ARE CHRISTIANS TO VIEW ANY FILM IN ANY FORM THAT IS PRESENTED AS A BIBLICAL NARRATIVES AND IS DISTORTED

ARE CHRISTIANS TO VIEW ANY FILM IN ANY FORM THAT IS PRESENTED AS A BIBLICAL NARRATIVES AND IS DISTORTED There is a difference between Noah and God's Not Dead Researched by Charles e. Whisnant Are we as Christians to take time to watch a film or movie on the TV or Theaters, or DVD a film that is presented as a Biblical movie that has distorted  the text i.e.  has been pulled or twisted out of shape, or giving a misleading or false account t for impression,  or misrepresented.  Albert Molher said this “But the odd elements are not the problem, the movie’s message is. Furthermore, the way that message distorts the Genesis account is a far larger problem when it becomes clear that the misrepresentation extends to the master narrative of the Bible – including the character of God.” Write his article  http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/03/31/drowning-in-distortion-darren-aronofskys-noah/ This not only misses the point of the Genesis narrative, it corrupts it. Aronofsky is telling a truly fascinating story in these segments of the film, but it is not the story of Noah as found in the Bible. Totally missing from the movie is the understanding that God is simultaneously judging and saving, ready to make a covenant with Noah that will turn the biblical narrative toward Abraham and the founding of Israel. God is spoken of in the movie, but he does not speak. He is identified only as “The Creator,” and he appears to be driven by an essentially ecological fervor. The entire context of covenant is completely absent. What does God say about this issue set before us? What principles are in scripture that will give us the answer? What is the God Biblical Answer to the films that have a Biblical Narratives ? Let's look at Second Corinthians 4:2 Second Corinthians 4:2 “But (Paul) have (has) {made sure that he has}

1. renounced the hidden things of dishonesty,
   
2. not walking in craftiness,
   
3. not handling the word of God deceitfully;
   
4. but by manifestation of the truth, commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.'

The term “renounce” means..... RENOUNCE: (550) to literally speak off or to speak out against. to refuse to follow, to disown, to disclaim, to rject. We have renounced disgraceful ways (secret thoughts, feelings, desires and underhandedness, the methods and arts that men hide through shame); we refuse to deal craftily (to practice trickery and cunning) or to adulterate or handle dishonestly the Word of God, but we state the truth openly (clearly and candidly). And so we commend ourselves in the sight and presence of God to every man’s conscience.  Amplified. CRAFITINESS: (3834) Here the word takes on a negative meaning and conveys the ideas of trickery involving evil cunning, or cleverness, craftiness. Here Paul is saying that he has avoided the clever manipulations of words so that error is made to look like truth. Ephesians 4:14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming. I would say this verse say we are to be careful about falling for the tricky of men. If we are reading right Darren Aronofskey's purpose in the film “NOAH” then we must come to the conclusion that we should be tricky. Second Corinthians 11:3 Paul said “But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be lead astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/2Corinthians%2011.3 Paul is saying that he scrupulously avoids clever manipulation of words so that error is made to look like truth. Paul was careful to made sure that he would not lead people wrong in what he preached. Satan's modus operandi, the nature of sinful men, has not changed, we as believers need to say on “high alert” as we see in First Peter 5:8. And we are to be as in Second Corinthians 2:11, ….so that no advantage would be taken of us by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his schemes.” Then Paul said he would not change the Word (or the narratives of a Biblical story to cause it be be false (even while it appears to be true.) He would not handle the Word of God in a deceitfully way. The term “adulterating or handle: 1389 dishonestly the Word of God. Paul was not going to change the Word to please people. He was not going to falsify the Word. That is what false teachers do: they can present the truth as Peter said in Second Peter 2:1 They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, they well tell the truth but with a different slant There is some indication that the writers of NOAH made a deliberate attempt to mislead the truth of the truth about the reason the Flood was in the Bible in the first place. Way too often Christians as well as Unbelievers are unwary consumer and are lured in by what looks like a good story. I am sure that the producers and writers gave a lot of attention to the making of this film. They did there best to make this film look more “authentic.” Footnote: Many sermons are like this, they use introductions and illustrations so as to make the message and the Word more “authentic.” Can I say the Word is authentic. I know that in making a film like Noah they want to make it appealing for someone to watch I get that. Much like sermons we give the true gospel, but then we add to it things of human ingenuity and wisdom. Many believe if they make the gospel more effective or give it a greater hearing that they will get better results. They are doing what Paul said he would not do, “handling the word of God deceitfully. You know the “seeker friendly” or hip or culturally relevant kind of preaching of the Word of God. So how as the film NOAH tamper with the word of God? You ask? Which is always the question that most people ask? Let me give you what I read about how preachers tamper with the word of God Well much like some preachers do in their preaching:

1. By taking the text out of context. Al Moher talks about this in his article.
   
2. By moralizing the text. You can see many times in the film this is done.
   
3. By taking the text or for this article the film to make your own point, or to promote your own hobbyhorses
   
4. By making clear that the text or the film is saying things that the text is not saying, nor is it even implied in the story.
   
