The story has been told and retold. Whether fact or fiction, I can vouch for neither. It goes something like this. A man of wealth needed a chauffeur, and he interviewed applicants for the position. The one question he asked them: “If we were on a mountain road alongside a deep precipice, how close would you dare to drive to the edge?”

The first applicant replied he would dare to drive a foot away from the edge, the second said six inches, the third would dare to drive right on the edge. The final applicant, the one whom the rich man hired, answered that he would stay as far away from the edge as possible. In a lecture on “Common Sense” many years ago, Dr. W. Harry Jellema (from whom I first heard that story) pointed out that in replying, the first three applicants used common sense whereas the last one used uncommon sense, of which there seems to be such a short supply.

To save his neck, the rich man of the story wanted to stay as far away from the edge as possible. A half century ago leaders in the CRC advocated something like that with respect to worldly amusements as these were threatening the well-being of the church. There were those who interpreted the 1928 decision on worldly amusements as saying that the familiar trio (theater attendance, card playing, and dancing) are sinful in themselves or per se and that the document was a legalistic prohibition, for which a careful reading of the text of the decision gives no justification.

That was more than fifty years ago, O tempora! O mores! how the pendulum has now swung in the other direction! Sophisticated and condescending with respect to the naivete of our ethicists of a bygone day, the in–crowd obviously is now straining to get just as close as possible to the edge or to a godless world while at the same time professing to be Christian. By their charade they may be fooling the church and even themselves, all the while forgetting that our all-knowing God cannot be fooled and will not be mocked.

In today’s sex-saturated culture, our quest for holiness seems so often to be hopeless. Commercialized entertainment and advertising in their sickening and constant preoccupation with the female anatomy continues its unremitting appeal to our depraved nature. A noted Presbyterian author and clergyman, the late Henry J. Van Dyke, was certainly not far beside the point when he once voiced his grievance with the movie industry in words to this effect: “They know only one of the Ten Commandments, the seventh; and they know only one kind of enjoyment, the transgression of it.”

In view of the all too obvious, shameful exploitation of sex in the world of show business (a glance at the glaring evidence for this on the movie page in every daily newspaper should be sufficient), Overture 15 from Classis Minnesota South, addressed to this year’s CRC Synod “to request the Board of Publications to discontinue reviews of movies in The Banner” should be well taken. As an added ground for the adoption of that overture, the words of Paul in Philippians 4:8 should be seriously considered: “. . . whatsoever things are pure . . . think on these things. . . .”

“Whatsoever things are pure . . . .”

Now take a look at a few excerpts from a recent “Film Overview,” the last one available to me at this writing, in The Banner of April 18, page 19:

1. “All That Jazz – The show-biz is a hard one that allows little real humanity . . . . Smattering of profanity, some nudity, and a highly erotic dance scene. . . . A self-centered indulgent movie . . . .”
2. “Coal Miner’s Daughter – Adolescents and adults. Some profanity; no nudity, but a few suggestive scenes . . . film worth seeing.”

3. “Cruising – Lurid, suspenseful thriller. . . . The sleaziest cross–section of homosexuality insufficiently explored. Half–baked messages; homosexuals are people too . . . . A raw, grisly film that only adults with very strong constitutions should see. Foul language, profanity, nudity, gore, and an inescapable ugly subject. A cruel, carelessly made film. The emphasis on homosexuals, unfortunately meant to be both sensational and sensitive, succeeds only in being shocking and exploitative . . . .”

4. “Just Tell Me What You Want – Romantic comedy; the comfortable life of a self–made tycoon is unexpectedly interrupted when his mistress of fifteen years suddenly abandons him to marry someone else . . . foul and profane language, some nudity; a lot of adultery—every new scene seems to turn up another new mistress. . . .”

5. “Little Darlings – Bittersweet comedy; while at summer camp, two adolescents compete against the other in a contest to see which one will be the first to lose her virginity and become a woman . . . a little crude and profane language . . . teenagers as well as parents ought to see this film.”

You sort of rub your eyes in disbelief to find all this dished up for us in what claims to be the “official publication of the Christian Reformed Church.” Reactions differ. Some are enthusiastic to have the church paper enlighten them by telling them the way it is at the movies. Another was heard to say he took one look at The Banner with the movie page and fired it across the room. Other reactions probably range somewhere between these two extremes. The editor advises anyone who does not like it to just turn the page—counsel that is hardly satisfying to those who feel a corporate responsibility for what is published in our “official” church publication.

“Whatsoever things are pure. . . .”

Also in the world of theater, dance, and fiction, all is not gold that glitters.

Woe to us and no less to our children if we obliterate or blur the very real distinction between common grace and common garbage.

Iran and Soviet Russia are by no means the greatest threat to the well-being of ourselves and our children. The persistent and pervasive influence of secularism to squeeze us into its mold is today a peril second to none. Movie productions, television, the salacious call to the flesh from the modern dance, as well as from the printed page, have made their impact on us and on our children for evil, the extent of which we have not yet begun to measure.

True, the antithesis is not spatial but spiritual. The CRC in 1928 with its pronouncement about worldly amusements and the attempt to implement it may have failed to see this clearly. But the far greater blight upon us now is that the antithesis is fast becoming non-existent. May the God of all grace have mercy on us lest we perish.