84 Sermon Illustrations on Television

The explosion of reality television shows like “Survivor,” “The Bachelor,” “The Bachelorette,” “I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here!” and “Are You Hot?” is a sad and shining testimony of our culture's fascination with image, popularity and novelty. People everywhere are rushing home from work, scrambling to get supper ready, gulping it down and racing to the couch so they can finally have some reality in their day. Many sit through these shows gasping with wide eyes and open mouths asking, “Can you believe that?”

The growing incredulity of what people are able and willing to do on national television draws back more and more people for more potent doses of “reality.”

Now, with the culture's dictate that television be more real than it was on the last reality show, we await the soon-coming “Married by America” on Fox Television. This latest show will feature five couples who are paired for the purpose of allowing the American people to watch and vote on which couple should be married.

The couple chosen by America will win $1 million if they can stay married for 180 days. Forget individual preference or even personal commitment. These people are planning to do whatever the American people tell them to do. Those appearing on Married by America are submitting their wills and indeed their futures to the popular opinions of the populace. Let the American people watch! Let the American people vote! And by all means, and above all else, let the American people be entertained!

Before television, if people wanted reality, they had to live their own lives. Now, through daytime soap operas, situation comedies, evening dramas and reality shows society can experience the realities of others through the big box that sits as the centerpiece of dens and living rooms across America. Many seem to be content living vicariously through the actions of others and attempting to achieve desired intimacy through images on a two-dimensional screen.

This latest reality show is another cause for concern. While many in our nation will watch and exercise the democratic privilege of voting, one's thoughts about this show must not focus on democracy, television or even entertainment. Rather, such reflection should revolve around the nature of marriage itself.

Marriage is serious and sacred. The union that exists between a man and a woman is to be a permanent, lifelong relationship. Established by God, marriage is a sacred institution in which man and woman become one flesh (Genesis 2:24). The apostle Paul spoke of marriage in terms of Christ's love for the church and its implications for marriage (Ephesians 5:22-25).

Married by America cheapens the God-ordained institution of marriage by using it solely as a shallow avenue for monetary gain. The worth of a couple's relationship is not valued because of the covenant of marriage but because the couple can stick it out in the marriage for 180 days.

According to the show, only then will the man and woman fully realize the value of marriage -- a financial value of $1 million. Motivated by money and unconcerned with the seriousness of a vow (Numbers 30:1), the participants of this show will be trampling holy matrimony as they run toward celebrity status and worldly wealth.

The seriousness of marriage should not be trivialized as a tool of entertainment for the masses. Nor should it be used as a way of making money. Marriage is an end in itself and not a means to another end.

Paul's words to the young Timothy should be sobering for us all: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs” (1 Timothy 6:10). From the deceptions of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 to the actions of Clay Carter III in John Grisham's “King of Torts,” it is obvious that the consequences of loving money are disastrous.

Married by America may entertain for a season. But history will tell its ultimate impact upon us. Statistics related to divorce in our society are staggering. Families are torn apart, and the children of broken relationships are usually left struggling with issues of intimacy and belonging the rest of their lives. The issues of marriage and divorce affect not only the man and woman who experience them, but the family and society around them. The family is built upon the foundation of the marriage relationship. Strong communities are grounded in the families that compose them. Nations are built upon those communities. The nature and foundation of the marriage relationship in the fabric of society necessitates that it be revered.

The trivializing of marriage and the complete disregard for its sanctity may not prevent a young couple from being married by America, but in the long run the institution of marriage as well as the fabric of our society will end up being further marred by America.

_____________

Todd E. Brady is minister to the university at Union University in Jackson, Tenn.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #16664]

It's an opening familiar to millions of Americans. A New York resident is walking down the street, minding his own business — maybe arguing with his spouse or chatting with a friend. Suddenly, he stops, a look of horror spreading over his face. At his feet is a dead body. The blood and gore are clues the victim probably didn't die of natural causes.

It's the beginning of LAW AND ORDER, one of the most popular cop shows of all time. And it's far from the only cop show on television these days. Police and courtroom dramas have all but taken over prime time: BONE, THE SHIELD, THE CLOSER, WITHOUT A TRACE, three versions of LAW AND ORDER, and three variations of CSI.

What is it about these gritty shows that appeals to so many people? You might assume that they're popular because crime is out of control, and viewers find comfort in watching programs that show murderers and muggers getting their just desserts. But that can't be the case, because crime is down. So what's the answer?

I'm convinced that the popularity of cop shows reflects our God-given desire for justice and moral clarity. Our love of these dramas — and before them, westerns — reflect our acute awareness of the difference between good and evil, guilt and innocence. In this respect, cop shows are like mystery novels — also hugely popular today.

Mystery novelist P. D. James points out that the finale of any mystery is a kind of Last Judgment. There's a moral rebellion expressed in the murder itself and the confusion that occurs in its aftermath. Finally, the moral order is restored. What was done under cover of darkness is now revealed in the light. Evil is punished; the innocent go free.

Police dramas presuppose a moral universe. In fact, moral absolutes are essential to police dramas. Take them away, and the story falls apart. Why? Because if there is no such thing as real evil, there's no such thing as a guilty party. There would be no point in tracking down a killer — because murder would not be wrong.

Cop shows are virtually the only place on television where it's acceptable to be morally judgmental. In an age that rejects absolute moral truths, the popularity of cop shows is a healthy sign, because they point to the existence of a moral order that is intuitively understood, and hence, to the truth of Christianity. Because we are made in God's image, we inherently crave to know that moral universe. We yearn for justice and absolute good. And that's why — despite the corrosive relativism of the postmodern age — we like stories that paint a picture of a moral universe, where evil is punished and righteousness triumphs.

If you have unsaved friends who enjoy police dramas, you might ask them why they like them so much. Help them understand that these moral dramas tap deeply into the needs of the human heart — and reveal our longing for truth, for wrongs to be righted, for justice and, of course, redemption.

Even a TV cop show filled with graphic violence and rough language can give you an opportunity to point out that redemption comes, not from wise-cracking detectives ultimately, but from the Great Redeemer of history.

________

Copyright (c) 2006 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

A few weeks ago, one of the most astute media critics of our age, Neil Postman, died at the age of 72. In remembering the long-time New York University professor, the press described Postman's warnings about the dangers of mass communication.

In his devastating critique of television, titled AMUSING OURSELVES TO DEATH, Postman declared that television turns even the most tragic news into mere entertainment, delivered by “talking hairdos.”

Postman's book was reviewed in all the right places, and it has been around for some time — but not once did we learn where Postman got his ideas. It turns out he got them from the Bible.

Postman's thesis is that different media encourage different ways of thinking. The printed word requires sustained attention, logical analysis, and an active imagination. But television, with its fast-moving images, encourages a short attention span, disjointed thinking, and purely emotional responses.

Postman says he first discovered the connection between media and thinking in the Bible when, as a young man, he was struck by the Old Testament words: “You shall not make for yourself a graven image.” Postman says he realized that the idea of a universal deity cannot be expressed in images, but only in words.

As he put it, “The God of the Jews was to exist in the Word and through the Word, an unprecedented conception requiring the highest order of abstract thinking.” This is the God Christians worship today — a God known principally through His Word and incarnate.

Many religions have a scripture, of course. Yet most teach that the way to contact the divine is through mystical visions, emotional experiences, or Eastern-style meditation. Judaic Christianity insists on the primacy of language.

