Not too long ago I mentioned that my wife and I were ready to give up cable television. Perhaps strangely, our concern stemmed not only or even primarily from the content of television shows. After all, if we do not like the content of a show we can easily simply avoid watching it. Will and Grace is a show that glamorizes the homosexual lifestyle. We do not like the show and what it represents so we can easily avoid watching it. Rather, the primary reason we have decided we’ll have to abandon cable is the commercials. We can control what we watch and what the children watch but it is much more difficult to control the television commercials that play six times every hour.
This morning FoxNews has an article that deals particularly with commercials.
Ever since Janet Jackson’s infamous “wardrobe malfunction” during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show, citizens and children’s advocacy organizations have called upon the FCC, broadcasters and even Congress to re-examine television content and the guidelines that rate it.But one type of programming that is viewed by all audiences at all hours on every network has continued to escape regulation: commercials.
From Paris Hilton’s spicy burger ad to the ever-proliferating erectile dysfunction commercials, many parents have not been happy with recent television ads. And now, domain registering Web site GoDaddy.com is fighting to reprise its controversial 2005 Super Bowl ad during this year’s upcoming game.
Senator Mark Pryor, at the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation open forum on decency, spoke for many parents when he said, “I have a 10-year-old and 11-year-old at home, and my wife and I are scared to death for them to turn on the television without us in the room.” And even when parents are in the room children can be exposed to words and images that are inappropriate for them (and often inappropriate for anyone!). Another Senator, Barack Obama, described himself as “‘a parent who has had to sit through uncomfortable Cialis commercials while watching television with my 7- and 4-year-old daughters.’ The ad Obama cited, for the erectile dysfunction medication Cialis, features snuggly moments between couples of all ages to the tune of The Ronnettes’ ‘Be My Baby.’ And FDA regulations require medical ads to specify risks verbally, resulting in somewhat embarrassing dialogue. ‘Cialis is only for men healthy enough for sexual activity … erections lasting longer than four hours, though rare, require immediate medical help,’ the ad warns.” Of course Obama has not had to sit through the commercials, has he? No one has forced him to watch television, particularly with his daughters present. But I digress.
The article goes on to describe several recent commercials that have raised the eyebrows of many parents, including a commercial in which Paris Hilton, wearing high heels and a skimpy bathing suit, seductively washed a car (‘seductively washed a car’ - something of an bizarre concept, isn’t it?). The product she was selling? Hamburgers from Carl’s Jr./Hardee’s.
Now I’m sure none of this comes as a great surprise to anyone who has a television. We all know that the commercials are becoming racier and more provocative. In fact, advertising in general is relying increasingly on shock value in place of cleverness and innovation. There would not be much a story here were it not for another article about commercials I read only a few days ago. An article at CNET and other media venues discussed digital video recorders and the effect they are having on commercials. In the U.S. broadcasters and advertisers are growing increasingly worried about the effects of TiVo and other digital recorders on ad-watching and thus on ad revenue. After all, these devices allow people to record programs and then easily skip over advertisements.
In Japan the problem has become so prevalent that broadcasters have begun playing commercials that highlight the benefits of advertising to viewers. They point out, correctly of course, that without advertising there can be no television programming. The economy of cable television is such that subscriptions are not nearly sufficient to cover the costs of creating shows. It is advertising that allows viewers to enjoy “quality” programming.
There is something of an irony here, isn’t there? Cable programmers are demanding that we watch their commercials, yet are creating advertising that is increasingly sexual and insipid. While driving away the intended audience with inappropriate ads, they are at the same time blaming these people for not watching them. The cable companies cannot have it both ways. A parent, cuddling his young children on the couch, need only sit through a few highly-sexualized ads before guilt and common sense drive him to find an alternative. If the cable companies want us to watch advertising they are going to have to insist that advertisers clean up their act. They are going to have to regulate the advertising they pipe into our homes.
P.S. - I wanted to title this article “Be Thou My Television” which I thought was terribly clever. But then I found that I have already used that title on another article.
