Statistics from Pastor Juan’s sermon on the idolatry of sexual reminder were a chilling reminder to me of how early young people are being confronted with sexual images, messages, and choices.

We plan to offer additional teaching and resources in months to come to help you disciple your kids, but Todd Terry sent me this helpful link to some resources that may come in handy right now.

Christianity Today recently published its annual list of the previous year’s “10 Most Redeeming Films.” I’ve only seen the top 2 of the top 10, and none of “the ones that got away” on page 2. Though I’m not a big animation guy, I liked both of the ones I saw, and I really liked The Blind Side.

But were they redeeming?

Here’s how CT defines redeeming films:

What do we mean by “redeeming”? We mean movies that include stories of redemption—sometimes blatantly, sometimes less so. Several of our films have characters who are redeemers themselves; all of them have characters who experience redemption to some degree—some quite clearly, some more subtly. Some are “feel-good” movies that leave a smile on your face; some are a bit more uncomfortable to watch. But the redemptive element is there in all of these films.

Now, I don’t have a beef with movies that tell stories about people who turn their lives around or people who help others do so. I am concerned that we not misunderstand real, biblical, redemption, and I’m also concerned that CT hasn’t really helped us.

Here’s what I mean. Look at their definition. Do you see any problems with it? The one that leaps out to me is that their definition of “redeeming films” never clearly defines, well, . . . redemption. It assumes we already know, and I’m not sure we do. Frankly, I don’t see evidence that they do. The definition that’s implied certainly isn’t biblical redemption. Instead, it seems simply to refer to people getting their lives turned around.

Like I said, I’ve only seen two of the movies in the whole list, but they were the top two, and neither presented an explicitly biblical picture of redemption. By that I mean, the gospel wasn’t present. Was a form of redemption present? Sure, but ultimately, those movies presented a picture of people’s lives changing for the better wholly apart from the gospel.

I’m not arguing that we should only watch movies that present the gospel—certainly not. I am arguing that we, as consumers of media and art, need to be discerning as to what’s genuinely redemptive and what’s not.

Now, you might push back and point out characters in the Bible who redeem or experience redemption, without an immediate, explicit explanation of the gospel present in the text. And that’s true. But remember, when we talk about those stories and people, we need to be really careful that we not moralize their stories (“be like Moses/Joseph/Daniel”). Instead, we need to teach our families and our friends that these are stories of imperfect redeemers who point us to the only fully-sufficient Redeemer. We need to tell these little stories in the context of the big biblical story—the proclamation of the glory of God in the redemption of Christ.

These stories ultimately point us an over-arching story about God. They’re not a handy set of “how-to make your life better” parables. Recognizing that difference is the crossroads between a gospel that saves and a religion that damns. If we watch “redeeming films,” we need to remember that a person turning his life around is only good news, ultimately, if the gospel accomplishes the change. Otherwise, we’re cheering on an external reformation that only hides the symptoms of our depravity.

Give up on your dream of a kingdom with yourself at the center, that is. See Paul Tripp make the argument for marriage as a means to kill idols here.