It Doesn’t Matter If Actors Willingly Undress for the Camera
Maybe it would help to look at it
in this way. Consider, if you will, two pertinent groups in this discussion. In
the first group are plenty of actors—many of whom are not professing Christians—who experience serious reservations about
exposing themselves to the public at large. It’s not because they are trying to
glorify God with their bodies, their words, or their actions. It’s not
necessarily because they subscribe to a Christian sexual ethic. Still, their
consciences bother them when it comes to nudity and sex scenes.
That’s the first group of people. The
second group consists of Christian patrons. These are people who are trying to glorify God with their
bodies, their words, and their actions. As believers, they are bound by the
Christian sexual ethic. And yet these people—those who have been delivered from
darkness and transferred into God’s kingdom—are the ones saying their
consciences are clear when they watch the consciences of others be violated.
These Christians pay for actors to be abused and experience no qualms about it.
Brothers and sisters, this should
not be!
And yet there’s more to consider
than what we’ve already discussed. To continue my line of reasoning from last week: the second part of my nuanced answer to the argument that some actors
do sex scenes and/or nudity willingly is this: it doesn’t matter. Not if we
take seriously God’s command to love our neighbor as ourselves.
Whether or not actors agree with
the nudity and sex acts required of them is actually beside the point. Why?
Because it doesn’t negate the fact that they are being objectified and degraded
as human beings in what is essentially
a pornographic act. It is unloving of us as Christians to support such actions, even when
they are free from coercion.
We see this principle at work in
Romans 13, where Paul says loving your neighbor includes avoiding adultery. He’s
not assuming that all adultery is rape. Some adultery—much of it, in fact—takes
place by mutual consent. And in so-called “open marriages,” there are no
parties objecting to adultery. Does that suddenly make the adultery excusable?
Not according to Paul. By its nature, sexual perversion is sin, even if it’s
consensual and socially acceptable.
All forms of immorality are inherently
unloving. That’s the Bible’s stance. That should
be the Christian’s stance. In contrast to this, the film industry has created a
socially acceptable ménage à trois: two actors commit sexually
intimate acts, and audiences sit in on the proceedings with complete approval.
It doesn’t matter if you watch a raunchy movie
only for the “good parts” or the overall message. It doesn’t matter if you can watch, or ignore, a sex scene while
keeping a completely pure heart. It doesn’t matter if you spend less by renting
a DVD. If money travels from your account to the producer of that film, your
patronage is supporting an unloving act.
The “law of love” (which we’ve talked about earlier) exhorts us to consider the spiritual, emotional, and
physical needs of men and women in front of the camera. Is that restricting for
a movie-going audience? I suppose so. It has definitely kept me from visiting
the theater on several occasions where I otherwise would have willingly and
excitedly done so.
But this law of love is not “restricting” in a
lastingly negative sense any more than monogamy is a negative restriction for
married couples. It’s a law that protects, not harms. It’s a law that governs
for good, not evil. It’s a law that helps one cultivate the greatest motive known
to humankind. In the end, what is truly more freeing: living a self-centered or
an others-centered life? The Bible’s answer is the latter.
Think about the implications here.
How would it affect you if you put the law of love into practice? What if you
refused to financially support movies that objectified actors because you wanted
to treat them as real people? Would you not start viewing the actors you
encounter in the movies as real people and not just potential sources of eye
candy or gratification? Would the law of love not help you fight sexual lust
even more effectively with gospel power? Would it not help you keep from
focusing on yourself (which is what lust does) and instead focus on the needs
of others (which is what a healthy, Biblically-informed sexuality is all
about)? Would that not be a gloriously countercultural way to demonstrate God’s
love to your fellow human beings?
I think it would. In fact, my
personal experience has been that it does. I dare you (in the most positive sense
possible) to prove me wrong.
photo credit: Bob
Bekian via photopin cc