5. By make making the story more acceptable, or said more clever and popular.

THE WORD OF GOD: A footnote: 1 Samuel 9;27; 2 Samuel 16:23; 1 Kings 12:22; 1 Chronicles 17:3; Proverbs 30:5; Matthew 15:6; Mark 7:13; Luke 3:2; 5:1; 8:11, 21; 11:28; John 10:35; Acts 4:31; 6:2; 8:14; 11:1; 13:5 & 7 & 46; 17:13; 18:11; Romans 9:6; I Corinthians 14:38; 2 Corinthians 2:17; 4:2; Ephesians 6:17; Philippians 1:14; Colossians 1:25, First Thessalonian 2:13, First Timothy 4:5; Second Timothy 2:9; Titus 2:5; Hebrews 4:12; 6:5; 11:3; 13:7; First Peter 1:23; Second Peter 3:5; First John 2:14, Revelation 1:2, 9 and 6:9; 19:13 and 20:4 Let me give you what Albert Mohler said with a few personal comments.

1. Added a very great deal to the Bible's account of Noah in Genesis: In itself that is not a problem.
   
2. “The film completely accepts the text, the four chapter in Genesis as truth.”
   
3. Dramatically dramatize it. (Much like some sermon we hear.)
   
4. Simply adding to the narrative is not necessarily wrong, since there is so little in the narrative account. That is not the real problem.
   
5. What they did is distort it to the uttermost, even may not intending to do so.
   
6. The problem is how they expand the narrative, even when we accept the fact that a film make has to invent dialogue and embellish the narrative.
   
7. They clearly decided to change key elements, rejecting the Bible's account in some respects.
   
8. Methuselah would give Noah a hallucinogenic potion so that he can hallucinate God's will, is a little strange.
   
9. But the odd elements are not the problem??? the movie's message is.
   
10. The way that message distorts the Genesis account is a far larger problem when it become clear that the misrepresentation extends to the master narrative of the Bible – including the character of God.
    
11. One example: Noah is introduced as a kind and caring family man, but his divine assignment truths the movie's Noah into a sociopathic monster. There is no scripture that presented Noah as a murderous sociopathic.
    
12. Here the movie veers into a radical distortion of the biblical account. Noah is now depicted as a madman ready to murder his own grandchildren I order to end humanity.
    
13. To missed the point is one thing but to corrupt it is really mad.
    
14. Then to leave out some of the points of the narrative. Like the covenant.
    
15. The shaping of the story to fit the theory of evolution, right down to the animation is not subtle.
    
16. The bible by the way presents God as the central actor in the story not Noah.

So should we go to movies or watch them on the TV that have a bible story? Personally I believe there are a lot of preaching that I would not go to hear. Many are not as strong as Paul was in his conviction as in 2 Corinthians 4:1-2 Just be remained that the Bible is still the best way of telling the story. If the Lord wanted us to know more he would have written more. The best way of telling the story is not Hollywood’s way but should be in a way that is true to the story, and should be told in that way by the Preachers and Teachers of the Word.

Why I Don’t Preach Against Going To Movies

Charity and I went to see the film God Is Not Dead. 

My mindset, that of a Christian Pastor/Teacher, has been for 49 years.  My father was a preacher and he was a great preacher and father and husband and friend.  I learned a lot from him.  What I learned from him was as a father, I don’t remember a lot about his preaching.  I learned what he believed by what he would want us to live. 

Dad was not into movies or films or television.  Looking back  to the 60’’s there was not much on TV that was so harmful.  And going to the movies was not something that we did either.  I do remember the first movie I saw at the movie place was “Gone With The Wind>”  To this day I still like that movie.   Jerry Lewis was on at the movies too, but  we just didn’t go a lot. Maybe when we went to visit our Grandparents Greene in North Carolina, we would go see a Jerry Lewis movie with our cousins.