Gene Edward Veith, in his book READING BETWEEN THE LINES, explains why: The heart of our religion is a relationship with God — and relationships thrive on communication. We can't know people intimately by merely being in their presence, according to Veith. It takes conversation to share thoughts and personalities.

Christians are meant to have an ongoing conversation with God. He addresses us in the language of Scripture, and we address Him through the language of prayer.

This emphasis on the Word has had a deep impact on Western culture. Reading was once confined to the elite. But it was the Reformation that first aimed at universal literacy, so that the Bible could be read by every person.

Today's missionaries are similarly concerned with literacy. In nonliterate societies, they develop a written form of the native language and teach people to read the Bible.

They can then go on, of course, to read about anything — sanitation, health care, democracy — things that often transform their culture, much as the Reformation transformed Western culture.

Here in the West we are in danger of coming full circle: The visual media may ultimately undermine literacy. If that happens, can biblical faith still flourish?

Neil Postman's writings remind Christians of the dangers of television. We need to learn when to turn it off lest we lose our historical reputation as the “people of the book.”

FOR FURTHER READING:

• “Neil Postman, University Professor of Media Ecology, dies at 72,” New York University, 10 October 2003.

• Jonathan Zimmerman, “Postman as Prophet,” New York Post, 12 October 2003.

• Peter Kavanagh, “An echoing silence in his wake,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 11 October 2003, R9.

• Gene Edward Veith, “Flex the brain,” World, 1 November 2003.

• Jay Rosen, “Neil Postman: A civilized man in a century of barbarism,” Salon, 10 October 2003. (Subscription required, or watch an advertisement to obtain a one-day pass.)

• Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death (Viking Press, 1986).

• Neil Postman, The Disappearance of Childhood (Vintage, 1994).

• Gene Edward Veith, Reading between the Lines (Crossway, 1990).

• Neil Postman, “Informing Ourselves to Death,” speech given at a meeting of the German Informatics Society on October 11, 1990.

• Read more writings by Postman.

• BreakPoint Commentary No. 030804, “Our Shrinking Culture.”

• C. John Sommerville, How the News Makes Us Dumb (InterVarsity, 1999).

• Thomas Hibbs, Shows about Nothing (Spence, 1999).

__________

Copyright (c) 2003 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

All last week the story of Justin Timberlake ripping off part of Janet Jackson's bodice during the Super Bowl halftime show kept the country in an uproar. CBS apologized, but the raging debate continued. Most people had the innate sense that this was a watershed moment in the culture war.

Jackson, of course, was trying to jump-start her sagging career. And Timberlake left his band and is trying to make it on his own. What do entertainers in that position want more than anything else? Publicity. And they got plenty.

But it wasn't just the bodice-ripping. As FCC Chairman Michael Powell told GOOD MORNING AMERICA, “I personally was offended by the entire production.”

As I thought about Powell's comment, I realized that our concerns go well beyond the Super Bowl fiasco. That's only the tip of the iceberg. I personally am offended by most TV. I realize that it is an entertainment medium, and the nature of entertainment is to push the limits.

But, as Ken Myers wrote in his book ALL GOD'S CHILDREN AND BLUE SUEDE SHOES, “Television's role as an entertainment appliance presents at least two problems.” First, access to televised entertainment is easy, and we humans have an endless hunger for entertainment - something that will distract us in a fallen world. It pains me to see my own grandkids sitting zombie-like channel-surfing, focusing on nothing but fleeting images.

The second problem, says Myers, is that television is a visual and dramatic medium. “The dramatic images of television have much more power than anything that is SAID on the air,” he writes. “Television doesn't have much power to encourage reflection.” Television is a flood of sights and sounds that overwhelms everything else. The flow never stops, and we don't have time to think - at least not until someone's bra gets pulled off.

Yet as Myers notes, “Abstract ideas are ... essential to the maintenance of the social order; freedom, justice, and duty, to name a few abstractions, can be ILLUSTRATED in drama, but understanding the essence of them requires the analytic powers of language.” He goes on to apply this to our faith, saying that drama and images can illustrate, but cannot communicate “the essence of what God has revealed in propositions.”

Now, I know some Christians who advocate, as the bumper sticker says, “Kill Your TV.” Just get rid of it. Well, if you can't control it, that's good advice. But I have a suggestion that allows you to keep it for important things like current events, sports, and movies.

My advice is: Unplug it. That way if you want to watch, you'll have to get down on your hands and knees, reach behind the furniture, and plug it back in. The inconvenience may make you think twice. Plopping down in your favorite chair and flipping the remote will be a thing of the past. And every time you want to watch TV, you'll be forced to make a choice rather than going on auto-pilot.

While we need to protect ourselves and our kids from the overt problems with TV programming - sex, bad language, and violence - we need to be just as careful about the less obvious problems of a visual, image-driven medium. My solution is: Unplug it.

FOR FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION:

• Dan Ackman, “The FCC Is Not Amused,” Forbes, 4 February 2004.

• Nekesa Mumbi Moody, “Jackson, Timberlake Apologize for Flash,” Associated Press, 3 February 2004.

• Leonard Pitts, Jr., “What was really exposed on national television,” Seattle Times, 8 February 2004.

• Katy Kelly, Kim Clark, and Linda Kulman, “Trash TV,” U.S. News and World Report, 16 February 2004.

• BreakPoint Commentary No. 040203, “Only a Matter of Time: Why the Super Bowl Incident Isn't Surprising.”

• Ken Myers, All God's Children and Blue Suede Shoes (Crossway, 1989).

• Chris Jones, “When is bad publicity a bad career move?“ Chicago Tribune, 8 February 2004.

• BreakPoint Commentary No. 020208, “Must-Close-Your-Eyes-TV.” (Archived commentary; free registration required.)

• Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death (Viking, 1986). Call 1-877-322-5527 to order ($18).

• Thomas Hibbs, Shows about Nothing (Spence, 1999).

• Peter Kreeft, How to Win the Culture War (InterVarsity, 2002).

__________

Copyright (c) 2004 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

In the early 1920’s Philo Farnsworth was working on a farm, plowing a straight line on a potato farm. His mind was far away, thinking about the possibility of transmitting moving pictures through the air. He had no electronic or engineering background, nor was he a scientist. No one in the world of science would have considered him a serious contender in the chase to find the answer to photographic transmission without the aid of wires.

Scientists from all over the world had been struggling to solve this dilemma and although many had been aided by research grants, no one came up with the answer. So, what chance did Farnsworth, a potato farmer with no education, have?

While plowing, he imagined a different approach. He imagined dividing a screen into long rows just like the field he was plowing, using electricity to create areas of light and darkness at each point along the row. Then stacking the rows on top of each other, he imagined that they could bring to focus a picture. Bingo! The results were better than anything the world of science had ever conceived. It is the very system we still use today.

What did Farnsworth invent? Television. It was his vivid imagination coupled with a propensity toward science that has literally changed the world. But unfortunately he was not credited with the idea since he was only 14 years old. Two businessmen, George Everson and Les Gorrell, took an interest in Farnsworth and invested their life savings in his research. In spite of his age they had faith in him and on September 7, 1927, Farnsworth transmitted history’s first electronic television picture. (From Club Sandwich, by Jess Moody)

The world changed because Philo Farnsworth kept his hands on the plow and never looked back. He was totally focused on an idea, undaunted by people who would say, “That will never work.” He was determined and dedicated to his mission of transmitting a picture electronically through the air. At the same time he was a man of the earth, planting potatoes but constantly moving forward. Farnsworth was raised in an old house on the Snake River in Idaho. He was born in a log cabin. His dream became a reality because of his ability to concentrate and not be held back by prejudice, lack of education or family history.

