⏱️ Estimated Reading Time: 8 min read
By What Standard? Cultural Discernment and the Myth of Neutral Entertainment
By Drew Von Neida
In recent days, controversy once again surrounded the Super Bowl halftime show. This time, attention centered on a performance that did not merely suggest sexual immorality but openly celebrated it.
Cultural spectacles like this are not new. What is increasingly concerning, however, is not simply the content itself, but the defense of it from some who profess the name of Christ.
Scripture never calls us to be shocked when unbelievers act according to their nature. The world will celebrate what God condemns. That is neither surprising nor new. But Scripture does call believers to discernment. Faith does not exchange biblical clarity for cultural comfort, nor does it excuse what God forbids simply because it is packaged as popular entertainment.
As we navigate moments like these, the question is not whether culture will be culture. The question is whether the Church will remain the Church.
Culture Is Not Neutral
One of the great mistakes of the modern church is treating culture as if it were morally neutral. Culture is the collective expression of what a people allow, tolerate, celebrate, and condemn. Because of this, culture is always teaching and always discipling. The question is not whether we are being instructed by the world around us, but what we are being taught and by whom.
When a believer claims, “This has nothing to do with theology,” they are inadvertently suggesting that there are “square inches” of creation where God has no concern. But Scripture grants us no such compartments. Whether we eat or drink, whether we watch or applaud, we do all before the face of God. Nothing in human experience is theologically irrelevant.
To be clear: no one is making the claim that every performance is a theological manifesto. To claim otherwise would be a category error. However, every performance is theologically significant. Conflating these two ideas creates a straw man that is easy to dismiss but fails to engage the real concern. And that is, By what standard do we evaluate what we set before our eyes?
The Myth of Neutral Approval
In Romans 1, the Apostle Paul describes a progression of depravity that culminates not just in the practice of wickedness, but in giving “hearty approval” to those who practice it. The sin is not limited to the act or the participant. Paul extends the sin to the celebration itself, which is a moral statement. To claim Christ while applauding or even passively entertaining what He forbids is to live inconsistently with what you say you believe.
The Puritan Stephen Charnock, in his work The Existence and Attributes of God, termed this “practical atheism.” Unlike the theoretical atheist who denies God’s existence with his intellect, the practical atheist denies God’s relevance with his life. It is the subtle, dangerous habit of living as if God is not there, or as if His Word does not bind the conscience once the television is turned on or the stadium lights are dimmed.
Practical atheism is most visible in our compartmentalization. We are tempted to carve our lives into “sacred” and “secular” spheres. We give God the Sunday morning liturgy, the morning prayer, and the formal theological discussion. But we reserve the “secular” sphere for our entertainment, our humor, and our pleasures. In short, we keep the secular sphere for ourselves. By doing so, we essentially tell the Creator that He is welcome in the sanctuary but an intruder in the living room.
When a professing Christian claims a public display of immorality is “not a theological issue,” they have already committed a theological error. They have demoted God from Lord of all things to a mere consultant for “religious” things. If our standard for what is “good” or “acceptable” shifts the moment a beat drops or a celebrity takes the stage, we are not practicing discernment. We are practicing a functional denial of the Sovereignty of God.
As Charnock argued, to ignore God’s eye in our daily choices is a greater insult than to deny His existence entirely. It acknowledges He is there, then proceeds to treat Him as if He doesn’t matter.
Deconstructing the Defense
The Appeal to Precedent: The claim that “nobody made the Super Bowl a moral issue before” is historically false. From the 2004 “wardrobe malfunction” to more recent displays, believers have consistently raised concerns. Furthermore, longevity does not equal innocence. The fact that something has been common for decades does not make it good.
The “Just Turn It Off” Deflection: While personal disengagement is a necessary step for the individual, it does not eliminate the need for moral evaluation. One can refuse to watch a spectacle and still rightly question whether the public glorification of sin is destructive to a society.
The Mind-Reading Fallacy: Assigning hidden motives to critics is a common tactic used to bypass the actual substance of an argument. It has become popular to suggest that anyone who objects to explicit content must harbor prejudice against the performer’s background. Biblical discernment is not a respect of persons. We do not evaluate a lyric based on the skin color of the one singing it, but on the truth or error of what is being said.
To demand that Christians apply different moral standards to different people is itself a violation of Scripture. To turn a theological concern into a racial one is not a quest for justice. It is a refusal to engage the standard of God’s Word.
Art Is Not a Moral Vacuum
A common defense for explicit performances is the “artistic exemption.” The argument suggests that because a performance is “art,” it exists in a separate category where the normal rules of morality and holiness do not apply. But Scripture never treats artistic expression as detached from worship.
Art is an overflow of what we love, what we treasure, and what we exalt. It is not a neutral medium; it is directional. It either directs the affections toward the beauty of God, or toward rebellion.
We must reject the idea that something can be artistically good while being morally evil. If a piece of art openly celebrates what God calls wicked, its artistry does not diminish the concern; it amplifies it.
The Mirage of Truthless Unity
Perhaps the most persistent argument used to quell discernment is the appeal to unity. We are told that “dividing” over a halftime show is petty. However, Christian unity is anchored in truth. In His high priestly prayer, Christ said, “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17).
A unity achieved by muting moral distinctions or ignoring the clear commands of Scripture is not Christian unity; it is compromise. True love “does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth” (1 Corinthians 13:6).
Unity without truth is merely a hollow agreement to drift in the same direction. As believers, our call is not to drift together, but to stand together.
The Duty of the Watchman
Scripture commands believers to live godly lives and to “test all things” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). We are also instructed to “take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them” (Ephesians 5:11).
To speak truthfully about cultural sin is not panic. It is obedience. If we claim to love our neighbors, we cannot remain silent while the culture catechizes them into celebrating their own destruction. Discernment is an act of mercy.
The Foundational Question
In every cultural flashpoint, one question presses upon the conscience:
- By what standard do we judge culture?
- By what standard do we define love?
- By what standard do we call something harmless?
God’s standard and the culture’s standard are not two overlapping circles. They are often two worlds in collision. The believer does not have the luxury of drifting between them.
Conclusion
Our aim in raising these concerns is not outrage, nor a desire to police every cultural moment. It is faithfulness. We speak because we love Christ and because we love our neighbors enough to care what shapes their affections.
Discernment is not panic. It is obedience. It is remembering that no square inch of life falls outside the Lordship of Christ.
The world will continue to celebrate what God hates. That is expected. But the Church must remember that she lives before the face of God.
In every cultural moment, the question remains: By what standard?
May our answer always be the Word of God.
