No one cares but me: IWU's R-rated movie policy

“R”

Indiana Wesleyan’s Student Development department has taken upon itself the responsibility of regulating students’ media intake. The Media Policy, as listed in the Student Handbook, is the result of their efforts. The rule, even according to the Vice President of Student Development, represents an imperfect effort to formulate a policy for a thorny subject. Many students and faculty have become frustrated with the rule, a fact that Student Development readily acknowledges. IWU wishes to promote critical thinking and discernment and to provide a “safety net,” and to utilize a hands-on approach that challenges students. However, the current policy defeats each of these goals because of its overbearing attempt to enforce a safety net. The Student Development department needs to recognize the specific pitfalls of the current rule and make the appropriate changes.

Many similar institutions share IWU’s philosophic and denominational views of education. The policies used by other Wesleyan schools provide a suitable starting point for evaluating Indiana Wesleyan’s policy. The Wesleyan tradition has been well-represented in higher education throughout the past two centuries. A large number of colleges and universities have carried the Wesleyan name, and many more stem from a similar Methodist background. Many of these schools have wandered from their religious roots, continuing the Wesleyan and Methodist traditions only in name. Yet a number of schools still faithfully adhere to Wesleyan code and conduct. Many of these institutions have joined the governing body of Evangelical Christian Education—the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU). These schools share a vision for excellence in higher education and a faithful dependence on their Wesleyan/Methodist heritage. The CCCU website lists four schools affiliated with the Free Methodist Church: Greenville College, Roberts Wesleyan, Seattle Pacific University, and Spring Arbor University. The Wesleyan Church also has four schools listed with it: Houghton College, Indiana Wesleyan University, Oklahoma Wesleyan University, and Southern Wesleyan University. These eight schools represent higher education in the Wesleyan tradition. Most of these institutions have made their student handbooks available online, and their media/movie policies are listed within them.

When we observe their respective handbooks, these eight schools are clearly similar in their philosophy of eduction. All of the schools echo common refrains concerning beliefs, goals, and the distinctiveness of a Wesleyan education. One consistent theme is an emphasis on Christian living that stems from the Holiness movement. The schools embody a set of values tied directly to Wesleyan doctrine, and these dictates are applied in various forms of “Lifestyle Expectations” through the Residence Life departments. A good example of these principles comes from Houghton’s “Responsibility of Community Life.”

The people of Houghton College comprise a Christian community that has joined together to seek academic progress, personal development, and spiritual growth. We strive to uphold a unity based on the lordship of Jesus Christ, guided by Biblical principles and the moral laws of God. We affirm our commitment to the triune God, perfectly revealed in Jesus Christ. We recognize that the Biblical standards for both individual and corporate life within the body of believers are necessary bases upon which to live.

As members of a community, we expect each other-- trustees, administrators, faculty, staff, and students-- to take seriously the responsibilities mentioned herein. We dedicate ourselves to individual academic progress, personal growth, and the building of a Christ-centered community that will provide spiritual nurture for all.

Together, we seek to honor Christ by integrating faith, learning, and living as we reflect the process of maturing in Him. We choose to live according to the word of God, to respond to one another in love, and to make decisions motivated by unselfish love and divine truth.

Our goal is the ideal of mature self-regulation and active participation in fulfilling community responsibilities. In joining this community, we freely and willingly take upon ourselves the responsibilities outlined in this statement.

This exemplifies the spirit of the schools in question—particularly, the Student Development departments of the schools. Though the phrasing changes from school to school, the basic tenets of Christian education are expressed by each. The specific goals within Residence Life of Christian institutions are worth noting. Unlike non-Christian schools, these colleges and university seek to encourage Christian values in the lives of their students. “Lifestyle Contracts” and “Community Values Contracts” exhibit these goals. Still, within these eight schools, movie policies vary widely. Yet all eight schools address entertainment in some form.