Going to movies was something that we related to as SIN.  Hollywood and the like.  When I first started out preaching and teaching, this was the one topic that you just had to address.  You couldn’t preach without mentioning something that was sinful: movies, dancing, playing cards, drinking beer, having long hair, tattoos, you know the list.  It was not preaching if you did not address all these things that you did not do.   Those were the days. 

Well, finally in 1982 when I was at First Baptist Church, Altoona, Kansas after two years of preaching Jack Hyles type of preaching I went to the Shepherd’s Conference at Grace Community Church, where Dr. John MacArthur pastors, and learned what real preaching was.  That was a shock.

I finally learned what the  onus or responsibility of the pastor was.  I began teaching verse by verse the book of Matthew.  I learned that my onus was to teach the Word of God, to teach from the Bible, and from the book of Matthew to teach what the chapter was saying.

What I discovered was the first chapter of Matthew did not say one thing about dancing, and going to movies, I was shocked,   So the sermon I was told had to give understanding of the scripture that was before me when I preached.  So how am I going to get in the sins I wanted to address, after all I wanted people to live right.

God’s goal is to conform His people into the image of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.   I was told that the means whereby we do this is to use the ancient text called the Word of God. I was to give understanding of what Matthew  had written down in the Gospel of Matthew. That was a shock.

If I was going to help the people learn how to live the Christian life, and become believers that loved the Lord Jesus Christ with all their hearts, soul and mind, then I had to present to them the Word of God as was written in the book of Matthew, Romans, I Corinthians, Acts, etc.

I learned that preaching all starts with a text.  and scripture was to be the predominant medium of divine communication to people who were under our care as a Shepherd/Pastor/Teacher. 

I was told (John MacArthur and the staff) that as a preacher I had this one responsibility and that was to teach the text that was before me each week.

So from October 1982 when I begin to teach expositionally, that is verse by verse.  I made myself say only what the text was saying. 

So from Jack Hyles type of preaching to John MacArthur type of teaching I began this journey that has lasted now for thirty-two years.

Our assistant pastor at FBC was telling the people that I had quit preaching and went to teaching, that I had quit preaching on sin. And I had another preacher friend say, “Charles if you would quit spending so much time studying and start preaching you would have a bigger church.”

I had learned that if the Scripture didn’t say it I was not to preach it. If the scripture that I was to teach didn’t say anything about a specific sin I was not to bring it up. 

Now this was for me  a new special hermeneutics, the science of interpretation of Scripture. Not only how to preach but how to understand  the Word of God.  Learning to say what the author said, rather than what I want to say. 

I  had always believed that preaching the Word of God was preaching on SIN, and getting people saved, and living right, and going out soul winning, and dressing right.  Which is still our goal, but now there is a new way of accomplishing that.  Preach the Scriptures verse by verse.

I learned that as preachers we were to preach the Word and then allow the Holy Spirit to do the work in the lives of those who heard the Word.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Charity you can stop proof reading now. And thanks, and have I been truthful about what I have said?

-------------------------

I just read the review from http://www.avclub.com/review/gods-not-dead-mess-even-christian-film-standards-202571 and  which said in the open paragrapha

Even by the rather lax standards of the Christian film industry, God’s Not Dead is a disaster. It’s an uninspired amble past a variety of Christian-email-forward boogeymen that feels far too long at just 113 minutes. Resembling a megachurch more than a movie, it’s been designed not to convey any particular message, but to reinforce the stereotypes its chosen audience already holds. It weirdly fetishizes persecution, and many of its story decisions—like randomly tossing in Duck Dynasty stars Willie and Korie Robertson or concluding on an endless concert from popular Christian rock group Newsboys—seem designed to simply get butts in seats. To say God’s Not Dead preaches to the choir would be an understatement. It’s the pastor, staring in a mirror, preaching to himself.

Another website http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/25/gods-not-dead-producer-answers-critics-who-say-film-is-too-over-the-top/

“Friendly Atheist” blogger Hemant Mehta called the film ”one of those movies ripped right from the pages of Snopes.” And Libby Anne of the “Love, Joy, Feminism” blog said its premise is “so unrealistic as to be ludicrous.”

While Wolfe acknowledged that the film is essentially preaching to the choir because it helps “people know more of why they believe what they believe,” he also said that there is potential for “God’s Not Dead” to reach nonbelievers, too.

There is a video of an interview of Kevin Sorbo, lead actor in the God’s Not Dead movie http://godsnotdead.org/

PERSONALLY CHARITY AND CHARLES WHISNANT, LIKED THE FILM.

