Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
I’ve written on this topic here at PB once before, and due to a recent thread on TV and Film (shut down, as these sort of threads often are, due to a conscience-binding type of legalism that flares up, even if unintentionally), I have been thinking about it again, two years after my earlier dealing with the subject.
I read the article by Beeke on television posted in that shut-down thread, and also listened to the sermon by David Murray on movies. Both of these items were very powerful in their presentations. Both had a tendency to bind the conscience, purportedly on the authority of Scripture. But there are larger issues involved if one is to sort out these matters, such as the legitimacy of Art in the light of God’s kingdom, and what is it to love the world, or refrain from loving it?
During a time of prayer I asked the Lord for insight into the legitimacy in His eyes as regards the world’s art. By “the world’s art” I mean the gamut of all art the world produces, from the classics in literature to pulp, from dance and song to film and the graphic arts. Has any of it any worth? Note that I distinguish between art produced in the kingdom of God, and that produced by the world, apart from God. (To keep it simple, I do not want to distinguish between worldly religious art and true spiritual art – save sketchily in the cases of Dante, Dostoevsky, and Solzhenitsyn – so that issue will not be part of this discussion.) I will focus my brief inquiry primarily on language arts and modern graphic arts as seen in graphic novels / comics, and film.
Do Homer’s works – The Iliad and The Odyssey – have any value to the kingdom of God? Or because they are out of the Kingdom are they without worth? How about Virgil’s Aeneid? Or the Greek tragedians? Closer to home: what of Dante’s Commedia? Or Shakespeare (though some do posit he was a Christian)? Nearing our own time, what of Herman Hesse, Franz Kafka, or Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn (these latter two Russian Orthodox, with A.S. strongly anti-Calvinist, though F.D. may have been a believer)?
What I am asking basically, does worldly art have relevance to the Christian? If it shall not endure the purifying conflagration on the Day of the Lord, “in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up” (2 Pet 3:10), then what have they to do with us who shall endure and thrive in the fires of that judgment? Which is not to say there will be no art in the kingdom on New Earth and Heaven, for they are likely included in “the glory and honour of the nations” which is brought into the kingdom of God (Rev 21:26). I have said elsewhere concerning the value of worldly literature, its crafts and themes,
So it is not untoward I inquire concerning the literary art of “the world”. Let me quote the poet and essayist Dana Gioia in his book, Can Poetry Matter: Essays on Poetry and American Culture, from the essay, “The Poet in an Age of Prose”:
In other words, poetry – as “the most concentrated form of verbal expression”, and I include less concentrated prose with it – rely upon a common cultural framework of shared experience to ensure we are “speaking the same language” and are “on the same page”.
This cannot happen if the writer does not know the culture, the history, literature, arts, the whole gestalt of a generation, as well traditions of former generations. To write only within the framework of the subculture of the Christian community – avoiding “the world” of the larger unregenerate community – would have appeal only to those in that subculture, and would not be much as far as art goes, so stunted is the cultural tradition and milieu of the Protestant community. We may have a godly tradition and subculture, but it has not – not yet in this world – been developed into the richness it shall achieve in the everlasting kingdom on New Earth and Heaven. When I say much of the present “evangelical” culture is of little worth, I don’t think I will find much argument there!
Put yet more simply, if a writer wants to engage the larger community – unbelievers and believers – he or she must know the larger cultural heritage and present milieu. This is almost a no-brainer. We may not be of the world, but we are in it, and we should have some cognizance of it so as to communicate to others in it, it being their native frame of reference.
A brief note on usage here: it used to be that a poet was a seer and spokesman of his people, an honored calling of God. But no more – or most rarely.
