I sometimes find it amusing, and at other times rather irksome, the speed at which many Christians are able to pass negative judgment on secular art and culture; especially when these judgments are blatantly based more on a personal distaste than anything religious. Often, I end up running into passionate by-the book-when-convenient Christians, who are continually successful in undoing any sort of progress our religion as a whole has made towards healing tensions between the unnecessary dualism of holy and profane. Case in point:
I recently saw a production of the musical RENT with a group of students who largely share a similar conservative Christian high school and college background. While reactions were as varied in number as there were students, a few were so typical of the image I earlier described, they are worth pointing out and perhaps even getting a little upset about.
But before I get ahead of myself, I should probably first give you a run down of what RENT’s thematic content is.
RENT is a theatrical rock opera much in the same tradition as productions such as Bye Bye Birdie, Grease, and Hair. It uses modern day musical scores while also opting for stories and themes that are very much contemporary in nature and relevant in more recent times. The musical itself is closely based on an original opera from the 1800s called La Boheme, which chronicled the experiences of a young group of poor Parisian artists living out their lives while struggling with the existential realities of tuberculosis. RENT takes this story and puts it within the context of the late 1980s, replacing the plague of the time with AIDS and changing the setting from Paris to New York City’s East Village.
Naturally, given the change in context, and the new disease addressed being HIV-AIDS, sexuality has a very strong presence in the newer adaptation; and lovers who may have once been heterosexual are now homosexual. This of course happens to be an aspect of the musical which most church going folk would rather do without; and for every homoerotic scene (no matter how tame) acted out by the performers, and with every obscure reference made to a same sex love affair, one could almost hear a certain section of the audience cringe.
But you know what? As sad as that fact may be, it isn’t something which really upsets me. People are different and have varying thresh-holds. Some can watch two men kissing, while being largely comfortable in their own skin, while others can’t. No problem. What I can’t stand is a largely negative and judgmental attitude completely birthed out of personal preference, but announced under the guise of theologically grounded frustration.
There was one specific student I remember talking to who walked out of the theatre as soon as the first act was finished. The whole time, in true fifth grade fashion, this gentleman had his eyes closed during every scene which may have even bordered on resulting in some sort of homoerotic exchange; and yet somehow was able to complain about the outrageous gay love scenes he “saw” in the musical.
“I just don’t like the way they’re making all that stuff out to seem okay”, the young gentleman said.
In other words, his dislike of the production was based on the assumption that the musical was really just a glorification of homosexuality, and its agenda was simply to that end; making his query with RENT more a matter of its disregard for good Christian morals than his own disgust with same sex (more specifically “male” same sex of course) relationships.
Well, obviously he didn’t know anything about La Boheme, otherwise he would understand that RENT was more than an homage to the homosexual lifestyle (even though this could be drawn from the fact that other characters in the musical were in heterosexual relationships). But even with him being oblivious to this fact, I could still hear a sense of deception in his statement which he himself probably didn’t pick up on.
This same gentleman not too long before seeing RENT, had watched the movies Knocked Up, Good Luck Chuck, and Role Models.
In Knocked Up the two main characters are a young man and woman who meet for the first time in a dance club, have sex and face the realities of having a baby together. His reaction, “Haha! That was a really funny movie!”
In Good Luck Chuck, the main character played by Dane Cook, has well over 10 documented sexual encounters in order to break a curse, that once dispelled, will allow him to have “proper” sex with the woman he really has fallen for. His reaction, “Yeah, that was pretty good movie.”
As for the film Role Models, the two child actors and their adult contemporaries share enough lurid and vulgar dialogue to make even the most foul mouthed sailor blush.
The gentleman in question who hated RENT, was the person who recommended this movie for me to watch.
There is something very wrong with this picture.
If the problem with RENT is one of morals, shouldn’t have this angry young man been equally as upset with Knocked Up, Good Luck Chuck, and Role Models? After all, last time I checked, the church’s stance of blatant promiscuity and encouraging young children to engage in premarital sex when they get older is all rather negative.
Clearly there is a double standard. And because most Christians it seems would rather die than admit that they hold to such practice, it looks like it’ll be a problem we’ll all have to deal with time and time again; concerning issues that span far beyond the scope of sexuality.