*

Breaking news: A study, published in the journal Pediatrics, shows that the more sexual content teenagers watch on television, the earlier they'll become sexually active.

No surprise. Most of us knew that. After all, we've been complaining for years about sex on TV and its effect on kids. But this time there are a couple of new and important twists to the story.

First, according to its authors, this study carefully controlled for other factors that might have influenced teen sexual activity. Previous studies had shown more sexual activity among teens who viewed more sexual content, but they could not demonstrate, as this does, an actual cause-and-effect relationship.

Second, the researchers discovered, “Exposure to TV that included only talk about sex was associated with the same risks as exposure to TV that depicted sexual behavior.”

This is significant, mainly because of the reason behind it. As the study explains, “TV may create the illusion that sex is more central to daily life than it truly is and may promote sexual initiation as a result, a process known as media cultivation. ... Social learning theory posits that information is gleaned from what others say about a behavior as well as what they do, because both indicate social approval or disapproval of the activity in question.”

It sounds very much like the old adage “everybody's doing it” that all parents know so well. But this goes a little deeper.

It's true that human beings take our cues about what to think and how to behave from the culture around us. The trouble is that our culture now has very few moral restraints. Fewer families and schools are teaching that sex is anything more than a recreational activity to be engaged in “safely” — like riding a motorcycle. And even many churches, I believe, are falling down on the job.

Without clear moral standards and careful guidance, teens are left with only the vaguest idea of what sex is really all about. Enter the media, which care far less about setting a good example than about reaping a profit. They know that “sex sells.”

So if you're fifteen or sixteen years old, and your main source of sexual information tells you that people are constantly either having sex or talking about having sex, why would you see any reason to hold out for something better? How would you even know that there is something better? Even when a TV character gets pregnant or catches a sexually transmitted disease, abstinence until marriage is very rarely presented as an option. The person usually goes right back out and repeats the behavior, only a little more carefully the next time.

The authors of the study do not express much hope that the media will ever clean up their act. I'm not quite as pessimistic as that, because I think the media respond to pressure. It's going to take a lot of time, however, and effort by parents willing to say, “No, you can't watch that.” And when the ratings start dropping, those shows go off the air. But until that day comes, parents and churches need to teach a standard of sexual restraint consistently, clearly, and often. If we don't want our kids thinking that “everybody does it,” we have to teach them. No one else will. And we have to demonstrate through our words and examples that “everybody's doing it” is no longer “cool.”

FOR FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION:

• Collins, et al., “Watching Sex on Television Predicts Adolescent Initiation of Sexual Behavior,” Pediatrics 114, No. 3, 3 September 2004. (Adobe Acrobat Reader required.)

• Michael Conlon, “Study Links TV to Teen Sexual Activity,” Reuters, 7 September 2004.

• Brent Bozell, “Sex and the TV-watching teen,” Townhall.com,10 September 2004.

• Cassandra Spratling, “Abstinence: The strength to say no,” Detroit Free Press, 27 August 2004.

• “Crackdown urged on sexual imagery,” Telegraph (London), 7 September 2004.

• Kate O'Hare, “'7th Heaven' Sons Return to Tackle Sex and Parenthood,” Zap2it.com, 20 August 2004.

• Alessandra Stanley, “When Creators of 'Quality Television' Try the Opposite Approach,” New York Times, 3 June 2004. (Archived articles; costs $2.95 to retrieve.)

• BreakPoint Commentary No. 040506, “With Friends Like These: A Not-So-Funny Legacy.”

• “Health Appeals Not Appealing,”Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society, July 2004. (This study addresses what methods are and are not effective in encouraging abstinence among teens.)

• Robert E. Rector, et al., “Sexually Active Teenagers Are More Likely to Be Depressed and to Attempt Suicide,” Heritage Foundation, 3 June 2003.

• Salynn Boyles, “Many Teens Want to Have Babies,” WebMD, 23 July 2004.

• Anthony Esolen, “Our Peculiar Institution: the New Slavery,” Crisis, 2 September 2004.

• Roberto Rivera, “Imaginary Day: The Slavery of Promiscuity,” BreakPoint Online, 30 September 2004.

• Charles Colson, Answers to Your Kids' Questions (Tyndale, 2000).

________

Copyright (c) 2004 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

Malcolm Muggeridge, the self-dubbed “fatally fluent” journalist, is remembered as one of the most notable figures of the twentieth century. Through more than fifty years in the public eye, his voice became a decipherable entity in print, over the radio, and on television. His wit and style made him both endearing and controversial. As a media personality for decades, Muggeridge understood the effect of publicity on the human ego. He understood, as one biographer notes, “the strange metamorphosis that turns an individual into an image.”(1) He once confessed, “There is something very terrible in becoming an image... You see yourself on a screen, walking, talking, moving about, posturing, and it is not you. Or is it you, and the you looking at you, someone else? ...Once, sleeping before a television screen, I woke up to find myself on it. The experience was quite terrifying — like some awful nightmare to which only someone like Edgar Allan Poe or Dostoevsky could do justice.”(2)

In our media-saturated, celebrity-producing culture, the thought is interesting. Though I do not think it is only the televised that find themselves in danger of becoming an image.

Some of the images we may have of ourselves, obviously come with the territory. A new mom learns to see herself as a mom. A journalist sees himself as a journalist. Muggeridge was speaking of images beyond this — namely, a journalist who starts to see himself as an icon, or perhaps, a person who starts to see herself as an image of success, grief, helpfulness, or humility. This is perhaps where many of us can relate.

God once asked the prophet Habakkuk, “Of what value is an idol, since a man has carved it? Or an image that teaches lies? For he who makes it trusts in his own creation; he makes idols that cannot speak” (Habakkuk 2:18). The dangerous thing about becoming an image is that we start to believe we created that image. “I’m the maker of my success.” “I’ve molded myself to be this kind of Christian.” Such images teach lies. Interestingly, God spoke these words to the prophet after Habakkuk had uttered a complaint, asking deep-rooted questions about who God is. Are you not from everlasting? Why are the wicked prospering? How long will you remain silent? But God replied to his pressing questions about who He is by asking Habakkuk to see again his creative power.

The images we create, even our images of Him, must be crushed by He who moves and speaks, He who spoke creation into existence. We can mold ourselves into lasting icons no more than we can mold a lump of clay into a god that speaks.

Thankfully, though sometimes painfully, God is continually at work shattering the images we fashion of ourselves and of Him. The Incarnation, which we prepare ourselves to receive anew this Christmas, is the greatest example. Coming as a baby, a man who wept at the grave of Lazarus and sweat blood in Gethsemane, Jesus brings us more of what it means to be human than we are yet able to emulate. Coming as God, the Word who was at the beginning of all things, he silences our questions of who God is with a face, a hand, and a Cross.

________

1. Gregory Wolfe, Malcolm Muggeridge: A Biography (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), xi.

2. Ibid., xi.

________

Copyright © 2004 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

=====================

Version from 12/13/06:

Malcolm Muggeridge is remembered as one of the most notable figures of the twentieth century. The wit and style of this self-dubbed “fatally fluent” journalist made him as endearing as he was controversial. His presence was a decipherable entity in print, over the radio, and on television. With over fifty years in the public eye, Muggeridge knew well the effect of publicity on the human ego. In the words of one biographer, he knew well “the strange metamorphosis that turns an individual into an image.”(1) He once confessed, “There is something very terrible in becoming an image... You see yourself on a screen, walking, talking, moving about, posturing, and it is not you. Or is it you, and the you looking at you, someone else? [...] Once, sleeping before a television screen, I woke up to find myself on it. The experience was quite terrifying -- like some awful nightmare to which only someone like Edgar Allan Poe or Dostoevsky could do justice.”(2)

In our media-saturated, celebrity-producing culture, the warning may well be appropriate. Though I do not think it is only the televised that find themselves in danger of becoming an image.

