The occasion for these comments will be more than obvious to almost all of the readers of this magazine, especially to those who belong to the Christian Reformed Church. Large quantities of the New Bulletin for September 1969 of the “Association of Christian Reformed Laymen” have been mailed to many homes within recent days. And in large measure this news bulletin is devoted to an evaluation of showing “The Pawnbroker” at the most recent (June 1969) Ministerial Institute attended by many of the ministers.
ACRL – Appreciation
Publicly I want to express my appreciation. This docs not necessarily imply that everything done by the association or the manner in which it has always done its work receives unqualified endorsement. Nothing that we as Christian believers do at any given time or in any given situation is free from the taint of sin. But what they are doing in the main, also evidenced here, is testifying to the Word of grace and salvation in Christ Jesus our Lord and its implications for life. They are discharging their God-given task and responsibility of “proving the spirits, whether they are of God….They are pleading, warning, urging, in so far as they believe with all their heart that some of the present activities within the church are contrary to Cod’s will, detrimental to the welfare of Christ’s church, and inimical of growth in godliness and sanctification without which no man shall see the Lord. Thus they are to that extent “reformational” Christians seeking to exercise the “office” or priesthood of all believers. And for that we praise the Lord who gives this grace.
A word or two about these introductory comments may not be out of place.
It is an undeniable fact that among the Christian Reformed ministers, elders and membership there are some who deeply resent the association and its activities. A few have attacked it openly; others more surreptitiously.
Now let us face the fact of its presence among us in all candor. Do these members have the right not only to their Christian convictions but also to communicating these convictions? Isn’t this, after all, what most of us as ministers are continuously exhorting them as believers to do? And if in the discharge of what both they and we believe on the basis of God’s word to be their responsibility before God and the world, then let us evaluate them in love. If they have failed somehow in their duty to speak the truth, to speak the truth in love, to speak that truth in love in the right place and at the right time and to the right people, then does it not become the task of these convinced of their “error” to admonish and exhort them in the love which we commonly confess to have received from God in Christ Jesus our Lord? But if and in so far as they are speaking the truth and seeking the advancement of God’s cause among us, then let us both thank God and take heed to our ways. Only in this way will we grow up together in all things into Christ Jesus who is our mutual Head and Savior.
“The Pawnbroker” and the Institute
But now on to “The Pawnbroker” and its viewing at a Ministerial Institute.
No detailed rehearsal of the content or artistry of the film will be given here. Such should be unnecessary, since the readers can find out about all this in a more appropriate and accurate way than by means of comments on this page. Our concern isn’t simply with this particular film; it is rather with the showing of a film of this or any other kind at such a gathering. Let it be added, that the writer deliberately remained absent from this showing as well from other gatherings of the Institute. The reasons for his absence arc sufficiently well-known to many of his colleagues in the ministry, including also some who have served on committees of arrangement. Hence he is hardly in a position to evaluate whether the showing at this past summer’s gathering was appropriate and fruitful for those in attendance. From the survey of the time allotted to this part of the program and from evaluations gleaned from a few who took part he would opine that the results fell quite far short of what could and should have been accomplished.
And it is this which brings us to the point.
No Neutral Ground
That such or another film can be viewed by ministers and other confessing Christians is not per se (in itself) wrong. sinful or spiritually unfruitful. For some readers this may seem an amazing assertion, since the film by Christian norms cannot be assessed otherwise than as one which depicts that which is debasing, at times vulgar, and worst of all blasphemous. But as all of us who confess to belong to Jesus Christ well know, nothing exists or is experienced per se (in and by itself). Here there is no comfortable “neutrality” of life or art or involvement in life behind which anyone may hide. We either sec or do not see such a film before the face of the living God our Savior with whom we have to do. And our awareness of this profound but precious reality—living in the Lord’s presence -makes the facing of at least two basic questions imperative. In the first place: why (with what intent and purpose) arc we looking at the film? In the second place: are we sufficiently mature as Christian believers to see such a film without being dissuaded in mind or feelings or heart from our deep Christian responsibility before God and our fellow-believers? And nobody answers these questions after merely a momentary reflection!
Let us elaborate.
