Oh how this magazine continues to descend into the depths of total depravity. Christianity Today not only felt it was necessary to review Sex and the City, but also gave it three out of a possible four stars. You can see their review here.

“In the end, I didn’t quite heart SATC—but I certainly enjoyed this meaningful reunion with its beloved characters and their winning friendships.”

Folks, the DVD series is rated R for a reason (i.e. strong sexual content, graphic nudity, and language). No true Christian has any business willingly setting this trash before their eyes.

Apparently some readers of Christianity Today still have a conscience left after it being seared from reading this rag to begin with. They wrote in to express their displeasure and Christianity Today addressed the dissenting voices with their excuses for reviewing this show and other objectionable films. I’ve commented below on excerpts from their unapologetic drivel:

“We totally understand why many people would have no desire to see Sex and the City, choosing to avoid it because of its portrayals of pre- and extra-marital sex and rampant materialism. I myself have no desire to see it, mostly for those reasons. But to slam us for reviewing the film makes no sense. Our mission statement is to help readers make discerning choices about movies—not to make the choices for people. Our review clearly warned readers of the sinful behavior in the movie, while also noting some of its redeeming factors—like the universal longing for love and companionship, what it means to be a true friend, and more.”

Really? Is that why you gave it three out of four stars? Doesn’t sound like you’re doing a good job of warning readers about the “sinful behavior” in the film when you endorse it! It must be all those “redeeming values” that gave it such a high rating like this quote from the original review: “All of this said, there is a lot of sex and nudity in the movie. Be warned: There’s a threesome, a naked man in a shower, some steamy makeup sex. The sex scenes between married folk are somewhat less offensive, but there were too many times when it seemed that the producers were simply trying to shock.”

And yet what’s even more shocking is that professing Christians are watching and endorsing this lust of the eyes and lust of the flesh fest.

“As for why we review movies that depict sinful behavior, it’s because such films depict real-world truth, and the truth is sometimes ugly. To suggest that one cannot find redemption amidst the muck is preposterous; often the best kinds of redemption come from out of the muck.”

And it’s much more entertaining to our sinful flesh (which we refuse to crucify) than reading that old boring Bible for guidance and direction.

“But here’s another reason for reviewing SATC and other uncomfortable films: It’s good to sometimes enter into the minds and worldviews of others, even of those we completely disagree with. It’s good to see what the world looks like through the eyes of even the depraved.”

I’m not even going to touch that lame excuse.

“That, dear readers, is why we review ‘objectionable’ movies. Because our eyes ‘are not enough for me.’ We will ‘see through the eyes of others’ and yet ‘remain’ ourselves. It is our own ‘experiment in criticism.’ If that kind of thinking is good enough for C. S. Lewis, it’s certainly good enough for us.”

Wow, I’d like to see you use that justification to indulge the flesh as you stand before your holy and righteous judge. “But Mr. Lewis said . . .”. Perhaps when they stand before God they will quote man’s words, but I have a sneaking suspicion God will quote His own: “Dapert from Me, I never knew you“!

Oh Christianity Today, how you make me long for Christianity Yesterday!