Feb
22
2012
Whom Can We Trust if Not Lord Grantham?
Emily Nussbaum, writing in The New Yorker, describes the PBS Masterpiece series Downton Abbey as "scarfing handfuls of carmel corn while swigging champagne." It goes down easy.
That is an apt description. The dialogue seems almost perfectly crafted at times, but the drama and scandal could almost fit daytime television . . . almost. Nussbaum continues, "Downton Abbey is situated precisely on the Venn diagram where 'prestige' meets 'guilty pleasure': it's as much cake as it is bread. And, sue me, I like cake."
Downton Abbey may be a poor man's Pride and Prejudice, but I'll take Maggie Smith's character Lady Grantham over Mrs. Bennet any day of the week. I've probably quoted Lady Grantham more than C. S. Lewis the past six months, and I don't regret it.
The show has redeemed television for many evangelicals---that is, until recently. At first, the mischievous characters were all easily identified and properly hated. The rest were highly regarded with honor and virtue. Lord Grantham is probably the most highly regarded of all. He is wise, kind, and always knows the right decision when the right decision ought to be made.
Spoiler Alert
But you could almost hear the disapproving hiss a few weeks back when **SPOILER ALERT** Lord Grantham failed morally by kissing one of the maids and pulling her into his bedroom. Lord Grantham ended the encounter in a fit of guilt just short of sleeping with her, but the damage was already done.
Suddenly, Twitter and Facebook woke up to the fact that Downton Abbey is filled not only with with sex and scandal but also elitism, strife, backstabbing, and jealousy. I suppose we all expected this sort of behavior from Lady Edith and Lady Mary. But if we can't trust in Lord Grantham, then whom can we trust?
And just like that, many evangelicals have stopped watching the show and encouraged others to proceed only with caution.
I'd like to challenge this thinking with a reverse warning: if you choose to discontinue watching, do so with caution.
Steve Turner shows in his book Imagine that this sort of response is typical for evangelicals. Since the Reformation and the iconoclastic response to Roman Catholic veneration, Christians have been liberated to explore history, behavior, and morality in art without the need to create work that was recognizably religious. But when this freedom showed itself in theater, literature, and later in films, many Christians responded with disapproval. For some Puritans, it was sinful for two individuals to act out the sin of adultery, and those who watched also took part in the sin.
While I think this response to theater, fiction, and film is wrong, surely there are bounds to this freedom. Any Christian should beware of watching or reading anything that will arouse desires or ambitions contrary to the Bible. While sex is a topic in Downton Abbey, the action is assumed, rather than watched. There has been one exception, though it's tame compared to other primetime television.
Think on These Things
However, concerned viewers seem more worried that the drama revolves around jealousy, pride, the love of money, and any number of sinful ambitions. And doesn't Paul tell us to think about whatever is lovely, whatever is right, whatever is admirable, whatever is pure (Phil. 4:8)?
But as Scripture interprets Scripture, this verse must fit with the Old Testament. The best of the Old Testament heroes let us down with prideful ambition, adultery, and even incest. Turner writes, "David's life would have to be read in abridged version. Could we dwell on Job or Revelation? How could we deal with the negativity in Ecclesiastes?"
Sin is no abstract notion in the Bible. It has flesh-and-blood consequences. These dark moments reveal our acute need of repentance. To expect our literature or film to display only the flattering side of human nature is not simply a war with culture, but also with reality. As Cardinal Newman once observed, "It is a contradiction in terms to attempt a sinless literature of sinful man."
Knot in the Stomach
Christians who care about virtue, truth, and even aesthetics should be delighted in Downton Abbey. Aside from being critically acclaimed, there is no confusion as to right and wrong, virtue and vice. We are never tempted to root for the adulterer. Meanwhile, those who make tempered, wise, and kind decisions are vindicated. Traditionalism for the sake of traditionalism is reviled, but thoughtless rebellion is never warranted.
So when Lord Grantham failed, we were supposed to get a knot in our stomach. His high virtue tempted us to believe in the human potential. But when our heroes fall, so also fall our hopes in the human potential.
If Lord Grantham can't do it, then who can?
But Christians know how to watch our heroes fail; always mourning, always rejoicing. We don't despair at the sight of the best of us failing, but rejoice knowing that there was One who never failed. The Lord Granthams and King Davids of the world disappoint us. But there is a Lord who never abandoned his bride and a King who never had to write Psalm 51.
75 Comments
I enjoyed this. Thanks!
Great post and a great show!
[...] Starke has a response to all the deluded fans, specifically concerning fallen heroes and how this is a fact of life. I [...]
"And just like that, many evangelicals have stopped watching the show and encouraged others to proceed only with caution."--I suppose this means that Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian would be out of the question?
Great Post!
Thank you for bringing these points to light. I can agree with the assertion that we should not expect perfection in our worldy heroes and that we should not just shun secular art as completely failed and reprobate in it's content but I can say that I caution my own heart to side with the Puritans in being wary of exposure and overexposure to such arts that would gently take us/me down a path to tolerance or taking light those things that could draw us to conclude that "he's only human" mentality. I may be reading this with too much sensitivity and I enjoy many a good British drama but, I also know that I can be a frog in the pot to a slow boil and I would rather err on the side of the frog being thrown into the pot of boiling water and jump out. I stopped watching DA during the first season because of the homosexual implications in the first show. I didn't know where the show was going with that line and I didn't want to watch for the sake of, "Well maybe that's the only scene," Phil 4:8 stopped me there. I don't want to show myself to be too pious, Gladiator is one of my favorite movies. I wonder though, should we not be careful in committing our time and enjoyment to such a long-running entertainment and not take time to pause and take stock of what we've opened ourselves up to? When I hear reformed, evangelical pastors using Jason Bourne and Jack Bauer as illustrations for scriptural reference, I grow concerned that we may be drawing too close to the world in a Christian world view.