Some of the images we may have of ourselves, obviously come with the territories. A new mom learns to see herself as a mom; a journalist sees himself as a journalist. Muggeridge was speaking of images beyond this -- namely, a journalist who starts to see himself as an icon, or perhaps, a person who starts to see herself as an image of success, or grief, helpfulness, or humility. This is perhaps where many of us can relate.

God once asked the prophet Habakkuk, “Of what value is an idol, since a man has carved it? Or an image that teaches lies? For he who makes it trusts in his own creation; he makes idols that cannot speak”(Habakkuk 2:18). The dangerous thing about becoming an image is that we start to believe we created that image: “I’m the maker of my success.” “I’ve molded myself to be this kind of Christian.” But such images only teach lies. Interestingly, God spoke these words to the prophet after Habakkuk had uttered a complaint, questioning who God is: “O Lord, are you not from everlasting?” (1:12) “Why are you silent while the wicked swallow up those more righteous than themselves? (1:14). But God replied by asking Habakkuk to look again.

The images we create, even our images of God, must be crushed by He who moves and speaks, He who spoke creation itself into existence. We are not the images we think we are.

Thankfully, though sometimes painfully, God is continually at work shattering the images we fashion of ourselves and of Him. And the Incarnation, which we prepare ourselves to receive anew this Advent, is the greatest example. This is not the messiah we expected. This is not at all what we imagined he’d ask of us. This man who wept at the grave of Lazarus and sweat blood in Gethsemane is the very Word who was at the beginning of all things. Coming as a baby, Jesus brings us more of what it means to be human than we are yet able to emulate. Coming as God, he silences our questions of who God is -- with a face, a hand, a Cross. We can no more mold ourselves into lasting icons than we can mold a lump of clay into a god that speaks. But we can be molded into the image of the God who lives.

________

1. Gregory Wolfe, MALCOLM MUGGERIDGE: A BIOGRAPHY (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), xi.

2. IBID., xi.

________

Copyright © 2006 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

According to a new book, we have failed our children because we haven't fulfilled “our function as guardians of their cultural environment.” The “American media's obsession with sex,” says the author, “has gotten so out of hand” that “even the provocateurs are being provoked.”

Whose words are these? Chuck Colson? Jim Dobson? No. They're the conclusions of a “provocateur” himself, a “staunch believer in the First Amendment” and a “member of the American Civil Liberties Union” — someone who opposes “any element of government control of human expression.”

That's how Gil Reavill describes himself in his new book, SMUT: A SEX-INDUSTRY INSIDER (AND CONCERNED FATHER) SAYS ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Reavill has written for magazines like PENTHOUSE and MAXIM, as well as other even less reputable publications. Back in the 1980s, he fancied himself a “rebel” doing battle against a “stifling culture.”

Then he grew up. Getting older made him “put away,” as he put it, the “arrogance that delights in offending others.” And then he had kids, and that's when he really came to realize that smut is what he calls the “cultural equivalent of second-hand smoke.” People who don't want to be exposed — who work at avoiding exposure — still get it “shoved in their faces.” Instead of being content to keep “sexually explicit material contained and separate,” media companies, he says, put it in plain view where anyone and everyone can see it — kids in particular.

According to Reavill, “the boundaries of their world have been repeatedly breached ... by people interested in making money and dismissive of all other considerations.” By way of example, he describes a day he spent with his daughter. Within “one hour of one very ordinary day,” his daughter was exposed to sexually suggestive or explicit materials on television, radio, and on billboards.

Even though he and his wife can monitor what their daughter sees and hears at home, they can't catch everything, and they certainly can't control the billboards or other public advertising.

You see, even if you ban all media from your home, there's the chance that sitting in traffic you, like Reavill, will be treated to an X-rated movie on the DVD screen of the car next to you. Or a day in the park will be interrupted by a radio blaring Howard Stern at full volume.

While Reavill does a great job describing the problem, his opposition, as he puts it, to “government control of human expression” makes a solution difficult. What other than government action will cause people “dismissive of all other considerations” to restrain themselves? As the aftermath of Janet Jackson's “wardrobe malfunction” shows, sometimes it takes the FCC threatening fines to get the networks' attention.

Reavill writes about “segregating sexual expression from the public commons” the way it used to be, but he forgets that the “segregation” resulted from a strong moral code, one that our modern society has all but banished. So today, unfortunately, only the threat of criminal and civil sanctions can keep the smut peddlers from thrusting their garbage in the faces of kids.

It's a good thing when liberals like Reavill see the light. Now we've got to help them understand the real solution: responsible government-monitoring, on the one hand, and a reassertion of moral truth in the public square.

________

Copyright (c) 2005 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

“The Book of Daniel” premiered with a two-hour special that arrived with much publicity but garnered a third-place showing in the ratings. NBC's new series was one of the most-hyped new programs of recent years, complete with effusive media coverage and much sought-after controversy.

The premise of the show is the reason for the controversy. “The Book of Daniel” features a liberal Episcopalian priest and his family who, along with various others in the cast, are involved in almost every form of sin imaginable. As if all this were not enough, the show also features an actor playing the part of Jesus, who appears as the very essence of liberal toleration, complete with therapeutic aphorisms and transcendent nonjudgmentalism.

The two-hour premiere of the program introduced the concept and the show's central characters.

The Episcopal priest, known as Daniel Webster, is played by actor Aidan Quinn. The Reverend Webster is a liberal churchman serving a wealthy suburban parish in Westchester County, New York. The sins, temptations, foibles, and syndromes experienced by this priest, along with his family and his flock, are those common to affluent American suburbia. Viewers of the program may well imagine that the creators have simply channeled all of the real and imagined sins of Westchester County into one family and a single congregation. Reverend Webster is an indulgent parent and an extremely tolerant preacher, who is far less concerned with sin than with self-forgiveness. His wife, a wealthy heiress played by Susanna Thompson, is as hapless as her husband. The family also includes Peter, the Websters' homosexual son, along with Grace, his sister, and Adam, the Websters' adopted Asian son.

This priest and his family are poster children for postmodern times. Their gay son is at peace with his homosexuality, even as his parents suggest that he should look for just the right male partner, perhaps a male nurse or a doctor. Daughter Grace is selling drugs which she smuggles into the community by stuffing them into teddy bears. Adam adds his part to the family's catalogue of vices by flaunting his sexual promiscuity and engaging in sex with the church warden's daughter.

And it doesn't stop there. Reverend Webster's father is a bishop who is committing adultery with another bishop (a woman), even as his wife is suffering from Alzheimer's disease.

Just about everyone on this program is comfortable with sin -- including the character presented as Jesus, played by Garret Dillahunt. The appearance of Jesus as a character in a television soap opera is problematic enough, but Dillahunt's Jesus looks like a refugee from the Hippies, offering therapeutic words of assurance that sin is really not such a big deal. When one character reveals a lesbian relationship, Jesus quips, “Boy, you never know, do you?” Jesus excuses Reverend Webster's adulterous father by telling the son: “He's a good man, Daniel. Everybody's different.” When the Webster's fifteen-year-old son is caught having sex with the daughter of a church member, Jesus simply responds, “A kid has to be a kid.”