And so it may be clear that those who desire to communicate deeply with the thought-forms of the larger culture would have some depth knowledge of it, and of its arts. Of which we have mentioned literature. But what of film? Very often the Protestant church has eschewed graphic art – paintings and drawings – of any Biblical subject as detracting from the insights given by the Holy Spirit when simply pondering Scripture. Myself, I will rarely see a film on a Biblical topic because I do not want Hollywood’s images displacing my own imagination while meditating on God’s word. Apart from such concerns, there is nothing at all wrong with paintings and drawings.
But then we come to the newest art form – if it may be called art – and that is moving and auditory graphics: the film art of movies and television. It surely is part of American (and world) culture, and that for around a century. There are those who say, “You should not watch this, it is not of God, but of the world!” Yet this is the case with very much literature, both classics and pulp. I gather there are those who say we should not partake in any of that either, be it philosophy or fantasy. Though one doesn’t hear that case made too often.
The study of classics and of world and national literatures is part of a classical education, which many Reformed people value highly.
But with the films . . . I have a friend back in the states who is almost addicted (perhaps that “almost” is not true) to television, movies, and graphic novels, really up-to-date on the latest, especially fantasies, superheroes, apocalyptic, and the like. It seems it has almost crowded out his life with the Lord. And this is the danger. But the misuse of a thing does not necessarily annul the value of its proper use.
Here in the Middle East my wife and I have lived for 8 years without a functioning television (we were given one as a gift, but it’s not plugged in), and I love living like this. Occasionally I want to know what a TV show is about and I can download an episode and see; or I can rent or borrow a DVD to see a movie I am interested in viewing. As my wife’s caregiving for her late mom (Alzheimer’s) is finished, we are getting ready to eventually return to New York (waiting now for a “green light” from the Lord). I told my wife I don’t want a TV when we return. But I won’t say it is wrong for others to have one. It may have lawful uses.
Now here is where it gets nuanced. Murray in his sermon said, among other points, that one goes to movies to vicariously experience evil things – or it will happen even if it is not one’s intent. And even if one is able to remain untouched by any evil in it, it is still causing weaker brethren to stumble, and is thus a sin against Christ (1 Cor 8:12). This is a view of separation from the world, which no one can doubt we are enjoined to do. There are, however, other views of what separation is. I know another pastor who is an avid moviegoer, and often refers to the movies in his sermons.
I should mention that this latter pastor is evidently of the postmil persuasion, and sees “common grace” as “the ungodly world [being] capable of producing good movies because of the general operation of the Spirit in the hearts of the ungodly by which sin is restrained and the world enabled to do good.” This it seems is a postmil distinctive, this optimism as regards the possibility of goodness in the unregenerate world and its culture. If this were true, it would fall to reason we could participate in the culture – including its cinema – with ease of conscience, seeing as God’s grace (albeit only common) was in it.
This pastor would say we are to maintain our spiritual integrity before God while in the worldly culture, and we are to partner with the culture in working for its good as “the purpose of salvation is to purify the world . . . [and] make the world a great place in which to live”.
Within this eschatological world view there are things permitted which would not be permitted one holding an amillennial (aka presently realized millennium) view, for with the latter there is a fierce – as in unto death – antithesis of purpose and of spirit vis-à-vis the world. Whereas in the former (postmil) the antithesis has been subsumed in the spirit of cooperation for the betterment – the “Christianizing” – of the world. [It should be noted that some postmillers may not hold this attitude to worldly culture.]
It may well be that this postmil attitude regarding culture has unthinkingly rubbed off on some who hold to the amil or historic premil views. If these godly people can do it, they say, surely I can also.
So much for the anatomy of holding hands with the world.
What is it to be separated from the world? Relatedly, what is holiness? Seeing as this latter is a big topic, I shall narrow it down and keep it personal.
Pastor David Murray said, “If separation from the world isn’t not going to the cinema, I don’t know what is!”
What’s so bad about the cinema? Is it because it’s drama enacted by men and women with such technological expertise it is as though real? So that when sin is depicted it has an immense power upon the heart?