I agree with Sena. I am also a little concerned by the implication in the blog that it is ok what they do on TV becasue of how sin and moral failure is shwon in the Bible. The Bible is God's Word and I do not think it is meant to be used as a defense for imorality in the arts and media.
My honest question is, if you were writing a show depicting the complex interrelationships between the servant classes and their "masters," what would you omit morally, and why? I really would be interested to know your thoughts on this.
Fellowes has said that many of the events he's written into the show (even the seemingly-unbelievable scandal involving Mr. Pamuk in season 1) are adapted from real life -- either his own experiences or those of friends and family. To what extent would it be dishonest NOT to include those sorts of behaviors? In other words, are you getting a full picture of life from the teens and twenties in Britain if you never show a guest taking advantage of a naive housemaid, or a manipulative servant scheming to his or her own advantage, or whatever?
After all, a fictional world without real evil represents as pernicious a lie as a fictional world where evil masquerades as good.
I have struggled with whether I continue watching this show or not. Along with you the episode showing homosexuality made me pause to think whether I should continue watching. I did continue watching.
On that note, why would we stop watching at the sin of homosexuality and not the sin of lying or gossip? I haven't got it quite figured out in my head. Any thoughts?
My thought is that conscience is a gacious working of the Holy Spirit in our lives and a gift that God gives us to help keep us focused on what honors Him most.
The homosexual "kiss" scene was the punch for me but, it started earlier at misgivings I had when the maid was being seductively coy and leading the young man on and the apparent scheming that would be going on to get rid of the disabled character. Yes, this is what goes on in the world everyday. Yes, there may be moments of seeming character redemption but my personal caution is, when I seek to Christianise a form of media to justify my continued consumption, I am in danger of losing sight of what true "redemption" should look like and I've personally bought a lesser bill of goods to ease my desire of being entertained.
If conscience says caution, be thankful and heed.
I suppose it helps for me to know that Julian Fellowes, the show's writer and creator, is a very traditional, conservative guy, and that one of his most commonly-explored themes is that of redemption. In the universe of Downton, the characters like the conniving footman and bitter, manipulative lady's maid either change their ways or get their just deserts. In my opinion, it's one of the most morally admirable shows on television.
That scene to which you're referring is one of many on the show that realistically depict moral failing without approving of it -- even more, that show the consequences of it, and call it what it is -- which is one of the reasons I absolutely love it.
I continued to watch, and I will do so again. There was MUCH redemption to be found in the grace that Lord G offered to Mary when he confronted her about Pamook. Their embrace and his desire for her to know and find true love, marked by his comment 'you're not the first Crawley to make a mistake'.. well, if that's not a picture of redemption, I don't know what is. Great article. Thanks!
As a confirmed Downton Abbey devotee, I heartily agree with "Steph." And whilst I absolutely cringed (and repeatedly shouted “No!” and “Why?” at the television set!) when Julian Fellowes wrote Lord Grantham's rank indiscretion into the storyline, it seemed to become clear that he was doing so with forethought in order that Mary should, in the end, be shown great mercy. Had the otherwise heroic and upstanding Grantham not gone through this truly out-of-character experience - which occurred at a time when everyone's norm and world were literally becoming dissolved or turned upside down - his response to and treatment of his beloved eldest daughter may not have been anywhere near as gracious and compassionate.
Unlike most modern and hardly-worth-watching programming these days, I don't find that Fellowes includes much at all that could be considered gratuitous and/or Soap Opera worthy. Rather, he seems to prefer substance and meaning, and often has a redemptive purpose in mind – even when exposing the known follies of human nature.
Looking forward to Season 3.
I will not stop watching the show because Lord G sinned. But on another note, I was wondering if anyone saw the gospel in the story line that Daisy attached herself to the footman (I cant remember his name right now) and after he died, this allowed her to recieve and experience the love of a father, in that her late husbands father now thought of Daisy as special, and it was like she was adopted into her family. Daisy said she had never been special to anyone and now as a result of htat relationship she seems to be changing. Anyway, just wondering if anyone saw this.
I totally missed that connection (about Daisy and William's dad) and now I can't wait to watch that last episode again to pick up the details of it! Great point!
I love DA, but the very obvious sins make it a bit uncomfortable to watch. I was pleased that the writers did not have Lord Grantham follow through with his desires, but it was def uncomfortable to watch. I was also upset at the *spoiler alert* ouija board this week. I just feel as if week after week is an attempt to top the last sin. There has been Pamuk, the homosexual footman, Ethel and the soldier, Lady Edith and the farmer, Lord Grantham and now the ouija board -- we have fornication, both hetero and homosexual, lying, adultery, coveting...and I can only imagine what is next.
I am very convicted by how I choose to be entertained. I do not think there is anything wrong with following our convictions. I have decided to watch it again this week, but if it seems to be just more flaunting of sinful behavior, they have lost a devoted fan. It will not be the first show I have given up for this reason (and will not be the last).
