The Cinema regarded as sin?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rufus

Puritan Board Junior
I've come across the notion (historically) of the cinema being sinful. Although I've found few if any Puritanboard members having problems with watching movies. I was wondering why it was regarded as sinful, why it isn't, and how the change in opinion regarding it happened?
 
I was going to post a thread soon on the same subject! Mainly, I was planning on seeking clarification. It seems to me (and this is part of what I wanted clarified) the main arguments against movie watching tend to be (though not necessarily all from the same source) (1) drama is sinful in some way (which is usually clarified to people acting out sin being sinful), (2) it being sinful to behold sin (and I think that is usually qualified to beholding sin as recreation or entertainment), and (3) it is a complete waste of a Christian's time. Other old arguments include all sorts of things which strike me as strange but make me wonder whether it's just because I live in a different time from them. Examples of such include that all sorts of unbelievers and people one would not wish to associate with go to the theater so the Christian should avoid it and that a Christian could not seriously ask God's blessing on their theater watching and that a Christian cannot be in a mind to pray after going to the theater. I also remember an argument that stated most dramatic productions were/are so corrupt so all should be avoided in order to avoid the "appearance of evil."

The main arguments for theater watching being fine is that the arguments against theater watching end up in absurdity--usually by a comparison with (1) what Scripture portrays (e.g., portraying fiction, drama, and evil), (2) the evil portrayed in fiction, raising the question of whether fiction of any kind is allowable--even such things as Pilgrim's Progress or some kinds of religious poetry, (3) movies that portray evil in an appropriate manner, (4) people doing drama in other things such as in reading Scripture, books to their kids, or singing even, and (5) what to do with various literature that currently permeates our education system (which is often composed of things that portray evil and portray it wrongfully). Which arguments apply depend on how the other person argues against stage plays. For example, if the position is argued only on the basis of the portrayal of evil, it can be reasonably countered that Scripture is the only thing that can portray evil with the proper perspective, and one would not have to worry about arguing that imitating evil as an actor is evil, so (1) in this paragraph wouldn't apply.

Personally, I often wonder what can be objectively considered a complete waste of time; surely watching a good movie is no more a waste of time than reading some piece of literature or work of a pagan philosopher. I also wonder what would be done about cartoons and animations which involve no drama nor actors imitating evil. Although having said all that, I suppose it's fair to mention that I do have sympathies with the "no movie" view and am open to change.

Here's one work by Samuel Miller on the stage that I've been referred to on more than one occasion. I guess I'll be watching this thread!
 
Last edited:
I do not consider watching good films a waste of time any more than I consider reading Anna Karenina a waste of time.
 
I do not consider watching good films a waste of time any more than I consider reading Anna Karenina a waste of time.

Agreed. It's too easy (and in my opinion lazy) to simply slap a carte blanche label of "evil" on a medium, rather than exercising discernment as to the particulars found within that medium.

Same thing with music: you need to take each song/artist on a case by case basis. There is heavy music I love to listen to, and country/pop that I won't touch with a ten foot pole, based on what's being promoted in the song.
 
(1) drama is sinful in some way (which is usually clarified to people acting out sin being sinful), (2) it being sinful to behold sin (and I think that is usually qualified to beholding sin as recreation or entertainment), and (3) it is a complete waste of a Christian's time.

I don't watch a lot of movies but it is not because of #1 or #3, although #3 could be true if it was an inordinate amount. However, #2 is for the most part why I don't watch hardly any movies. There are not a lot of modern movies that don't glorify sin, so as a result I don't watch many. I don't think there is anything inherently sinful about the concept of movies or TV for that matter but due to content, I don't get to enjoy hardly any, which is a shame.
 
There is no biblical rule that requires abstinence from "cinema."

There are, however, biblical principles and commandments that apply to movie going as to many areas of life.

There is much pop culture worldly garbage marketed as entertainment that a Christian ought abstain from.

Is the content geared toward profanity? blasphemy? mockery of what is good? glorification of what is evil?

Is spending the money on it good stewardship?

Is spending the time attending, talking and thinking about the movie good stewardship of time?