 

The Shawshank Redemption

 

Production  In Mansfield Ohio

Darabont secured the film adaptation rights from author Stephen King after impressing the author with his short film adaptation of The Woman in the Room in 1983. Although the two had become friends and maintained a pen-pal relationship, Darabont did not work with him until four years later in 1987, when he optioned to adapt Shawshank.^[8] This is one of the more famous Dollar Deals made by King with aspiring filmmakers. Darabont later directed The Green Mile (1999), which was based on another work about a prison by Stephen King, and then followed that up with an adaptation of King's novella The Mist.
Rob Reiner, who had previously adapted another King novella, The Body, into the movie Stand by Me (1986), offered $2.5 million in an attempt to write and direct Shawshank. He planned to cast Tom Cruise in the part of Andy and Harrison Ford as Red. Darabont seriously considered and liked Reiner's vision, but he ultimately decided it was his "chance to do something really great" by directing the film himself.^[3]
Though the movie is set in Maine, the Ohio State Reformatory in Mansfield, Ohio, served as the fictional Shawshank Prison. Though a large portion of the prison was torn down after filming, the main administration building and two cell blocks remained; the site would be revisited later for filming parts of the film Air Force One.^[9] Several of the interior shots of the specialized prison facilities, such as the admittance rooms and the warden's office, were shot in the reformatory.^[9] The interior of the boarding room used by Brooks and Red was located in the administration building, though exterior shots were made elsewhere.^[9] The prison site remains a tourist attraction as of 2011.^[9] Internal scenes in the prison cellblocks were actually filmed on a soundstage built inside the nearby shuttered Westinghouse factory.^[9] Downtown scenes were also filmed in Mansfield, as well as neighboring Ashland, Ohio. The oak tree under which Andy buries his letter to Red is located at 40°39′14″N 82°23′31″W, near Malabar Farm State Park, in Lucas, Ohio. The tree was heavily damaged by straight-line winds in a thunderstorm on July 29, 2011; officials are unsure if the tree will survive.^[10]

THE GOOD FALL IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN

The Movie Twilight.

Mormon Vampires in the Garden of Eden

Twilight, the movie: vampires, werewolves, romance, and magic

Since I am in the study of Creation on Wednesday Night, I came across a review of the movie TWILIGHT, which I haven't seen, or read the book, but I understand millions have, and saw that the Garden of Eden was one of the ideas behind the movie. Here below is a brief review of the motive.

A Good Fall (read the whole article)

This brings us back to the Garden of Eden. As mentioned above, Twilight is a romantic retelling of the story of Man’s Fall presented in the engaging and exciting wrappers of a romance and an international thriller. This may sound like a stretch, but consider the first book’s cover—a woman’s arms holding out an apple—and its opening epigraph—“But the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not taste of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2:17).

This isn’t, however, the story as Moses told it or as Christian saints and sages have understood it. As a Mormon, Mrs. Meyer departs from the traditional Christian understanding of that event, and the nature of her departure appeals to rather than repels her readers.

Christians understand Adam and Eve’s disobedience to God, their “original sin,” or Fall, as the beginning of man’s distance from God, a distance that man could not restore on his own, but that required the incarnation and sacrifice of a divine, sinless Savior to accomplish.

Mormons reject this interpretation. Not only do they hold the Pelagian view that human conscience and free will are sufficient for salvation, but they go a step further, asserting that, not only was the Fall not a bad thing, it was actually a good, even necessary thing for human salvation.

In some streams of Mormon tradition, Adam is, in fact, the finite God of earth (or the Archangel Michael), and Eve is his celestial wife from another planet. The Fall and expulsion from Paradise, according to this view, were necessary in order for Adam and Eve to marry and reproduce. “Celestial marriage” is a core ordinance for Mormon exaltation (salvation), and without the “Fall,” man could not take this important step in his progression from mortality to post-mortal life as a god in the Celestial Kingdom.

This is a remarkable departure from orthodox, creedal Christianity with respect to sexuality and understanding how human beings relate to God. In traditional Christianity, sexual continence is adopted by those who aspire to devote themselves more deeply to the things of God, while in Mormonism, sex within marriage is itself an edifying, even salvific, spiritual exercise. A “single Mormon” is something like a “square circle,” and monastic vocation a sacrilege.

Joseph Smith, Jr.’s doctrines of Eternal Progression and the sufficiency of human will and conscience also break with Christian tradition. Instead of man working in synergy with God to receive and be transformed by his grace, Mormonism advocates a can-do spirit of works, which, if performed in conformity with God’s teachings in the LDS church, will result in one’s drawing ever nearer to God in this life and in the next.