We are not called to be soldiers of an army sitting around waiting to be entertained. Maybe we (American Evangelicals) should spend less time in front of the TV and more time witnessing, reading our Bibles and in prayer. I am including myself in this. If I spent as much time on my knees in prayer as I do watching TV (and I watch way less than the average American), who knows what God may do in my life (and the ones I am praying for).
Dana, Let me ask you if any of the people get away with the sin? Mary with the Turk, she objected to him coming to her room and insisted that he was mistaken that she was like that but she gave into temptation. What happens? He falls over dead. Hilarious! While feeling shame, she still considers herself superior to her sister. There are consequences for that, for both women.
You don't let yourself be entertained by the sin. You observe what happens as the result of the sin. But the people still love anyway. Some are pressed down with their sin and it has an affect on them - case in point O'Brien. Now grant you the ouiji board is silly. But there are people in the world that buy into that stuff. Pray for them.
Seems like the same could be said for the Tebow phenomenon.
I liked DA the first season and tried to get into it this time. I just couldn't really like it anymore. And when LG kissed the maid, that was it for me. I wonder if it's because I'm sensitive and female? Do males feel different about sexual desire? I am a big fan of Lady G., maybe that's it:)
I started watching this on Netflix and almost stopped with the homosexual kiss but the fact that they allowed him to be one of the bad guys gave me hope that they were not just trying to push a point of view on us. Even the bad guys occasionally have twinges of conscious now and that makes it interesting.
The truth is I can watch each episode twice and always notice something that I missed the first time.
The people are complicated and varied. The vices are in everyone in some form or another. In the words of Shrek, "It has layers".
If someone can tell me why Lord Grantham was interested in the maid it would help though. I seemed to miss something in that story line and it just left me confused. Was he lonely? Just attracted? Mid-life crisis?
Part of what makes a British Period Piece so interesting is trying to figure out the motivations of the characters.
Mel - You ask "why was Lord Grantham interested in the maid?"
In addition to lust and the abuse of power native to all men in Adam, LG was interested in the maid because, like all the characters, his old world order was crumbling. The Great War and social upheaval of the time had left him morally confused, weak, without a firm sense of the rightness of his principles and position.
His compassion for the maid (who had lost her husband in battle and needed work) and his interest in funding her son's schooling was genuine and good, but it merely layered over the seed of guilt he felt for not serving. Recall an earlier episode where he was ashamed to learn that his service would be titular and his uniform merely honorary? He realized he was merely an ornament, a figurehead, a useless relic of a fading order.
Surely he, like the rest of the characters moving up and down the social pecking order, saw in her a fantasy. She was representative of the alternate life of the regular man. The fact that he even saw her worthiness and beauty demonstrates that he too, like his daughters (who were now driving tractors, nursing, marrying a driver, etc.) was in the confusing flux of rapid social change that resulted from the mingling of the classes during the Great War.
A careful observer would also note that Lady G was not attentive in this period, and was caught up in scheming to mary off Lady M. In his self-righteous responses to her scheming, barely hinted at, we see the disgust he felt that furthered a mid-life distance from his flawed but otherwise lovely wife.
Surely the thought of a being father to the maid's son touched a painful place in this man without an heir (Mathew's injury and Lady M.'s being forced to marry that snake of a media mogul made his line uncertain). The maid was a woman who needed him. There was a simple moral beauty to the fantasy that perhaps he could escape to her and her world. Affairs of the heart always are escapes.
And so in spring when 'kings had ridden out to war' he looked upon her vulnerable and poignant position with compassion which bent back in on itself (as compassion with wrong motives always does) and he gave in to a forbidden desire with selfish lust thinking that in the moment he would find some relief. That he came to his senses was pure grace! Most men would not have had enough self-control to pull back from the moment.
In his mild suffering (not knowing his role in the new order, not getting to play at war and receive it's vain glory, not having a son) he thought comfort with this woman was his due, and he succumbed to the flesh, rather than do his duty and honor his covenant.
Our hero was human afterall and humbled.
Next season, Fellowes will further expose Lord G.'s ridiculous bigotry against the Irish as the War of Indepenence will be in full swing. His most mature and beautiful daughter (morally and otherwise) is already caught up in "the troubles."
Socialism will also be dealt with in some way next season as Fellowes has already shown that the Irish driver is predisposed to a positive regard of Lenin (which we all know now is hideous evil, but at the time, many a good man was deceived by that powerful ideology)
Perhaps some of us who have not lived in a higly calibrated class structure miss the political and social tensions of DA, a huge part of the show.
Thus saith Alistair Kook...
Thank you, that emotional upheaval that he went through by not being able to serve in the war does make sense with it. He is a man with a title that for the most part does not seem useful. It was his chance to appear a hero, to be a hero to someone.
I think the most interesting part is the social class distinction and how they seem to grow past it, interact, be almost a family. It reminds me of movies like The Help, Driving Miss Daisy and The Long Walk Home. The Christmas show was very interesting.
It is interesting that you would mention his most "mature" daughter who would marry a poor bully that can't possibly love her for who she really is since he does not appreciate how her origins helped to make her the person that she has become. But then maybe they will develop his character so he has a more human side, like they did Thomas.
Lander and Mel: Thanks for those well-thought and well-spoken comments. Anything I'd say would be redundant. Lots of Fall and Redemption going on in Downton Abbey.
