Christian Actors and the 3rd Commandment

[he beholds]

I cannot see how the Lord's name can only be pretended to be taken in vain.

1 Cor 12:3, "Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit."

Gasp! How can Paul write those words with a clear conscience?! He placed himself in the "ROLE" of a blasphemer and uttered what he would have said!

Far be it from us to say that the Apostle has sinned under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Again, this superficial logic assumes that the existence of the words themselves, whether written or spoken, are sin. It has been sufficiently demonstrated that that is not always the case; the words can be uttered in a non sinful way. It looks like we'll have to just have to disagree on this, cause we're going in circles here.

You guys are right about the sin that abounds in the movie industry, and I have always agreed (although it's not the point of thread). But sin abounds in every industry where there are sinful people. We live in a totally depraved world, what did you expect? In what work environment is there no temptation at all to sin? Should Christians not be soldiers, or lawyers, or artists? In my opinion, it's too bad that Christians run away from it and retreat into the desert as they have always done in order to get away from the defilement of the world, rather than engaging the culture and redeeming it.

What??? Paul is not speaking in vain, so he is not sinning. That's an easy one. It would not be in vain for an actor to say, "No one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!" nor for me to say it, nor anyone else. Talking about God does not have to be in vain. We talk about him all the time. Using his name when you aren't really talking about him or when you are blaspheming him is. If an actor is told to say something bad about God or swear using his name, it would be the same as if you or I were to do it. He doesn't get immunity from pretending to be someone else. If it is something that you would consider to be sinful in real life, then it's still sinful if you were to REALLY do it on a stage. Either you really speak or you don't, when acting. That's why this is different than the mere depiction of other sins.

 

[steadfast7]

I cannot see how the Lord's name can only be pretended to be taken in vain.

1 Cor 12:3, "Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit."

Gasp! How can Paul write those words with a clear conscience?! He placed himself in the "ROLE" of a blasphemer and uttered what he would have said!

Far be it from us to say that the Apostle has sinned under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Again, this superficial logic assumes that the existence of the words themselves, whether written or spoken, are sin. It has been sufficiently demonstrated that that is not always the case; the words can be uttered in a non sinful way. It looks like we'll have to just have to disagree on this, cause we're going in circles here.

You guys are right about the sin that abounds in the movie industry, and I have always agreed (although it's not the point of thread). But sin abounds in every industry where there are sinful people. We live in a totally depraved world, what did you expect? In what work environment is there no temptation at all to sin? Should Christians not be soldiers, or lawyers, or artists? In my opinion, it's too bad that Christians run away from it and retreat into the desert as they have always done in order to get away from the defilement of the world, rather than engaging the culture and redeeming it.

What??? Paul is not speaking in vain, so he is not sinning. That's an easy one. It would not be in vain for an actor to say, "No one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!" nor for me to say it, nor anyone else. Talking about God does not have to be in vain. We talk about him all the time. Using his name when you aren't really talking about him or when you are blaspheming him is.

OK, we're getting somewhere. At least you admit that there are times when the words themselves do not constitute blasphemy. A proper context of sin is required. But now, your reading of the passage is too superficial, and your argument depends on your own definition of the term "in vain." Paul does not simply say, "Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever blasphemes Christ". No, he actually goes so far as to give an example of a string of words that would come out of a blasphemer's mouth. Of course he doesn't mean the words, he is placing himself in the role of a blasphemer and hypothetically saying what a blasphemer would say. He is, in a very real sense, "pretending". But he is obviously not taking the Lord's name in vain.

If an actor is told to say something bad about God or swear using his name, it would be the same as if you or I were to do it.

If you understand the industry, you'll know that the actor is almost never told to come up with his own lines from his own free thoughts about the topic, nor is he coerced into doing something wrong. He interprets a carefully written script and forms a character's voice and mannerism and delivers lines in a very rehearsed and mechanical way. So no, he is not "told to sin"; that's a straw man.

He doesn't get immunity from pretending to be someone else. If it is something that you would consider to be sinful in real life, then it's still sinful if you were to REALLY do it on a stage. Either you really speak or you don't, when acting. That's why this is different than the mere depiction of other sins.

In the same way, either Paul really wrote those words or didn't, and he doesn't get immunity just because he's an apostle (according to your logic).

 

[he beholds]

Paul did not pretend to be someone else. For that to happen, Paul would have had to say the words without citing them.

