from moralmetric.com

While recognizing the propensity to sin, Christians must not forfeit their rights as consumers, but instead, demand a product worthy of its cost.  In recent weeks, newspapers have reported on the government of Malaysia demanding that rock star Gwen Stefani wear body-covering clothing during her highly anticipated concert in that small mostly Muslim country.  The ruling body promised to shut down the event if the modest dress code was not followed. 

Stefani adhered to the request, managing to find numerous decent ensembles.  Why did she go to the trouble?  Because she would not have made money if she had refused to dress modestly.  Gwen Stefani, a rocker known for her scanty costumes, demonstrated how the performer must cater to his or her audience. 

A higher moral standard of performance must be demanded by Christian consumers, and they must stop paying actors for filth; Christian consumers must understand that every movie ticket generates income for the performers.

If Muslims can moderate modesty in pop culture, could/should we?

I think not. I don’t think we should be out to try and legislate holiness for all of society. Christians can easily make the decision not to be affected by pop culture.

Time and effort should be spent spreading the gospel, not on efforts such as this, which don’t really have an outcome that sees people coming to know Jesus.

I disagree that “Christians must not forfeit their rights as consumers”. Christians are called to forfeit many rights for the sake of the gospel and holiness.

But, Geoff, might we then be seen as having no morals or if it is acknowledged that we do have some, not standing up for what we believe?

Cheers,
Andrew

What a great opportunity to affect the world in which we live.

With respect I disagree with Geoff. But I encourage you in your continued passion to share the gospel.

We can share the gospel in many ways, not just with words, but by our actions too.

The example David gives to involved is a worthy one to consider. If anything you can draw together a group of like-minded people (both christian and non-christian) and use your common cause as an in-road to sharing the gospel. Oulia !! You’ve achieved your Christian mission purpose!

Besides I am both a Christian and a consumer. I expect quality goods wherever I go. And if I don’t get satisfactory service or delivery of goods of course I’ll write a letter to the supplier bringing this to their attention. The film industy (and the television industry) are no different.

I would demand quality goods. For example it is only when people complain that we stop innapropriate ads being shown in children’s viewing times.

An example of being involved in your community and reaching non-Christians (without hounding them with the gospel) can be found at:

http://your.sydneyanglicans.net/mission/missionthinking/women_helping_women/

cheers,
Heather.

And if I don’t get satisfactory service or delivery of goods of course I’ll write a letter to the supplier bringing this to their attention. The film industy (and the television industry) are no different.

Of course. But if we are operating from a consumerist model, then we need to recognise the “supplier” will go where the market points. So if 90% want soft-porn on TV and 10% don’t, guess what’s going to happen?

That’s true, Craig, but I wonder how many people don’t want something but think that their voice won’t make any difference so say nothing at all.

I agree with Heather that we need to make a stand and we don’t know the result of our efforts. We certainly won’t get the result if no effort is put in.

Cheers,
Andrew

Fair enough Andrew. I think those who are concerned about this should certainly follow their consciences and write in.

For me, I simply don’t watch shows like “Californication”. I don’t watch much TV at all, actually.

There are enough non-Christians, or even non-Gospel-oriented Christians that have similar morals in regard to this that I think we can leave this issue largely to them, and focus on what they won’t do - telling the world God’s word.

Craig,

It seems as though you send your message about the ‘junk’ on TV another way, ie, don’t contribute to their ratings etc

That, to me, is just as valid!

Dannii, I don’t know that it is as simple as that, but maybe it is.

Cheers,
Andrew

I noticed that the “Californication” protests got air time again tonight. This really is giving the show free publicity.

Andrew Kroiter - 11 September 2007 05:17 PM

But, Geoff, might we then be seen as having no morals or if it is acknowledged that we do have some, not standing up for what we believe?

Well it depends on how you would define “standing up for what we believe”. I can stand up for what I believe without legislating for a television show to be banned. I imagine it would come individually with conversations with friends and family, and choosing not to join in smutty conversations about pop-culture.