SHOULD CHRISTIANS GO TO SEE A "R" RATED MOVIE?

^

My sister Ellen sent me this letter by e mail, she gave me permission to post it. She is married has a daugther married and has three children, and a son who is is senior this year.

• First, in my email to some friends and family I posted a ChristianityToday description of the movie American Gangster. One person responded and said it was offensive and any caring parent would not take their children to see a R rated movie. Then suggested that I mention another movie that parents should not let their childen see.

• Another e mailed me and said "Do you really believe that parents will be tempted to take their children to see this film?" And several other good comments that should be address in another post.

• HERE is my quesitons: Do Christians go to R rated movies, or buy R rated CD DVD, etc. or watch them on TV? You are kidding right! Of course they do.

• You might in your rightesousness say, "They are not Christians." That would be quite judgemental.

• For most of my ministry up to 1982 felt it was my position to tell people not to go to a movie of any kind. While I do not go to a movie I do watch movies on TV.

• Nevertheless the issue is Christians, saved believers, do go and their children, sons and daughters will go with them or without them, or without their permission.

• Thisweekend American Gangster made $46 million. No Christian person went to the movie! Sorry about that. Denzel Washingon was recently mention as the # one Christian in Hollywood. Okay what is your definition of a "Christian?"

My point is just to infom Christian parents about this movie, since my sister mention it to me.

Charles

^

Friends and Family,

I don't even know where to begin to express what I am feeling currently. I know I should not be shocked by much of anything these days.

Some of you are not movie goers, but ALL of us know people who are. We need to make ourselves aware of what is going on in our own backyards whether we ever go out and mow the lawn or not. The weeds will grow and eventually take over. This is exactly what Dr. Falwell and Dr. Dobson warned us about...they stepped out and made a difference in our broken down world. It is up to us to do our part on a daily basis. We can make a difference.

-

All that to say and warn you of the new movie out today, American Gangster with Denzel and Russell. PLEASE be aware and sober before you step into that scene. While I admit I do like them both as actors coupled with the fact that I love movies based on true stories, I was hoping it would be a good movie. I knew it would not be Mayberry RFD, but I didn't expect it to be Sin City either.Most of you were probably not going to see it as it is rated R, but there are those that will/ would. And many of our young people will be tempted.

I usually ck out Pluggedinonline.com (Focus on the Family site for movies) but recently I have not found what I was looking for in completion on that site. They do review R rated movies and even ones I would have not thought they would. Not that Dr. Dobson views or promotes them...he without question doesn't.

Anyway, while we all have our own perspectives on what we should or our children should or should not see, I would be shocked to know that we would not all be on the same page with Amer. Gang.

With that sd about Plugged In, I have been also looking at a site address kidsinmind.com , so please check it out. I did not see Amer Gang on Plugged In as they have not reviewed it yet, but kids in mind has. Wow. And I thought IN the Valley of Elah was bad?????? A.G. makes Valley of Elah look like an old Walt Disney. A.G. should be rated X . Read the review on K.I.M. and tell me you don't agree!

-

Also, I find it interesting that in the newspaper AG is advertised R for violence, and sexual

content. NO mention of the strong language and FULL repeated nudity..to put it mildly.

-

According to K.I.M. profanity is rated about 10 (1-10 being the scale from good to bad). But the sexual content was unbelievable. I have seen a lot of the ads at the show, tv, etc on A.G. and no clue was given that it would be this toxic. I hesitate in even asking you to read it.

I know there will be people who will go without checking it out first. I have that t-shirt. Many of them are going to be exposed to visuals they never expected that may linger in their minds.

-

And not to pick on our men, but remember they are" visual" and I know God has not purposed for our husbands and sons to see what the big screen is about to put before them. As women we are responsible as well and are to be as guarded.

-

Many of our Christian brothers and sisters view R rated movies. PLEASE get the word out if you have not already about A.G.'s step into the abyss.

I just read recently where Denzel said family is the more important than acting, or anything. I personally think he is a seasoned actor, maybe some day he will be as versed in playing in movies he would want his family/children to see. Too, I know recently he was a part of an audio made of the OT. He and his wife portrayed the part of Bible characters. Now I can't remember if they were Ruth and Boaz or some other married couple. Anyway, I remember thinking that was pretty neat. God's Word does not come back void and we are responsible for what we know...so when he faces The Father in Heaven , he will have to answer.

-

Concerned but hopeful,

Ellen