27 about
our responsibilities of stewardship.  Jesus says very plainly that
those who fail to invest the gifts given by the Master will suffer the
consequences.  Christ is also referring to far more than just our
creative gifts, but what he says applies to them as well.  For the
church to fail to excercise its creative gifts is to squander what God
has given us as creatures imaged after Him.  It is to deny the worth
of an aspect of His being.

Art is therefore *inherently* valueable.  Involvement in the arts in
general never needs separate justification for the Christian; it is
part of reflecting the glory of the one true Creator.

The perspective you assume in your letter reflects an extra-biblical
moralist tradition.  Forgive me if I am wrong, but I would guess that
you believe observing nudity, violence, and/or profanity is sinful.
There is a strong conservative Christian sub-culture/tradition that
espouses these principles, which are frequently confused with
teachings from the Bible.  You quote Matthew 6:22-23 in your letter,
but unfortunately it does not apply to the issue at hand.  Profanity,
nudity, and violence are not *inherently* sinful things to observe,
either in real life or in art.

Now, if observing any of those things causes *you* to sin (and lust is
the most obvious pitfall here), that is cause for concern, and cause
to avoid certain movies (or certain movie scenes).  But if you
recognize that such observances are not inherently sinful, what reason
have we left to condemn them for all Christians, carte blanche?

> It is amusing to think many people on the campus are apalled when
> their friends swear but don't even blink when their favorite actors
> or actresses swear on the big screen.

This is an interesting point, and I would challenge you to prove that
swearing (without using the Lord's name in vain, or committing
corresponding sins like vengefulness or jealousy) is inherently
sinful.

> ...many are not fazed when they hear the Lord's name used in
> a non-glorifying manner

That is a problem; such language is clearly in violation of scripture.

I was shocked when Walt Campbell used the s-word in my wing Bible
study during my freshman year.  Then I realized that what he was
describing *deserved* that word.  He wasn't belittling anyone or using
the word gratuitously; he was calling some issues of sin what they
were.  And though the word stung in my sheltered ear, it was not in
violation of scripture and it emphasized his meaning just like he
intended.

But I have distracted myself...

> Others claim that if a movie has artistic merit or if it is funny,
> that makes it ok to watch.  The fact that a movie contains
> objectionable scenes and has artistic merit or is funny does not
> condone the objectionable material.

But for the Christian, artistic merit (broadly understood) is the only
criterion by which a movie can stand or fall.  If it contains
depictions that cause viewers to sin, then that is an artistic
criticism, and a reason to stay away.  If no sin is committed by you
while viewing a film, then watching the film was not sinful for you,
assuming that you are a proper steward of your time.

> Some claim that movies teach them about society and allow them to
> better witness to those in society.

This justification is pragmatically focused, and flawed on that
account.  Pragmatism is a concern for Christians far after moral
concerns have been answered.  You are right to criticise this view,
which is probably sincerely given but nonetheless flawed.

> I believe some movies that students on our campus are watching, some
> shown publicly in campus buildings, are not only morally wrong, but
> also sinful for Christians to be watching, no matter what your
> emotional constitution can take.

But that is precisely the issue; if your right hand causes you to sin,
don't watch it.  But if your right hand does not cause to sin, then
enjoy your freedom in Christ.

> If you watch these movies it is between you and God

Yes!

> ...but please don't mock and make fun of those who avoid watching
> these movies based on biblical conviction.

Mockery is always out of place, but I am deeply convinced that your
convictions, sincere as they are, are not biblical.

If you've actually read to this point of my email, I applaud you.
That shows an open-mindedness that few conservative Christians have.

I refer you to the following sources for more exploration of a proper
Christian understanding of art:

Addicted to Mediocrity: 20th Century Christians and the Arts, by
Franky Shchaeffer
 -- This book has accurately been described as a "pompous rant", but
    he identifies the issues compellingly.

The Liberated Imagination: Thinking Christianly About the Arts, by
Leland Ryken
 -- Ryken is currently a professor at Wheaton, and this book is
    well-written and fairly comprehensive, though it does not quite
    address all the necessary issues to relate to the most
    conservative Christians

In addition, I would humbly refer you to a paper I've written on the
subject myself.  I wrote it over a 5 month period from November of
2001 to March of 2002.  I wrote it primarily for myself, to sort
through my ideas and document my perspective and my journey.  Only
a handful of people have read it.  It is long and rigorous, so it's
not reading material for a lazy Sunday afternoon.  Hopefully, though,
it is compelling to someone like yourself, in whom I see so many
traits of whom I used to be.

http://www.css.tayloru.edu/~moquist/ca.pdf

I have a burden to engage Christians of all ages and perspectives in
dialogue on this subject, so I will be happy to correspond with you on
this topic to whatever degree you desire it.  If you disagree with me,
tell me why, and if we're both open to new ideas, perhaps we can both
learn something from each other.

in Christ,
Matt Oquist


--