Say sexual movies are avoided (or if a scene comes up one turns away quickly), what of violence? Are detective or war movies – with purportedly good guys fighting the bad – wrong? For Christians may be policemen or soldiers. Are fantasy movies evil? With Lord of the Rings, although written by a Roman Catholic, is not an antithesis between good and evil made clear? What objections could be made against LOTR, the movies or the books?
I suppose I’m thinking out loud, and seeking to distill from what I know, and from Scripture in my heart. I’ve been pondering two verses from Psalms since I heard Murray use them in his sermon, 119:37,
and 101:3,
and I asked the Lord to give me clarity of understanding – to lead me in paths of righteousness for His name’s sake.
I do not believe viewing LOTR would violate those. Would Tolkien’s having been a Catholic bear on this? Apart from some abstruse RC symbolism (it is claimed he inserted into the books) are there theological objections to the stories? We might refer to the matter broached in the beginning of this post, re the classics.
Or take another movie, I Am Legend, starring Will Smith. I’m looking at the story and not the actors. It seems that sci fi and fantasy intuit things that so-called realism is dead to. I am referring to the phenomena of zombies now, the living dead. In reality (I speak to Christians, who are supposed to know reality!) what are these but those without the life of God in them, in this life the living dead and in the life to come the undying damned? World literature and myth make of them monsters and project them into the horror genre, out there! – but not in here!, not in the human heart, our human hearts! Spiritually speaking, zombies exist. Another time to talk of vampire and werewolf, except to say that these two are progeny of the zombie, and refer to psychic feeding / relating styles of the walking dead.
At any rate, seeing things as I do, I found I Am Legend quite interesting. The scene near the end with the darkseekers overrunning Will’s safehouse in their violent frenzy brought to mind the lines, “and they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city” (Rev 20:9), “and it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them” (Rev 13:7).
Now, is it sin for me to ponder such stories, knowing they have entered the collective consciousness, and use them for grist in my own mill as I bear witness to this generation? Would it be sin for me to ponder the Greek classics? Or Hesse’s The Glass Bead Game [Magister Ludi], in his depiction of – according to his view – the optimal spiritual character? And to offer a Christian alternative, interacting with Hesse?
I am not convinced it would be. Am I not delving into “the larger cultural heritage and present milieu” of my generation? Okay, not all of you are writers, but the principle still applies: is it not fitting we are aware of the larger culture we are in?
Now if I am given over to watching TV and movies so that I am not only “aware of the culture” but am immersed in it to the point that my awareness of the Lord has been washed away – replaced – by this flood of mostly alien “culture”, then something is deadly wrong.
Awareness of the Lord. Let me talk about that for a moment. I am not talking about sensations or physical perceptions. What I am talking of is a profound assurance in the depths of my being that the truths of His word present what is actual, and actual for me. Do I have no perception or sensation of His presence? That is an illusion of consciousness (and there is a deceiving spirit who is good at so influencing our consciousness), for He has said, “I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Matt 28:20), and “I will never leave you nor forsake you” (Heb 13:5). This profound assurance is deeper than sensation or perception, it is the witness of God’s Spirit that His word is true, and true for me.
This awareness of our Lord’s presence is the portion of all His children:
If we on occasion are bereft of this awareness, we have but to draw near Him in prayer and we know He will draw near us (Ja 4:8; Ps 145:18; 34:18), and we know that all those who come to Him He will in no wise cast out (Jn 6:37), nor will He ever lose such a one (Jn 6:39)!
Of course we fail to keep His commandments, but there is forgiveness with Him, and cleansing, and restoration to His heart.
It is this intimacy with Him, this ongoing walk in His presence by His word, that is our strength and joy, and will be our grace to endure in time of trouble and affliction. It is a wise man or woman who cultivates this awareness of the Lord’s presence; but there are things we may do which diminish our assurance of His nearness. We may deaden our hearts to His life by opening our hearts to the life of the flesh, and the world, and the devil. There is a mutual antipathy – hatred is not too strong a word for it – between the world and its beauty, and the Lord and His. Between Babylon the blood-drooling whore, and the holy Lord whose dignity and majesty are infinite.