Need for a Reformational Approach
Is there a proper time and place and reason for Christian ministers to see such a film? It would seem that the answer, at least in a general way, would be obvious. Here we would refer not primarily to recent synodical decisions (1966) with respect to “film arts.” Fine as much in those decisions seems to sound on paper, it may be questioned whether their true intent and implication are really being taught within the church and consistently practiced by its members. Instead, we would face the undeniable fact that almost all Christian Reformed people look at television with its bewildering and often bewitching presentation of the products of the “film arts.” Whether we approve or not, increasingly television is a significant concentration point of time, interest and influence in our families. And who is providing them with guide-lines for this activity? Is this simply to be left to the individual conscience? Or does the leadership in the church, more specifically ministers and elders, have a high and holy calling here? Are they capable of providing adequate guidelines? Are they competent to criticize and evaluate. and that in the light of Biblical norms and a full-orbed and articulate faith-commitment to our Lord Jesus Christ? Or do they themselves need instruction in this area of their spiritual (and ecclesiastical) responsibility? The evaluation of this and any “art” product (including besides films, dramatic productions and books and magazines and painting and sculpture. etc., etc.) must be done “Christianly,” which is much more than done with what most people regard as a Christian feeling of sympathy, concern and tenderness. It involves also much more than simply “aesthetic,” or “sociological,” or “psychological,” or even “theological” norms on the basis of which judgments can and should be made. The total man is to be involved and that in his total involvement with or commitment to the saving will of God for our lives.
And if ministers and others called to responsible leadership in the church, school and home feel their inadequacy and seek instruction with respect to the development of their “critical” faculties, then the seeing of such a film may be legitimate; in fact, in some instances (I cannot and dare not say how many) may be necessary. But this will demand much more than seeing the film and having a general discussion in the presence of hundreds of church leaders which takes little more than an hour or two. Such superficial exposure to and involvement in an activity of this sort may well do more harm than good. Had the Ministerial Institute devoted two and a half or three entire days to the “problem” of the Christian’s relationship to the products of the “film arts,” then we are convinced the criticism implied in the recent News Bulletin of the “Association of Christian Reformed Laymen” would either have been withheld or would have taken an altogether different form. In such a schedule it would have been possible to have a thorough briefing in what should be considered sound Christian principles or guidelines for evaluating “artistic productions” in general and films or television shows in particular. In such a setting the showing of this specific film might, then, have been profitable as a demonstration of what also many of our people are viewing, especially if and when the showing was followed by small group-discussions under competent guidance. Such a rather large-scale and thorough exposure could prepare our ministers to deal more adequately and competently with a “problem” of growing proportions within our churches—that of occupying large segments of time and personal involvement with products of the “film arts” which are conveying messages (and these by no means “neutral” or “neutrally”) by a most powerful and persuasive medium.
This, however, is only the first of the two basic questions which must be raised in such situations.
Need for Christian Maturity
The second calls with fully as much emphasis and urgency for an answer. It addresses itself to our self-knowledge and self-assessment. Are we sufficiently mature as Christian believers to view such a film without being desensitized in our responsibility to God, to ourselves and to the people placed by God under our spiritual care? And this may be the bigger, the deeper, the more decisive question of the two. Everyone who saw “The Pawnbroker” at that time or any other time (or any other 6lm, for that matter) is compelled by his faith-commitment to take this question with utmost gravity. Is our allegiance to Jesus Christ our only Savior sufficiently strong, clear and uncompromising that—with or without the help of others—we can use that experience to the praise of God for his salvation, to our own advancement in serving him in our ministry. and to the instruction and edification of the church whose safety the Lord guards so jealously as his peculiar treasure?
These are at least some of the issues which all who attended (and especially those who arranged for) the Ministerial Institute must face openly and honestly in the sight of God, the more so if this has not been already done. Likewise, these are the issues which those who, like myself, did not attend must also face, if they are to discharge their responsibility before God.
No Christian believer, to be sure, can or may judge in depth another on all that is involved. And patently this is not what the “Association of Christian Reformed Laymen” has done. They warn against “drawing conclusions” and applying these to the persons and conduct of the ones who have involved themselves.
But what they have done is warned, even to the extent of exhorting and pleading and reminding all of us of at least some of the statements of God’s Word which have bearing on this matter. And for this we give thanks, not first of all to the men who penned the News Bulletin but to our Savior-God who has laid a deep love and concern for the church upon their hearts in a time such as this. This, it seems to us, is attempting to act as responsible reformational Christians in a day which is far from favorable for living in all things according to the living and abiding Word.