 

[steadfast7]

A quote attempts to speak as another person, not yourself. The analogy is not perfect relative to screen acting, but it's not an entirely separate category altogether - the point is that the person speaking is not speaking on his own behalf, using his own thoughts.

 

[kvanlaan]

Dennis, it honestly seems as though you are kicking against the pricks, to some extent. There is no valid reason to blaspheme and misuse God's name in any situation. Why push the envelope? This is turning into a Sabbath thread of 'how much can I do for me before I am sinning unto God on His day?' If we would just look at Isaiah:

If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, [from] doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking [thine own] words:

... and then apply that attitude to this topic, it is simple: Revere God's name! As per the confession previously quoted, is it used in fear and reverence? Then great! If not, if there is a grey area that would suggest that you may be sinning against the God who accepts your wretched and sinful self and whose son drew you to Himself in spite of your hatred of God, then simply don't do it and don't tinker with the possibility of exceptions which may be just slightly on the OK side of not sinning. Instead, we delight in honoring the Lord, and not seek after our own pleasure in possibly abusing the most Holy name of the most high and for no better reason than our entertainment.

I simply cannot accept Paul's words being brought into this, as he was speaking through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and the script writers are not.

 

[steadfast7]

Thanks for the exhortation, but I'm merely trying to think as deeply into this as possible lest we charge a Christian actor of sinning, which I believe is serious as well. Obviously I'm not suggesting that Paul took God's name in vain, because I believe he was functioning within the category of the hypothetical example and not in the category of wilful blasphemy. While I wholeheartedly agree that we should revere God's name at all times, if argued too narrowly, as has been argued on this thread, it disallows even the biblical authors to give any examples of blasphemy.

I've yet to hear anyone comment satisfyingly on the practical example I offered regarding Bob, the Sunday scripture reader, who reads "It is by Beelzebub that he casts out demons!" and does it "in character" as it were, inflecting his tone and voice to portray the pompous expression of the Pharisee. Has Bob insulted Jesus? Is the only reason why his reading is OK because it's Scripture, and not some other kind of writing, like a script? Does this passage need to be recited verbatim in order for the reader to be in the clear? What if the Preacher were to expound on it and say a similar line or two in character as well in order to illustrate the scene, as preachers often do? That's beginning to push the permissible boundaries too, according to this reasoning? because he'd both be acting, and using his own words and creativity!

I'd like to see something more consistent and universal than to dismiss all Biblical descriptions of sex, murder and blasphemy as OK, only because it's a spiritual document and others are not. I'd like to see reasoning that applies the example of Scripture, rather than focussing on the phenomenon of Scripture.

 

[kvanlaan]

it disallows even the biblical authors to give any examples of blasphemy.

But that's one area where I think we clarified it - we should indeed argue this very narrowly, but biblical authors, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, are able to give examples of blasphemy. However, that can never be said for an actor. I think we can read scripture, even in a dramatic way, and stay within the bounds of this argument, but beyond that is highly questionable.

 

[steadfast7]

it disallows even the biblical authors to give any examples of blasphemy.

But that's one area where I think we clarified it - we should indeed argue this very narrowly, but biblical authors, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, are able to give examples of blasphemy. However, that can never be said for an actor. I think we can read scripture, even in a dramatic way, and stay within the bounds of this argument, but beyond that is highly questionable.

I think it's still quite unclear. What about extemporaneous paraphrases of a character's words during preaching? What about dynamic equivalent translations that render the blasphemy differently? These are departures as well. Also, what is the sola scriptura criteria that says all blasphemies are violations, except for the ones that scripture itself echoes. Isn't it more consistent and more reverent to suggest that the Holy Spirit does not inspire blasphemies at all, and examples of such in Scripture are not blasphemies - they are either reports, or hypothetical examples of blasphemies, not to be confused with blasphemy proper ?

---------- Post added at 07:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:58 PM ----------

just for the record, I do agree with you all that taking on these roles and indulging in this form of entertainment will likely lead to sin in a majority of cases - not because of a 3rd commandment violation, but because of other issues discussed, like violations of conscience, stumbling the church, giving support to godless/unedifying themes, etc. Just wanted to be clear, once again, I'm not giving my seal of approval on everything coming out of hollywood, or the stage.

 

[kvanlaan]

Also, what is the sola scriptura criteria that says all blasphemies are violations, except for the ones that scripture itself echoes.

Well, then that very post would end the discussion, would it not?