So from this point on, I will be very conscious when viewing television programs (which, as I said, I do but rarely) or movies. I will be aware of the Lord’s presence as I do. It is a fine line we walk as we live in the world and are involved in its life and culture, and at the same time walk before our Lord bearing witness to His name and kingdom.
Such are my thoughts at the moment.
I read the article by Beeke on television posted in that shut-down thread, and also listened to the sermon by David Murray on movies. Both of these items were very powerful in their presentations. Both had a tendency to bind the conscience, purportedly on the authority of Scripture. But there are larger issues involved if one is to sort out these matters, such as the legitimacy of Art in the light of God’s kingdom, and what is it to love the world, or refrain from loving it?
During a time of prayer I asked the Lord for insight into the legitimacy in His eyes as regards the world’s art. By “the world’s art” I mean the gamut of all art the world produces, from the classics in literature to pulp, from dance and song to film and the graphic arts. Has any of it any worth? Note that I distinguish between art produced in the kingdom of God, and that produced by the world, apart from God. (To keep it simple, I do not want to distinguish between worldly religious art and true spiritual art – save sketchily in the cases of Dante, Dostoevsky, and Solzhenitsyn – so that issue will not be part of this discussion.) I will focus my brief inquiry primarily on language arts and modern graphic arts as seen in graphic novels / comics, and film.
Do Homer’s works – The Iliad and The Odyssey – have any value to the kingdom of God? Or because they are out of the Kingdom are they without worth? How about Virgil’s Aeneid? Or the Greek tragedians? Closer to home: what of Dante’s Commedia? Or Shakespeare (though some do posit he was a Christian)? Nearing our own time, what of Herman Hesse, Franz Kafka, or Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn (these latter two Russian Orthodox, with A.S. strongly anti-Calvinist, though F.D. may have been a believer)?
What I am asking basically, does worldly art have relevance to the Christian? If it shall not endure the purifying conflagration on the Day of the Lord, “in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up” (2 Pet 3:10), then what have they to do with us who shall endure and thrive in the fires of that judgment? Which is not to say there will be no art in the kingdom on New Earth and Heaven, for they are likely included in “the glory and honour of the nations” which is brought into the kingdom of God (Rev 21:26). I have said elsewhere concerning the value of worldly literature, its crafts and themes,
Does someone object that these are poets of the world we are building upon? Solomon said, “…the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just” (Prov 13:22b), and their labors in the language are indeed treasure, by which we may glorify God and win the hearts of men and women.
So it is not untoward I inquire concerning the literary art of “the world”. Let me quote the poet and essayist Dana Gioia in his book, Can Poetry Matter: Essays on Poetry and American Culture, from the essay, “The Poet in an Age of Prose”:
If poetry represents, as Ezra pound maintained, “the most concentrated form of verbal expression,” it achieves its characteristic concision and intensity by acknowledging how words have been used before. Poems do not exist in isolation but share and exploit the history and literature of the language in which they are written. Although each new poem seeks to create a kind of temporary perfection in and of itself, it accomplishes this goal by recognizing the reader’s lifelong experience with words, images, symbols, stories, sounds, and ideas outside of its own text. By successfully employing the word or image that triggers a particular set of associations, a poem can condense immense amounts of intellectual, sensual, and emotional meaning into a single line or phrase.
When R.P. Blackmur noted that “when a word is used in a poem it should be the sum of all its appropriate history made concrete and particular in the individual context,” he may have sounded abstract and coldly analytical. But Blackmur was a poet as well as a critic, and his observation reflects the practical problems of writing genuine poetry. A poet knows that the reader will bring the sum of his experience in both life and literature to a poem, and the text must bear the weight of that attention. Good poetry never underestimates its readers. It actively seeks their imaginative and intellectual collaboration by assuming and exploiting a common frame of reference.
