Cuties — A Review

After all the recent hubbub I decided to view “Cuties” for myself. What follows are a few impression.

— Painfully thin plot. African family moves to the West. In that context the daughter is alienated because of her father taking a second wife and because of her unfamiliar settings. Daughter resolves that alienation by rejecting family and owning a feral girls club (Cuties) as her new identity matrix. The narrative then gives us the daughter of Africa exceeding all requirements for sexuality set forth by the feral girls club in order to compensate for her sense of rejection by her Father’s taking of a second wife.

— The film (likely inadvertently) teaches the mistake it is to bring third worlders into Western Civilization. The film makes it obvious that there will be no assimilating between the third world and the West. The Third World brings its customs (polygamy, Shamans, Exorcisms) religion (Isalm in the film) and foods. Bringing the third world into the West results in the Third Worldization of the West.

When it does assimilate it the film teaches that it assimilates with the worst elements of the West. The whole sexualization in dance that the main character excels in is the one way in which she leaves behind her Third world ways and in the film at least, she gives up that sexualization at the end of the film. The problem the end of the film gives us is that now the child now belongs to neither her original Third World roots (seen in her refusal to attend her father’s polygamous wedding) nor to the sexualized dance she had embraced.

Emphasizing the aspect that the Third World does not belong in the West we see that beyond what the film explores that when the pagan Third World hits the West what transpires is a cultural distance that cannot be crossed. This is so because the distance between the two cultures is so vast that the third worlder cannot adjust to that massive of a change without sinking into aberrant behavior. Secondly, what is aberrant for the Christian West is normative for much of the pagan third world. Clitorectomies is one example … treating women as sexual possessions is another example…. Muslim honor killings is a third example… increased crime rates is a fourth example. Importing the third world into Western civilization is like importing Cortez into the Aztec third world culture. Something’s gotta give. What is giving is Western civilization norms in favor of the Third World norms we are importing.

— The film denounces polygamy which is a very odd thing for a modern film-maker to do. Modern man practices cultural relativism and pronounces that all cultural customs are equal yet in this film we see denounced, through the eyes of the main character and her mother that polygamy is evil. The director was a female and a self-admitted feminist and so likely a hater of all forms of patriarchy (both the biblical and unbiblical varieties) and so polygamy is cast as evil in the film.

I note this as someone opposed to polygamy and believe it to be God’s second best for families. I know Scripture gives no positive examples of polygamous homes being functional. Having said that I see nowhere in Scripture where polygamy is pronounced universally as “sin.”However, in a culture such as the West which insists that all cultural behaviors are acceptable and should not be “judged” it is odd to see the film-makers judge polygamy as being a “bad” thing. However, feminists gonna be all feminist like.

— One of the great cultural aberrations of the West is the existence of “youth culture.” Youth culture is a unbiblical category that one finds nowhere existing in Scripture. It was completely created in America by advertising agencies in the 1950’s in order to be able to capture the spending of America’s young people. In the film “Cuties” youth culture is seen as the norm. This is as unfortunate as the normalization of the sexualization that the film also pushes. The main character takes three girls her own age as her new family in the West and her bond throughout the film, until the very end, is with them.

In a sane culture “youth culture” doesn’t exist and young people grow up identifying with their parents and family and seek to yearn to be like them as they mature. However, the West is far from sane in its culture and so “Amy” rebels against her Mother and her folkways in order to fit in with her youth culture family.

— Cuties (again likely inadvertently) teaches what happens to little girls where there is no strong Father figure. Adolescent girls without Fathers often end up looking to men with a sexual interest to find Father approval that they are not getting in a Christian home. The desire for approval from fathers in adolescent girls is off the charts and if adolescent girls will not get wholesome approval from their fathers they will find it in the sexual approval of boyfriends. The little girl, in the film, perceives rejection by her father and so she turns to sexuality. In other news day follows night.