So why is this incident worth getting upset about? It really has nothing to do with RENT or the loaded issues of morality which accompany it. That’s a discussion for another day. What it has everything to do with is the popular stereotype of the Christian conservative, and how our private high schools and colleges seem to be doing a bang up job of meeting that stereotype in full.
One of the main criticisms we Christians tend to have of our secular counterparts is that they live their lives selfishly and solely according to rules that they have created for themselves. Meanwhile, as this case clearly points out, it would seem the same could easily be said of us. That’s hypocrisy. And the fact that we may be breeding yet another generation of Christians who fit the mold, is a good enough reason to make anyone upset.
Login to comment
Alternate Login
Use your social media account to login.
Login with your ReFrame account
Comments (18)
First off, it is good to note that hypocrisy is rampant. And the ultra conservative American Christians who try to judge everything by their Sunday school standards are among the forefront of the hypocrisy race. But it is also worth noting that those who claim to follow Jesus, and his message, and yet support agendas which at their core, are contrary agendas of Jesus, are in a sense, no different than the Sunday school Christians which they condemn.
There is one major factor, among quite a few, that you fail to acknowledge in your essay, namely, that there is a significant difference between content and message, between scenes and how those scenes come together to form an agenda.
Let’s begin with the former. Different films, books, musical, and the like, have different content. Sometimes there is Sexual content. Sometimes there is violence. Sometimes drug use. Many Christians protest various content, based on it’s moral value. This is understandable, though perhaps no always the best notion. Why? Because we live in a world filled with rebellious people. There values are not the same as God’s Values, no matter how much that ought to be the case. However, it would be wrong of us, as critically thinking people, to say that Just because one movie (or book, etc) has the same content as another one, doesn’t mean that they are equal in their moral value. The most obvious and polarized example of this is say, one movie which promotes an extramarital affair as being the right thing to do if you find true love elsewhere, and another movie which portrays an extramarital affair as being a wrong, destructive practice. Both films have the content of extramarital affairs within them, Though their message about affairs, and thus their agendas, are radically different.
But we need not even go that far. We can take an example which is not so polarized. Take the movie Rent, and then the movie Dodgeball. Both films have Homosexual content in them. Rent, it’s content obvious and sprinkled throughout. And Dodgeball, a couple lines, and then a scene at the end. What is the difference between these two films? Should we not be just as outraged at both? Yes and no. Sin is sin, regardless… but some level of disagreement is bound to show up in the content of every film. I don’t agree with every moral judgment of every character in every film I watch. That doesn’t mean I have to make a big stink about it. However, the scene in dodgeball, is just that. A scene. The movie wasn’t based on that scene, nor was it critical to the plot. It wasn’t alluded two, and, most importantly, the writers did not try to suck you into that homosexual relationship to try and develop a moral perspective about it. It was there. It was a scene. But there is a real difference between that scene, and say, a movie like rent.
I say a movie, because I have not scene the show live, so my critique is from a purely cinematic point of view. First, we must note that it doesn’t matter what La Boheme was about. It only matters what Rent is about. Just because someone claims that something is based on something else, doesn’t mean we can judge it by the acclaimed source. That being said, I argue my case. Rent does not simply have homosexual scenes within it. It has a strong, clear pro homosexual message. It invites you in. It says, look at me, I am Just like everyone else, actually it goes further, portraying Angel as the Christ-figure in a sense – The homosexual is the pinnacle of love, forgiveness, and morality. He’s not only equal to everyone, and hence deserves to be loved, but he is in fact, above everyone. He’s a shining example. A Model for all to follow. And then of Course, Rent uses the Incorporates the extra emotional propellant that all musicals utilize – That of beautifully scored and written music. (here comes my love hate relationship with theatre) – Put any action to amazing music, and it seems okay. Sing about it in a grand and emotional – or even fun, upbeat kind of way – and suddenly that action is not as bad as it was before. Affairs aren’t so bad now… Cutting up people and putting them in pies for others to consume, isn’t as grotesque as I originally thought, and homosexuality, has just been misunderstood…. All is good.