One of the problems with causes like this is they don’t seem to end up addressing the problem. Let’s say Christians lobby to get smutty shows taken of the air, what in the end have they accomplished? As Craig S rightly pointed out it is consumer driven, so it is obviously what the majority of society wants. Are people suddenly going to be cured of their sinful desires because it gets taken off air? I don’t think so. Is anyone going to come to Christ because a show gets taken off air? I don’t think so either. (Heather did pint out it can lead to conversations, but I’m confident there are other ways of doing this than lobbying to get a show or concernt the majority of the population want anyway).

It doesn’t address the root cause of the problem, it just looks like something positive has been done so we can pat ourselves on the back. It’s like making suicide illegal, is that really going to stop anyone from doing it? No.

So I think it’s great to have a cause and to show the secular world that we have morals, I just don’t think this is a positive way of doing it, and I don’t think it ends up achieving the goals we want. We’ll just end up annoying people.

I think the best argument for lobbying against these things however, is for protection of children. If we go down that line of argument, then i think there is merit.

I could be wrong, and do commend the heart of those who champion causes like this. I just feel it’s effort used in the wrong area that doesn’t advance our true cause.

cheers

Geoff

Hello All,

I haven’t been around these parts for a while. Lurking occasionally, but contributing little.

I find this topic interesting as it always seems to revolve around ‘filth’ or ‘smut’, that is SEX. Sex isn’t what I find interesting in this context, but the Christian preoccupation with it.

Firstly, I agree that shows such as Californication appear to be awful on many levels (I don’t have a television so I can’t comment too much). However, there seems to be a weird distortion in Christian thinking about sex and its portrayal in cinema/television.

To simplify:

Christians think sex is created by God and is good in the right context.

Christians think that violence is an expression of sin and is bad in most contexts. (Of course it can be argued that there are heroic necessary acts of violence)

However, when it comes to the portrayal of sex and violence, Christians have an immediate knee-jerk reaction to sex (even if it is monogamous heterosexual sex), whereas they are generally quiet at easy with gross acts of violence.

Movies like Showgirls or Striptease are hardly an expression of sex the way that God intended it, however movies like Hostel or Saw or 300 are hardly an experssion of life the way that God intended it, yet it is more acceptable to watch the latter rather than the former.

It seems that Christians are more offended by the fictional portrayal of sex, than the fictional portrayal of violence. Why is this?

Christopher, excellent question, but off-topic! The heart of this topic is asking whether Christians should agitate for morality - along the lines of the original quote - if the Muslims in Malaysia can get Gwen Stefani to cover up, why can’t we?

Dannii, of course this does not mean we stop proclaiming the gospel - Spurgeon said ‘preach the gospel at all times, and if necessary use words’. Christian activism should be part of a holistic attitude to life that includes proclamation as the Spirit directs.

David Maegraith - 12 September 2007 11:29 AM

The heart of this topic is asking whether Christians should agitate for morality

Yes but if we are agitating for morality then what morality is needs to be clarified.

It seems to me that in the area of ‘sexual morality’ in popular culture some Christians act on a skewed viewed; stressing some areas as being important and essential while other areas for no clear reason are deemed unimportant and negligible.

I am just curious as to why this is the case.

morality is about choice. God is moral, so read the bible and make your decisions based on that.

I’m with Chris,
When Christians speak of “morality” it almost universally gets interpreted as “something to do with sex”.
You’d almost think violence, theft, lying, covetousness, greed, etc aren’t even in the picture.
I am beginning to think it’s a sort of agreement we have with the rest of society. We don’t have anything to contribute, kind of thing, on the other issues cos they are legal, sociological, socio-political, psychological or something, so sex is all we have left.
It’s strange innit?
Corruption and greed are strangling people all over the world, violence is being perpetrated on our TV’s as a matter of course but we get hepped up over sex almost exclusively.
Or is it a media thing? Maybe sex and God are worth attention but God and violence is ho hum?