I really appreciated this, thank you. I didn't even know of this show until my 18 year old daughter told me about it this last weekend. A few years ago I would have responded with fear of sin and depravity. However, I was able to listen to her excitement over the PBS series with real grace and interest. I'm told that it's on Netflix instant watch, which I have access to.
This was very providential. Thank you!
While I would rather be waterboardecd than watch the most borying channel on the planet I can see two sides to this story. One, everyone has a Psalm 51 story to be told. The other side is it seems that there is no end to which those in TV land will go to tick Christians off. Each of us has to make our own determination as to what message PBS has implied.
"most borying (sic) channel on the planet"
That certainly makes me want to listen to your opinion. :/
Besides, PBS didn't make the show; ITV did, with the very conservative Julian Fellowes at its helm.
I apologize for the spelling error. Not wanting to expose myself to the "most boring" channel on the planet I didn't know who was responsible for making the show. Again I apologize. PBS is still boring and conservatives can tick Christians off too. So, each of us has to make our own determine as to what message ITV has implied.
It wasn't the spelling error, just the attitude. You might find it boring; many hundreds of thousands clearly do not.
Don't worry about my attitude. I not judging anybody who likes boring TV.
I have watched and will continue to do so. The show is excellently written, produced, and acted. It leaves us with a profound sense of loss as we walk back into our craven culture, realizing the lack of dignity and desiring for more enlightened times. (It also reminds us that we need to be careful when the rabble runs the show.)
I thought the episode of Lord Grantham's indescrection was so well done and handled that it might serve as a useful teaching mechanism my children and church. The question is no longer "if we encounter immorality" but "when we encounter immorality and what to do about it. Did he make a poor choice? Yes, but his conscience was so convicted that he regained his morality and moved forward...also making appropriate reparations for those harmed.
This is what I don't understand about evangelicals, they have this dank, restless Puritanism that scowls at anyone show the least bit of humanity. In reality we all have our failures and will have our failures. Too often the rule for so many of the 20somethings in our congregation is that they leave the church because they've been completely unequipped to handle failure (specifically in the area of morality.)
I like Downton Abbey for so many reasons. None the least of which it is honest...and that they speak in complete sentences (probably why I like the West Wing so much too.) I long for a return of sensibility to our world...but know that we likely will always have to suffer this craven, broken culture. Thus I am also reminded of my anticipation of heaven.
This comment is for 'Luma'; you can access each episode of season 2 on Masterpiece Theatre/PBS, until March 6. If you choose to buy the dvd or watch it on Netflix, I urge you to watch season 1 first!
The whole structure of the family and how they are forced to deal with the class structure within their own family is laid out in the first two episodes of season 1!
You can buy both season 1 and 2 on dvd from PBS or Amazon. I hope you make the investment; that way you can watch it all again with your daughter and make some new converts amongst your friends!
Should we really have continued watching after the first episode of the first season showed two men kissing? Should we continue to have faith in a show that loses our respect and its purity in the first episode?
Bear in mind I loved the first episode aside from that, but my wife was so grossed out that we didn't watch the next episode.
Faith in a tv show? That was probably your first mistake.
Substance of things hoped for.
Do you people have any friends outside the church? I mean, really, two guys kissing is enough to make you stop watching the show!?
I guess most of you don't have any gay friends. So much for being missional.
God Bless the Puritans! They were no prudes and kill joys. Too bad the stereo type is perpetuated.
John, I think that your article suggests unintentionally an all or nothing kind of feel. It is not hallmark movies or anything goes?
I can't tell you how many times I've heard the line about the Old Testament. But it is often simplistically applied...there was sin in the bible, adultery, murder, etc...therefore I can watch x,y, and z.
However, the Bible NEVER presents those things simply to entertain us or to titilate us with the sin.
So I was glad to hear you say, "Christians who care about virtue, truth, and even aesthetics should be delighted in Downton Abbey. Aside from being critically acclaimed, there is no confusion as to right and wrong, virtue and vice. We are never tempted to root for the adulterer. Meanwhile, those who make tempered, wise, and kind decisions are vindicated."
I just don't think that message was loud enough. The article sounded like, "Stop being a puritanical, legalistic, naive, polyanna fundy."
Blessings
Hi Andrew, I don't mean to give the impression that I'm anti-Puritan. I'm on JI Packer's side on that. Nevertheless, they did make those conclusions about the theatre and literature. The puritans, our heroes, can't be perfect-which I suppose was the point of my post.
I respectfully disagree with the last sentence of Andrew's comment.
The writer made it clear that because the story line of Downton Abbey champions what is noble and good in the human condition and not the base and corrupt, that Christians who watch it should have no concern that they will find themselves sympathizing with or rationizing away the sinful behavior of many of the characters.
If the article lacked anything, it was that the author could have listed examples of books and movies where one's heart can be lured to cheer for the wrong side. Some books that immediately come to mind are: Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, novels by Thomas Hardy, Evelyn Waugh, D.H. Lawrence and more recently, The Bridges of Madison County by Robert James Waller.
Having watched each episode of both seasons of Downton Abbey, it never seemed to me that the show attempted to appeal to our purient nature or engaged in a prolonged graphic depiction of the evil in question.
Of course, knowing the reputation and vantage point of the author does help the reader to interpret the strength and purpose of his message.