Comments (51) »
1. blestwithsons
January 13, 2006
9:32 AM
Yup. This is exactly why we gave up tv two years ago. We were already down to watching only sports and carefully chosen PBS stuff… But the commercials during sports were absolutely unacceptable.
2. Candyinsierras
January 13, 2006
9:57 AM
When visiting my husband’s family over Christmas, I found myself pressing the remote button continuously with no success. Commercial, commercial, commercial, Matlock, commercial, commercial, homeshopping network, commercial, commercial. I am thankful we do not have cable and actually only two channels work half way decently on our t.v. My husband went through cable withdrawal when we got married a couple of years ago, but he has agreed that there is nothing really worth watching on t.v.
Be Thou my Television is a VERY clever title.
3. wfseube
January 13, 2006
10:18 AM
Tim wrote: ‘seductively washed a car’ - something of an bizarre concept, isn’t it?
Guess you’ve never seen “Cool Hand Luke”, eh? That Paris Hilton ad is a blatant ripoff of a scene where Luke and other prisoners are working on a chain gang and watch a girl who is washing her car in a very revealing outfit, doing a lot of the same stuff Hilton does in the burger ad.
4. Jim
January 13, 2006
10:23 AM
My wife and I decided when we got married 12 years ago to not bring a TV into our home. That was one of the best decisions we have ever made. Whatever we “missed out on” was more than made up for in our secure relationship. Now our children are not bombarded with immorality on a daily basis, thereby numbing their conscience to evil.
5. Tim
January 13, 2006
10:27 AM
“Guess you’ve never seen “Cool Hand Luke”, eh?”
Nope. The point is that “seductively washed a car” seems more than a tad odd. It’s like “seductively changing a diaper” or something…
6. Ian Clary
January 13, 2006
10:43 AM
Good post. I don’t have cable and still get those kind’ve commercials. That, and some of the stuff on Canadian TV is just horrible. I remember once flipping by a documentary on TVOntario about sex toys, and it was playing at an fairly early hour. Who needs their kids to see that?
God willing if my wife and I have kids, it’ll be cable-free, in one room, and used primarily for DVDs. Maybe the occasional hockey game. ;)
7. Randy
January 13, 2006
10:49 AM
Be Thou My Television was a song by Grand Incredible (Matt & Ethan from O.C. Supertones) a few years ago.
I simply had to have TV again when the NHL came back, but I didn’t want the junk, so I spent the extra money for digital cable (parental lock codes) and a DVR. I got my broadband internet on the same package, thereby saving another $10 per month.
A few minutes on the web and I had the necessary skip codes to program the remote, and now I can watch hockey and football games in a lot less time, skipping over the commercials. The TV doesn’t control me, I control it. I don’t have to hurry home for the start of a game and I get lots done on the computer during games, just skipping backwards to replay any goals or touchdowns that I missed.
For basketball, I can watch all of the Nuggets’ made baskets in about 20 minutes. It’s a great time saver and junk avoider, and well worth a few extra bucks. When I went to a friend’s house to watch one game, it was embarrassing to sit through the commercials. I knew then it was DVR or nothing for me.
8. nhe
January 13, 2006
11:00 AM
Whereas I fully agree that there is a lot of content in advertising that is “PG-13”, and is inappropriate for children, I don’t understand the reaction here to this.
It is as if you all are surprised. Yet, this is the way advertising has been for at least the last twenty years. Bud Light, Coors, et. al, have been advertising with women in bikinis at least since the 80’s, if not before. Since there is no nudity allowed in our commercials (yet) I don’t really see where there has been much degeneration in the wholesomeness of advertising for quite awhile now.
I don’t see where it has slid from G, to PG, to PG-13. It has pretty much been PG-13 for 20 years. Hence, I’m not sure I’m following all of you on why you “suddenly” see disturbing trends in advertising.
I would also be curious to know how many of you here who have given up TV feel that you are having a vital impact on the lost world around you and are regularly seeing people coming to Christ thru your witness.
I fear that this mindset (though for the noble purpose of pursuing holiness) can lead to isolationism, and that the “city on a hill” often has no light.
