Christianity Today hearts "Sex"

Ahhh, the ancient struggle. What I found was most interesting in all the discourse above was how little emphasis is placed on God's perspective on intimacy and sin. No church needs to dwell on sexuality any more than they need to dwell on lust (same as adultery per our Lord) or hate (same as murder per our Lord). It takes a fleeting knowlege of Biblical truth to know that God sees such activity outside of marriage as sinful behavior. What (exactly) do people expect to hear from the pulpit??? It's sinful to do it, it is sinful to condone it, it is sinful to dwell on it, it is sinful and reckless to fill our eyes and ears with it (i.e. SATC).

Now that that is settled, what is the church to do? A renewed focus not on touchy-feely Christianity but on Biblical orthdox faith (be it Protestant, Evangelical or Catholic) and closeness to the Lord is the best medicine. Anything that brings us closer to God will drive us away from such foolishness (which I can be just as guilty of). Ultimately SATC will have no more impact on the Christian and the Church than people of faith allow.

I would agree, Doug. Even my Southern Baptist Church is not afraid to confront it, though not as much in the pulpit. Mostly in the smaller group settings where people tend to have closer relationships.

Rod,

I think there are likely many things people like you and me can do to help single folks in our churches find what is missing rather than having to find it in films such as SATC.

I think one of the best ways is for fellow members of the Church to do all they can to encourage and help singles get married. This is not a popular thing in our culture. Considering that further, maybe that provides some explanation for the source of this this "missing something" in our singles. To quote the closing of your previous post: "culture has consequences."

The Church needs to build a culture (dare I say counter-culture) where the normal expectation of its youth is to seek marriage early and to see it as a high calling and even as a particular calling of the children of God (to be fruitful, to take dominion, to raise up Godly children who will become the next generation of Christians). This is not at all to suggest that those who don't marry should be ostracized, but in many cases they've really not been given any alternative expectation to the one pushed by the culture around them (far be it from the Church to set any expectations before them).

It distresses me greatly to hear from my twenty-something relatives who greatly desire marriage that it is nigh impossible for them to find people who desire marriage, even when the folks they meet are so desirous to find purpose in life BEFORE they get married. Someone needs to tell these folks that there is a wonderful, fulfilling purpose for them IN marriage.

Thanks,
Nathan

A brief note about the source. In my experience, the vast majority of the writing at Boundless.org about popular culture is not simplistic and naive Christian niche stuff.

I would say the same for CTi.

Thus, we are talking about a serious argument, worth following.

Bravo for candor.

I won't see it - not because I'm prudish, or easily offended. What keeps me away is that SATC puts forth the typical, stereotyped idea that if you are not a Hawt Chick or Buff Guy, you have no sexual appeal for anyone. Beauty is made to equal "sexiness." Sexuality has become synonymous with clothes, shoes, accessories, a certain plastic-surgerized body type. That is so completely false, and promulgating that attitude really sets people up for marital unhappiness.

CS Lewis described the whole setup very well in The Screwtape Letters, when he had his senior devil tell the younger one about working hard Down Below on fashions and "styles," which make the woman look "boyish" (now, boyish with implants), "propped up," and terrified of growing middle-aged / old.

It doesn't bother me that the women in the SATC are having sex outside of marriage - it's that their whole conception of sexuality and relationships follow a false and superficial style.

As far as young marriage goes, I think that's not going to happen until we get national health insurance. Young people are allowed to be on their parents' insurance until ages 23-26 (depending on the insurance company.) If they marry, they have to get insurance on their own. Very few 18-20 year olds are capable of supporting themselves in a job with medical insurance (especially critical if they are going to start having children.) Seeing as how more and more young people are being diagnosed with physical and mental conditions which will disqualify them from buying any insurance at all ("Pre-existing conditions"), they're literally facing bankruptcy if they marry without considering economics.

Even beyond health insurance, there simply are not that many jobs available to young people that pay enough to support a family but do not require college (or 4-year college.) This is a critical social issue that NO ONE wants to touch, because the dominant cultural "meme" is that *everyone* should go to college, no matter what - and that non-college-type jobs are "demeaning."

I have to admit, I always thought SATC on the small screen was reallt funny, and I was a regular viewer. BUT I never understood the insane appeal it has for some women, since it's so ridiculously unreal! After all, we know NOTHING about the characters beyond their sex lives-- where did they grow up? Were their parents married or divorced? Did they go to college, if so where? There are lots of "meet the parents" episodes, but they are always the lovers' parents, never the main characters'. (Wait a minute, there was one episode where Miranda's mother DIES-- and she's presented as already dead, so we never see her.) Charlotte had a brother, because in one episode he slept with Samantha. We know that Miranda has a sister because she's married and makes Miranda feel insecure....
SATC didn't just obsess on the idea of marriage = both holy grail and end of the world as she knows it, but the whole idea of family and relationships outside the diner and the bedroom. I think it would be great for a thinking young single woman to watch, so it can stir up thoughts of what real values can be, as opposed to the phony values in the series.