Life is complicated, isn't it? Stories distill and that distillation process emphasizes some things and boils others away. Every story has a point of view, but in the best stories that point of view isn't taught so much as it is displayed. This is perhaps one reason why so many of Jesus' parables fell on deaf ears. He wasn't spelling it out for them. Downton Abbey shows that real motives are complex, that real humans engage in this constant blundering interplay of desire and discipline. If you haven't figured out that the human heart is a maze of interwoven motivations then you either are too young to know better or you simply haven't been paying attention. I see myself in almost every character in the show -- and I am reminded both of my strengths and my weaknesses. I love Lord Grantham - he is a real man, carrying all the weight of his heritage (as do we all), upright, kind and also petty and lonely and scared.
If we view sin as epithoumia - inordinate desires - it helps us to understand that so much of our sin is misplaced love. This is where Lord Grantham found himself -- misplacing his love. I completely understand the loneliness and pain that drove him there, as well as the sense of what is right that pulled him out.
And if we are really being gospel about this -- we have to admit that "the damage" was already done long before he was born. The damage was born into us and is part of us.
For those who are overly concerned (yes...overly) about watching something that includes sinful behavior then you really need to be consistent. You need to cut yourself off from all TV, news, books and periodicals except those which contain only the most hagiographic depictions of righteousness. Otherwise, by your reasoning you are endangering your souls.
Of course, you say, that's ridiculous. But you think that only because you draw unbiblical lines between different types of sin. It's OK to watch Mrs. Patmore berate Daisy. It's OK to watch Mary and Edith slice each other to ribbons with their betrayals. It's OK to watch men being blown up in war. But God forbid you should allow you eyes to be tainted by the scene of a lonely man seeking comfort in the wrong place. You see, when you make a distinction between BIG sins and little sins you place yourself in an untenable position.
As for those who bailed after "the kiss" you need to learn to let stories unfold and see the complete outcome. Otherwise you would stop reading the Bible in Genesis. All that murder and rape. All that polygamy and primogeniture business. And yet, if you read Matthew's gospel you see a lineage of Jesus that includes many of those whores, adulterers, murderers and the like. Perhaps we need to let our systematic theology influence our exegesis of things like Downton Abbey.
I would encourage you to continue to develop a mature palate for quality stories, able to comprehend the nuance and shades of meaning contained within a story. Sometimes you have to swallow something that seems bitter at first so that you can learn to appreciate the beauties that lie within it. They can only be unlocked by those willing to learn how.
Can't wait for season three.
@David Denis I agree with everything you said with the exception of the "kiss". The way you describe it is a misrepresentation. Too often the homosexual life is portrayed as a search for love and everyone else is just being a hater of love they cannot understand, ex. Grays Anatomy. Thomas does not represent a desperate seeker of love. That kiss was a continuing manipulation of circumstances to advance himself financially in any way that he could. It is very similar to what we see female characters do in all kinds of movies.
The kiss that everyone seems to ignore is the one between Edith and the farmer. She offered to help a couple in dire need with her services of driving a tractor. It made her feel useful and despite the gratitude and kindness of the wife, she still offers herself to the husband. That is a desperation and neediness for love that has no honor. It was only because of the discerning eye of the wife that an end was put to it. Her neediness leads her to make bad choices most of the time.
What I like about Downton Abbey is that everyone is equally flawed, rich or poor, conservative or liberal. If it ever seems to push an agenda I will have no problem turning it off.
"everyone is equally flawed, rich or poor, conservative or liberal."
Yes, this! And also, everyone equally has an opportunity to be selfless and noble, whether upstairs or down, aristocrat or working-class.
One of my favorite quotes about the show that sums up why I love it:
"There's one thing you absolutely will not see there, and only a little because the Dowager Countess wouldn't stand for it: antiheroes and antiheroines. There are none of those around. Yes, there are prickly, flawed folks at Downton, but if Mary Crawley is an antiheroine then so is Elizabeth Bennet. Thomas and O'Brien may be sympathetic at times, but they're bad guys in an older school mold. Not that long ago, Matthew Crawleys may have been a dime a dozen, but his type doesn't show up all that often in TV shows we take seriously anymore, and it's nice to see him. On Downton, there are no sociopath mobsters you care about despite yourself, or adulterous, lying ladies' men you are attracted to, or admirable but murderous drug dealers, or increasingly psychotic and pathetic chemistry teachers, or any other sort of semi-good but maybe really bad person with deep-seated psychological issues. It is about lovely people with lovable flaws who are trying to do the best they can most of the time."
Very good! You are quite right about which kiss is more important (leaving out that last kiss between Mary and Matthew, of course!).
As for Thomas, this goes to my point about letting the whole story play out. As you watch, you can see that Thomas uses "love" as a means to connive and deal his way to power. And you constantly see him thwarted in his conniving -- the first time being his attempt to use his homosexuality to manipulate the visitor and being smacked down. Joining the medical corps to avoid going to the front, investing his nest egg in black market goods, his plan to steal the dog -- the poor sap can't catch a break. ;-) Until...his own backfired plan backfired in reverse and sort of worked in spite of his conniving. The question this leads to is what does Thomas love too much and what is he willing to do for it? It is still a question of epithoumia. Idolatry remains as always the sin beneath the sin.
Well the series ended in the UK just before Christmas, and it was so popular they did a Christmas special. I have to say that I hadn't really heard much public criticism of it by British Christians, so its interesting to find that American Christians are getting to grips with some of the issues with the series.
