Unpop Culture

If you’ve been hanging out here lately, you know I question why the church has opposed sexually stimulating material in pornography while often embracing the use of sexually stimulating material in major motion pictures. I see this approach as a dangerous compromise in Christian ethics. I don’t want to be needlessly controversial with this topic, though. That is why we’re going to more closely compare Hollywood’s use of sexuality with the porn industry’s use of sexuality. While there are similarities (which I have, on a surface level, already pointed out ), there are also some differences as well. It won’t help my cause to ignore those differences. In fact, examining the differences will actually strengthen my argument. If you don’t believe me, I’m glad you’re here. Thank you for taking the time to examine this issue from an alternate perspective. I’m humbled that you would give me your time and attention. So, what are the obvious differences between Hollywood and porn? ...

The story of Noah has been controversial since the beginning, long before director Darren Aronofsky decided to turn it into a movie. Of course, Aronofsky has created quite a bit of controversy himself, what with the amount of artistic license he allowed himself. His film has been received by the Christian community with a mixture of disgust , ambivalence , and praise . Who is right? Not having seen the film myself, I can’t quite say. What I can comment on, though, is what the filmmakers—and its most ardent critics—are overlooking in the Noah story: the actual reason for the flood in the first place. I’m not talking about the generic, “big picture” reason (i.e., that man’s wickedness was great and every intent of his heart was only evil continually). I’m talking about a particular incident, or rather a series of incidents, that spiraled out of control, leading to God’s denouncement of mankind. Remember what that was? When humans began to multiply on the face of the earth, “ the...

After last year’s Video Music Awards, Christianity Today posted an article mourning over how Miley Cyrus gave in to the cultural idea that “in-your-face sexuality is the easiest way to get attention.” Four months later, the magazine used a different emotional tone when addressing Martin Scorsese’s film The Wolf of Wall Street , which revels in depictions of explicit sexuality. The article states , “ The Wolf of Wall Street is a great and possibly terrific movie.” In another corner of cyberspace, Christ and Pop Culture examined the implications of Miley Cyrus spending “the majority of her 6 minutes on stage ‘ twerking .’” The magazine summarized the sexualized spectacle as “exuberant, banal, nihilism.” Several months later, while examining Scorsese’s filmmaking and stylistic choices, this same magazine adamantly proposed that The Wolf of Wall Street was not only “redeemable,” but also “an incredibly moral film.”           ...