One aspect of sanctification will be less tolerance of the profane, more care in spending money, more concern about idleness, less concern about amusing oneself, and more concern about what is true, good and pure.
 
I thought another one of the Puritan's reasoning for abstaining from theatre was that acting was in some way violating the 9th commandment. Perhaps I'm way off on this one and I welcome correction.
 
Last edited:
I thought another one of the Puritan's reasoning for abstaining from cinema was that acting was in some way violating the 9th commandment. Perhaps I'm way off on this one and I welcome correction.

No. You are correct. Several Puritans saw acting as bearing false witness since people were acting like someone or something they were not.
 
I thought another one of the Puritan's reasoning for abstaining from cinema was that acting was in some way violating the 9th commandment. Perhaps I'm way off on this one and I welcome correction.

I thought that the Puritans abstained from cinema because it hadn't been invented yet.
 
I thought another one of the Puritan's reasoning for abstaining from cinema was that acting was in some way violating the 9th commandment. Perhaps I'm way off on this one and I welcome correction.

I thought that the Puritans abstained from cinema because it hadn't been invented yet.

I think that's referring to the theatre rather than the cinema. The arguments I had always heard against the theatre were more about the ideas and philosophies espoused in the writing, and also that theatre was entering the church.

As for the ninth commandment application, that seems to be stretching it a bit far. That's like saying a person is lying because they use hyperbole in their speech (which in effect would be calling Jesus a liar, btw). Acting is entertainment with the audience knowing full well that the person on stage is portraying a different persona for the sake of amusement. It's not like the actor is trying to deceive an unwitting audience who has no idea what's going on.
 
As for it being a waste of a Christians time, allow me to play another role here.
Is secular work a waste of a Christians time? Is learning from a liberal arts university a waste of time?

Now we can all go live in a Christian monastery, (which don't get me wrong, sounds nice at points I know in my life) but is that what Christ desired in His prayer for us to stay in the world?

Our duty as Christians is to bring glory to God and enjoy Him forever. So lets take movies, does watching a "good" movie help me to enjoy God? I would say yes. No it may not have much theology (Thou you could plug some into a movie) but it is the mind in action, the imagination of CREATION at work. The Arts bring about good in humanity.

I truly believe a fine appreciation of arts is not sinful so long as thou arts are not going against one of God's commands. IE movies with affairs and out right murder may be on the questionable list to watch. However not all the arts are sinful.

I have to get ready for the day, but wanted to throw some thought in the pit before I left.

Please note I am questioning these same things; so I am not taking a full public stance on any position at this time other than I do appreciate the arts.
 
A few thoughts in considering this topic biblically, and more deeply.

As for it being a waste of a Christians time, allow me to play another role here.
Are we a nation that seeks too much entertainment and amusement from the standpoint of our life calling as believers? Are families, work, charity being neglected? Or is the balance about right?


Is secular work a waste of a Christians time? No, it is, in a sense a life's ministry, and that is important to God. But what does that have to do with recreational "going to cinema?" Is learning from a liberal arts university a waste of time? Anecdotal, in an appalling number of cases, yes. No real skills are being learned, destructive life patterns are discipled, and heavy debt is being accumulated. Not in all cases, but in way too many cases.

Now we can all go live in a Christian monastery, (which don't get me wrong, sounds nice at points I know in my life) but is that what Christ desired in His prayer for us to stay in the world?

Not sure what this has to do with the amount time spent going to cinema. If one spent less time, money and energy talking about cinema though there would be more time for work, family, exercise, private and public worship.

Our duty as Christians is to bring glory to God and enjoy Him forever. So lets take movies, does watching a "good" movie help me to enjoy God? I would say yes. No it may not have much theology (Thou you could plug some into a movie) but it is the mind in action, the imagination of CREATION at work. The Arts bring about good in humanity.

Yes, a good movie could, and there is no biblical prohibition against doing so.

However, there are many biblical qualifications.

How about a "good" movie that the producers have inserted taking the Lord's Name in vain 25 times? That glorify immorality? That show cruel senseless violence in a desensitizing way.


I truly believe a fine appreciation of arts is not sinful so long as thou arts are not going against one of God's commands. Yes, the broad application of God's moral law, summarized in the ten commandments, e.g. bearing false witness, sexual immorality, covetousness. IE movies with affairs and out right murder may be on the questionable list to watch. However not all the arts are sinful. Where was that asserted?