I think the difference is perhaps that in the UK this was shown as Sunday evening entertainment, which puts a different emphasis on its importance for UK viewers. Sunday evening is the time when a lot of families watch TV. Of course, Maggie Smith is quite hilarious as Lady Grantham. I've forgotten how many times I've quoted her! So there's real enjoyment in watching the series but there is still the element that this has been put on at a specific time in the week, and this should not be ignored when considering the series influence on its viewers or what ITV's agenda is.
Regarding Thomas' kiss, however, I felt this was simply ITV trying to push an agenda as early on in the series as possible. ITV, and more so the BBC, has been making more of an issue out of homosexuality in recent years, so this did not come as a surprise as such, but did seem to me to be something that was crow-barred into the series rather than a properly developed theme.
However, I just don't think that enough Christians are aware of or even trained to be able to spot the difference between being entertained by sin and being instructed about sinfulness for the sake of learning its pitfalls. As I've found in my studies, if you are not constantly feeding your mind with the things of Christ, then sin, whether portrayed on the TV, or in literature can tempt us to entertain thoughts and actions which we need not expose ourselves to. So I agree with the article, but also see that it is all too easy to think that what you're watching/reading is for a purely objective purpose, when actually you're just enjoying the sin. To be a helpful critic of such things you really have to be constantly feeding yourself well on what is the mind of Christ, as well as being aware of the programme's agenda.
It is on Sunday nights where I live. I would guess since it comes through on PBS that it is variable around the country. PBS is different from state to state.
Gentleman:
You are 'dancing on the head of a pin' in your attempt to determine which kiss is the most important (meaning, I think, most sinful)!
First, the 'kisses' in question are the one Thomas gives to his friend, the duke, Edith's with the farmer and Lord Grantham's to new maid, Jane.
They are all sinful acts, regardless of any psychological interpretation of each character's motives.
Sin is sin, isn't it?
In each case, the character knew it was wrong. You could argue that, in the case of Edith and Lord Grantham, they were both violating a marriage, thus, they bore the added burden of knowing they would be harming others.
They were each motivated by layer upon layer of sinful motives which can all be traced back to man wanting to be in control of his/her own life. The only variation is in the individual's taste in sin; I may like blackjack, you may like gossiping, but it's all stems from the same self-love and a desire to allow ourselves anything we want, with no restrictions or outside control.
During this Lenten time, it is especially apro pos to be reading Psalm 51!
Yes Ms. Kidder, you have underlined exactly the point for which I was aiming. In spite of appearances perhaps, there is no dancing here Madam, and no pins. Just an amen to your comments.
Though I'm not a gentleman, that was my whole point in bringing up the kiss by Edith. If you want to get really picky then the first kiss between Matthew and Mary was just as sinful because it was from lust and not the result of making a promise to each other for marriage. But I probably have a stricter viewpoint about what is acceptable behavior between unmarried couples even though I do watch tv.
My former pastor helped me a lot in these regards. He repeatedly pointed out to us that we are so prone to laugh at (or, in this case, be passively entertained by) the very things for which the wrath of God is coming upon men. I'll be yet another one to say that the first episode of the first season was brilliant, and it was my last. In this particular case, how does a Christian aesthetic comport with Eph. 5:11-12? Thanks for the post.
If you are going to apply that verse that way then you are going to have to get rid of your tv and any books, songs, ect. that are not Christ centered. I would prefer to apply "Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"--but I will not be mastered by anything"
That said, there are less and less things that I feel comfortable watching or that are even appealing anymore. It has been a growth process though. Just as it is in all areas of life.
I have a "love/squirming guilt over the love" relationship with Downton Abbey
e.g. LOVE Maggie Smith. I want to do old like her. Which is a problem, because she really is a snobby, caustic prune. Not really my aim as a follower of Jesus. :)
Bigger example (that I'm surprised no one's mentioned) - I love Mr. Bates. I love how he loves Anna and how she loves him. Which is a massive problem. Because until as recently as two episodes ago, Mr. Bates was a married man. Very unhappily married. With good reason to be unhappy. But they are essentially engaging in an emotionally adulterous affair. And making it look noble and beautiful.
That's dangerous stuff. Technically, they're both cases of making sinful actions engaging and compelling. I'm probably being inconsistent in thinking that the adultery one is more dangerous than the other, but that's because I remember vividly a season in my young, single, immature life as a new believer when I came perilously close to my own version of the Anna and Mr, Bates story. I fell prey to faulty "It Can't Be Wrong When It Feel So Right" theology, and only by the grace of a merciful God did He dramatically intervene so that I didn't shipwreck my life. I see plenty of young single women let themselves get caught up in scenarios just like this one. It remains to be seen wether Fellowes turns this storyline into a morality play, or a Disney movie. (I haven't watched the last two episodes so I don't know where things stand.) But that's the storyline that makes me squirm about how helpful it is for one of its main demographics - young women.
Great insights Rachael......my wife and I are only 4 eps into season 1, so we aren't that far, but this is very interesting.
This reminds of a conversation with my wife about the "gay kiss" that is mentioned earlier in this thread. I told her that a lot of people in this thread struggled with continuing to watch the show because of that. She said, "yeah, I get that, which is why I like the gay couple in 'Modern Family' because they don't show the physical stuff in the gay relationship."
However, after reading your comment, I wonder if (just as the emotional affair can be worse in some ways that the physical one) the "playful", non-sexual relationship of the gay couple is worse in some ways than the full on showing of a kiss.