9. david
January 13, 2006
12:08 PM
It may be true that the change has not been sudden, but it was not like it is now twenty years ago. If you have been watching television all that time, you might not notice the drastic change. As someone who has been without television, including including regular network television, I can testify that it has gotten considerably worse.
In 2001, I spent some time in the hospital, and turned on a TV for the first time in about sixteen years. It was on September 11, just in time to see the WTC towers collapse on CNN. That was a shock, but no more shocking than the programming, most notably the commercials. The sexual content far surpassed anything in a bikini beer commercial. I used to be disgusted by douche commercials, but now I was seeing herpes treatment ads. Watching a guy talk about his erection was completely new.
I don’t know how sudden or gradual the change has been, but there has been change, and it is drastic.
I would be curious to know what watching TV has to do with it. My witness comes from my knowledge of Scripture. I don’t prepare to give an acount for the hope that is in me by watching television, and eschewing TV does not put me out of touch with the people I meet.
10. DLE
January 13, 2006
12:09 PM
We live fairly far from the nearest major city. As a result, we don’t get over-the-air signals very well; we use satellite instead.
Our decision to can cable came because we simply could not justify the cost and consider ourselves good stewards of the Lord’s money. As either a family or as individuals, we only watched about two hours of TV a week, so it made no sense. We give the money we spent to Christian ministries, instead.
Because of 9/11, though, we elected to just subscribe to the local channels. In the event of a national emergency, I think TV still has value. So we keep the local stations at a cost of $6 a month.
Still, when I decided my young son and I needed a male-bonding time, I was horrified at the commercials run during the football game we suffered through. Yes, many of the stupid beer commercials are the same, but what is different from 20 years ago (to respond to NHE) is that the ads for the network TV shows shown during the game are horrifying. Now that network TV has no family hour, the content of all shows has become little more than sex jokes. Those jokes show up now in the commercials that air during a supposedly family event like an afternoon football game. In the course of one quarter of a game we were treated to commercials for shows featuring infantalism, homosexuality, corpse desecration, and adultery—and my five-year old son commented on each one. A half hour of that and we were done. Never again.
I would also say to NHE that things HAVE changed. A pretty girl in a bikini isn’t the issue. I’m not sure that any guy here would say that he’s gotten overly aroused by watching a light 1960s comedy like Beach Blanket Bingo despite the fact that the whole movie is nothing but girls in bikinis. Contrast that with the purposefully lurid behavior of today’s “girls in bikinis” (the aforementioned Paris Hilton ad) where the choices in how the girls are depicted is solely sexual and ramped up via the girls’ behavior to drive the point home. The infamous Carl’s, Jr. ad with the (fully clothed) girl sticking her fist in her mouth to show she can swallow their new burger whole is another example of how all propriety is gone. I don’t know how NHE can contend that things haven’t gone from G to R in the last 40 years. (Okay, so NHE said 20 years, but I’m older!)
11. Stephen Morse
January 13, 2006
12:27 PM
NHE, I agree with David… What in the world does watching tv have to do with evangelism?
Anywhoo…
We gave up tv about 5 years ago for the very reason Tim mentioned… the commercials. I am not even talking about the lurid one. I had several children under the age of 6 at the time (as a matter of fact I now have 6 children 6 years old and younger) and did not need to teach them anything about disrespect and yet there the commercials are, presenting dad as the idiot and mom as the moron! That was enough for me.
We have found that a DVD player and the seasons of Little House on the Prairie are good enough for us!
We have gotten into a bunch of great board games. We play all the time! Games that I had never heard of before like Carcassonne and Settlers of Catan to name a few. What a fellowship we have together!
12. Tim
January 13, 2006
12:33 PM
“We play all the time! Games that I had never heard of before like Carcassonne and Settlers of Catan to name a few. What a fellowship we have together!”
I can’t imagine playing those games with six year olds. It mustn’t be too hard to win! ;)
13. The Preacher's Wife
January 13, 2006
12:44 PM
I hope you don’t mind me commenting on your blog, but I thought you may be interested to read my perspective from the UK.
While cable or sattelite TV is commonplace in many homes here in the UK, we also have access to all the BBC channels and radio stations which have no commercials.
