Acting and God's glory:

I don't think beleiving an opinion is above scripture has anything to do with bible versions. It has to do with beleiving God, no matter which version you choose. In my personal experience those I've met who based beliefs more on opinion, and experience then scripture have been KJVO.

 

Allow me to play advocatus diaboli. If, then, you're a court reporter, and the judge asks you to read the last thing that was said, and the last thin said was a curse word, are you as a Christian forbidden from saying it? That is a common scanario. No one confuses the court reporter saying the word, with the defendant saying thw word. I'm not saying your point lacks merit, but I don't see it as an open and shut case in every instance. For example, George Patton and Mozart were verbally vulgar men. It it, then, fornidden for a Christian from playing theri parts in a play, movie, etc?

Since scripture is silent on the specific issue, I have in my prior post borrowed from Paul, when he said to let each be convinced in his own mind.

 

Scripture sure doesn't have a lot to say these days.

Pro 8:8 All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them.

1Co 15:33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.

James 3:10-11
(10) Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.
(11) Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?

 

Not to hijack the thread, but KJVOism is the very act of elevating one's opinion above scripture. However, the KJVO issue aside, I understand your point. Scripture is silent on the issue of acting, so we must relegate to implicative interpretation, a perfectly acceptible thing to do in all walks of life that are not directly addressed in scripture. I am doing just that in my posts, so kindly do not accuse me of elevating my own opinion above scripture.

Actually, that very thing has been posted several times. In fact, one former poster from California got so many of these that she decided to ultimately leave the board. Sad. Similarly, we often see posts that say things like "you're from the north, so you can't possibly be right if you're criticizing the South in the civil war" and so on and so on...

Then answer my question. If a court reporter is told to read back the last statement, which contains a curse word, is the court reporter guilty of cursing?

 

Is scripture silent in the use of foul language?

 

Is cursing allowed in court? Would that word be 'stricken from the record'?

 

If you have a job that requires you to curse, you should get a new job.

 

Why is is do difficult for my question to be answered? If a court reporter is told to read back the last statement, which contains a curse word, is the court reporter guilty of cursing?

BTW, diane, yes, cursing is generally not allwed in court. However, if a witness is giving a testimony of an account that includes normally inappropriate language, then the witness is typically instructed to give the testimony without personal editing. Also, a judge does not have the power to strike words from the court reporter's records. He/she has that power over the evidentiary record.

 

What if a photographer is told by his employer that he must shoot a nude session for a girly magazine? How is it that we can use our jobs to justify compromise in light of the fact that Jesus told us plainly that we could not serve two masters? We can't. Christian testimony is not worth much to most people these days, but I have done more than enough to damage mine, I think it is time to start obeying the Lord and taking Him at His word.

Matthew 6:31-34
(31) Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
(32) (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
(33) But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
(34) Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

We have a perfect example of faithful obedience in Daniel.

Daniel 3:16-18
(16) Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter.
(17) If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.
(18) But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.

Godly entertainment (if there is such a thing) would not consist of accurate portrayals of cursing, swearing anti-hero types just for the sake of 'realism'. If patton had a foul mouth, he should repent of it and we shouldn't be watching anything that would glorify profanity.

 

If your job causes you to compromise then you need a new job. Your choice should be easy, God or the world.

 

The subject is acting, not the courts. Besides, Diane is right. How many testimonies are characterized by profane language compared to it's common use on the stage?

The difference is that one may be a necessity to meet out justice, and the other a vain amusement for wealthy patrons. (And, yes, if you're renting movies, buying tickets, subscribing to cable or satelite, or otherwise spending money on entertainment, it's because you have money to burn.)

The Scriptures are not silent. I've already given you the Scriptural principle by which to discern the issue. To whom are you yielding your members as servants to obey? You will have a hard time making the case that one is serving God by emulating the sensuality of wicked men.

 

So, it was a sin for me to play Shylock in my high school production of "The Merchant of Venice"?

Sounds to me with your diatribe on the word origin for "acting" that you're adding to something in a manner in which it was not intended. Then again, you're KJVO, so why am I not surprised? </font>[/QUOTE]Haven't we all learned by now that Johnv cannot sin?

 

I certainly hope that you have never seen, supported or been in a Passion play of any kind...for there are plenty of Godly men who have emulated wicked men time and time again in those. Would you say they are not serving God?

 

Your point is noted. Yet, no one wants to give me a "yes" or "no" answer to my question. Imply in order to make their point, yes, but a direct answer seems to be difficult to get. Let's try this again: If a court reporter is told to read back the last statement, which contains a curse word, is the court reporter guilty of cursing?

Again, rather than answer a question with a direct "yes" or "no", you make a rather stupid and unrighteously belittling comment. Kindly answer the question: Was it a sin for me to play Shylock in my high school production of "The Merchant of Venice"?

It's becoming abundantly clear that we're all in agreement that one should use his/her own God-given judgement in each circumstance. However, no one apparantly wants to directly come out and say that, for fear of someone else using discerning skills may result in a different action than we would take. In other words, we want everyone to think independently, so long as that independent though doesn't disagree with us.

 

Okay Johnv, I can't speak for anyone else on here, but I'll leap. First, let me say that I do not fully agree with you on this issue, but the can't sin comment was out of bounds IMO.

I don't really recall all of the Merchant from my high schools days, but I don't think you sinned. Here is my own personal caveat: just as we often talk about loving the sinner, but hating the sin - you can act as long as you play the sinner, but not the sin. You know, you can still have a fairly accurate portrayal of a biographical figure without profanity in it.