Indeed, Jesus appears to notice sin only when it takes the form of Reverend Webster's addiction to Vicodin, a prescription painkiller. Riding along in Reverend Webster's car, Jesus takes note of the priest popping a pill. “I thought you were cutting back on those,” Jesus observes. The minister explains that he takes the pills only “occasionally” in order to deal with back pain. Jesus doesn't accept this for a moment. “Right ... ,” he responds. For once, Reverend Webster is taken aback. “Could you fit more judgment into that 'Right'?” Jesus responds: “Actually, yes, I could.” Both characters then laugh.

The show has something to offend almost everyone -- at least, one would suppose that liberal Christians might be offended by the hyperbolic satire this show must surely represent. Conservative Christians will be rightly concerned about the portrayal of Jesus Christ. The fictionalization of Jesus is an inexcusable act of sacrilege that appears as nothing less than a calculated effort to offend the faith of sincere believers. Of course, this sacrilege is compounded by the portrayal of Jesus as a long-haired surfer dude who apparently just wants humans to get over their hang-ups about sin -- except for the sin of popping pills, of course.

What I can't understand is why liberal Christians are not crying foul. After all, the portrayal of liberal Christianity on this program is so satirical that it approaches parody.

Take Reverend Webster's opening sermon, for example. Preached just after the Websters' daughter was caught attempting to sell marijuana, the sermon is an almost perfect distillation of liberal theology expressed as mind-numbing toleration.

Just consider this section from the pastor's sermon: “Temptation. Is it really a bad thing? I don't think so. What I mean is, if there were no temptation, how could there be redemption? If we never did anything bad, how could we repent and be stronger for our weaknesses? Doesn't good need evil in order to be good? Now obviously I'm not suggesting that we should go looking for temptation, but, my brothers and sisters, if temptation corners us, maybe we shouldn't beat ourselves up for giving in to it. And maybe, maybe we shouldn't ask for forgiveness from a church, or from God, or from Jesus, or from anyone until we can first learn to forgive ourselves.”

Yes, Virginia, there really are preachers who preach such nonsense. As a matter of fact, the Apostle Paul countered such fatuous arguments in his letters, and the New Testament clearly rejects the kind of self-forgiving theology that is the very essence of Reverend Webster's gospel. Reverend Webster's embrace of temptation as liberation is rooted in his certainty that we are “stronger for our weaknesses.” Those who may hear a weak refrain of the Apostle Paul in the background of Reverend Webster's sly comment would do well to remember that Paul wasn't talking about his sin in this respect.

One might fairly expect that the leaders of liberal Protestant denominations would be calling their attorneys and rallying their dwindling memberships to protest this portrayal of a liberal Episcopal priest. Are we really to believe that one family and one congregation can get into this much trouble in two hours? And note this -- the embezzling of funds and various other peccadilloes must be added to the picture. Is this an honest and accurate portrayal of liberal Christianity? Are liberal preachers really THIS mindlessly tolerant? Apparently, some are.

Reporter Matea Gold of the LOS ANGELES TIMES informed her readers that “some Episcopal priests are urging their congregants to watch the program, saying that it offers a refreshingly candid portrayal of religious leaders and showcases the Episcopal Church as a tolerant denomination.” According to Gold, “the Episcopal Diocese of Washington has even launched the Blog of Daniel ... a website designed to spur discussion about issues raised on the program.”

Reverend Susan Russell, Senior Associate for Parish Life at All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, California, where the show's initial episode was filmed, is enthusiastic about the show's portrayal of Episcopal ministers. “I think it's a realistic portrayal of a faithful man facing 21st century challenges,” she explains.

Reverend Russell urged her congregation to watch the program and explained in a letter to her church members that she believes the show could actually attract new members to the Episcopal Church.

Some Christians are organizing letter-writing campaigns and similar protests against “The Book of Daniel.” I take offense at this show's portrayal of Jesus Christ, but this program's approach is so clumsy and unbelievable that I harbor few fears of viewers believing that this character is anything like Jesus Christ the Lord.

I agree with critic Tom Shales of the WASHINGTON POST, who believes that the program will fail because it is simply lousy television. “I cannot recall a series in which a greater number of characters seemed so desperately detestable -- a series with a larger population of loathsome dolts,” Shales observes. “There ought to be a worse punishment than cancellation for a show that tries this hard to be offensive and, even at that crass task, manages to fail.”

In his criticism of the program, Shales sees through the satire. “Perhaps realizing they've created a crop of characters who are irredeemably mean, venal and idiotic, the writers try to tell us these people are really sweethearts -- not by depicting good qualities through action but simply by having them primitively vouch for one another. 'He's a good boy,' Mom says of the cautious and confused Peter. 'You're a good man,' the priest is told by a golf crony. 'She's a good girl,' Jesus says of Grace even after she's arrested for selling marijuana, and later, of the priest's bigoted, oafish father: 'He's a good man, Daniel.'“

If nothing else, the show may succeed in accomplishing what it almost surely does not aim to do -- demonstrate where liberal theology inevitably leads. The “tolerant” approach to sin so prosaically demonstrated in Reverend Webster's sermon leaves the church with no coherent understanding of sin or of the human condition. Accordingly, there is no need for salvation, no place for the Cross, and no fear of judgment. If this is all one believes, why not engage in all the various sins depicted on this program? All the characters of “The Book of Daniel” fear is embarrassment, and they seem to get over that very fast.

By all accounts, “The Book of Daniel” will be a spectacular failure where the networks care most -- in the ratings. These actors would be unwise to plan a career based on this program. Nevertheless, so long as the wretched episodes of this excruciating soap opera are part of our national conversation, Christians should take the opportunity to point to the theological lessons of the program and its plot. Beyond this, believers should seize the opportunity to distinguish between the false theology of “The Book of Daniel” and the orthodox theology of the church. After all, the genuine gospel is far more interesting and exciting -- and it saves.

*

The average kindergarten graduate has already spent nearly 6,000 hours watching television -- more time than it takes to obtain a bachelor’s degree!

"Whatever is true, … noble, … right, … pure, … lovely, … admirable — think about such things." – Philippians 4:8

Whenever Tammy Campbell thinks about it, she gets physically ill . . . For almost 3 months her family, along with 60 other households, unknowingly drank and bathed in sewage water!

It all began when city workers in Pineville, Louisiana, mistakenly connected a sewer line to an underground water pipe. Tammy started finding stringy white stuff in the filters for her refrigerator ice-cube maker, dishwasher, and washing machine.

She later learned the white substance was TP. (Yuck.) Other unfortunate residents found that their water heaters were filled up with other “unpleasant surprises.” (And again I say, yuck!)

City officials have offered the comforting(?) claim that though their citizens had a close encounter of the sewage kind, the chlorine in the water line should have killed most of the bacteria. (Makes you want to switch to bottled water, doesn’t it?)

Think about it. Those poor folks were taking baths in the dirty liquid. They were dropping sewage cubes into glasses that were then filled with not-so-nice iced tea. Yes, there were some evidences of something being rotten in Denmark (or, Pineville), but for 90 days Tammy and the gang were oblivious to the fact that they were using bad water.

With that in mind, what would happen if we tested the stuff you and I have watched (TV/videos/movies), what we’ve read (magazines/books/Internet), and what we’ve listened to (radio/CDs) this past week?