— Cuties is, in my opinion, a film that sodomite lovers of little boys will get off on. The adolescent girls are basically boys with little bumps. All the grinding in the film will be a turn on for sodomites as they see the adolescent girls as merely little boys.

— Finally, the sexualization of little girls is beyond questioning. It is also beyond questioning that this film is a grooming film for pederasts. An 11 year old little girl who might see this film is not going to understand that the sexual twerking is giving us the sexual objectification of little girls, as the film Director insists was her intent. Now add the reality the reality that almost all the adults in the film when viewing the twerking dance contests are all agog and are hooting, hollering, and cheering. What else can this be but a communication that all this sexualization in little girls is normative?

This sexualization isn’t close to subtle. There are repeated crotch shots and humping motions. I cannot think of a better way to sell the trafficking of little girls for sex then showing scenes like “Cuties” puts on the screen.

It is true, that at the very end of the film Amy hears the call of her homeland and walks away from the end of her twerking contest (after all the “best” moves have been caught by the camera) and returns to her home just in time to see her Mother getting ready to attend her husband’s polygamous marriage. Clearly, what is communicated is that Amy understands that she has no home among either her dance family nor her biological family. She is all alone.

When we introduce the Third World into the West everyone ends up alienated and alone finding their only outlet in sex.

The film is sub-par but because it was directed by a black Muslim woman originally from the Third Wold the critics are all raving. The critics at Rotten Tomatoes gave it an 88% thumbs up rating while the viewer rating was 3%. The viewers are not panning films in order to do virtue signaling like the critics.

The King Has Come

“The world is blighted by death, demons (i.e. Gretchen Whitmer), and sin. Jesus as Lord has triumphed over them through his death and resurrection. Indeed He has fulfilled the promise of a new Exodus, a new creation, and a new covenant, though in a inaugurated but not consummated manner… The New Creation has arrived in Jesus Christ.”

Thomas Schreiner
The King in His Beauty — p. 548


The emphasis of the NT is that the Kingdom has arrived. Of course the arrival is in an inaugurated yet not consummated sense but the arrival of the Kingdom remains altogether true. Yet the Reformed and the Evangelicals often act like we remain living in the not yet of the old and worse covenant. The Kingdom has arrived with all of its life restorative power. The impact of this already arrived Kingdom means that we as Christians should live in terms of reality that the age to come is rolling back this present evil age. As such our lean should be towards insistence that all men bow the knee to the King’s commands in all areas of life. Our lean should be to fight against those theologies like R2K which want to spiritualize (i.e. — Gnosticize) the presence of the Kingdom so it does not impact family life, law, and education, etc.. R2K is a denial of the presence of the Kingdom in favor of Gnostic faith. The Good News is that in Christ the King and Kingdom has been restored. We should live as if that reality impinges on us.

Faith Obeys Jesus

“Faith obeys Jesus. The parallelism in John 3:36

“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.”

is most interesting, for disobeying (apeitheo) is contrasted with ‘believing.’ in Him, indicating that disobedience is an expression of unbelief. John cannot conceive of those who believe in Jesus but fail to obey Him. Those who trust in Jesus keep (tereo) His word and commandments (8:51-52; 14:15, 23-24; 15:10), for those who refuse to keep Jesus commands do not truly love Him. Jesus defines His disciples as ‘those who keep His Word’ (17:6). Similarly, Jesus’ disciples ‘follow’ (akoloutheo) him (1:37-38, 40, 43; 8:12; 12:26; 21:19, 22), just as sheep follow only their shepherd (10:4-5, 27). Those who refuse to follow Jesus do not truly believe in Him and are not truly His disciples. We see the same theme in I John. Those who truly know Jesus keep His commands (2:3-6; cf. 3:22; 5:3). There are not sinless (1:7-2:2) but they do not persist in a life of sin (3:4-10; 5:18) Sin does not dominate their lives, and they do not give themselves over to evil.