I have to get ready for the day, but wanted to throw some thought in the pit before I left.

Please note I am questioning these same things; so I am not taking a full public stance on any position at this time other than I do appreciate the arts.

In a sense, it is fair to say, God made all things to be enjoyed, including art, and cinema.

But how do we do that and separate ourselves from evil purveyed through it?

That's the question.

And how much do we rationalize tolerating evil in it in order to enjoy it's good?
:think:
 
I brought something like this up on another forum in regard to the film "Pulp Fiction." To my thinking this film is an example of the decadence of our society. Aside from the vulgarity and profanity, which is ubiquitous, there is homosexual sodomy and numerous scenes of mayhem. The killers are portrayed as charismatic characters who are attractive to "the world." A man is accidentally shot in an automobile when it hits a bump and this incident is portrayed as comic relief, this scene invariably brings laughter from the audience. I've read that a society can be judged by its art. If stuff like this is not emblematic of a sick society what is ? There was a time when I enjoyed the film BTW. I wouldn't watch it today. your mileage may vary.

OTOH, I think of Shakespeare and with the exception of the filthy language of our day, there are some parallels in terms of violence. I suppose these stories do portray fallen man in a relatively accurate depiction of what he is capable of. Than there are films that are uplifting, such as, The Sound Of Music, Lilies Of The Field and that sort. Isn't it true that after we become Christians we only then begin to see the disparaging way that Hollywood portrays Christians ? I think of films such as "Zulu", an oldie that most may not remember, but there are many more examples. At my age (63) having spent the majority of my life 'walking according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air', putting off 'the old man' and putting on the new, I now would sooner devote my free time to focusing on things above. What communion has light with darkness. "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing."
 
Let me add to JimmyH's sentiment: while I certainly do not believe that the cinema in and of itself is sin, I find that there are very few movies worth watching at all.
 
I often times become uncomfortable with these sorts of discussions because they at least presuposse an overarching rule for all Christians. But this subject like so many is not so simple. What would be over the line for one person may not be so for another. Being a recovering ex-p0rn addict I am much more careful about what I watch or listen to. But I would never really make it a rule for everyone not to watch or listen to something that is debatable. "God alone is Lord of conscience", that has to mean something after all.
 
Should not we consider the person watching the film and his conscience? Different people may have entirely different spiritual experiences in watching the same film, with some revelling in the sin portrayed and taking delight in it (therefore sinning and possibly being stumbled by the film) and others being edified by it. But personally, reasons 2 and 3 are aplenty for me not to be interested in movies and many other forms of entertainment.
 
Dear Friends,

Can either/both of you point me to some material suggesting that this was the reason for their position on cinema? I would like to read their logic on the matter. False witness has to do with deception and, clearly, if anyone was going to a play, they were not being deceived by these people pretending to be a character; rather, they were "putting on a face" to entertain others. I would venture to say that the reason we should, as the Larger Catechism (139), stay away from some/most "stage plays," theatre, and cinema, insofar that they would be "lascivious." This same principle applies to "songs, books, pictures," and "dancing" as well. Of course, consistently applying this would likely result in the far whittling down of most of our consumption of media, and drive us back to more time in wholesome recreations as well as closet duties of Word and prayer.

I am not near my library right now but if I remember correctly this was Perkin's view. I will try to look later when I get a chance.
 
I thought another one of the Puritan's reasoning for abstaining from cinema was that acting was in some way violating the 9th commandment. Perhaps I'm way off on this one and I welcome correction.

I thought that the Puritans abstained from cinema because it hadn't been invented yet.

Oops! Yes, I meant theater rather than cinema. Thanks.

---------- Post added at 09:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 AM ----------

Dear Friends,

Can either/both of you point me to some material suggesting that this was the reason for their position on cinema? I would like to read their logic on the matter.

I believe the place I read this was here on the PB sometime in past threads. If it's on the PuritanBoard it's fact right? :D

---------- Post added at 09:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 AM ----------

Here's the thread I recalled where a couple people mention the Puritans aversion to theater due to the 9th commandment. You are correct though, in that no one really provides a source, so as I mentioned in my earlier post, I welcome correction.
 