Indiana Wesleyan’s version of the rule, however, differs greatly from the other schools. The school’s history and the current policy serve as a backdrop to the other institutions’ approaches. The Vice President of Student Development at Indiana Wesleyan is Dr. Todd Voss. In our November 1^st meeting, he explained to me the history of Indiana Wesleyan’s movie policy. Since the school first offered classes in 1920, the school had maintained a conservative Wesleyan aversion to film. The national ratings system changed over the years—Dr. Voss quickly pointed out that the changes were enacted to allow for more risqué material to be marketed to young people. This change put the current system in place, giving us “G,” “PG,” “PG-13,” “R,” “NC-17,” and “X.” According to Dr. Voss, the school has not allowed students to watch “R” rated movies at any point since the rating system was put into place. The policy stood unchanged until the summer of 2000. One student’s persistence put into motion a conciliatory effort to allow the viewing of some “R” rated films. The school acknowledged the “redeeming value” of some “R” rated films and wanted to allow students to watch them. At the same time, the school wanted to ensure that students to critically engage the entertainment that they encountered. During our discussion, Dr. Voss told me that Student Development struggled to find a policy that embodied all their goals. This frustration led to the formulation of a new rule—a rule which would contribute to reach all their

The policy has been tweaked slightly since its inception in 2001, and the changes continue as Student Development sees fit to improve the rule. Dr. Voss seemed proud of the steps that IWU had taken towards a more inclusive policy. He listed the improved policy and the recent addition of the Globe Theater in the student center. He contrasted those developments with the staunch disdain of film that characterized the Wesleyan/Holiness movement for much of its history. In comparison, he said, IWU is emerging as a leading proponent of movies within the tradition. A look at other schools policies will shed light on this.

The CCCU has eight schools listed within the two religious affiliations that are most closely associated with the Wesleyan/Methodist tradition. Using these schools, we have a helpful common ground from which to assess IWU’s movie policy. The distinctive aspects of each school’s policy are discussed beneath as they appear in their student handbooks; a few pertinent policies have been included to give examples of helpful distinctions. The policies are listed in Appendix A, excerpted from the student handbooks.

Free Methodist Church

Greenville College uses a policy very similar to Indiana Wesleyan’s. They ban all “R” rated films in residence hall/house lounges and living rooms. If a student wishes to show a movie that is “R” rated, he/she must submit a request to the staff in their building. This policy is different in a few important ways. First, the ban extends only on campus. The students are allowed to make their choice outside of campus living areas. Secondly, if a student wishes to show a movie on campus, he/she must seek approval. This seems similar to Indiana Wesleyan’s policy, but it differs with its individual approach. Movies are approved for watching on a case by case basis, rather than movie by movie.

Roberts Wesleyan lists no official policy regarding “R” rated movies. They do, however, use a rule that is shared by all eight of the schools. They ban all use or possession of pornographic material. The student handbook goes no further, allowing the students to make choices that align with the guiding principles listed in the handbook under “Commitment,” “Wholeness,” and “Excellence.”

Seattle Pacific also gives no specific policy for students regarding rated “R” movies, but they list a few helpful rules regarding student conduct. SPU shares IWU’s ban on alcohol, tobacco, and illegal drugs. Their rule, however, includes an important clause that IWU’s policy omits. Their student handbook states “SPU makes no attempt to preempt the customs of the family, which may include the use of alcohol at a family meal or family event...” Included in their website is a potentially helpful statement concerning the use of movies in Club activities. They explicitly ban all “NC-17” and “X” rated films, and they make a concession allowing for questionable content to be shown if it has “exceptional moral, social, or ethical message that is well established.” This, again, is addressed to school-based Clubs, not the student population; however, it reveals a look at the school’s stance on movies.

Spring Arbor University uses a rule that seems to combine Greenville’s and Seattle Pacific’s. “X” and “NC-17” movies are not allowed to be watched or possessed, “R” rated movies cannot be shown in lounge areas, and films that are “exceptionally violent, vulgar, or sexual in content” are prohibited. But, it should be noted, this distinction is left up to the student.