“Thomas Schreiner
The King in His Beauty – p. 532


So, if all the above is true and if we were to add only that Jesus was and is the incarnation of God’s Character, noting that God’s character is His Law-Word then we have to ask why does the contemporary Church so hate theonomists who above all Christians are teaching people that to believe and follow Jesus means that they have a responsibility of obeying God’s Law Word?

But the modern Church has gone all Marcion on this score insisting that the individual Christian has no responsibility to God’s law outside a nod to God’s ten words and then maybe even some of those are truncated. The contemporary Church, outside of the theonomists want nothing to do with God’s case law insisting that God’s case law has all been abolished completely ignoring the whole idea of general equity.

For theonomists this looks all the world like God is schizophrenic. God has one Law-Word for the Old covenant but a different Law-Word for the new Covenant. This is not insignificant because if God’s Law-Word has changed then God’s character has changed since God’s Law-Word is the very definition of God’s character.

To be sure theonomists believe that those aspects of the Law that were related to the proclamation of Jesus Christ in the ceremonies have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ but Law being fulfilled, and so no longer required of us, is not the same thing as Law being abolished apart from fulfillment.

Those who say that the case law is completely abolished should be consistent and advocate, from the pulpit, the elimination of all laws forbidding incest and bestiality. After all, though we do have “Thou Shalt not commit Adultery,” we do not have the case laws of consanguinity or the case laws forbidding human and animal sex in the New Testament. If the case laws are all abolished then they are all abolished and this squeamishness about R2K chaps marrying their sisters or bedding their favorite farm animal has to go. (I mention R2K because they are the most famous for declaring that all the case laws are abolished and that general equity does not obtain.)

Shreiner, rightly notes that the New Testament teaches that believing in Jesus means obeying Jesus but from where I sit, looking upon the modern Reformed world, Jesus has been created as a new God unrelated to the God of the Old Covenant and so obeying Jesus has precious little to do with obeying the God who gave all those nasty case laws. For Dispensationalism and R2K (how much difference is there between the two) as with Marcionism the Jesus of the New Testament presents us with a different God, with a different law that allows us to engage in behavior in the New Testament era which would have had us tossed out of the community of faith in the Old Testament era. For these antinomians Jesus saves us from sin while allowing believers to jettison the case law so that the law and so consequently sin is dumbed down.

Indeed, so dumbed down has the law become in this antinomian world that one R2K minister has insisted that he has no interest in the State passing anti-bestiality laws. Why? Because that belongs to the case laws and the case laws are abolished.


Of “Friends” who are Enemies who are “Fighting” the Enemy

A blurb from an article at the Sovereign Nations website.

https://sovereignnations.com/2019/06/06/black-identity-theories-secular-or-sacred/?utm_campaign=meetedgar&utm_medium=social&utm_source=meetedgar.com&fbclid=IwAR2G3I59mG8UJvJudfS9FjSe_IihdbeIGT6XhSZvcuyB74I_Br9ODu8m1Sw

As you read this keep in mind that “Sovereign Nations” is supposed to be the good guys opposing the slide of the Southern Baptist Convention into Critical Race theory and Intersectionality. With friends like this we might as well just let the enemies have their way.

The article is insightful in terms of its analysis of the origins of Critical Race theory but once she (Ariel Gonzalez Bovat) moves away from analysis to solutions she goes completely off the tracks. In point of fact I agreed with what I was reading until this statement,

Cross’s model of black identity was an attempt to merge black culture with the unbiblical label of being black as a “race”.”

Black as a race is unbiblical? I’d love to see her prove that.

The fact that race exists is seen in,

1.) Pharmaceuticals that are developed as designed particularly for people of particular races.

2.) The reality of matters like this,

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/30/family-3-year-old-leukemia-plead-bone-marrow-transplant-donor/1293400001/?fbclid=IwAR2l7g2lMSpMekovIaqEGm0pY9E9-RXPgRD5Et9dXaHGIYQG_V951GSZEoU

3.) Forensic Science routinely can identify people from bones found. If Race was merely a social construct forensic science could not identify the races of the deceased by merely looking at bones long in the ground.