Judging exactly what constitutes that common framework at any given moment is part of the poet’s task, since any living literary tradition constantly changes. Defining the tradition becomes—implicitly or explicitly—part of the creative act. Composed from that portion of the reader’s cultural experience that a poet can use assumptively as a foundation for new work, this framework constitutes an era’s available tradition. (p. 221)
When R.P. Blackmur noted that “when a word is used in a poem it should be the sum of all its appropriate history made concrete and particular in the individual context,” he may have sounded abstract and coldly analytical. But Blackmur was a poet as well as a critic, and his observation reflects the practical problems of writing genuine poetry. A poet knows that the reader will bring the sum of his experience in both life and literature to a poem, and the text must bear the weight of that attention. Good poetry never underestimates its readers. It actively seeks their imaginative and intellectual collaboration by assuming and exploiting a common frame of reference.
Judging exactly what constitutes that common framework at any given moment is part of the poet’s task, since any living literary tradition constantly changes. Defining the tradition becomes—implicitly or explicitly—part of the creative act. Composed from that portion of the reader’s cultural experience that a poet can use assumptively as a foundation for new work, this framework constitutes an era’s available tradition. (p. 221)
In other words, poetry – as “the most concentrated form of verbal expression”, and I include less concentrated prose with it – rely upon a common cultural framework of shared experience to ensure we are “speaking the same language” and are “on the same page”.
This cannot happen if the writer does not know the culture, the history, literature, arts, the whole gestalt of a generation, as well traditions of former generations. To write only within the framework of the subculture of the Christian community – avoiding “the world” of the larger unregenerate community – would have appeal only to those in that subculture, and would not be much as far as art goes, so stunted is the cultural tradition and milieu of the Protestant community. We may have a godly tradition and subculture, but it has not – not yet in this world – been developed into the richness it shall achieve in the everlasting kingdom on New Earth and Heaven. When I say much of the present “evangelical” culture is of little worth, I don’t think I will find much argument there!
Put yet more simply, if a writer wants to engage the larger community – unbelievers and believers – he or she must know the larger cultural heritage and present milieu. This is almost a no-brainer. We may not be of the world, but we are in it, and we should have some cognizance of it so as to communicate to others in it, it being their native frame of reference.
A brief note on usage here: it used to be that a poet was a seer and spokesman of his people, an honored calling of God. But no more – or most rarely.
Poets who cannot see into hell or Heaven
having no eyes past the senses
who cannot tell the realms beyond
what humans naturally know
are not poets as the seers of old
treasured by their peoples
and feared, vates and bards keeping alive
that knowledge without which men died.
The ones who cannot see are another breed.
having no eyes past the senses
who cannot tell the realms beyond
what humans naturally know
are not poets as the seers of old
treasured by their peoples
and feared, vates and bards keeping alive
that knowledge without which men died.
The ones who cannot see are another breed.
And so it may be clear that those who desire to communicate deeply with the thought-forms of the larger culture would have some depth knowledge of it, and of its arts. Of which we have mentioned literature. But what of film? Very often the Protestant church has eschewed graphic art – paintings and drawings – of any Biblical subject as detracting from the insights given by the Holy Spirit when simply pondering Scripture. Myself, I will rarely see a film on a Biblical topic because I do not want Hollywood’s images displacing my own imagination while meditating on God’s word. Apart from such concerns, there is nothing at all wrong with paintings and drawings.
But then we come to the newest art form – if it may be called art – and that is moving and auditory graphics: the film art of movies and television. It surely is part of American (and world) culture, and that for around a century. There are those who say, “You should not watch this, it is not of God, but of the world!” Yet this is the case with very much literature, both classics and pulp. I gather there are those who say we should not partake in any of that either, be it philosophy or fantasy. Though one doesn’t hear that case made too often.