And so, I must wrap this up even though I would like to go on for quite a while. What’s my point. Well, let’s see. (can I get some good music to go with this?). First there is a difference between content and agenda. Most movies have content which is outside of our moral boundaries… but there is a difference between that content being present, and that content being promoted. I believe that we as the people of God cannot escape the presence of that content – but can we really support the promotion of it? Can we really follow Jesus, and support the efforts of Caesar being Lord? And finally, in opposition to what your position may be – Rent – Though beautifully scored – and I mean that, it is really, really well done – Is a film, a musical – that clearly has as one of it’s main points, the promotion, the endorsement, the moral message that Homosexuality is not only okay, but good. And this is a radically different thing that a movie which simply has a homosexual scene in it. Or a movie which has a character who had premarital sex in it. There are other issues in this debate, but I think I shall stop here for reflection. Thanks for the thoughts. And Let’s keep up the good dialogue.
For everything God has given us, Satan has made a counterfeit. Love, has Lust as its counterfeit.
When lovers come together in a sinful way, you will know it is false love. Temporary, Empty, Lust.
And your question is spurious, as no one is claiming that God cannot or does not work in non-marriage or sex-less relationships. The point, rather, is that the world offers something clothed as Love, but which is ultimately lust or self-interest. It might be a very good imitation of Love, but without God true Love is impossible.
Finally, your logic is deceptive in that the article is not about Rambo or Oceans Eleven. The article is about RENT, so naturally the conversation is going to center around the themes contained therein. If you want to get into a discussion about why Rambo might be an archetype of justice, or why Oceans Eleven doesn't proclaim the thieves morally pure, there are probably better areas to do that. But to do it here merely conflates the ideas and muddies the waters.
I have a story to tell. A Christian girl married to Non-Christian man. She had overcomed the advices from her Christian friends that they should be not be yoked together according to the Word of God
She did pray a lot for her husband, and indeed after going thru lots of difficulties, God's grace fell upon him that he became a staunch believer
However, as the day goes by, when he is leading the bible study, he can not give a firm answer to a question, whether Christian and non Christian can be yoked together
Another example for similar situation for a person can not give a firm answer in which the Word of God says it very clear "you shall not"
A person did spend his singlehood life lustfully, going girl after girl, bed after bed. Finally he repented and accepted Christ. However, he got the same problem as the first example. He can not give a firm answer to a question, Is it right to have sex before marriage?
Now, if we go back to the discussion about Double Living standard and hypocrisy ... I have a question here ...
Is it right for a person to shut the mouth due to their past experiences eventhough the Word of God says very clear and loud?
Or Is it also right for a person to shut their mouth due to inability to live it out the Words in daily life?
If everybody shuts their mouth because they can not live it out in their daily life, then how we can spread the Gospel since no one is perfect on earth? I think that we will fall into Satan's trap ... It is someone else business ...
Now, I am not saying whether RENT is a good or bad show. I actually think in terms of score, script and story that it is quite good. But I cannot stomach its cultural popularity, which is founded upon its radical chique and homosexual message. (It should be noted that so many of my peers--I'm 21--enjoy RENT without particular regard to its morality simply becaues it's "relevant.")
And it should be noted that the movie cut a strongly sexual scene--including simulated intercourse on stage by most parties, including the homosexual couples--in the song "Contact". This piece alone, bereft of homosexuality, ought to be worth questioning. But in putting the couples on stage simultaneously, it is an effort to equate homosexuality and heterosexuality.
RENT is a message show through and through. It does it with a good story and great flair, sure--which is what makes it enjoyable for musical theatre buffs like me--but a moment of thinking will result in the condemnation of its message. Personally, this results in holding two truths in dynamic tension and accompanying inner conflict within my peer group (also theatre kids, who, as you might imagine, are far more liberal than I am). Sometimes I'll get caught up in the viewing of RENT, and suddenly find myself thinking "Oh my, this is terrible!" It is a hard line to walk. But the young man who condemns the show for its homosexual message is not wrong; he is only partially correct.
As a final note, I think something like SWEENEY TODD (which you alluded to with the commentary on cutting up people and putting them in pies) is of a different vein than RENT. It is certainly a dark comedy, but the act of murder and cannibalization is not treated amorally. The show condemns Miss Lovett and Todd himself, and they get their temporal punishment. Toby, in discovering the truth, goes mad as it is an act of depravity he cannot fathom. RENT offers none of the consequences of homosexuality. One might say Angel died of AIDS, but Mimi and Roger are also dying of AIDS (as the lone heterosexual couple in the show), and thus the consequences of sexual sin is upon all of them. There is no recognition that the sexual attraction is wrong or even DIFFERENT. It is suggested that it is all the same, and Angel himself (often referred to as "herself" in the play/film due to his transvestism) is held as the pinnacle of sacrifice and love.