Should not we consider the person watching the film and his conscience? Different people may have entirely different spiritual experiences in watching the same film, with some revelling in the sin portrayed and taking delight in it (therefore sinning and possibly being stumbled by the film) and others being edified by it. But personally, reasons 2 and 3 are aplenty for me not to be interested in movies and many other forms of entertainment.

I would say yes. Does watching Transformers bother your spirit? Do you feel God convicting you when watching it? Than you should probably stop watching it but you should not go on a crusade in your church to make everyone stop watching it. Now if a movie that has nudity and strong sexual content as its focus does not bother you than you should probably rethink your closeness to God. This is obviously a very grey area which is why we should be concerned with ourselfs and not rules for everybody.
 
William Prynne's Histriomastix, published in the early 1630s and proscribed by Archbishop Laud, is probably the ultimate Puritan attack on the theatre, holidays like Christmas, and the like. Yes, the objections to the theatre were many and varied, including the ninth commandment issue, men dressing in women's clothing, the lascivious nature of much of it (the songs especially) and so forth. It should also be noted that it is under the seventh commandment that the Westminster Larger Catechism forbids "lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays."

In the early church, the pagan theatre was forbidden by the fathers because the multi-day pageants were the scene of endless impurities. The Roman church co-opted much of this for its own use in the middle ages, hence the mystery plays. To the Puritans, this, together with Christianized holidays and other customs, was to be rejected.

Coming down as late as the nineteenth century, someone as moderate as Charles Hodge refused to go to the theatre on his great European trip, though given many opportunities. Many were mortified that President Lincoln, who was a pew-holder and regular attender (though not a member) at New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington, was shot in a theatre. He was removed to a house across the street in no small measure because it was said that he must not be allowed to die on the floor of a theatre.

A few additional historical matters answering to Br. Joshua's and other's questions.

Peace,
Alan
 
Last edited:
William Prynne's Histriomastix, published in the early 1630s and proscribed by Archbishop Laud, is probably the ultimate Puritan attack on the theatre, holidays like Christmas, and the like. Yes, the objections to the theatre were many and varied, including the ninth commandment issue, men dressing in women's clothing, the lascivious nature of much of it (the songs especially) and so forth. It should also be noted that it is under the seventh commandment that the Westminster Larger Catechism forbids "lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays."

In the early church, the pagan theatre was forbidden by the fathers because the multi-day pageants were the scene of endless impurities. The Roman church co-opted much of this for its own use in the middle ages, hence the mystery plays. To the Puritans, this, together with Christianized holidays and other customs, was to be rejected.

Coming down as late as the nineteenth century, someone as moderate as Charles Hodge refused to go to the theatre on his great European trip, though given many opportunities. Many were mortified that President Lincoln, who was a pew-holder and regular attender (though not a member) at New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington, was shot in a theatre. He was removed to a house accross the street in no small measure because it was said that he must not be allowed to die on the floor of a theatre.

A few additional historical matters answering to Br. Joshua's and other's questions.

Peace,
Alan

Very interesting. Thank you for sharing. But does not a list of "inductive problems" presuposse that we can correct these errors and still be able to go to the cinema? I mean if you say that man dressing as women are essential to cinema and this is a sin, therefore we should not go to the cinema. That is sound logic but the answer is simple, don't go to cinema that has men dressing as women. Because men dressing as women is not in fact essential to cinema.
 
In the early church, the pagan theatre was forbidden by the fathers because the multi-day pageants were the scene of endless impurities.

Dr. Strange, was the (pagan) religious nature of many of the plays not also a consideration? In other words, in addition to the mardi-gras atmosphere surrounding many pagan recreations, was the religious content of a lot of the plays also deemed offensive?
 
James:

For some reason, you seem to think that I was arguing something in my reply (that you quote). I was not.

The question had been raised about the Puritan's ninth commandment objections to the theatre. There is an exhaustive treatment of this in Prynne. The book is over a thousand pages. One of the objections was men dressing in women's clothing: at the time, women were not permitted in such a setting and all portrayals of women were by men dressed as such. I was simply noting that this, along with other seventh and ninth commandment objections, was part of the Puritan opposition to the theatre.