The BBC is funded via a license fee payable by everyone who owns a TV. The quality of the programming is generally better than that of the commercial channels, but there has been an inevitable drop in standards over the past few years. I suppose in part, it’s due to the fact that what was unacceptable 15 years ago (ie showing a gay couple in a soap opera) is part of normal programming now, and also in a bid to raise ratings.
TV advertising here is regulated by the Advertising Standards Authority and it is generally accepted that anything that may offend or be unsuitable for children will not be shown before 9pm.
While we don’t seem to have the wide range of adverts here that you have in Canada and the USA (you won’t see anything stronger than a headache pill being advertised here) we do have the same problem of sex being used to promote everything from icecream to cars.
14. nhe
January 13, 2006
2:02 PM
Quote(David):
“I would be curious to know what watching TV has to do with it. My witness comes from my knowledge of Scripture. I don’t prepare to give an acount for the hope that is in me by watching television, and eschewing TV does not put me out of touch with the people I meet.”
Agreed……but you didn’t answer my question. I’m inferring that households with no TVs and “isolationist/separationalist” households are often one and the same (but not always), so I’m curious to know how you keep from being an isolationist when you have no TV, and therefore can’t even interact with neighbors or co-workers around the water cooler about last night’s game……….not that you should, I just see value in it.
I know it’s possible and preferable to be salt and light and still keep a strong filter for things that are not honorable, right, pure, lovely, praiseworthy, etc. I’m just curious to know how you go about interacting with and reaching unbelievers.
I find it helpful to be conversant about sports and pop-culture in my witness, but I admit that isn’t very creative.
15. Carla
January 13, 2006
2:10 PM
“NHE, I agree with David… What in the world does watching tv have to do with evangelism?”
This comes up EVERY time someone suggests flipping the tv off.
As ludicrous as this will sound, watching tv, and all the trashy flicks that come out, and listening to secular music, etc., has EVERYTHING to do with the modern face of evangelism for many MANY people.
They like to call it “being relational”. In other words, they believe if you are up to date on all the latest forms of electronic entertainment, you can be MORE effective in sharing the gospel with the lost, who are saturated in this kind of entertainment.
No, I am not making this up. It’s one of the hallmarks of the ever increasing “emerging” church.
SDG…
16. nhe
January 13, 2006
2:32 PM
Quote:
“I used to be disgusted by douche commercials, but now I was seeing herpes treatment ads. Watching a guy talk about his erection was completely new.”
My youngest (son) is 11. He sees the “viagra” ads when he watches “Sportscenter” on ESPN. The ads are cryptic enough that he doesn’t even know what they’re talking about. At some point soon, I will take the opportunity to explain it to him. I’m sorry, but I don’t find this “alarming”.
People who aren’t sexually pure get herpes. Isn’t this a good life lesson? Why can’t seeing an ad like this with your child just be a “teachable moment” - nothing more?
I’ve seen the Paris Hilton ad, and granted, it’s over-the-top. However, I still maintain that there’s nothing there I didn’t see 20 years ago in television commercials. She dances provocatively? People have been doing that on TV for years! Is the arousal level somehow greater with this? How do we put degrees on arousal level? Teenagers who watched TV in the age of “Beach Blanket Bingo” were just as aroused as teenagers today who see the Paris Hilton ad……..I know, I was one.
Further, I hope that those of you that are saying no to commercials are also saying no to bringing PG13 movies with similar content into your home (that would be a double standard)….example:
In the mid ’90s, I overheard a conversation between 2 guys in my young couples’ sunday school class at church. They were laughing together about an R-rated movie with nudity that they had rented and watched together the night before. Later that hour, the teacher passed around a petition to ban “NYPD Blue” from being shown on our local affiliate. These same 2 guys were the first 2 to sign the petition! I’m sorry, but I have a HUGE problem with that. I just hope that we all approach this issue with integrity and logical consistency.
17. Stephen Morse
January 13, 2006
2:34 PM
Tim; we play Catan and Carcasonne (et al) with our older children: 12, 10, 8, and 6. With the younger ones (5, 5, 3, 2, & 0.75) we have some other, much more racous, interactive games with names like ‘snorta,’ peek-a’boo, hide and seek, and ‘blitz’. Talk about fun!