One thing is for sure, I think we do get lulled into a false sense of what should be ok based on what is seen, when what is implied (or what is going on at an emotional level) can be much more damaging.
@nhe I would say so because do you know any couple like that? All of the gay couples I have known are just as dysfunctional, if not more, as the other unsaved couples in my life. The examples I have seen on TV haven't been realistic at all. They all want to either romanticize it to the point of ridiculousness or they make it really steamy between extremely attractive people. Both situations will make me turn it off.
imagine a Christian from childhood, very smart, like a sponge soaking up everything, reading classics, watching only "quality" movies, studying and never quite stopping the learning machine inside, even to the point of jung and the subconcious, through her 20s, 30s, 40s. what a fascinating life she has led. then suddenly everything changes. God decides to invade her life through His Holy Spirit, and everything she ever knew about so-called learning she realizes has been nothing but presumption. the sweetness in her heart is blinding, paralyzing. for the first time in her life she knows it, God is real, Christ is real, the Holy Spirit is real. The Trinity is beyond Real. God tries to teach her what it means to meditate on His Word, truly meditate. but an odd thing happens. scenes and lines from movies continually interrupt her. she has long since given up tv, movies, audiobooks. entertainment, she doesn´t even know what that is anymore, so great is the light of Christ. but, there, buried deep in her mind is all the world´s best offerings. she feels sick every time it happens, but God is gentle. let it rise up, He says, we are just scooping away the dross. -- i stumbled on this page today, i don´t live in the states anymore and don´t keep up with things from home. but take it from one who has been there. nothing you watch is harmless in the light of God´s holiness. and it will haunt you, every last bit of it. it will drag you away from the purest bliss, posit you right back down in every foolish choice you ever made for the beautiful mind God gave you. protect yourself. watch over your heart and your mind. there is only one beauty, one fascination. Christ himself, the lover of our souls. He is our bridegroom...God help us to have our lamps full of His oil when He comes for us.
Lorna,
I appreciate your 2 Cor 11:3 "simple and pure devotion to Christ". Much of what you've said here really resonates.
However, based on your very clear stance on avoiding entertainment and things of this culture, I'm wondering why you're on the internet?
Of all the entertainment trappings in our culture, this one is potentially the most destructive, is it not?
Loma I have often wondered how nice it would be if verses would get stuck in my head the way that songs do or have a verse come to mind in certain circumstances instead of a movie reference. The truth is that despite of over forty years of life being in my head before the bible was regularly put in there, verses do come to mind when I need them.
If someone says something that reminds me of a line in a movie then I remember the movie. If someone says or does something that reminds me of something that someone did long ago, then I remember that.
So instead of being annoyed or sad I allow myself to be amused. The Holy Spirit is still stronger. One day I had a Lady Gaga song get stuck in my head even though I had only heard it for a moment by chance. I prayed for the Holy Spirit to take it away and He did instantly. To this day I can't tell you what song it was. It is gone and I know it won't come back.
Now yesterday I had another song get stuck but I just ignored it because it was amusing.
There was an old lady that swallowed a fly, I don't know why, Perhaps she'll die......
I don't even know the rest of the lyrics but it was there all the same. I don't know why........
Lorna lol should wear my glasses even if I think I can see. Bet you have never been called Loma before
Another important message written into all episodes of Downton is the life of service. The servants, maids, footmen, housekeeper, butler etc all have different duties to perform and do so with a sense of dignity in their individual roles. The Grantham's have respect for those that serve them, and by providing them with work and a home are in their own way serving the workers as well. So many people today are too selfish/proud to serve others or see it as beneath them. We could all learn a lesson from the life of servitude.
You make an excellent point, Mckenzie, "we could all learn a lesson from the life of servitude".
The culture today offers our youth little opportunity to develop this skill or watch it played out around them. Except for some segments of the retail trade ( e.g.Walmart/Target type stores), where entry-level jobs require a modicum of service, and fast-food restaurants where you can be 'served' by someone who doesn't ever make eye contact, today's world is bereft of the concept and skills of service.
I believe that this is one of the things that makes Downton Abbey so appealing!
We are living in a world of 'service contracts' that don't deliver, 'technical support' from another continent and 'self-service' check-outs at the supermarket; daily life where service has become, increasingly, devoid of personal interaction.
Our western 'civil'ization is disappearing and the question is, will it ever make a come-back?
Isn't it interesting how they have a snobby attitude based on the prestige of the person they are in service to? I have experienced this from waiters in nicer restaurants, that made me want to ask just how much they were making an hour that made them think they were better than me. We are all looking for ways to elevate ourselves no matter what the situation.
[...] look at Downton Abbey from a Christian perspective. ”Whom Can We Trust if Not Lord Grantham? John Stacke writes, “Christians who care about virtue, truth, and even aesthetics should [...]
What is redeeming about Downton Abbey's endorsement of homosexuality? The point of the stories in the Scriptures -- GOD Inspired -- cannot be compared to licentious episodes driven by GOD-hating humanists.
My prayer is that CHRISTians know GOD's Word and defend it versus vigorously defending appetites that feed on steady diets of amusements that are devoid of purity. That is the true exegesis of Philippians 4.8.
This is a misapplication (imo) of Phil 4:8. That verse tells us what to think on, not what to observe. There are some PG-13/R-rated films and some TV shows with people sinning that are wonderfully redemptive. I can watch them and "think on" the redemption and even talk about gospel elements with my family - and it's pure, lovely, excellent, and praiseworthy.