4.) The fact that some races are uniquely given to certain diseases while other races are not. For example the black race is given to sickle cell anemia. If race were only a social construct why would this be the case?

Ariel Gonzalez Bovat goes on to write,

“We can reject secular reasoning that asserts our skin color or culture should be our primary identity marker. Skin color is not tied to culture, race does not exist. Prayerfully, this article has proven that Cross and other secular theorists have succeeded in merging race, skin color and culture, creating that firmly held “social construct” that continues to reinforce the necessity of keeping the word “race” in our language, which ultimately informs how we view each other. We are not the totality of our skin color or ethnic culture.Our skin color does not define us, nor does it inform our identity.”

Bret responds,

“Fine we are Christians first, but the fact that we are Christians first does not mean that our skin color or race doesn’t contribute to the informing of our identity.

Second, this assertion is nothing but Gnosticism. Who God has created us to be in terms of race, culture and ethnicity, maleness or femaleness, all contribute mightily to our identity.

Third, she has embraced the postmodern idea that creaturely realities assigned by God are only social constructs that are malleable. This is the opposition to CRT in the Southern Baptists.

Fourth, this smack of hyper individualism… atomistic individualism which treats the corporate categories we are created with nominalistically. Our race, ethnicity, tribe, and family, are assigned to us by God. This view quoted above would make man a single integer which provides for himself his own creaturely identity.

Ariel Gonzalez Bovat is drinking from the well of postmodernism when she starts insisting that race / ethnicity is a social construct. This idea of social construct was barely heard of until the last 20 years or so and now it has been pushed into our social consciousness as an article of faith and those who advocate this are providing either a prime example of gas-lighting or else are themselves suffering from unspeakable insanity.

Race, ethnicity, sex, nationality, citizenship, etc. are all good and creational, God-ordanied categories.When people like James White and some of the authors at Sovereign Nations ignore these realities they are the enemy and we need to fight them perhaps even more then those who they are opposing since the James White crowd are putatively our friends. The statement on social justice that MacArthur spearheaded also said explicitly that race is a social construct, thus demonstrating that MacArthur has his head up his southern most orifice on this subject. All of this is, quite frankly, not merely unwise but completely dishonest. Dear reader, if you haven’t listened to Al Mohler’s exposition of the Table of Nations that he did in chapel you need to do so to learn just how bad it is because slippery Al also reduces ethnicity to language and “worldview” (i.e., religion).

IS THERE ANYBODY WEARING A WHITE HAT OUT THERE OR IS IT THE CASE THAT NOT ONLY THE BAD GUYS ARE WEARING BLACK HATS BUT THE OPPOSITION WHO IS TRYING TO STOP THE BAD GUYS ARE ALSO WEARING BLACK HATS?

Bruegemman, Wright & McAtee on R2K

“Zephaniah disputes the idea that Yahweh is ‘as irrelevant to life as the other gods, as though Yahweh were not a serious player in the life of the world.'”

Walter Brueggeman
Theology of the OT — p. 137

“Israel was called upon to ‘acknowledge God’s sovereignty in economic as well as the religious sphere.'”

Christopher Wright
OT Ethics — p. 97

On Wright’s quote I wouldn’t only tighten it up by acknowledging that the “economic sphere” he refers to is also a “religious sphere.” In point of fact there is not sphere that is not driven by religion and so a “religious sphere.”

When we consider these two quotes we remember that R2K is a ‘theology’ in violation of these very principles. R2K does insist that God is irrelevant to life by insisting that there cannot be uniquely Christian Culture, Law, Education, family, etc. Further R2K does not acknowledge God’s sovereignty in the economic Sphere. I dare you … try to get an R2K preacher boy to preach on the sins of Marxism, Unjust weights and measures as applied to fiat money, or the necessity for hard currency. R2K refuses that the God of Christianity has a “thus saith the Lord” in relation to the economic sphere.This is why R2K is anti-Christ.