DHE; aren’t we called to isolate ourselves from certain aspects of the ‘world’? Such as not being ‘conformed’ to their thinking for example? I do not think of myself as a hermit. I interact with the world on a daily basis. My interaction, though, isn’t based on the ‘virtual reality’ of the tv universe. I read about the news and work to get a handle of whatever ‘reality’ I can from the media.
I have found that the more I read the living Word of God I find that Ecclesiastes is more ‘real’ than anything else when it says in 3:24 - “I perceived that whatever God does endures forever, nothing can be added to it, nor anything taken from it. God has done it, so that people fear before Him.”
I need to grow in this and I need to be able to demonstrate through my words and actions this truth around the ‘water cooler,’ not necessarily the latest ‘Lost’ or ‘24’ twist.
SDG
18. Tim
January 13, 2006
2:43 PM
You know, it’s funny, but I can’t recall the last time I sat down with an unbeliever and talked about television. I really don’t think it would be a liability to have no idea what “Lost” or “Survivor” are all about.
19. nhe
January 13, 2006
2:51 PM
Quote:
“No, I am not making this up. It’s one of the hallmarks of the ever increasing “emerging” church.”
This is the same EC that is reaching people for Christ in unprecedented numbers and vitally bringing the gospel to bear on our culture in a dynamic way right now, correct?
I am not in the EC, nor do I think I’d be comfortable there, but I have seen the work that they have done, and seen changed lives. Their impact is far more significant (at the moment) than the PCA denomination that I find myself more comfortable with. Why are you so threatened? I rejoice in their success. I’ve met Brian McClaren and find him to be completely legit. Have you met him?
Do you know that Tim Keller (who is thought of very highly in your circle at emergentno) also regularly quotes N.T. Wright in his sermons? Does that make him a heritic too? Please tell me.
20. nhe
January 13, 2006
2:56 PM
Quote by STG:
“I need to grow in this and I need to be able to demonstrate through my words and actions this truth around the ‘water cooler,’ not necessarily the latest ‘Lost’ or ‘24’ twist.”
Somehow I’m implying that I don’t agree with this. I’m sorry. I’m completely with you here. I just want to know how this is working for you. Is there measurable fruit?……..and can’t we do both?
21. Mike
January 13, 2006
3:28 PM
I fear that this mindset (though for the noble purpose of pursuing holiness) can lead to isolationism, and that the “city on a hill” often has no light.
I think quite the opposite actually. Instead of spending between 2-4 hours a day in front of a television you can spend 2-4 hours a day with people, praying for people, etc. I’ve found the impact to be better the less television I have watched.
As Tim said, when I sit down with a person I don’t talk about Friends, Will and Grace, Survivor, or anything else. I don’t think it hurts relationships at all.
Lastly, I think to pin personal holiness against reaching the lost world is to create an unneccesary dichotomy. Certainly we could become like the Essenes who had zero impact hiding away in the mountains. However, this is not the extreme that we need to go to. One can easily avoid the useless hours in front of the television and still have a vital impact on the world.
We constantly have to battle “Be not conformed to the world” and “I’ve become all things to all people”. One extreme is to be the person who does not demonstrate his light before anyone and the other extreme is to look just like the world.
In Christ alone,
mike
22. nhe
January 13, 2006
3:43 PM
quote by Mike:
“Lastly, I think to pin personal holiness against reaching the lost world is to create an unneccesary dichotomy. Certainly we could become like the Essenes who had zero impact hiding away in the mountains. However, this is not the extreme that we need to go to. One can easily avoid the useless hours in front of the television and still have a vital impact on the world.
We constantly have to battle “Be not conformed to the world” and “I’ve become all things to all people”. One extreme is to be the person who does not demonstrate his light before anyone and the other extreme is to look just like the world.”
I hope I sound like I agree with you, because I do - and I’m absolutely not suggesting that we create this dichotomy.
Perhaps this example will help. My all-time favorite movie is “The Shawshank Redemption”. It is fraught with violence, cussing, and even brief nudity, yet I find nothing in it (when viewing it as a whole) that contradicts Phillipians 4:8.