Dr. Peter Y. De Jong is professor of practical theology at Calvin Seminary.
ACRL – Appreciation
Publicly I want to express my appreciation. This docs not necessarily imply that everything done by the association or the manner in which it has always done its work receives unqualified endorsement. Nothing that we as Christian believers do at any given time or in any given situation is free from the taint of sin. But what they are doing in the main, also evidenced here, is testifying to the Word of grace and salvation in Christ Jesus our Lord and its implications for life. They are discharging their God-given task and responsibility of “proving the spirits, whether they are of God….They are pleading, warning, urging, in so far as they believe with all their heart that some of the present activities within the church are contrary to Cod’s will, detrimental to the welfare of Christ’s church, and inimical of growth in godliness and sanctification without which no man shall see the Lord. Thus they are to that extent “reformational” Christians seeking to exercise the “office” or priesthood of all believers. And for that we praise the Lord who gives this grace.
A word or two about these introductory comments may not be out of place.
It is an undeniable fact that among the Christian Reformed ministers, elders and membership there are some who deeply resent the association and its activities. A few have attacked it openly; others more surreptitiously.
Now let us face the fact of its presence among us in all candor. Do these members have the right not only to their Christian convictions but also to communicating these convictions? Isn’t this, after all, what most of us as ministers are continuously exhorting them as believers to do? And if in the discharge of what both they and we believe on the basis of God’s word to be their responsibility before God and the world, then let us evaluate them in love. If they have failed somehow in their duty to speak the truth, to speak the truth in love, to speak that truth in love in the right place and at the right time and to the right people, then does it not become the task of these convinced of their “error” to admonish and exhort them in the love which we commonly confess to have received from God in Christ Jesus our Lord? But if and in so far as they are speaking the truth and seeking the advancement of God’s cause among us, then let us both thank God and take heed to our ways. Only in this way will we grow up together in all things into Christ Jesus who is our mutual Head and Savior.
“The Pawnbroker” and the Institute
But now on to “The Pawnbroker” and its viewing at a Ministerial Institute.
No detailed rehearsal of the content or artistry of the film will be given here. Such should be unnecessary, since the readers can find out about all this in a more appropriate and accurate way than by means of comments on this page. Our concern isn’t simply with this particular film; it is rather with the showing of a film of this or any other kind at such a gathering. Let it be added, that the writer deliberately remained absent from this showing as well from other gatherings of the Institute. The reasons for his absence arc sufficiently well-known to many of his colleagues in the ministry, including also some who have served on committees of arrangement. Hence he is hardly in a position to evaluate whether the showing at this past summer’s gathering was appropriate and fruitful for those in attendance. From the survey of the time allotted to this part of the program and from evaluations gleaned from a few who took part he would opine that the results fell quite far short of what could and should have been accomplished.
And it is this which brings us to the point.
No Neutral Ground
That such or another film can be viewed by ministers and other confessing Christians is not per se (in itself) wrong. sinful or spiritually unfruitful. For some readers this may seem an amazing assertion, since the film by Christian norms cannot be assessed otherwise than as one which depicts that which is debasing, at times vulgar, and worst of all blasphemous. But as all of us who confess to belong to Jesus Christ well know, nothing exists or is experienced per se (in and by itself). Here there is no comfortable “neutrality” of life or art or involvement in life behind which anyone may hide. We either sec or do not see such a film before the face of the living God our Savior with whom we have to do. And our awareness of this profound but precious reality—living in the Lord’s presence -makes the facing of at least two basic questions imperative. In the first place: why (with what intent and purpose) arc we looking at the film? In the second place: are we sufficiently mature as Christian believers to see such a film without being dissuaded in mind or feelings or heart from our deep Christian responsibility before God and our fellow-believers? And nobody answers these questions after merely a momentary reflection!
Let us elaborate.