There is a difference between acknowledged and endorsed. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says that there are no homosexuals in his country of Iran. Do we really believe that?
What "endorsement"?
Benaiyahu is saying that by having a homosexual in the story line that homosexuality is being "endorsed". He is feeling pretty holy right now, next to us.
Holy simply means separate. We all sin. I'm a great sinner saved by grace. However, because I sin, doesn't mean that I should justify and, yes, endorse it.
Plainly speaking, I Thessalonians 5 says to avoid every kind f evil. I John says that we will sin. Philippians says we should struggle against sin and strive for perfection. Although perfection will not be attained on this side of heaven, we struggle and fight, nonetheless.
There is nothing redemptive about paedophilia. Homosexuality is sin. No more blood of our savior is required to forgive a homosexual than a heterosexual. But Genesis, Leviticus, Isaiah, Romans, et al make clear that it is an abomination. Exchanging the natural for unnatural. Since the man is representative of CHRIST and the wife, the Church as in Ephesians 5, it is clear that men with men and women with women is unnatural and an abomination.
Referencing the program itself, I enjoy entertainment. But I John
4 says to test every spirit. The spirit of this show is to slowly endorse indulgent sins. As there is a similar humanist agenda in many medias. But GOD's Grace is sufficient. As Lot was grieved and saved according to II Peter 2.7-8 then HE will and can rescue us.
Yet, I must remain vigilant... And I fail frequently. Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Cost of Discipleship warns as Hebrews 10 to not cheapen Grace in light of a treacherous culture. Again, paralleling II Peter 2 as the entire chapter. Peter gave sound admonition. I pray to embrace it regardless of the ridicule.
By Grace Alone.
Again, what endorsement? By this standard, the book The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe constitutes an endorsement of using witchcraft to enslave an entire world. You are failing or refusing to distinguish between depiction and endorsement.
depiction and endorsement - that's an excellent distinction that really frames this issue well. You guys are well taught up there in KY!!!
After a modest review of your website, I appreciate your posting DeYoung.
Plainly answering your question is that an endorsement, in this case, is when you give yourself over to a program (philosophy) that espouses and justifies unbiblical. The "Lion, the Witch..." postulation is a red-herring. To compare CS Lewis' writings to Downton Abbey -- an evening soap opera -- is a flawed attempt to distract from the point.
The writers of Downtown Abbey can rightfully conclude that they have broadened their viewership with Evangelical Christians. If you feel that that is fine, I will not argue you into a corner. Read the Word. Feast on sound teaching (J. Piper, Voddie Baucham, Paul Washer, John MacArthur).
This is not casting doubt on someone's salvation who watches Downton Abbey. Rather, questioning if this is looking "carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil", ref. Ephesians 5.15-16. (Contextualize with Ephesians 5.12-13 "For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible...")
I see no red-herring in Laura's point. Whereas I agree with you that Downton Abbey is (basically) an evening soap opera, can I ask, so what?
I'm not sure that you answered her question. Is Downton Abbey depicting or endorsing? You said endorsing is "giving ones self over to endorsing or espousing that which is unbiblical." I can't think of any secular construct that would do this intentionally. There is certainly a general endorsement of the god of this world, but that happens at a sub-conscious level. Perhaps that's what you mean?
One of the better bio-pic movies I've seen in the last 10 years is "Milk" - the story of the first openly gay politician in the U.S. There are "kisses" in that movie as well. However, that film does an excellent job of showing what happens to people immersed in that lifestyle - nothing is glorified....rather, quite the opposite - the horrifying side is depicted.
Further, what if a film or show portrays (for example) a gay couple as fun loving and normal. Certainly this is "endorsing" the lifestyle. Some shows do endorse militantly (see "Glee")....others endorse more subtly (see "Modern Family"). I actually think that redemption can be mined quite easily from a show like Modern Family, without compromising or eroding one's soul. However, that's not true for everyone. We need to be trained to look at secular art for ALL that its trying to convey. Almost without exception, there is going to mixture of depicted or endorsed sin and (hopefully) some level of redemption of an image bearer. If we can use that latter as a prepositional jumping off point in our evangelism, we can make a lot of connection (I believe) without compromise.
Yeah, I understand logic, and that wasn't a red herring. I was not attempting to distract from the issue.
I'm asking a simple question: in what way did that scene endorse homosexuality?
My answer: it didn't. It depicted it, which is not the same as an endorsement.
Love the conversation here...I am a believer and
Downton Abbey fan. Lord Grantham's morals imperfections
have not stopped me from watching the show or
endorsing him for president in 2012!
http://www.lordgranthamforpresident.com
Glad to see such thought provoking conversation on the
topic..
Another review that I read. http://tomyladies.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/if-i-like-it-i-will-defend-it/
Another review: http://tomyladies.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/a-christians-critique-of-downton-abbey/
I just watched/rented my first episode and it showed two men kissing. My wife and I looked at each other and immediately turned it off. Absolutely shocked that a blog through the Gospel Coalition would post what appears to be a favorable review.
Very disappointed.
Romans 1:32 states, 'Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.' True believers who understand the holiness of God 'abstain from all appearance of evil' (I Thessalonians 5:22). I don't know anything about the author of this piece other than this -- If he believes what he has said, he is obviously a false teacher who is ignorant of scripture. And, based upon his opinion and lack of discernment about this video, a man whose moral compass is heading south...