A few days ago John Piper answered a question about addiction to entertainment. He expressed his concern with our need today to be entertained and to be entertained near-constantly. He then offered a few pointers on escape this addiction. This little article got me thinking and I wanted to offer just a couple of thoughts on the topic.
First, I want to try to define entertainment. The best I can do, at least for now, is this: Entertainment is an escape or distraction or break from normal life. That’s not a great definition, but I think it is a start, at any rate. Entertainment distracts us from the cares and concerns and normalcy of life. It is a form of escapism. It is not necessarily bad to be entertained; but it is meant to be just a part of life, not normal everyday existence. Entertainment is meant to be supplemental, not instrumental. I’ve thought also about amusement. Amusement, if we wish to draw a distinction, is a passive form of entertainment. The roots of the word mean “not thinking” and this clues us in to how it differs from entertainment. A person watching television may be both entertained (as he lets himself take a break from the stress of life) and amused (as he just turns his mind off). A person who is playing Settlers of Catan is entertained, but probably not amused, since playing a game of that nature requires him to use his mind.
Not all entertainment is bad; not all amusement is bad. But I think we have a higher capacity for entertainment than for amusement. I may be entertained by reading a Tale of Two Cities even while not being amused by it. Watching The Office or 24 is pure amusement. The entire purpose is to have me turn off my mind, to stop thinking, and to just go with the story. I think it’s a helpful distinction, then, to see whether we prefer entertainment or amusement. Neither is intrinsically evil, but I think if we ought to be careful to measure both.
I want to point this out as well: entertainment is not a right and should not even be a necessary expectation. The Bible gives us no reason to expect it as a right. Entertainment is a privilege. And historically, the widespread availability and expectation for entertainment is the exception, not the rule. In fact, it has not even been a possibility. And this is at least one of the reasons: here is a small table outlining the cost for a general laborer to enjoy the entertainment of that day, given as a proportion of his daily wage (drawn from Todd Gitlin’s Media Unlimited):
| 18th century (theater) | More than a full day’s wage |
| Early 19th century (theater) | 1/3 |
| 1840s-50s | A little less than 1/3 (25¢) |
| 1870 (minstrel, variety shows) | 1/6 (still 25¢) |
| 1880s (melodrama, vaudeville) | 1/13 (10¢) |
| 1910 (nickelodeon) | 1/40 (10¢) |
| 1920 (movie theater) | less than 1/40 (10¢) |
| 1960s (television) | 1/360 (amortizing cost of $200 black-and-white set) |
| 1998 (cable television) | 1/100 (amortizing cost of $300 color set plus basic cable |
OK, so this is long enough for today. I’ll come back tomorrow with some further thoughts on what to do about entertainment. For now, I’d love to get feedback on what I’ve said here so far. I am really trying to think this through.
Comments (25) »
1. Richard Clark
June 3, 2009
10:17 AM
You say: “Watching The Office or 24 is pure amusement. The entire purpose is to have me turn off my mind, to stop thinking, and to just go with the story.”
I’m not sure why you feel this has to be the case. Whether I’m reading A Tale of Two Cities or watching The Office, I should hope I remain sober and vigilant - that is, thoughtful - at all times. If I’m watching or playing or doing something that results in complete passivity, other than actual slumber, I’m going to move on.
I think the term amusement is better applied to something like an “amusement park” where the act of riding the rides themselves actually contain no real content - it’s just a context for social or physical experience. The Office or 24, on the other hand, are entertainment, because they contain more than just a mechanism for experience-making. They contain actual characters and plot - things which should never be viewed thoughtlessly.
2. Dan H.
June 3, 2009
10:22 AM
Tim,
Very interesting perspective on how the availability of entertainment has progressed through the last couple centuries…
Entertainment isn’t inherently a bad thing. What makes it good or bad depends on what it is that you’re escaping from; how frequently and for how long each time; and most importantly what other activity of importance is suffering as a result. Television in particular has certainly lead the way in offering so-called cheap entertainment to the masses. However, I’ve been a TV (ab)user since the early 1960s and I can tell you that this medium in particular started out for the most part ignoring God, and ended up where it is today hating God.