Need for a Reformational Approach
Is there a proper time and place and reason for Christian ministers to see such a film? It would seem that the answer, at least in a general way, would be obvious. Here we would refer not primarily to recent synodical decisions (1966) with respect to “film arts.” Fine as much in those decisions seems to sound on paper, it may be questioned whether their true intent and implication are really being taught within the church and consistently practiced by its members. Instead, we would face the undeniable fact that almost all Christian Reformed people look at television with its bewildering and often bewitching presentation of the products of the “film arts.” Whether we approve or not, increasingly television is a significant concentration point of time, interest and influence in our families. And who is providing them with guide-lines for this activity? Is this simply to be left to the individual conscience? Or does the leadership in the church, more specifically ministers and elders, have a high and holy calling here? Are they capable of providing adequate guidelines? Are they competent to criticize and evaluate. and that in the light of Biblical norms and a full-orbed and articulate faith-commitment to our Lord Jesus Christ? Or do they themselves need instruction in this area of their spiritual (and ecclesiastical) responsibility? The evaluation of this and any “art” product (including besides films, dramatic productions and books and magazines and painting and sculpture. etc., etc.) must be done “Christianly,” which is much more than done with what most people regard as a Christian feeling of sympathy, concern and tenderness. It involves also much more than simply “aesthetic,” or “sociological,” or “psychological,” or even “theological” norms on the basis of which judgments can and should be made. The total man is to be involved and that in his total involvement with or commitment to the saving will of God for our lives.
And if ministers and others called to responsible leadership in the church, school and home feel their inadequacy and seek instruction with respect to the development of their “critical” faculties, then the seeing of such a film may be legitimate; in fact, in some instances (I cannot and dare not say how many) may be necessary. But this will demand much more than seeing the film and having a general discussion in the presence of hundreds of church leaders which takes little more than an hour or two. Such superficial exposure to and involvement in an activity of this sort may well do more harm than good. Had the Ministerial Institute devoted two and a half or three entire days to the “problem” of the Christian’s relationship to the products of the “film arts,” then we are convinced the criticism implied in the recent News Bulletin of the “Association of Christian Reformed Laymen” would either have been withheld or would have taken an altogether different form. In such a schedule it would have been possible to have a thorough briefing in what should be considered sound Christian principles or guidelines for evaluating “artistic productions” in general and films or television shows in particular. In such a setting the showing of this specific film might, then, have been profitable as a demonstration of what also many of our people are viewing, especially if and when the showing was followed by small group-discussions under competent guidance. Such a rather large-scale and thorough exposure could prepare our ministers to deal more adequately and competently with a “problem” of growing proportions within our churches—that of occupying large segments of time and personal involvement with products of the “film arts” which are conveying messages (and these by no means “neutral” or “neutrally”) by a most powerful and persuasive medium.
This, however, is only the first of the two basic questions which must be raised in such situations.
Need for Christian Maturity
The second calls with fully as much emphasis and urgency for an answer. It addresses itself to our self-knowledge and self-assessment. Are we sufficiently mature as Christian believers to view such a film without being desensitized in our responsibility to God, to ourselves and to the people placed by God under our spiritual care? And this may be the bigger, the deeper, the more decisive question of the two. Everyone who saw “The Pawnbroker” at that time or any other time (or any other 6lm, for that matter) is compelled by his faith-commitment to take this question with utmost gravity. Is our allegiance to Jesus Christ our only Savior sufficiently strong, clear and uncompromising that—with or without the help of others—we can use that experience to the praise of God for his salvation, to our own advancement in serving him in our ministry. and to the instruction and edification of the church whose safety the Lord guards so jealously as his peculiar treasure?
These are at least some of the issues which all who attended (and especially those who arranged for) the Ministerial Institute must face openly and honestly in the sight of God, the more so if this has not been already done. Likewise, these are the issues which those who, like myself, did not attend must also face, if they are to discharge their responsibility before God.
No Christian believer, to be sure, can or may judge in depth another on all that is involved. And patently this is not what the “Association of Christian Reformed Laymen” has done. They warn against “drawing conclusions” and applying these to the persons and conduct of the ones who have involved themselves.
But what they have done is warned, even to the extent of exhorting and pleading and reminding all of us of at least some of the statements of God’s Word which have bearing on this matter. And for this we give thanks, not first of all to the men who penned the News Bulletin but to our Savior-God who has laid a deep love and concern for the church upon their hearts in a time such as this. This, it seems to us, is attempting to act as responsible reformational Christians in a day which is far from favorable for living in all things according to the living and abiding Word.
Dr. Peter Y. De Jong is professor of practical theology at Calvin Seminary.