For the court reporter - I do not personally believe that every occurence of certain words we deem profane are always so. I think the court reporter can read an accurate record without sinning.

The difference between the court reporter and the actor is one of choice. The court reporter is not pretending to be anyone and everyone recognizes that this person is reiterating a verbal account for the clarification of the court. The actor is pretending to be someone for entertainments sake and as this character is saying these words. If a Christian can play a character that uses profanity, why not a character that is vulgar in other ways while on stage? I hope we all agree that a Christian should not portray someone who sleeps around and is required to be on stage unclothed???

Perhaps I am being inconsistent in my application of Scriptural truth and will alter my opinions accordingly as the thread progresses.

 

KeithS sez:

Excellent reply, KeithS.

In spite of the growing dislike of the term, this is a perfect example of the "SLIPPERY SLOPE" application.

Just how long, as you get more & more into the "stage/screen/TV", will the next step of "acting" become OK that would be a sin if practiced??

 

Thank you, KeithS, for being the first person to directly answer my questions, and do so in a respectful manner.

Actually, I agree with the bulk of your post. The point that I've been attempting to make is that, while I'd upon first glance tend to say that this-and-that is clearly inappripriate for the Christian on stage, upon second glance, I find that there are exceptions to most of those situations.

For example, offhand, I would tend to tell someone not to play the part of an evil person who does not repent of his evil in the wtory. But, in my own experience of playing Shylock, I was playing the part of an evil person who does not repent from his evil.

I would tend to say that nudity on the stage is inappropriate. OTOH, I have on several occaisions been to the "Pageant of the Masters" (where live actors recreate famous works of art), and there has been an occiaional hint of nudity that is not in any way inappripriate for the general audience.

I would tend to say that blasphemy is inappropriate. But, every passion play or film about Christ I've ever seen, and even scripture, contains blasphemy.

I would tend to say that simulating sexual activity is insppripaiate. Then again, most productions contain simulated violence. So why one and not the other?

The bottom line is, as I've said before, a person should use his/her own God-given judgement in each individual circumstance. Even with proper discernment, there will be one Christian who will not like a certain depiction, while another Christian will have no problem with it.

 

Johnv,

We're probably pretty close to the same page on this in many respects, but in others, perhaps not. Pretty hard to condemn the nudity displayed in old reel footage of US troops liberating some holocaust survivors. I hope no one on the board would avoid the opportunity to help folks in that position so they could avoid the appearance of evil.

Still, this is a lot different than portraying this same thing in a movie. I must admit that I am on the fence on this issue in regards to a movie like Schindler's List. Not on the fence in regards to most movies that portray nudity, however.

I had a teacher in high school that made the exact same point in regards to violence.

 

Yes, KeithS, it does appear that you and I are pretty close to being on the same page. Excellent point about Schindler's list. Obviously, that doesn't excuse the depiction of gratuitous nudity in a movie, but it does make your point.

The deciding factor for me has always been the gratuitous factor. While there are some absolutes, sometimes it's subjective. For example, in some parts of the country, saying "dadgummit" is commonplace. Here, it's seen as a substitute for the g.d. explitive phrase, and I would correct my children if they ever said it. OTOH, the phrase "geez" here is commonplace, while elswhere, it's seen as a substitute for the name of the Lord, and hence inappropriate.

 

I am a latecomer to this thread, but I am glad I didn't miss it altogether.

As far as I know, the Jews of the 1st century did not have theater, but at least once Jesus referred to acting in the scope of children's games, when he said "...play wedding and do not rejoice, and play funeral and do not weep." But Jesus used many illustration in which He gave no moral judgment-- war, stewardship, robbery, et al.

However, God does promote acting on some occasions in scripture. One outstanding one is in Luke where the 2 disciples are walking to Emmaus, the resurrected Christ joins them and they are prevented from recognizing Him (by what means is not stated). But if He kept them from recognizing Him, that is deception in one form or another. Of course in the beginning of the 'holy' nation of Israel, it was deception by means of artificial prop that kept Isaac from knowing he was bestowing the blessing on Jacob that he meant for Esau. But the blessing held up, in spite of the human-engendered deception plot. And then Esther... keeping it a secret that she is Jewish, which inevitably meant she was not eating, washing, et al, as the law requires, as well as marrying a foreigner, and did not reveal who she really was until she assumed the risk to save her people.

As for the skirmish here about saying certain words... surely among the most vile words ever said were what some Pharisees said about the power through which Jesus was casting out demons. Jesus let them know they had committed the sin for which there is never forgiveness in this world or in the next. Did the gospel writers also commit this sin when they quoted the Pharisees? No, this was not acting, but that's not the point. The point is the words themselves, whoever says them under any circumstances-- verbally or in writing, quoting or expressing one's true thought. And why should Christians have less reverance for God than the Jews, who still do not utter His proper name, no matter if they are speaking their own thoughts or quoting? It comes down to whether you actually mean the contempt or vulgarity you might be saying in order to shock or blaspheme, and inevitably to whether it is right to entertain or not.. and we try to do quite a bit of entertaining of each other on these threads.

It certainly would be hard for me to condemn portraying Shylock in The Merchant of Vencie, since that is one of my favorite dramas and I once wrote a research paper on it. Shylock, as Shakespeare's derived character from a popular personage of late medieval drama, was actually very human and feeling compared to the stereotype of the Jewish moneylender; compare Marlowe's The Jew of Matla. But the 'Christians' at enmity with Shylock in the play are little, if any, better than "the Jew." But there's too much I could say about this subject from what I remember from performances and my research paper.