Anthony Lane hated the picture less for its sexuality, although he thought that its depiction was crass, than for its commerciality.

To put it bluntly, he thought the women sold out; or, perhaps even worse, took refuge in their wardrobes, rather than in love.

Interesting that this criticism hasn't apparently even been voiced in any of these Christian critiques.

CT also gave a positive review to "Expelled." We can safely ignore everything CT says about movies ever again.

Joel wrote: CT also gave a positive review to "Expelled." We can safely ignore everything CT says about movies ever again.

Joel, CT is not a person. CT is a publications that includes reviews by a wide variety of freelance writers who have been assigned to various films. Those reviewers come from many different places and vocations. If they all sat down to discuss any particular movie, including "Expelled," you'd be likely to hear them agree on some points and disagree on others.

Are you really suggesting that because of *one* reviewer's semi-positive review of *one* controversial documentary... a film celebrated by many Christian-media publications... that thus all of the perspectives of all of those reviewers are thus devoid of value? (And note, the review of "Expelled" contained criticism as well as measured praise.)

Or did you just look at the star rating (which amounted to "good but not great"), and not read the review? The review contained this observation: "The film's biggest flaw is a too-long segment where Stein explores Darwinism's alleged connection to Hitler, Nazism, and the Holocaust, essentially implying that such horrific events are almost a necessary result of belief in evolution. In an interview with CT Movies, Stein said he was especially taken by the book From Darwin to Hitler, saying that "It's about how Darwin's theory . . . led to the murder of millions of innocent people." Well, maybe, or maybe not. That may be a theme to be more fully explored in another documentary, but for the purposes of this film, it seemed too tangential.

So, because of one man's limited praise for one particular documentary, you're ready to write off "everything CT says about movies ever again." Your discernment speaks for itself. I might say that your comment here provokes me to ignore anything you say ever again. But I'd like to be more patient and forgiving, and avoid such rash judgment.

Reading Ted Slater's rant about Christianity Today in his Boundless column, I found it interesting to go to Focus on the Family's own site to read *their* official review (since Boundless is a Focus on the Family publication).

The FOTF review contains these observations:

Sex and the City showcases the friendships of women. While drinking, gossiping and carousing are less-than-laudable aspects of these relationships, some positive attributes take center stage as well. Carrie, Charlotte, Miranda and Samantha are devoted to each other through thick and thin. They'll fly cross-country to help out a sister in need. They rejoice in one another's victories and mourn one another's sorrows. And from time to time they even work up the nerve to do some needful confronting.

Carrie finds a new friend in her personal assistant, Louise. Bright and dependable, Louise is more than just a hard worker. She helps Carrie overcome a devastating setback.

The film also feels mildly pro-adoption and pro-child ...

And this:

"Interestingly, while Sex and the City plays like a two-hour-plus commercial for worldly wickedness, the lust of the flesh and the Prada-wearing devil, I couldn't help but notice something contrarian to all that: For all the girls' talk about the glories of being single and sleeping around in New York City, the film can't help but hold marriage up as the ideal. The text vs. subtext regarding wedded bliss is more than a little baffling. Big and Carrie's engagement is initially a business transaction. Then his past failures at marriage give him cold feet and cause him to stand her up at the altar. Later the couple literally apologizes to each other for messing up a perfectly good relationship with talk of marriage—which everybody onscreen seems to know ruins everything.

Then, a bombshell. Instead of settling back into their "comfortable" cohabitation, Big gets down on one knee, proposes properly and marries Carrie in a simple ceremony. Who would have thought that as Sex and the City packs up and heads to the country after a far-too-long stay on TV and now the movie screen, three of the four women would be married? And glad to be so?"

So I'm wondering, as Focus on the Family's own reviewer found *some* merit in the movie, is it really so outrageous that CT's reviewer, who points to some of the film's weaknessess and flaws, finds some merit in it as well?

I was thinking of something else about being an evangelical and trying to interact with secular culture. There's still this innocence and timidity in the evangelical movement: we haven't been around that long, and most of us still carry around a feeling of cultural inferiority (why does the Pope have all the good writers?). Those of us who write about secular culture are already afraid of being called bumpkins, so we treat everything with earnestness. Nothing is worthy of a sneer. So far, only a few evangelical writers have learned the trick of sounding superior (Douglas Wilson is one) and the result is that we come across as very earnest and not very entertaining.

Again, sorry that I don't have time to read all the comments. From the perspective of a single middle-aged person who is Catholic and divorced, I can say that, if you are evangelical and single and think the church has forgotten you, try being in my state. I am in a literal no-man's-land of singleness, not quite married, not quite single, and while the "truly single" have books written for them that do actually say at least a little more than "True Love Waits," nothing has been written for those of us civilly divorced in the Catholic Church.

MJ

Can anyone recall a time when Focus on the Family was amused?

Just one more note. Someone above said that Christianity Today is owned by Rupert Murdoch. I don't think that's true, but I could be wrong. Why do you think so?

A balanced, insightful, candid discussion--how refreshing! Many thanks.