The study of classics and of world and national literatures is part of a classical education, which many Reformed people value highly.
But with the films . . . I have a friend back in the states who is almost addicted (perhaps that “almost” is not true) to television, movies, and graphic novels, really up-to-date on the latest, especially fantasies, superheroes, apocalyptic, and the like. It seems it has almost crowded out his life with the Lord. And this is the danger. But the misuse of a thing does not necessarily annul the value of its proper use.
Here in the Middle East my wife and I have lived for 8 years without a functioning television (we were given one as a gift, but it’s not plugged in), and I love living like this. Occasionally I want to know what a TV show is about and I can download an episode and see; or I can rent or borrow a DVD to see a movie I am interested in viewing. As my wife’s caregiving for her late mom (Alzheimer’s) is finished, we are getting ready to eventually return to New York (waiting now for a “green light” from the Lord). I told my wife I don’t want a TV when we return. But I won’t say it is wrong for others to have one. It may have lawful uses.
Now here is where it gets nuanced. Murray in his sermon said, among other points, that one goes to movies to vicariously experience evil things – or it will happen even if it is not one’s intent. And even if one is able to remain untouched by any evil in it, it is still causing weaker brethren to stumble, and is thus a sin against Christ (1 Cor 8:12). This is a view of separation from the world, which no one can doubt we are enjoined to do. There are, however, other views of what separation is. I know another pastor who is an avid moviegoer, and often refers to the movies in his sermons.
I should mention that this latter pastor is evidently of the postmil persuasion, and sees “common grace” as “the ungodly world [being] capable of producing good movies because of the general operation of the Spirit in the hearts of the ungodly by which sin is restrained and the world enabled to do good.” This it seems is a postmil distinctive, this optimism as regards the possibility of goodness in the unregenerate world and its culture. If this were true, it would fall to reason we could participate in the culture – including its cinema – with ease of conscience, seeing as God’s grace (albeit only common) was in it.
This pastor would say we are to maintain our spiritual integrity before God while in the worldly culture, and we are to partner with the culture in working for its good as “the purpose of salvation is to purify the world . . . [and] make the world a great place in which to live”.
Within this eschatological world view there are things permitted which would not be permitted one holding an amillennial (aka presently realized millennium) view, for with the latter there is a fierce – as in unto death – antithesis of purpose and of spirit vis-à-vis the world. Whereas in the former (postmil) the antithesis has been subsumed in the spirit of cooperation for the betterment – the “Christianizing” – of the world. [It should be noted that some postmillers may not hold this attitude to worldly culture.]
It may well be that this postmil attitude regarding culture has unthinkingly rubbed off on some who hold to the amil or historic premil views. If these godly people can do it, they say, surely I can also.
So much for the anatomy of holding hands with the world.
What is it to be separated from the world? Relatedly, what is holiness? Seeing as this latter is a big topic, I shall narrow it down and keep it personal.
Pastor David Murray said, “If separation from the world isn’t not going to the cinema, I don’t know what is!”
What’s so bad about the cinema? Is it because it’s drama enacted by men and women with such technological expertise it is as though real? So that when sin is depicted it has an immense power upon the heart?
Say sexual movies are avoided (or if a scene comes up one turns away quickly), what of violence? Are detective or war movies – with purportedly good guys fighting the bad – wrong? For Christians may be policemen or soldiers. Are fantasy movies evil? With Lord of the Rings, although written by a Roman Catholic, is not an antithesis between good and evil made clear? What objections could be made against LOTR, the movies or the books?
I suppose I’m thinking out loud, and seeking to distill from what I know, and from Scripture in my heart. I’ve been pondering two verses from Psalms since I heard Murray use them in his sermon, 119:37,
Turn away mine eyes from beholding vanity; and quicken thou me in thy way.
and 101:3,
I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me.
and I asked the Lord to give me clarity of understanding – to lead me in paths of righteousness for His name’s sake.