The pervasive message of HOPE in the film is like a diamond laid against a dark background - it shines brighter when set contrasted against the dark world setting of the film. I walk away from the film in full praise mode to my creator for the hope that is in me. To me this does not dichotomize, but balances both.
Perhaps I’m just misunderstanding many of the posts here - I just see a very isolationist/quick to cry “heresy” perspective among many in this forum….especially among the anti-EC crowd.
23. Mike
January 13, 2006
4:01 PM
NHE,
Well I suppose that I do not want my mind to be saturated with “violence, cussing, and even brief nudity”. As a fallen human I know that I am susceptible to things like this. I also think that the same theme can be expressed without things like that.
However, that is comparing Aples to Oranges. Commercials like Paris Hilton’s is not a diamond against a dark background. The light of glory expressed in the Hamburger does not outweight the gross behavior by Paris. Even if we were to accept the Shawshank redemption, I think we have every right to object to the obscene behavior in commercials like that one.
Also, It would not be my contention that they should not be allowed to create their filth. I just think that as Christians in a Capitalist society we ought to show our disapproval by avoiding things like that.
When President Bush won his second election the United States was said to be quite “conservative”. In light of this, Desperate Housewives was asked if they were going to continue to air the show with the same type of behavior. The response speaks volumes about us. He said that the Consevative Evangelical group watches this type of stuff as much, if not more, than other groups of people. As a result, they still planned to air the shows as planned and assured us that they would be successful. I think he has proven himself correct.
In Christ alone,
mike
24. Jim
January 13, 2006
4:19 PM
Mike,
Very good points…we must vote with our wallets as well as our ballots. It’s funny though how many Christians decry Hollywood and at the same time go out to buy the latest video for their home library.
How can a bad tree produce good fruit? You are expecting the Hollywood scene to produce something they are incapable of, or for that matter any humanistic and carnal entertainment industry.
Why would any Christian want to defend immoral behaviour by saying things haven’t gotten any worse. Does that really matter?
When I was younger and in my spiritual infancy, I was quite numb to all the immorality on television. But after several years of basically no TV or movies, I was shocked at the level of wickedness openly displayed on the airwaves. What is wrong with being shocked at sin? Nothing, in fact shame on us for not being shocked. We should be shocked to the core, for then maybe we would cry out to God for our nation and its descent into the abyss of utter depravity.
God help those indifferent believers.
25. nhe
January 13, 2006
4:49 PM
Mike’s quote:
“Commercials like Paris Hilton’s is not a diamond against a dark background. “
That’s a little unfair, you know I’m not saying that. Give me a just a smidge of benefit of the doubt as a brother in Christ.
Jim’s quote:
“Why would any Christian want to defend immoral behaviour by saying things haven’t gotten any worse. Does that really matter?”
Gosh, sorry again, am I now defending immoral behavior? I’m just disagreeing with Tim’s contention that commercials have gotten worse over the past few years…….I really don’t see any further decent into depravity in commercials than was already present - at least in the U.S……….I would admit that there has been a further decent into depravity in commercials in other parts of the world not regulated by the FCC.
Jim’s quote:
“What is wrong with being shocked at sin?”
If I’m truly aware of the depravity in my own heart, I am not shocked to see it in others. I think my response should be compassion rather than shock. I think of the humility of Paul, who saw himself as the “foremost of all sinners” and pointed to himself as an example for those who thought themselves unworthy of Christ’s love…..do you see my subtle shift in focus?
We’re likely on the same page. I’m sorry for being unclear. We perhaps are not comfortable with each other’s choice of words and phrases.
26. wfseube
January 13, 2006
4:52 PM
NHE wrote: I’m just disagreeing with Tim’s contention that commercials have gotten worse over the past few years
You must be kidding. Cite just one example of an ad that has appeared more than 10 years ago that even approaches the disgusting level of ads like the Paris Hilton thing.
You’re either too young to know better or so old that you’ve lost your memory…
27. nhe
January 13, 2006
5:14 PM
Mike Quote:
“You must be kidding. Cite just one example of an ad that has appeared more than 10 years ago that even approaches the disgusting level of ads like the Paris Hilton thing.”