"If the problem with RENT is one of morals, shouldn’t have this angry young man been equally as upset with Knocked Up, Good Luck Chuck, and Role Models?" many of the coments here are outraged with the message of RENT but the thing is, shouldn't we expect this from the world?
"What I can’t stand is a largely negative and judgmental attitude completely birthed out of personal preference, but announced under the guise of theologically grounded frustration"
this is what the real problem is right now. this judgmental attitude that christians have is what drives people to "de-baptize". and what are we doin about it? our personal preferences become doctrine just because we are so very theologically correct at the same time experts in culture, philosophy, media and the arts. and that our point of view should be heeded because of this combination. we need to be transformational, but i sincerely believe we are going about it in the wrong way. if the world can produce something aesthetically beautiful like RENT, shouldn't we as christians come together and produce something that portrays our Beautiful and Magnificent Lord in that way? instead of thrashing these movies outright, why not engage our non-believing friends and acquiantances in meaningful conversation regarding the message? it seems everyone on this blog is eloquent and theologically and culturally competent enough to do it.
one thing that stands out in my mind is the fact that during Jesus' earthly ministry, the one thing that He consistently and constantly met head on with stern words were not the lepers (present day HIV positive people), or tax collectors (investment bankers? ), adulteress/fornicators (people from the East Village?) but those of the religious elite. if Jesus were doing his ministry today, where do you think He would hang out? my personal opinion? in a bohemian coffee shop engaging angtsy, goth poets and gay theater majors and the band Korn,while sipping Latte and telling them about the Kingdom of Heaven....waving to the evangelicals who are picketing outside to join him for a cup or a muffin, and we would probably blog about Him, and say things like...“I just don’t like the way He's making all that stuff out to seem okay”
all by God's grace! peace to everyone.
Christians who openly pass judgement on a specific sin, and then take part in a sin all their own, have turned the world against us. The world will watch them, and justify their own lifestyle by it.
However, I would not condone that play. I hope you do not view me as just another guy, who can pass an easy oppinion about a matter without looking at my own life. But I have to say, RENT should have no place in Christian homes. If it endorses Pre-marital sex, or homosexuality, we should not go to see it. It is filth.
I say this, not because I have made rules for myself. But because scripture has.
Thats all I have to say. Although you did have a very nice point and case about hypocrisy.
Prayers,
Cullen
there should be no place for us christians to pass judgment on each other. and i agree to a certain extent that we must be very careful not to let the filth of the world blemish us. and that Scripture is the only basis for this. but we should also be very careful how we define what filth is. some people can watch a play like RENT and appreciate the art and not be affected by its message. some people can listen to U2 and leads them to reflect on God. some people need to listen to Chris Tomlin only. others can have a good laugh at Oceans Eleven without having the urge to steal. others can only watch kirk cameron. different strokes for different folks. and as you said, Scripture, and may i add, the Spriit is the only thing that can bind and blend us together amidst our differences in tastes and preferences. this unity is what the world needs to see right now if Jesus is to be lifted up.
together with you in Christ,
alvin
First, Good thoughts – I always enjoy thoughtful responses.
Next, let me address them in reverse order.
Cullen –
It sounds like you have a particular distain for this so called ‘filth’. I would be careful in how you describe such things, and would advise you to ask the question which Alvin proposed – Where would Jesus being hanging out if he were to come back right now? I fear for your sake, that you may never see him if he didn’t come back, because you would be embarrassed to set foot in the establishments he chose to frequent. Don’t take this as an insult, but as a loving tap on the shoulder from a brother in Christ who wants to see you live as the true people of God.
Alvin –
I Wholeheartedly agree with your question, and to some extent, your answer to that question. I also agree that when it comes down to it, we need to be asking the question ‘so what do we do about all this’ rather than ‘how bad is this really?’ That being said, I think there is a time and a place for everything, and I would venture to guess that you just read the post on de-baptizing prior to posting on this thread, and are getting your questions confused. The original post was about the double standard that people present when they dislike things like RENT and like Things such as Knocked Up. My point was that a double standard certainly exists – but not in all the cases presented, as there is a difference between a film like RENT which actively promotes a pro homoerotic agenda, and some other film, such as Dodgeball (I use Dodgeball because I have not seen Knocked UP) which simply depicts homoerotic behavior.
