2 of 2

You might ask, "What's the difference, then, between you doing the editing and having a company do that editing for you? Either way, you're shielding them from certain content."

There are a couple of key differences. First is this: I know my sons, and they don't. My wife and I want to be the ones deciding what they can, and can't, watch. If we decide they're ready for exploding heads but not to hear the Lord's name in vain (or vice versa), that's our call, and nobody else's.

Also, if an outside company edits that stuff out, it robs us of a potential "teaching moment." After a couple of years, we decided to let our boys could hear Marion use God's name in vain. And at that moment, I hit "pause" and we talked: "Did you hear what Marion said? How did that make you feel? Did that make the movie any better? Why or why not? Do you ever hear other kids say that at school? What's wrong with saying those words? What does God say about it?" And so forth. It made for a great time of teaching and discussion—arguably more powerful than simply sitting down and reading them the Third Commandment.

I can't imagine having such a teaching moment with an edited version of Raiders of the Lost Ark: "Hey guys, at this point in the original version, Marion uses God's name in vain. If you heard her say that, how would that have made you feel?" Uhh, it just doesn't work nearly as effectively.

A second major difference between me doing the "self-edit" and letting a company do it for me is simply my original argument: No one should tamper with the work of art itself. Individuals and families can choose how (or if) they view those works of art, but the art itself should remain intact, as the artist created and intended it.

Picture it this way: Go to a museum that includes Renaissance art, and you're going to see a lot of naked people in paintings and statues. You'll see debauchery. And if you could "hear" the paintings talk, I'm sure you'd hear some bawdy language. So what do you do? Do you want someone to alter the art itself, to put some boxer shorts on that statue or some strategically placed Post-It notes on that painting?

Of course not. If you find those things offensive—whether to yourself or to your children—you simply avoid those works of art and find your way to other parts of the museum instead. You've done the "editing" yourself, which is exactly the way to do it. And then, you bring the kids back when they're older.

Same thing with movies.

By the way, our strategy seems to be working with our sons. We want to equip them to make discerning choices about movies, and they're starting to get it.

On a number of occasions, we've seen the evidence. As recently as last week, my older son came upstairs from his basement room and told me that while channel surfing, he came across a movie on the Sci-Fi Channel that looked entertaining. Then he said something that was music to my ears: "But there was too much sex and stuff, so I changed the channel."

Good for him. And he's never seen a "sanitized" movie in his life.

What do you think of this issue? E-mail us with your thoughts.

Copyright © 2006 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

first page |  2 of 2

Related Elsewhere:

Editing Smut: Yea or Nay?	Printer view
When a judge ruled that it was illegal for companies to "sanitize" videos by removing objectionable content, we agreed with the decision in principle. And now the readers have their say.