Like ingesting bacteria, when we fill our minds with filth we’re going to get sick … spiritually. In Philippians 4, Paul implored us to dwell on only “pure” and “noble” things (v.8).

You can compromise and say, “Well, most of the music on this CD is okay!” or, “I know that movie has a few nasty parts, but the rest is good!” But the bottom line is: you’re allowing “sewage” to seep into your head and heart.

Instead, take this in: “To our God and Father be glory for ever and ever” (Philippians 4:20). Bring Him glory by the way you use media.

Don’t allow the nasty stuff to make you spiritually ill. –TF

REFLECTION

• How much media “sewage” do I expose myself to each day?

• What three things can I do to cut out the negative or sinful influences in my life, and focus on more edifying stuff?

If it’s doubtful, it’s dirty.

________

Original source may have been "SEWAGE: Residents drink contaminated water," KitsapSun | Nation & World, Associated Press, May 18, 2000; .

Chuck Colson tells about one prisoner he met who had been on death row for fifteen years. His name was John Irving.

John was allowed out of his cell for only one hour a day. The rest of the time he was studying to become a minister -- preparing to serve God.

Noticing that John had nothing in his cell but a few books, Colson offered to give him a TV.

“Thanks,” John said, “but no thanks. You can waste an awful lot of time with those things.”

Can you imagine wasting time on death row? Colson goes on to say, “The real evils of the entertainment industry are not the violence and profanity -- offensive though they are. No, it’s the banality: the sheer waste of time. When we turn the TV on, we turn our minds off; studies have shown that the analytical areas of the brain nearly shut down during extended TV viewing.”

A few years ago a pastor named Dale Kuehne took some college students to work in a farming village in Costa Rica — a poor village that lacked electricity and running water. The locals did have a generator, however; once a week, they fired it up to watch a raunchy American television program — Beverly Hills 90210.

Kuehne was shocked to see village teenagers mimicking the behavior of the characters in the show. And he was floored when village men asked him what was wrong with the women who’d come on the trip. “Why don’t they want to have sex?” they asked. “We thought all American women want to have sex.”

Kuehne relates the story in his new book, Sex and the iWorld: Rethinking Relationships beyond an Age of Individualism. What happened in Costa Rica, he writes, shows how far iWorld messages have spread — and how little the Church has done to engage the iWorld culture.

Kuehne says that we are witnessing in the West the collapse of the Judeo-Christian worldview. Replacing it is a worldview that some call “postmodern individualism,” but Kuehne calls it “iWorld.”

iWorlders are dissolving long-established boundaries because they believe that people are happiest making their own moral and relational choices — outside of the family, community, and faith traditions into which they were born. And the iWorld promotes a desire for immediate gratification — as illustrated in the huge levels of consumer debt and the tendency to become sexually involved at the very outset of a romantic relationship.

Sadly, iWorlders often unwittingly sacrifice what they want, in the long run — contentment and fulfillment — by succumbing to their immediate desires, especially when it comes to sexual relationships.

Perhaps even more sadly, the Church has done precious little to present to iWorlders a vision of true fulfillment. That’s partly because the Church itself has turned a “blind eye” to sexual immorality within the body of Christ. Even worse, writes Kuehne, “is the degree to which the historic orthodox understanding of sexual morality and marriage is being ignored or revised by clergy and laypeople alike.”

This has enormous consequences for the Church’s ability to be salt and light in a culture suffering from the after-effects and social ills of the sexual revolution. The Church needs to be reminded — and needs to make the case — that “the biblical teaching that limits sexual relations to a marriage relationship between a man and a woman is actually beneficial to all.”

And that’s exactly what Kuehne does in his book, in a direct, challenging, but ultimately compassionate way. Every human, he says, is on a “never-ending quest for acceptance, love, and fulfillment.” But these things can never be found in the iWorld — by asking, “What’s in it for me?”

So instead of being subsumed by the iWorld culture, the Church has the “rWorld” to offer. The rWorld understands that God created people for relationships — and that we find our deepest fulfillment in relationship with Him, and in living a life rich in self-giving, not self-satisfying relationships.

________

Copyright (c) 2009 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

A few weeks ago, one of the most astute media critics of our age, Neil Postman, died at the age of 72. In remembering the long-time New York University professor, the press described Postman's warnings about the dangers of mass communication.

In his devastating critique of television, titled AMUSING OURSELVES TO DEATH, Postman declared that television turns even the most tragic news into mere entertainment, delivered by “talking hairdos.”

Postman's book was reviewed in all the right places, and it has been around for some time — but not once did we learn where Postman got his ideas. It turns out he got them from the Bible.

Postman's thesis is that different media encourage different ways of thinking. The printed word requires sustained attention, logical analysis, and an active imagination. But television, with its fast-moving images, encourages a short attention span, disjointed thinking, and purely emotional responses.

Postman says he first discovered the connection between media and thinking in the Bible when, as a young man, he was struck by the Old Testament words: “You shall not make for yourself a graven image.” Postman says he realized that the idea of a universal deity cannot be expressed in images, but only in words.

As he put it, “The God of the Jews was to exist in the Word and through the Word, an unprecedented conception requiring the highest order of abstract thinking.” This is the God Christians worship today — a God known principally through His Word and incarnate.

Many religions have a scripture, of course. Yet most teach that the way to contact the divine is through mystical visions, emotional experiences, or Eastern-style meditation. Judaic Christianity insists on the primacy of language.

Gene Edward Veith, in his book READING BETWEEN THE LINES, explains why: The heart of our religion is a relationship with God — and relationships thrive on communication. We can't know people intimately by merely being in their presence, according to Veith. It takes conversation to share thoughts and personalities.

Christians are meant to have an ongoing conversation with God. He addresses us in the language of Scripture, and we address Him through the language of prayer.

This emphasis on the Word has had a deep impact on Western culture. Reading was once confined to the elite. But it was the Reformation that first aimed at universal literacy, so that the Bible could be read by every person.

Today's missionaries are similarly concerned with literacy. In nonliterate societies, they develop a written form of the native language and teach people to read the Bible.

They can then go on, of course, to read about anything — sanitation, health care, democracy — things that often transform their culture, much as the Reformation transformed Western culture.

Here in the West we are in danger of coming full circle: The visual media may ultimately undermine literacy. If that happens, can biblical faith still flourish?

Neil Postman's writings remind Christians of the dangers of television. We need to learn when to turn it off lest we lose our historical reputation as the “people of the book.”

FOR FURTHER READING:

• “Neil Postman, University Professor of Media Ecology, dies at 72,” New York University, 10 October 2003.

• Jonathan Zimmerman, “Postman as Prophet,” New York Post, 12 October 2003.

• Peter Kavanagh, “An echoing silence in his wake,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), 11 October 2003, R9.

• Gene Edward Veith, “Flex the brain,” World, 1 November 2003.

• Jay Rosen, “Neil Postman: A civilized man in a century of barbarism,” Salon, 10 October 2003. (Subscription required, or watch an advertisement to obtain a one-day pass.)

• Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death (Viking Press, 1986).

• Neil Postman, The Disappearance of Childhood (Vintage, 1994).

• Gene Edward Veith, Reading between the Lines (Crossway, 1990).

• Neil Postman, “Informing Ourselves to Death,” speech given at a meeting of the German Informatics Society on October 11, 1990.

• Read more writings by Postman.

• BreakPoint Commentary No. 030804, “Our Shrinking Culture.”

• C. John Sommerville, How the News Makes Us Dumb (InterVarsity, 1999).