I do not believe viewing LOTR would violate those. Would Tolkien’s having been a Catholic bear on this? Apart from some abstruse RC symbolism (it is claimed he inserted into the books) are there theological objections to the stories? We might refer to the matter broached in the beginning of this post, re the classics.
Or take another movie, I Am Legend, starring Will Smith. I’m looking at the story and not the actors. It seems that sci fi and fantasy intuit things that so-called realism is dead to. I am referring to the phenomena of zombies now, the living dead. In reality (I speak to Christians, who are supposed to know reality!) what are these but those without the life of God in them, in this life the living dead and in the life to come the undying damned? World literature and myth make of them monsters and project them into the horror genre, out there! – but not in here!, not in the human heart, our human hearts! Spiritually speaking, zombies exist. Another time to talk of vampire and werewolf, except to say that these two are progeny of the zombie, and refer to psychic feeding / relating styles of the walking dead.
At any rate, seeing things as I do, I found I Am Legend quite interesting. The scene near the end with the darkseekers overrunning Will’s safehouse in their violent frenzy brought to mind the lines, “and they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city” (Rev 20:9), “and it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them” (Rev 13:7).
Now, is it sin for me to ponder such stories, knowing they have entered the collective consciousness, and use them for grist in my own mill as I bear witness to this generation? Would it be sin for me to ponder the Greek classics? Or Hesse’s The Glass Bead Game [Magister Ludi], in his depiction of – according to his view – the optimal spiritual character? And to offer a Christian alternative, interacting with Hesse?
I am not convinced it would be. Am I not delving into “the larger cultural heritage and present milieu” of my generation? Okay, not all of you are writers, but the principle still applies: is it not fitting we are aware of the larger culture we are in?
Now if I am given over to watching TV and movies so that I am not only “aware of the culture” but am immersed in it to the point that my awareness of the Lord has been washed away – replaced – by this flood of mostly alien “culture”, then something is deadly wrong.
Awareness of the Lord. Let me talk about that for a moment. I am not talking about sensations or physical perceptions. What I am talking of is a profound assurance in the depths of my being that the truths of His word present what is actual, and actual for me. Do I have no perception or sensation of His presence? That is an illusion of consciousness (and there is a deceiving spirit who is good at so influencing our consciousness), for He has said, “I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Matt 28:20), and “I will never leave you nor forsake you” (Heb 13:5). This profound assurance is deeper than sensation or perception, it is the witness of God’s Spirit that His word is true, and true for me.
This awareness of our Lord’s presence is the portion of all His children:
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him” (Jn 14:21)
If we on occasion are bereft of this awareness, we have but to draw near Him in prayer and we know He will draw near us (Ja 4:8; Ps 145:18; 34:18), and we know that all those who come to Him He will in no wise cast out (Jn 6:37), nor will He ever lose such a one (Jn 6:39)!
Of course we fail to keep His commandments, but there is forgiveness with Him, and cleansing, and restoration to His heart.
It is this intimacy with Him, this ongoing walk in His presence by His word, that is our strength and joy, and will be our grace to endure in time of trouble and affliction. It is a wise man or woman who cultivates this awareness of the Lord’s presence; but there are things we may do which diminish our assurance of His nearness. We may deaden our hearts to His life by opening our hearts to the life of the flesh, and the world, and the devil. There is a mutual antipathy – hatred is not too strong a word for it – between the world and its beauty, and the Lord and His. Between Babylon the blood-drooling whore, and the holy Lord whose dignity and majesty are infinite.
So from this point on, I will be very conscious when viewing television programs (which, as I said, I do but rarely) or movies. I will be aware of the Lord’s presence as I do. It is a fine line we walk as we live in the world and are involved in its life and culture, and at the same time walk before our Lord bearing witness to His name and kingdom.
Such are my thoughts at the moment.