My comment, it seemed rather obvious to me, was simply to give some historical background.

Peace,
Alan
 
In the early church, the pagan theatre was forbidden by the fathers because the multi-day pageants were the scene of endless impurities.

Dr. Strange, was the (pagan) religious nature of many of the plays not also a consideration? In other words, in addition to the mardi-gras atmosphere surrounding many pagan recreations, was the religious content of a lot of the plays also deemed offensive?

To better understand your question. Are you asking this because you are attemtping to distinguish between cinema used to promote formally speaking a differeing religous perspective, Buddhist plays for instance, and more seculer examples like some modern cinema? Or are you asking this because you are trying to imply that all cinema is formally religous and ought to be avoided? I am not saying that you are saying either one, only trying to understand your question better.
 
James:

For some reason, you seem to think that I was arguing something in my reply (that you quote). I was not.

The question had been raised about the Puritan's ninth commandment objections to the theatre. There is an exhaustive treatment of this in Prynne. The book is over a thousand pages. One of the objections was men dressing in women's clothing: at the time, women were not permitted in such a setting and all portrayals of women were by men dressed as such. I was simply noting that this, along with other seventh and ninth commandment objections, was part of the Puritan opposition to the theatre.

My comment, it seemed rather obvious to me, was simply to give some historical background.

Peace,
Alan

That makes more sense, sorry for misunderstanding. So, if I understand you correctly, you are giving historical clarification and not moral prescription?
 
Ruben:

Christians were not to go the games, circuses, theatre, and so forth both for content and environment. The latter, however, was often so debauched that it was more the focus than the content (one would have to go there and be a part of the scene before the content was relevant). One of the ways in which Christians were seen to be different from their pagan neighbors was that they did not attend such, something quite different from tdoay: one never need leave one's home to partake of the content of any number of things, something which is both a convenience and a horror (depending on what is being consumed).

Peace,
Alan
 
Ruben:

Christians were not to go the games, circuses, theatre, and so forth both for content and environment. The latter, however, was often so debauched that it was more the focus than the content (one would have to go there and be a part of the scene before the content was relevant). One of the ways in which Christians were seen to be different from their pagan neighbors was that they did not attend such, something quite different from tdoay: one never need leave one's home to partake of the content of any number of things, something which is both a convenience and a horror (depending on what is being consumed).

Peace,
Alan

Although not directed at me your response answers my last question. So again thank for sharing this very illuminating historical context.
 
James:

I will make something beyond a historical observation here.

I think that it's important for us to understand our Christian forefathers on their own terms and to think about what they may have to teach us. Does their opposition to theatre have anything to teach us? I think so and I think that we should seek to understand them before simply dismissing them and rushing to defend our own practices. Theatre (and now film) presents a spectacle that threatens to compete with the relatively more tame administration of the means of grace.

Let me be clear: I do not as a matter of principle oppose theatre and cinema. I can quite enjoy it rightly used. I enjoy opera, for example, something opposed by our earlier fathers. But I understand their opposition and I seek to engage wisely. Frankly, both the amount of time we spend watching and the content of what we watch needs, in my view, to be questioned by us far more than it customarily is. Christians spend a great deal of time watching what is worth very little, if not to say detrimental, and we are quick to defend it and not let it be questioned.

I believe that we live in a time in which the spiritual temperature of the church, as a whole, is at a rather low level. We can watch any number of things for endless hours, but let our worship service exceed its alloted time and the complaints roll in. Sunday services for the Puritans in colonial New England, for instance, were about three hours morning and afternoon. This included a sermon of an hour or so, but also a main pastoral prayer of about the same length. We have no stomach for such anymore. What am I saying? Before we rush to criticize the Puritans, we have more than enough to criticize about ourselves. We have little taste for the Word, its preaching, prayer, the sacraments, etc. This may seem to be off-topic but I do not at all think so.

I am not condemning the theatre and film. It does seem, however, that Christians have so come to embrace these that we have more taste for these than the public, private and secret uses of the means of grace.

Peace,
Alan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top