Hark –
My reference to Sweeny Todd has less to do with agenda, as in, ‘they are promoting cutting people up and putting them in pies’, and more to do with my pet peeve of what Musicals in particular do when they portray immoral things with great music. They Desensitize you to it. If we were to just see some guy doing these acts, in would be at one level of distaste. But somehow, because we put great music to it… songs which then once you buy the cd, you sing along too without even realizing the full implications, suddenly, now killing people and putting them in pies isn’t as bad, or as shocking, or even as taboo as it was before – Even if they show the bad consequences in the end. Not the same thing as Rent, but Just another issue I have with musicals. Again, It’s a love-hate thing.
Bethany –
You make a very good point about Oceans Eleven. Oceans Eleven I would say, is a Far better example of something to be compared with Rent than Say, Knocked up or Dodgeball. Why? Because Oceans Eleven spends time getting into the minds of Thieves… it promotes Stealing as a fun, action filled thing to do. Even more so in The Italian Job. And it’s a shame, because I found those films entertaining. But the truth is, they are promoting ideologies which are contrary to that of Jesus. They are the Same as RENT. Now, I will have to take issue with your ‘morally neutral love’ vs Violence distinction. And Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to get into all the details. But this so called ‘love’, needs to be questioned before the author and embodiment of love, to determine whether or not it is in fact love, or some shattered echo of what Love was always supposed to be. The Love argument for homoerotic relations fails miserably when put to the test. On the flip side of that, to say that violence has no place within the framework of our history and future is simply mistaken. We see that in that past, God used violence to accomplish his will, and we see that in the future, Jesus himself will use violence to accomplish the final tasks. How do we deal with such things? The typical attitude towards violence seems to say that Violence is not the answer, or that there is a better way, a more mature way of handling things. Can we say that about God? When Jesus comes back, and we see him wiping out the wicked, are we going to stand there shaking are heads, saying, ‘that Jesus, He could have handled this in a much better way…?’ So if God is love, and everything he does is the most loving and best way to handle things, then we must conclude, even if is beyond our understanding, that sometimes, in some cases, that Violence is the most loving, just, and good thing to do. Now let me be clear in saying that I don’t think many of us have the wisdom and discipline it takes to determine when such situations occur. But it would be equally wrong for me, as a follow of YHWH, to take an anti-violence position. I do not want to look on my Lord with Eyes of Judgment when the day comes. Some things to think about and work through.
thanks for your feed back. yes, somehow i veered away but i do somehow find a connection between the double standards that many of us christians have and the de-baptize issue. i think the de-baptize thing is partly a reaction from the world with regards to our judgmental attitude that unfortunately we voice out eloquently more often than talking about grace, peace and love (God's love). i must admit, i did like Oceans Eleven, Twelve and Thirteen without reflecting too much on what it's really saying and many other movies and music and books as well. in that aspect, i think we should be very discerning about these things, which i think you pointed out. and it is quite proper for us to exegete these from the culture. but we should also be wary about getting our preferences get the better of our passions. many people in this site have had negative reactions to the music festival and RENT and people getting de-baptized and U2 singing about God in Letterman and backed up their points of view with bible verses. but this is really not the point of us being the Light. yes, God's righteousness in us often blinds the world's evil value system, but that Light in us should also enlighten those who are in the dark and lead them to the Way and the Truth, not the other direction.
thanks again and i pray that our thoughtful discussions in this site would lead us to be more like our Lord and Savior Jesus.
have a blessed day!
But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a man is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them. For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) and find out what pleases the Lord. Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret.
Please, consider what God says in Roman 1 verses that I quote below.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
I don't think there is place for a doubt about God thinking in this matter. You can follow God's directions or reject them, it's your right, but if you don't believe what God says you are not a christian.
Romans 1:32 has a picture of the argument we are having now. You can see who is who. There is a condemnation for people who " APROVE OF THOSE WHO PRACTICE THEM"
32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them"
1 Corinthians 6:9 (New International Version)
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
This comment has nothing to do with feeling myself better than anybody. I'm a sinner who desperately needed Christ sacrifice as the only way to obtain forgiveness and salvation. I'm trying to say that we can't approve for ourselves or other what God so clearly condemns.
God bless you,
Nelson