Exactly what it is that entertainment is fulfilling or not fulfilling in the human heart might be an interesting future subject for you Tim….
Thanks again for a great article…
Dan…
3. donsands
June 3, 2009
10:39 AM
“I think it’s a helpful distinction, then, to see whether we prefer entertainment or amusement”
If I am reading Lord of the Rings, it would be entertainment, but if I watch The Fellowship of the Ring, it would be amusement.
Seems like a fine line. But perhaps this is an exception to the rule.
I think there are popcorn type movies, and films that are not as much for popcorn: Saving Private Ryan, The Passion, Schindlers List.
My problem is that I love to flip through, or surf, the channels. Crazy ain’t it. Need to stop doing that so much.
And as far as Wii, and PlayStation, I have not owned these yet, and if I ever do, I’ll probably get hooked; at least for a while.
I suppose it’s all about balance, and family being encouraged, and even memories can be part of entertainments and amusements when done with the fam.
4. Kendall Coffman
June 3, 2009
10:40 AM
Tim,
Could you maybe comment on how you think the push of society and product advertisement (that everything we do must be “fun”) fits into the modern surge of entertainment/amusement? It almost seems like society today demands or expects everything to be fun or entertaining. For instance, over the last couple of months, I have taken note of many things that promise you will have fun while partaking :
- Smucker’s Strawberry Jelly says, “Use Smucker’s squeeze flavors to add great flavor and fun to your food!”
- A local Ford dealership commercial says, “We’re making car buying fun.”
- A national flooring company says, “We’re out to prove that getting flooring can be fun!”
- An infomercial testimony on exercise videos says, “It is so much fun, I hardly realized I was exercising.”
Is it really necessary to have “fun” and be entertained by any of these activities?
5. Nathan
June 3, 2009
11:20 AM
Thank you for your subjective opinion regarding entertainment and amusement. I was amused by it. Now, I am off to find some more amusement elsewhere. (I just can’t stop!)
6. Tom Buck
June 3, 2009
11:34 AM
Would you not think, in the truest since of the word, that Christians can NEVER participate in amusement.? Since amusement literally means “not thinking,” Christians can never participate in anything where they turn off their mind. Even watching “The Office” or “24” requires there to be thinking. This would especially be true when we realize that we must always be discerning… as you are well aware. I am not saying we cannot watch anything that you have labeled as “amusement” but I think a television show is not the best example. Riding a roller coaster would seem to be a better illustration of amusement. It is something that is fun, entertaining, and in most circumstances would not require someone to be discerning (Although, I am sure someone could challenge that as well if we wanted to be picky). In the last episode of this season of “24,” forgiveness is pictured as something one must simply give themselves. Therefore, even entertainment requires us to embrace or reject certain things we are seeing or hearing. I am sure, if you watched that episode, that your mind became quickly engaged.
I totally understand the distinctions you are trying to make and I am not just trying to play semantical games. However, I believe we can say that our minds must always be engaged as Christians and there are few things in life that I can be “amused” by in the strictest of definitions. Just a thought!
7. Larry Geiger
June 3, 2009
11:50 AM
I had a Scout last night that would not put his new cell phone down. I think that he has lost interest and is on his way out but for a time it was frustrating. But then it got funny. (ie, amusement for me :-)) The Scouts started their game. They play a revised version of British Bulldogs/Touch Football with towels in their pockets. This Scout would run around for a minute and then stop to amuse and entertain himself with his phone. Each time he did, someone would grab his towel. Boom, he’s it once again!
8. JR
June 3, 2009
12:17 PM
Interesting—I never realized that “amuse” comes from a word that originally meant “to stupefy.”
Not totally related to your post, but I hiked the entire Appalachian Trail several years ago, and it was one of the most rewarding, edifying, life-changing things I’ve ever done. When talking with people, both those who have done the same thing and those who haven’t, many of them seem amazed that I don’t use the word “fun” when describing my hike. It wasn’t fun, I say. at least not in the usual sense of the word. It was hard work, and I was often uncomfortable and alone. But just because it wasn’t “fun” doesn’t mean it wasn’t worthwhile, that I didn’t have the time of my life, or that I wouldn’t do it again in a heartbeat if I had the means.
