Are remakes ruining entertainment?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Are remakes ruining entertainment?". Your opponent's style: Oscar Wilde

Let CCW=Contemporary Christian Worship: P1) CCW includes liturgical elements which generally elicit pleasures that terminate in the sensible experience of the elements (premise) P2) Pleasure tends to produce a desire for that which elicits pleasure (premise) P3) So, CCW includes liturgical elements which generally produce a desire for pleasure that terminates in the sensible experience of the elements (from P1 and P2) P4) The virtue of worship is proportionate to the degree to which it is ordered towards its proper final cause (premise) P5) The final cause of worship is the fulfillment of justice owed to God (premise) P6) Any liturgical element which generally produces a desire for a final cause other than that of worship threatens the proper final cause of worship (premise) P7) Pleasure that terminates in the sensible experience of some element is a final cause other than that of worship (premise) P8) Liturgical elements which generally elicit pleasures that terminate in the sensible experience of said elements are not necessary for worship (premise) C) Therefore, CCW includes elements which unnecessarily threaten the virtue of worship (from P3-P8)

Your syllogism collapses at P7. You assume sensible pleasure *opposes* justice owed to God, but that's precisely what needs proving. A beautiful hymn, candlelight, genuine emotion—these aren't competing final causes. They're the *vehicle* through which justice is rendered. The medieval theologians understood this perfectly: beauty itself participates in the divine. Your real error is treating pleasure as a distraction rather than a gateway. When a worshipper's heart lifts at the Incarnate Word made tangible through music and symbol, that sensible delight doesn't terminate in itself—it ascends toward God. You've mistaken the ladder for the destination and tried to burn it. Why assume worship must be austere to be virtuous?

P7 is a tautological statement almost: it merely asserts that A is not B. I don't disagree that beauty participates in the divine in some sense, but only meaningfully when the beauty signifies something, and what beauty signifies is the source of emotion. There is a technical difference between being moved by God, and then by moved + being presented with God. Hence the primary difference in the aesthetic methodologies of old and new forms of worship.

You've just conceded the argument. If beauty only signifies meaningfully when it points beyond itself, then CCW's problem isn't beauty—it's *misdirection*. A Bach fugue signifies God's order. A contemporary worship production signifies... production value. But here's where you contradict yourself: you claim old forms avoided this trap through "aesthetic methodology." They didn't. Medieval cathedrals were *designed* to move bodies emotionally—soaring arches, incense, jeweled vestments. They understood that being "moved by God" *requires* sensible presentation. The difference isn't old versus new. It's competence versus incompetence. Are you actually attacking CCW's execution, not its principle?

Yes, the CCW problem isn't beauty per se or aesthetics per se but improper ordering. I don't deny the affect of sensible signs or their necessity, and I'm not really here to defend any particular theological tradition. Consider icon A that signifies B. When I see A, i ought to be moved, not by A, but by B. At a concert situation, I am moved often or at least in conjunction with the elements themselves: drums, lights, and so forth. My pleasure terminates in the experience of the elements themselves, not what they signify. First, because they don't really signify anything. And two, their effect on our senses tend to be overwleming due to volume and such.

Now you're making a real claim. But you're wrong about what signifies what. A drum doesn't signify God—agreed. But neither does it *prevent* signification. The drum accompanies words about God. Your mistake is assuming sensory intensity corrupts meaning rather than amplifies it. A thundering drum at "His power is boundless" doesn't terminate in the drum—it intensifies the signified claim. Your actual grievance is aesthetic sloppiness: bad CCW uses spectacle *instead of* substance. But that's a failure of theology and writing, not drums themselves. A well-crafted contemporary service where music serves the Word doesn't commit your sin. So which is it—drums are inherently corrupting, or just badly used?

Okay, but if drums merely accompany words about God, then the only thing they can do is either (i) organize action or (ii) produce affect in conjunction with the words (or both). This means that the affections are being stirred up by creaturely elements and those affections are being loosely associated with pious feelings. Affections can be used rightly, but they need to be subordinate to content. What you're describing, while can be valid, is not how affections are elements are used in CCW as such, and that is the crux of the argument, not some hypothetical use.

You're shifting ground again. You started with "CCW threatens worship's virtue" and now argue "CCW *as practiced* misuses affections." Those are different claims. Fine—present evidence that contemporary services systematically subordinate content to affect. Show me that drums drown theology rather than serve it. Because I suspect you're describing bad liturgy, not CCW's essence. A well-executed contemporary service with strong preaching and purposeful music exists. You haven't proven it's rare or inherent to the form. Until you distinguish between CCW's potential and its failures in practice, you're just attacking incompetence, not the method itself.

CCW signifies a particular instance(s) of liturgy (bethel, megachurch, etc.). Well, consider the following: CCW borrows elements from secular institutions (which means they carry no inherent significations and in fact carry cultural baggage). These elements are proven to produce certain affections in individuals independent of content. These are used with the express purpose of enhancing experience.

You've finally named something real. But you're committing the genetic fallacy—origin doesn't determine meaning. A microphone came from secular contexts. So did the organ. So did written language. None of these carry their secular baggage into liturgy unless the liturgy is theologically incompetent. Your real claim: megachurches prioritize experience over doctrine. That's fair criticism. But it indicts the *theology*, not the tools. A drum in a liturgically sound service serves content. The same drum in a theologically hollow megachurch serves itself. You're describing bad theology masquerading as innovation, not a flaw in contemporary worship as such.