Calvin Klein ads have been running at least this long, and I’d put them on par with or beyond the decadence of this ad. Also Victoria Secret ads have been running, in the family prime-time viewing hours, for this long, and they leave nothing to the imagination.
A teenage boy with an active imagination can TIVO ads from any of these 3 ad campaigns and do a lot damage to himself - and I’m not sure he’d be distiguishing between levels of arousal in each ad - sorry for being crass.
So Tim is right, there is shamefully bad material in commercials. However, this is not a recent trend!
28. Jim
January 13, 2006
5:55 PM
NHE,
You are basically taking an indefensible position, especially for one who calls himself a Christian.
Now if you are saying that all advertising is inherently corrupted with lurid information, regardless of the date, I would say you are partially correct. But to deny things have gotten worse is incorrect and rather fruitless to attempt to defend.
My wife was raised in a culture that did not have television, and even the comedy shows from the 60’s can get her incensed as she sees the open promiscuity and sexual innuendos. I must confess that I myself after viewing them a while ago too saw them in a new light as to the subtlety of their appeal.
Compromise is the mother of mediocrity, and good is the enemy of better, with better being the enemy of best.
We are exhorted to seek those things which are above where Christ is. Our goal is Christ Himself.
If I’m truly aware of the depravity in my own heart, I am not shocked to see it in others. I think my response should be compassion rather than shock. I think of the humility of Paul, who saw himself as the “foremost of all sinners” and pointed to himself as an example for those who thought themselves unworthy of Christ’s love…..do you see my subtle shift in focus?
There are always precedents set in the levels of sin. Once we cross a threshold it is much easier to repeat that certain sin. Do I feel compassion for those in bondage to sin, absolutely! Do I feel compassion for those who would promote the destruction of purity of young children, and the deconstruction of our society through the promotion of public wickedness, I don’t know?
Jesus gave very strong warnings to those who would stumble the little ones who believe in Him. Woe to us should we pollute the children with this filth.
We are on the same page if you agree that the flesh profits nothing, and all the “good deeds” of this worldly system are filthy rags to God.
29. david
January 13, 2006
5:59 PM
nhe wrote
You can’t be serious. Is your life really that wrapped up in sports that you think you can’t interact socially without seeing last night’s game? Believe it or not, there are a lot of us who couldn’t care less about “the game.” The only games I’m interested in are the Little League games my kids play.
I didn’t watch sports when I had TV, and I always had plenty to talk about. Real life things, not the fantasy world of sports and sitcoms. Things like news (which TV is about the poorest source of), politics, how’s your family, hunting & fishing, books I’m reading, etc. Most of those topics lead easily, some inevitably, to matters of faith.
If you think television is that vital to social life, you really need to broaden your horizons.
30. david
January 13, 2006
6:13 PM
Quite right. We don’t watch dirty movies, either.
31. Tim
January 13, 2006
6:48 PM
I’m sorry. I’m hooked on LOST. I have to see where it’s going. However, at home I have a Dish Digital Recorder so I can skip through the commercials and if I’m not home I can download the episode (without commercials) from i-Tunes for $1.99
There are ways around the commercials!
What was that black smoke that came to ECHO? and where is WALT?
32. nhe
January 13, 2006
6:56 PM
Quote by Jim:
“We are on the same page if you agree that the flesh profits nothing, and all the “good deeds” of this worldly system are filthy rags to God.”
We part company here. I believe you’re misapplying this passage from Isaiah if you’re associating good deeds only with the “worldly system”. I read this passage to be expressing that even our good deeds are insufficient to save us……….hence, this refers to the good deeds of the would-be seeker of God (who is saved only thru Christ, not his deeds - which are always of impure motive, because of the depravity of the human heart).
Quote by David:
“You can’t be serious. Is your life really that wrapped up in sports that you think you can’t interact socially without seeing last night’s game? “
Wow, how often do I have to say that I’m not saying this? I’m simply asking for examples of how you have reached others around you with the gospel? I’m truly wanting to expand my understanding, that is all.