• Thomas Hibbs, Shows about Nothing (Spence, 1999).

__________

Copyright (c) 2003 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

The question was so simple that Haddon Robinson wasn't sure he had heard it correctly.

"What is Christmas?" asked the man in the next airplane seat, once he learned that he was chatting with a seminary professor. The businessman thought he knew, since he was an ordinary American who had grown up surrounded by old movies and television specials. Then he asked, "What is Easter?" That led to, "What do you mean by 'resurrection?' " Robinson described the biblical accounts of God raising Jesus from the dead.

"This man said to me, 'Do all Christians believe that?' I said, 'All Christians should believe that,' " said Robinson. "Then he said, 'That's interesting. I think I knew about Christmas. But I didn't really know about Easter.' "

This puzzled Robinson, but later something clicked. Some Christmas hymns have made it into popular culture and almost everyone hears snippets of the story year after year. But where -- via mall, multiplex and mini-satellite dish -- would anyone soak up Easter images? For millions of viewers the resurrection is what happens at the end of "The Matrix."

If missionaries came to America, they would immediately spot the dominant role played by mass media and, especially, visual entertainment media. They would study the moral and religious messages in mass media, seeking insights into the lives of potential converts. This is how missionaries think. But this is not how religious educators think and, thus, few clergy are taught to think like missionaries.

Robinson has been studying these issues since the mid-1950s, during his doctoral work in communications at the University of Illinois. Today, he is a distinguished professor at Gordon-Conwell Theological outside Boston and, in 1996, received national media attention when Baylor University named him one of the top 12 preachers in the English- speaking world.

Effective speakers study the forces that shape the people to whom they speak, said Robinson. Today, that means taking visual media seriously.

"Television is omnipresent," he said, in a sermon that swept from oral traditions and clay-tablet libraries to satellites and computer networks. "The way in which people get ideas, the way in which they shape their ideals, comes not because they read books, but because they see it, they visualize it. It's on television. ...

"That has shaped the way we think. ... It affects the way that we preach. It affects the heart and core of communication."

Robinson preached that sermon exactly 10 years ago, while serving as president of Denver Seminary. Little has changed. Robinson said that he knows of no seminary that requires future ministers to take a single course on how mass media affect American life.

If anything, the situation has gotten worse, he said. While the ecclesiastical elites ignore the subject, megachurches often uncritically embrace virtually every new technology. Many churches are adding expensive digital equipment in their sanctuaries and leaping into multimedia music, drama, humor and sermons illustrated with movie and TV clips. Clergy quickly discover that they're expected to use this gear in every service. The audience demands it.

"The pastor is thinking, 'Now that I have all of this stuff, where can I throw it in?'," said Robinson. "All of a sudden, rather than thinking of the most effective way to communicate a message, you're thinking about all that money you've spent. ...You're thinking about media, where before you were thinking about your message."

Robinson's advice to preachers, young and old, is that they worry less about using mass media and more about learning what is shaping the souls of their listeners. Today, every flock includes many listeners who understand little or nothing about the Bible or basic doctrines. In fact, he said, their heads and hearts are full of conflicting images and values, the result of years of spiritual channel surfing.

This was already true a decade ago. Robinson said that preachers must realize that they work in a hostile technological environment, one that "communicates with images. It doesn't come out and argue. It just simply shows you pictures, day after day after day after day. Before you realize it, in the basement of your mind, you discover that you have shifted your values and many times you've lost your faith."

Terry Mattingly (www.tmatt.net) leads the Institute of Journalism at the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities in Washington, D.C. He writes this weekly column for the Scripps Howard News Service

“The Book of Daniel” premiered with a two-hour special that arrived with much publicity but garnered a third-place showing in the ratings. NBC's new series was one of the most-hyped new programs of recent years, complete with effusive media coverage and much sought-after controversy.

The premise of the show is the reason for the controversy. “The Book of Daniel” features a liberal Episcopalian priest and his family who, along with various others in the cast, are involved in almost every form of sin imaginable. As if all this were not enough, the show also features an actor playing the part of Jesus, who appears as the very essence of liberal toleration, complete with therapeutic aphorisms and transcendent nonjudgmentalism.

The two-hour premiere of the program introduced the concept and the show's central characters.

The Episcopal priest, known as Daniel Webster, is played by actor Aidan Quinn. The Reverend Webster is a liberal churchman serving a wealthy suburban parish in Westchester County, New York. The sins, temptations, foibles, and syndromes experienced by this priest, along with his family and his flock, are those common to affluent American suburbia. Viewers of the program may well imagine that the creators have simply channeled all of the real and imagined sins of Westchester County into one family and a single congregation. Reverend Webster is an indulgent parent and an extremely tolerant preacher, who is far less concerned with sin than with self-forgiveness. His wife, a wealthy heiress played by Susanna Thompson, is as hapless as her husband. The family also includes Peter, the Websters' homosexual son, along with Grace, his sister, and Adam, the Websters' adopted Asian son.

This priest and his family are poster children for postmodern times. Their gay son is at peace with his homosexuality, even as his parents suggest that he should look for just the right male partner, perhaps a male nurse or a doctor. Daughter Grace is selling drugs which she smuggles into the community by stuffing them into teddy bears. Adam adds his part to the family's catalogue of vices by flaunting his sexual promiscuity and engaging in sex with the church warden's daughter.

And it doesn't stop there. Reverend Webster's father is a bishop who is committing adultery with another bishop (a woman), even as his wife is suffering from Alzheimer's disease.

Just about everyone on this program is comfortable with sin -- including the character presented as Jesus, played by Garret Dillahunt. The appearance of Jesus as a character in a television soap opera is problematic enough, but Dillahunt's Jesus looks like a refugee from the Hippies, offering therapeutic words of assurance that sin is really not such a big deal. When one character reveals a lesbian relationship, Jesus quips, “Boy, you never know, do you?” Jesus excuses Reverend Webster's adulterous father by telling the son: “He's a good man, Daniel. Everybody's different.” When the Webster's fifteen-year-old son is caught having sex with the daughter of a church member, Jesus simply responds, “A kid has to be a kid.”

Indeed, Jesus appears to notice sin only when it takes the form of Reverend Webster's addiction to Vicodin, a prescription painkiller. Riding along in Reverend Webster's car, Jesus takes note of the priest popping a pill. “I thought you were cutting back on those,” Jesus observes. The minister explains that he takes the pills only “occasionally” in order to deal with back pain. Jesus doesn't accept this for a moment. “Right ... ,” he responds. For once, Reverend Webster is taken aback. “Could you fit more judgment into that 'Right'?” Jesus responds: “Actually, yes, I could.” Both characters then laugh.

The show has something to offend almost everyone -- at least, one would suppose that liberal Christians might be offended by the hyperbolic satire this show must surely represent. Conservative Christians will be rightly concerned about the portrayal of Jesus Christ. The fictionalization of Jesus is an inexcusable act of sacrilege that appears as nothing less than a calculated effort to offend the faith of sincere believers. Of course, this sacrilege is compounded by the portrayal of Jesus as a long-haired surfer dude who apparently just wants humans to get over their hang-ups about sin -- except for the sin of popping pills, of course.

What I can't understand is why liberal Christians are not crying foul. After all, the portrayal of liberal Christianity on this program is so satirical that it approaches parody.

Take Reverend Webster's opening sermon, for example. Preached just after the Websters' daughter was caught attempting to sell marijuana, the sermon is an almost perfect distillation of liberal theology expressed as mind-numbing toleration.