The Wesleyan Church

Houghton College, a “sister school” of IWU, gives no formal policy regarding “R” rated movies. The section regarding entertainment sounds much like IWU’s and a number of the other schools’, but they leave the decision-making to the students. “Fellow Christians have urged discretion and restraint in our choice[s]…especially if these…are morally questionable or diminish…sensitivity.” These cautions are made primarily from a standpoint of time-stewardship. In addition to this rule, however, Houghton joins Seattle Pacific by conceding authority to parental standards when students return home. Included with this concession is a request for students to exercise restraint as representatives of Houghton and of God.

Oklahoma Wesleyan University makes another formulation of the rule. Their policy is listed under the “Televisions/VCR’s/DVD Player” heading. They insist that, when used on campus, movies rated beyond “PG-13” are not allowed. This rule disallows “X”, “NC-17,” and “Mature” along with “R” rated films. This rule seems to negate all “R” rated movies, making it more stringent than IWU’s policy; we should note, however, that the rule applies only to movies watched on campus. This leaves open all other venues for student discretion.

Southern Wesleyan University, while addressing the issue from a conceptual standpoint, never explicitly gives a list of allowed/disallowed ratings. They ask students to “avoid activities, entertainment, media establishments or materials that promote violence, pornography, sexually explicit themes and immoral practices.” They also list a series of punishments for “media misuse” that includes the same list of restrictions. Again, this policy leaves the decisions up to the student.

With these seven schools in mind, Indiana Wesleyan’s policy is seen in a different light. Greenville and Spring Arbor have the clearest, and longest, movie policies. Both of these schools have one paragraph concerning students and movies. Indiana Wesleyan’s student handbook gives three full pages concerning students and media. The majority of these pages deal with movies. Clearly, Indiana Wesleyan has expounded on the policy more than the other schools, probably combined. This is understandable as IWU’s policy is much more exhaustive than the other schools. In our meeting, Dr. Voss mentioned the lack of a suitable precedent from other schools. IWU seems to be attempting a flagship effort, providing a more comprehensive approach. The contrasts are readily apparent.

The most glaring difference pits IWU’s policy against all seven of its fellow schools. No other policy extends the rule past the students’ families. A number of schools qualify their policies, allowing students to be under parents’ rules while at home. Indiana Wesleyan extends their policy (on all matters of student behavior) throughout students’ enrollment. Any time spent at home and any time on breaks, students are expected to follow Student Development’s rules—even if they conflict with family customs and traditions. I asked Dr. Thompson, the Assistant Vice President of Residence Life, about this in our discussion, and his response was unsatisfactory. When faced with the conflict of IWU rules versus parents’ rules, he loosely remarked that Student Development doesn’t “actively pursue” rule-breakers at home or during the summer and Christmas breaks. However, he did stand by the school’s ultimate position—students are technically expected to follow the school’s rules at home, even if they conflict with family customs and traditions. This formulation of the rule is certain to frustrate students. The school puts a rule in place technically, but willingly allows students to function outside of it. The frustration lies with the students’ motivation to follow the rule. The school relies on students’ integrity to keep their rule, but they diminish the importance of integrity by, in effect, expecting students to spend the summer at their own discretion. The school wants to use a convenient grey area to avoid the fact that they impose their rules above family customs. The students who heed the school’s call to integrity are left on the losing end of the school’s convenience: forced to exclude themselves from watching movies and from family traditions.

The media policy at Indiana Wesleyan is clearly more involved than those at other schools; unfortunately, the involvement has not brought about the goals the school aimed for. The rules from other schools regulate movies on student-owned electronics and in campus buildings. In fact, every other policy ends on the edges of campus. Understandably, no other school extends a movie policy to include all students’ choices. This extension undermines the school’s goal to “encourage discernment.” Students are asked to discern good movies from bad movies, but the policy allows no chance for that discernment to occur. Every other school encourages students to be cautious in their media selections; Greenville and Oklahoma Wesleyan even join IWU with a ban on “R” rated movies on campus. But only IWU, amidst all eight schools, extends this ban to all students’ choices. Greenville ends its regulation in campus housing; OWU also restricts movie-watching but only when they are viewed on campus. These other schools still acknowledge students’ prerogative to make decisions off campus and at home. This allows students some freedom to do the discerning about available movie choices.