Many people seem to think that if something isn’t “fun,” it must not be something worth spending time on.
BTW, I agree with you that shows like “24” are amusement. I admit I enjoy “24,” but it is definitely a “time out” for my brain. “Junk food for the mind,” like a lot of TV. I try to limit television in my house because it really can be so addictive, and besides, who knows how all the blood and gore are affecting the mind in small, undiscernable ways.
Everything in moderation, amusement included.
I’m looking forward to your next post on this topic!
9. Renee
June 3, 2009
12:23 PM
Television is a more sophisticated version of the Roman idea of “Bread and Circuses”. I’ve unplugged mine for a little while. I can think more clearly.
10. Frank Gantz
June 3, 2009
1:42 PM
Tim, I like the distinction that you have made between entertainment and amusement. It may not be perfect, but it can give us a helpful framework. I think it is important to remember that in our culture we are tempted to work so that we can be entertained or amused. We should see these times as times of refreshment so that we may be about what we should be about.
11. Curtis
June 3, 2009
2:17 PM
One way I’ve though of this situation is to ask this simple question.
Am I willing to rather than be entertained or amused, open my bible and read for the amount of time I would have instead wasted in quite useless entertainment? The only rational response is then to actually do it, prove myself true, shut off the TV(if I watched one) or computer and spend a couple hours in the word rather than fantasy. Just some thoughts to think.
This verse convicts me often when I know I’m wasting time. Does the Office or 24 fit into this verse, I think not, though many can justify just about anything to satisfy their own minds and conscience.
Philippians 4:8
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.
12. Jordan D
June 3, 2009
2:53 PM
For me, I’ve made an attempt at removing amusements, and doing only things that are both worthwhile but still entertaining. It’s a work in progress.
E.g. Watching a documentary that tells a great story, but provides opportunity to analyze life or mankind. Taking a bike ride (which for me is not just worthwhile, but also fits the definition of entertainment).
Haven’t figured out how the NBA playoffs are worthwhile yet, but I’m working on it.
13. Lerrina
June 3, 2009
3:36 PM
Tim,
What a relevant subject. Reading through your musings and the comments which follow, it seems you are not the only one who needs to grapple (or is grappling) with this idea. We are a very entertainment-minded people.
Take retirement. John Piper made some extremely relevant comments in a little blurb he did on whether Christians should retire (or what Christian retirement should look like). To paraphrase his conclusion: Christians should not consider retirement as a time to sit back, putter around the garage, and amuse (or entertain) themselves. They should see it as a chance to serve the Kingdom from a new perspective.
I think our biggest problem is we believe at the end of a ‘long’ (we define long as usually 8 or 9 hours of labor) day we deserve some R&R - which we interpret as being entertained or amused. Because we tend to be very ‘me’ centered, we have bought the lie that this is our ‘right’.
I believe we have lost contact with the point behind verses which tell us to work, to toil, to sweat, to be diligent, and so on. As a result, I think we have also lost the real meaning of ‘rest’.
For example, Sunday, for a Christian, is intended to be a day of rest from our regular work. How many of us, however, relish Sunday as a day to fellowship and feast and worship and even study and read? I suspect too frequently we use at least some of this day to entertain and amuse ourselves - because ‘that’ is how we define rest. At the risk of sounding legalistic (which I hope I am NOT), I wonder how many of us will lament the amount of time we have wasted entertaining our selves.
I guess in addition to your definition of entertainment, I would add that entertainment typically gratifies our flesh because it requires little or no discipline. I do not mean to imply, however, that all entertainment is wrong. Maybe what we should consider is the reason behind our entertainment?
JR commented on his ‘not-fun’ hike. I think his example is valid. Most of us do not NEED to hike - at least from a spiritual standpoint. And yet, time spent in nature (hiking or biking or whatever allows you to get out into God’s creation) can be a wonderful tool for clearing the cobwebs and reminding us of the greatness of our God. (In fact, Spurgeon commented on this very thing - I’ve mused over his comment in a post on my blog - http://christianlivingtoday.today.com/2009/05/13/the-christian-and-nature/)
I guess as I grapple with your questions it goes back to two things:
One - Why am I doing this? In other words, does this glorify God or allow me to enjoy Him (man’s chief end)?