Just consider this section from the pastor's sermon: “Temptation. Is it really a bad thing? I don't think so. What I mean is, if there were no temptation, how could there be redemption? If we never did anything bad, how could we repent and be stronger for our weaknesses? Doesn't good need evil in order to be good? Now obviously I'm not suggesting that we should go looking for temptation, but, my brothers and sisters, if temptation corners us, maybe we shouldn't beat ourselves up for giving in to it. And maybe, maybe we shouldn't ask for forgiveness from a church, or from God, or from Jesus, or from anyone until we can first learn to forgive ourselves.”

Yes, Virginia, there really are preachers who preach such nonsense. As a matter of fact, the Apostle Paul countered such fatuous arguments in his letters, and the New Testament clearly rejects the kind of self-forgiving theology that is the very essence of Reverend Webster's gospel. Reverend Webster's embrace of temptation as liberation is rooted in his certainty that we are “stronger for our weaknesses.” Those who may hear a weak refrain of the Apostle Paul in the background of Reverend Webster's sly comment would do well to remember that Paul wasn't talking about his sin in this respect.

One might fairly expect that the leaders of liberal Protestant denominations would be calling their attorneys and rallying their dwindling memberships to protest this portrayal of a liberal Episcopal priest. Are we really to believe that one family and one congregation can get into this much trouble in two hours? And note this -- the embezzling of funds and various other peccadilloes must be added to the picture. Is this an honest and accurate portrayal of liberal Christianity? Are liberal preachers really THIS mindlessly tolerant? Apparently, some are.

Reporter Matea Gold of the LOS ANGELES TIMES informed her readers that “some Episcopal priests are urging their congregants to watch the program, saying that it offers a refreshingly candid portrayal of religious leaders and showcases the Episcopal Church as a tolerant denomination.” According to Gold, “the Episcopal Diocese of Washington has even launched the Blog of Daniel ... a website designed to spur discussion about issues raised on the program.”

Reverend Susan Russell, Senior Associate for Parish Life at All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, California, where the show's initial episode was filmed, is enthusiastic about the show's portrayal of Episcopal ministers. “I think it's a realistic portrayal of a faithful man facing 21st century challenges,” she explains.

Reverend Russell urged her congregation to watch the program and explained in a letter to her church members that she believes the show could actually attract new members to the Episcopal Church.

Some Christians are organizing letter-writing campaigns and similar protests against “The Book of Daniel.” I take offense at this show's portrayal of Jesus Christ, but this program's approach is so clumsy and unbelievable that I harbor few fears of viewers believing that this character is anything like Jesus Christ the Lord.

I agree with critic Tom Shales of the WASHINGTON POST, who believes that the program will fail because it is simply lousy television. “I cannot recall a series in which a greater number of characters seemed so desperately detestable -- a series with a larger population of loathsome dolts,” Shales observes. “There ought to be a worse punishment than cancellation for a show that tries this hard to be offensive and, even at that crass task, manages to fail.”

In his criticism of the program, Shales sees through the satire. “Perhaps realizing they've created a crop of characters who are irredeemably mean, venal and idiotic, the writers try to tell us these people are really sweethearts -- not by depicting good qualities through action but simply by having them primitively vouch for one another. 'He's a good boy,' Mom says of the cautious and confused Peter. 'You're a good man,' the priest is told by a golf crony. 'She's a good girl,' Jesus says of Grace even after she's arrested for selling marijuana, and later, of the priest's bigoted, oafish father: 'He's a good man, Daniel.'“

If nothing else, the show may succeed in accomplishing what it almost surely does not aim to do -- demonstrate where liberal theology inevitably leads. The “tolerant” approach to sin so prosaically demonstrated in Reverend Webster's sermon leaves the church with no coherent understanding of sin or of the human condition. Accordingly, there is no need for salvation, no place for the Cross, and no fear of judgment. If this is all one believes, why not engage in all the various sins depicted on this program? All the characters of “The Book of Daniel” fear is embarrassment, and they seem to get over that very fast.

By all accounts, “The Book of Daniel” will be a spectacular failure where the networks care most -- in the ratings. These actors would be unwise to plan a career based on this program. Nevertheless, so long as the wretched episodes of this excruciating soap opera are part of our national conversation, Christians should take the opportunity to point to the theological lessons of the program and its plot. Beyond this, believers should seize the opportunity to distinguish between the false theology of “The Book of Daniel” and the orthodox theology of the church. After all, the genuine gospel is far more interesting and exciting -- and it saves.

*

In 1926, James Allan Francis wrote that all the armies, navies, parliaments, and kings “put together, have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully as has that one solitary life.” [see HolwickID #21973]

Those words about Jesus have been quoted so often that they have lost much of their impact. That's a pity because Christianity's influence over two thousand years is nothing short of miraculous.

A good place to start regaining the wonder is the television series THE JESUS EXPERIENCE. The eight-part series, which airs on the Hallmark Channel, tells viewers how the Gospel transformed both individual lives and societies wherever it was proclaimed.

The first segment, “Jesus in the Roman Empire,” recounts the story of Christianity's journey from being an offshoot of Judaism to the religion of the empire. Paul's mission to the Gentiles did indeed turn the world upside down. Much of what the world believes about equality, love, and human dignity can be traced back to the spread of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire.

An important example of this influence is on display in the episode “Jesus in North America.” Viewers are told by historians such as Randall Balmer that American notions of equality, democracy, and even American identity were the products of the First Great Awakening. What people learned from preachers like George Whitefield “reverberated” in our War for Independence.

The impact of the Second Great Awakening was even more pronounced. The revivals and mass conversions of the early nineteenth century produced the abolitionist, suffrage, and other reform movements.

Christianity's impact isn't limited to places where Christians form the majority. In the segment “Jesus in Asia” we learn that although Christians comprise only 3 percent of India's population, “their effect has been extraordinarily broad.” Christians have taken the lead in areas like women's education, health care, and promoting equality for all Indians.

In fact, in a sense, India owes its independence to Christianity. It was from reading the Sermon on the Mount that Gandhi came up with the idea of non-violent resistance. That's why the only picture hanging in his home was one of Jesus.

Another Asian country whose independence is largely owed to Christianity is Korea. For the first 140 years of Christian presence there, Christians were persecuted and often martyred. By the time Japan occupied Korea in 1910, only 1 percent of Koreans were Christians, often worshipping in secret.

Yet, it was mostly Christians like Ahn Chang-Ho who were the “architects” of Korean independence and who led the resistance to Japanese rule. They endured arrest, torture, and even crucifixion to secure its freedom. Today, Korea has one of the fastest-growing Christian populations in the world thanks, in part, to their legacy.

What happened in North America and Asia happened throughout the world. In an era when Christianity is being portrayed as irrelevant or even negative, Christians need to hear the stories told on THE JESUS EXPERIENCE.

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION

Philip Jenkins, THE NEXT CHRISTENDOM: THE COMING OF GLOBAL CHRISTIANITY (Oxford University Press, 2002).

BreakPoint Commentary No. 020717, “Earning a Second Look: The New Christian Internationalism.” http://www.breakpoint.org/Breakpoint/ChannelRoot/FeaturesGroup/BreakPointCommentaries/Earning+a+Second+Look.htm

BreakPoint Commentary No. 020718, “Jesus Shall Reign: Global Christianity.” http://www.breakpoint.org/Breakpoint/ChannelRoot/FeaturesGroup/BreakPointCommentaries/Jesus+Shall+Reign.htm

____________

Copyright (c) 2003 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #1938]