The system erected by Indiana Wesleyan attempts to screen the “R” rated movies before the students are allowed to view them. Once the individual movies are deemed “redeeming,” students are allowed to view them. Obviously, this process is more involved than any other rule in place at the related institutions in the CCCU. The result is a far-reaching ban that defeats the school’s original goals. According to Dr. Voss, the school wants to encourage critical thinking and discernment, maintain the school’s “safety net,” and to utilize a hands-on approach that challenges students. The current policy defeats each of these goals because of its overbearing attempt to enforce a safety net. Critical thinking and discernment are discouraged—denied, even—by the extension of IWU’s policy to students’ decisions off campus and at home. The safety net defeats itself, the way overprotective parents force their children to rebel. Ironically, the school knows this but makes no provision for students at home or off campus. The same principle applies to the “hands on” approach. Too many “hands on” anyone will eventually force them away.

The school should either admit (and justify) their insistence on their own rules over families’, or, following the example of Seattle Pacific and Houghton, make an official provision for students under the auspices of home. IWU’s hesitance to give this qualification comes from the worry that students will abuse the freedom. However, the school should take responsibility for this problem, recognizing that playing on students’ integrity is unfair and exasperating. As for students off campus—the uniformity of the other seven schools gives a convincing illustration. If the school makes those concessions, the resulting policy would allow students an opportunity to think critically and to discern. The current IWU policy shows that a “hands on” approach cannot be successful without an occasional breath of “hands off.” The best safety net is, and always has been, good balance.

And so it began--(the prologue)

The hills of Southern Missouri disrupt the table-top flatness of the Midwestern landscape. Winding through them en route to Kamp Kanakuk, I missed the monotony of corn and big skies. The day started hot and turned miserable. The AC gave up twelve minutes from home. The breeze from the window carried me, sweat and all, through Indiana, Illinois, and into Missouri. I’d spent the preceding summer months working a two man crew—eight hour shifts shoveling mud and laying grass seed. My partner, Leo, was a crafty Mexican with a knack for fixing things. The summer had already been littered with a number of painful goodbye’s. Ten young men—boys, rather—would soon find themselves under my jurisdiction, under “my” plywood roof in Cabin 1. Leadership seemed foreign and awkward, like balancing a millstone on my head. Any deaths would, of course, be my responsibility, but the camp directors had already warned us of far more solemn calamities.

The application process for joining Kanakuk’s nationwide staff of 2,000+ began at their high-impact presentation in a banquet room at school last year. A maze of different camps featuring the latest and greatest stuff: endless opportunities. The videography was rocking—awesome—as was the speaker and the interview. I didn’t know if I’d pass the interview or if my Philosophy major would get in the way. I knew they’d like me, but I didn’t know if they’d hire me. But their job offer came excitedly through email a few months later, and my acceptance letter was met by a Get-Krunked-for-Jesus reply that boasted of the best summer in cosmos history.

The valleys surrounding Branson deepened as the distance to camp dwindled. I had driven the route once before, going to round one of staff training in mid-May. This time through, the July sun was faithfully baking my green Honda and me with it. I stopped for my final pre-Kamp meal—Subway—watching CNN on a surprisingly clear, wall-mounted flatscreen. Goodbye, world. I finished my foot-long BaconCheddarRanch and strolled back out to my car, noting how much I preferred corn to Krunk-ness.

Staff training lasted three days, though round 1 had lasted two weeks. The male counselors reported to the boy’s gym. Camp leadership fortified their initial warnings about counselors who “coasted”—reminding us that their campers missed out on eternity. Then they prayed for us, with everything they had. And then we all screamed: the intensity climbed to rock-your-face-off levels. The next four weeks were going to be about the kids. About Jesus. About awesome.

Some thoughts on Christians and Film...