Two - Am I making wise use of my time? In other words, am I being a wise steward? If I am going to give an account for every word I’ve uttered, it doesn’t seem too much of a stretch of the imagination to wonder if I am not also going to be called to give account for the ‘minutes’ I’ve used.
Thanks for stimulating my thoughts. It is good to be reminded I need to make sure I’m bringing my ‘entertainment’ and ‘amusements’ under the discipline and authority of God over my life.
14. Elizabeth
June 3, 2009
3:43 PM
Tim,
Thanks for thinking further about this topic! I’ve been thinking about this a lot in relation to reading as I seek to choose good reading material for my daughter. In Stepping Heavenward, by Elizabeth Prentiss, the pastor counseled her to “Read books that will stimulate you in your Christian life, rather than those that merely amuse.” As an adult, I spend the majority of my time reading non-fiction books that help me to grow spiritually. I also read some Christian fiction. I read how-to non-fiction that aid me in my role(s) as a homemaker. I read almost no secular fiction. As a matter of fact, I probably haven’t picked up a secular novel since high school. I’m not saying this is right or how it should be for everyone, just that this is how it is in my particular situation with limited reading time.
As I consider the common reading lists for young children, I see that the majority of the material consists of secular classics. I wrestle with this. If I’m choosing carefully what I am to read, why would I give my child who lacks discernment mostly entertaining classics that will do little to build up her faith or grow in her understanding of God’s word? But then I begin to feel as if I am making a sacred vs. secular distinction. All this to say that I am very interested in how you would apply Piper’s words to reading matter.
We’re not here on earth very long and continually seeking to be entertained certainly makes us more like the grasshopper than the ant. I’m sure that the key lies in finding a balance somehow. We entertain company every Sunday evening playing Settlers. I’ve often wondered if we shouldn’t be doing something with a bit more substance. Furthermore, my childrens’ days are full of them entertaining themselves. I often think our days ought to look different, but deciding on the how is more challenging than it appears. (I have four kids 6, 4, 2, & 9 months.)
Anyway, very interested in reading as you (and others) further develop thoughts!
Warmly,
Elizabeth
15. Mike
June 3, 2009
4:16 PM
I didn’t realize how much it actually cost for entertainment ‘back in the day’. A full days wages? That makes you think twice about whether you want to be amused or whether you want to eat. As I’ve gotten older I’ve found I can be amused in a much cheaper fashion than going to a movie theater though I still enjoy it from time to time.
16. Reg Schofield
June 3, 2009
5:51 PM
I don’t have a problem with art , which I consider visual entertainment falls under. Granted there are forms that I would not consider worth while but at the same time , I believe in discernment in what one watches ,listens to and reads. That is not to imply one needs only read ,watch or listen to “christian” type of entertainment. God clearly gave us imagination and story telling is part of that . I like to read , listen to music of a wide variety and yes I even watch some tv and go to a movie now and again. The question is does it dominate our lives , is it eating up too much . Plus what is too much . If I watch the playoffs and invite over a few friends ,can it not be a time of fellowship in some way . Plus I even had a chance to share the gospel with my cousin when we talked about a movie we had watched .If we sit back passive and not engage what we read ,listen to or watch, then its a problem . I’m interested in reading your follow up Tim.
17. Alice
June 3, 2009
7:21 PM
Elizabeth,
Reading books that will stimulate your Christian life is a great guideline. Just don’t throw all “secular” books out. There are many classics which are well worth while both as a break from every day life and as food for thought. Here’s a few examples:
- “The Picture of Dorian Gray” gave me a vivid picture of my own soul as a sinner.
- “Les Miserables” gives an equally vivid picture of the power of grace. “
- Hunchback of Notre Dame” gives vivid pictures of true love as well as warped, distorted and egoistical love.
Sometimes a good story is more penetrating than all the non-fiction in the world. Read those classics with your kids and learn together.