Much like other emerging issues that the church faces today, this issue does not have the luxury of a clear, Scriptural answer to the question “What Would Jesus Do?” Jesus is never recorded outside the local theater—neither holding a picket sign, nor buying a ticket. Clearly, the issue can be, and is, argued by Christians to numerous conclusions. As is true in most of life, those who fail to think through their view of culture often fall prey to either ignorance or indoctrination. As Brian Godawa describes, the two glaring extremes in this instance are “cultural gluttons” and “cultural anoxerics”. His book “Hollywood Worldviews: Watching Film with Wisdom and Discernment” outlines the dangers of both camps before going on to reveal the vast infrastructure of worldviews beneath Hollywood’s glimmering surface. First, Godawa argues that the so-called “Anorexics” endanger their very humanity. He references the image of God bestowed on Adam in Genesis 1. The human inclination towards creativity and expression, he says, is reflective of the ‘imago dei’; thus, to ignore or shun the creation of art is to rebel from part of what made God declare that man was ‘very good’. The end results of this error are irrelevance and estrangement from the people of the culture. Certainly, the church today is feeling these effects. Second, Godawa explains the “cultural glutton”. The key attribute of this type of
person is a tendency to engage the arts in a passive manner. They are taken in by the art, but they fail to discriminate in light of their Christianity. Their main concern is to be entertained, and the value they place on particular works display this. In this instance, the common refrains are, “I liked it”, or “I hated it”. And when asked why, the response is “I don’t know. I just did”. This response to the arts is no more adequate than the first, and this approach often results in moral desensitization and the loss of a wonderful opportunity to interact with the people of the culture on honest terms.
Christians must find an acceptable middle ground on which to stand. Film, as a market, continues to grow in its size and power. As a cultural stimulus, film has seized the opportunity afforded by our increasingly visual culture. If Christians fail to understand film as a genre, and the individual films that make up that genre, the church will go on being self-focused in spite of a sizable opportunity to dialogue with an ailing culture. Simultaneously, if Christians indulge in the culture without pausing to remember the significance of “Christ, and him crucified”, we still forfeit the possibility for dialogue, but we also increase the risk of being drawn downward and deceived by the various forms of enticement.


Why is film (specifically film) so special in its ability to communicate the culture?
--Film is a large portion of the popular arts, and, as many have said, the popular arts of a time period both reflect and form that era’s values and prejudices. Film is one of the most accessible forms of popular culture and as such, it must be utilized as a point of comprehension and a point of conversation.
And, the power of film, as a genre, is a force that has been unseen to date in any culture. The combination of story, music, acting, and photography incorporates a variety of already powerful mediums into one giant. The playwrights of all ages would salivate at the options that lay before the directors of today’s blockbusters.
Because of movies’ massive ability to influence, the writers of movies hold an immense power to persuade or to convey a particular idea with bravado. Often, movies are told from a perspective that automatically gives them a particular partiality in one direction. These biases are very often the unconscious result of a writer’s worldview, but, in some cases, they are clear-minded, voluntary advertisements for a particular ideology or conviction.
This aspect of film’s power is yet another reason that it is imperative that Christians develop and implement a healthy approach to film. The picture of Christians going to the theaters and checking their Christianity at the door is as troubling as the idea of Christians outside the theaters, picketing away a chance to reach weary souls.
(for more reading on Christians interacting with the Popular Arts, read Eyes Wide Open: Looking for God in Popular Culture by William D. Romanowski)
___________________________________________________________________

This undertaking is intended to offer a healthy, vibrant, constructive approach for Christians to employ in regards to popular culture, and more specifically, in regards to film.
First steps: What are the questions that must be answered in trying to develop a solid methodology for interacting with film?
n What is Film?
n What are the benefits of engaging and understanding Film?
n What are the drawbacks?
n What is the relationship between moral compromise and cultural relevance?


--Film is one branch of the popular arts that relates a story using the medium of theaters, whether home theaters or otherwise.