I’d also say that playing games with friends is great. It’s not the game that is important, but the relationships that are being built and strengthened as you play.
18. Curtis
June 3, 2009
8:20 PM
Here’s putting it into perspective, if we were to read about 2 hours per day, everyday, instead of watching TV, internet surfing, movies etc., the average reader would read about 50 300 page books every year. I could read Calvins and John MacArthurs commentaries in one year.
Or better yet I could read through the ESV study bible, MacArthur study bible with all the footnotes more than once each per year.
Ok I have to go, I’ve wasted too much time on this blog already! Seriously.
19. Liz
June 3, 2009
8:47 PM
Interesting topic. I agree with Kendall Coffman’s suggestion that it seems as if everything is supposed to be fun or entertaining. I see this all the time in higher education (we are encouraged to show videos, have fun in-class activities, etc.), Many (but certainly not all) students have come to expect entertainment in the classroom and will complain if they actually have to think through new information.
20. Charles
June 3, 2009
10:41 PM
Although it has been out a few years, Neil Postman’s book Amusing Ourselves to Death is worth reading.
21. TruthVox
June 4, 2009
12:17 AM
It is an interesting discussion as to whether “entertainment” is useful or not— whether it should be encouraged or not by the Christian community. The debate usually centers around “modern” forms/conceptions of evangelism— whether we should be using “entertainment” in order to reach the lost. I agree with Postman’s assertion that the media does shape the message— but I also would submit that the message of the Gospel is universal in that it will fit into any media. That is not to say that it will shine as bright in all medias, but the perspicuity of scripture is still true whether it is in a movie or in a written book.
Christians need to keep a discerning mind about such things— we cannnot react through emotions or “gut” feelings. Rather, we must allow the Holy Spirit to lead, guide, and direct our actions and motivations in order to truly find the heart of the issue.
-CJ
22. Tom Pryor
June 4, 2009
6:55 AM
I believe making TV “entertainment” inexpensive has contributed to a decline in self-discipline and work ethic. The percent of time spent on entertainment is more relevant than the cost of the entertainment. Columnist Steve Blow of the Dallas Morning News made the observation that when he visits a poor person’s home a TV is always front and center and on. In a rich person’s home no TV is visible and it’s not on.
23. Reg Schofield
June 4, 2009
7:27 AM
I can see how the rich do not have the tv front and center and in the circles I know that are more affluent , it isn’t because they are less into entertainment. They go to theater , they go golfing , ballet,piano recitals etc… its not that there home or out visiting the poor or sick , or sharing the gospel anymore than the poor. They have money , its that simple. The poor entertain themselves with the only medium they have. Plus I would say that the columnist might be making a generalization about the poor , which many do , even within christian circles. Plus the rich can take vacations , going where the poor cannot . That includes many Christians conferences that seem to cater to mid and higher income Christians (one of my pet peeves). Entertainment is not a new thing , but with the tv ,it has changed how we interact with it.
24. TheOtherMalachi
June 4, 2009
11:26 AM
Liz,
I would have to agree with you concerning the demand of entertainment in education. As a public school educator and a youth pastor I am constantly bombarded by everyone from administrators to students to parents to church members to make everything I teach “fun.” Now, I want my lessons to be as enjoyable as the next guy, and I do believe students learn well when they get into the lesson, but entertainment is not my goal. It’s only one tool. But we’ve seemed to of turned the tool into the goal. And I may be wrong a/b this, but it seems that in previous generations, when what was taught was important, not the way in which it was delivered, students were actually smarter. I’m sure this an over-generalization, but it appears that the more entertained our children become, the less educated they are b/c they cannot receive and rumminate on anything unless it titilates their senses.
I would also add that, as both an educator and a youth minister, I have the hardest time getting my students to “unplug” long enough to feed them anything. From ipods, to cell phones, to gaming devices, there is constantly something waiting to entertain them the second that I fail to.
Thanks for the thoughts, Tim.
25. lizabeth
June 10, 2009
2:35 PM
OK, I am an information junky, I find information very entertaining. Your website is very informative. Ought-Oh!