Benefits: / Goals:
A) More accurate understanding of the culture:
1) Detweiler’s Relevant article-- “We must see the world as it is before we start trying to fix it.”…Difference between ‘Descriptive’ and ‘Prescriptive’ truth.
B) If “A)”, then we are more suited to bringing a clear, accessible, and understandable message to fellow film consumers…which is a great percentage of those with whom we live. (80% of Christians who attend church almost weekly said they also attend the movies .)
C). Film is one of the best ways to develop discernment regarding the various worldviews and ideologies that make up our cultural landscape. More often than not, Christians cannot relate to the foundations from which people come. As in most art, film both shapes and represents the culture, and Christians should utilize film to develop a keener eye.
D) Interpretive Communities: (Romanowski 32) The opportunity to form a fellowship with others that is geared toward a joint goal of engaging popular art. (As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another… Prov. 27:17) Because the medium of film is entertaining, this provides an ideal situation for forming deeper, more meaningful relationships. This can be true between both Christians and non-Christians.

____________________________________________________________________
Drawbacks:
A) ‘Stumbling’—the interaction with film causes a personal failure in regards to the personal walk with God. Moral hindrances. (Including sexual addictions, pornography, lust, infatuation with romance, infatuation with evil/violence)
B) Distractions: Often movies can successfully remove a person’s focus from the things that rightly deserve attention and place them elsewhere. This coincides with the ability of film to transport the viewer into a separate reality, and can disrupt personal devotion to following Christ.

A healthy approach to Film will certainly begin with a consideration of all the possible benefits and drawbacks, and after a careful study of the ramifications of engaging film, we should attempt to emphasize the positives and work against the negative aspects. The following is an example of what it could look like to implement an approach to film that utilizes beneficial aspects of engaging film and safeguards against the snags. For this narrative example, I will call the Engager, “Eddy”.
Eddy is a devoted Christian, and his first priority is his relationship to Jesus Christ. This is the pivotal commitment of his life. He enjoys film, but he also believes that there is much potential for film to deepen his relationship to Jesus. There are a number of points that Eddy would do well to remember as he begins his quest to fully appreciate and use the genre of film. First, Eddy needs to remember the cultural landscape from which most films hail. The Christian heritage that Eddy believes is the true understanding of reality is not appreciated by most of the industry that produces the majority of films. The implications of this insight are complex, and contain both positive and negative effects. Eddy must realize there will be content in this area which could be potentially damaging to his pursuit of God. As he interacts with pictures of reality painted by people outside Christianity’s moral code, he must be on guard against what can be a minefield of temptation and distraction. Simultaneously, Eddy realizes that a Christianity turned in on itself is really no Christianity at all. He must use the opportunity to more fully understand the people, the culture, and the ways which they function. Returning to the problem of his moral compromise, it would be unwise for Eddy to approach the potential minefield by himself. This can be a great way for him to build relationships that will keep Eddy accountable, not only in this arena, but throughout all areas of his life. Just as Christianity focused in on itself is no true Christianity, neither is a private, individual Christianity. Eddy can pave the way for deeper, more meaningful relationships through a shared interest in the area of film. This surely can true both inside and outside the reach of Christendom. He will realize that, as with all good art, truth shines forth in good film that stimulates discussion and thought.
With this first mention of ‘truth’, we must discuss with Eddy a critical distinction in the pursuit of truth. There is an important dichotomy in the usage of the word truth, especially when referring to the world of art. Eddy should take a look at Craig Detweiler’s Relevant Magazine article May/June 2005. He writes, “The artistic community deals primarily with descriptive truth. Artists attempt to hold up a mirror, to reveal the human condition as is, quirks and all…Great art describes life as we know it.” For instance, when Eddy watches a movie, and the majority of characters end up dead as a result of drug use and drug trafficking, he should remember that the writer, producer, and director are probably not encouraging Eddy to get his feet wet in drug use. They are more likely describing the life that often coincides the drug scene. Or, given this example, it may be possible that a vivid description has the intention of discouraging drug use.
This is a good opportunity to deal with another important aspect of the Eddy’s engagement of film. If Eddy has struggled, or does struggle, with drug addiction with drug use, then the scenario certainly changes. He must recognize that, for him, this is an area of weakness and likely temptation. Once again, it seems important that Eddy involves others in his quest to engage movies. Being human, Eddy will face personal temptations that he must deal with, but these need not be magnified by his film watching. With support and involvement of his friends, he can use film to establish healthy habits and boundaries in all of life.