I’m not saying that TV is what its all about - I’m just saying that knowledge of popular culture helps me connect with nonbelievers, in addition to (not excluding) engaging in daily Christian disciplines. I’m sorry for thinking that this was assumed.
Quote David:
“Quite right. We don’t watch dirty movies, either.”
I was referring to PG-13 movies…….some of them are dirty……..are you saying they all are? If so, well, gosh……..I’m pretty decadent I suppose……..I think “Zoolander” is pretty funny.
Quote Jim:
“You are basically taking an indefensible position, especially for one who calls himself a Christian. “
Please be specific, I thought I stated my case pretty well. You supported this statement with your own example - nice, but I don’t see where it made mine indefensible. And to infer that my position is not consistent with that of a “Christian” is a tad harsh……but understandable I suppose when we don’t know who we’re really dealing with in these settings.
33. david
January 13, 2006
7:07 PM
No, I was not referring to all movies of any particular rating. I was referring to the “movies with similar content” that you questioned.
34. Jim
January 13, 2006
8:25 PM
I said:
“We are on the same page if you agree that the flesh profits nothing, and all the “good deeds” of this worldly system are filthy rags to God.”
You said:
We part company here. I believe you’re misapplying this passage from Isaiah if you’re associating good deeds only with the “worldly system”. I read this passage to be expressing that even our good deeds are insufficient to save us……….hence, this refers to the good deeds of the would-be seeker of God (who is saved only thru Christ, not his deeds - which are always of impure motive, because of the depravity of the human heart).
NHE,
You are quite right in that these verses are referring to those who attempt by their own righteousness to gain eternal life. In fact, these verses were directed to God’s own people, Israel, who although having the law and the prophets had fallen short of righteousness through faith.
I took some liberty in attempting to connect the humanistic philosophy of this world, which is really the basic premise of all man-made religion, to show that we somehow feel our human good works will merit some favor with God.
As for the indefensible position, I do not think any believer can gain credibility by downplaying the destructive influence of the worldly media, be it American, Canadian, or any other nation.
I had taken your comments to be playing “devils advocate”, which is a position I find many Christians take to justify their iniquitous pleasure.
Am I saying you should not have a tv? I hope not, although that would be my preference. We all have Christian liberty to follow God as our conscience deems best. Ultimately, we will all stand individually before the judgement seat of Christ.
I hope this clears up my position.
In Christ,
Jim
35. blestwithsons
January 13, 2006
10:00 PM
Anytime I see a discussion like this I always find myself wondering… Why do people fight so hard to keep their tv?
nhe - you said:” I’m inferring that households with no TVs and “isolationist/separationalist” households are often one and the same (but not always), so I’m curious to know how you keep from being an isolationist when you have no TV, and therefore can’t even interact with neighbors or co-workers around the water cooler about last night’s game……….not that you should, I just see value in it.”
That is a pretty big assumption. First of all, I still know ridiculous amounts of tv trivia because I. Can. Read. Fox News on the web has more than enough entertainment stories and sports stories for me to get the gist of what’s going on on the box. If I’m in a position where I need to discuss Lost or Survivor - no I won’t know the plots - but I do know basically what the shows are about. But real life is full of teachable moments - and humans have lots of commonalities outside of television. So I don’t think my ability to relate to nonbelievers is impacted by my not seeing Desperate Housewives or The Book of Daniel. I’m a mom - most of the people I’m going to end up talking to are moms. We have all the common ground we need right there.
Second, you also make a pretty big assumption that many tv non-viewers are hypocrites and watch inappropriate films on a regular basis - based on one anecdote from your church. In the past three years I have seen a whopping four films in the theater. Our rental diet mostly consists of oldies and British costume dramas. My children have carefully selected cartoons and concert dvds. Before I see anything new, I check out the reviews on family sites. After reading those, I generally find I can keep my money. But I know enough about the film to discuss it if I need to in those all important water cooler conversations…
I’m so amazed at how often people act like life will suffer immeasurably if the tv is cut off. That ought to be a clue that it is more than a hobby. More than a source of info… The word that springs to mind is Idol.
36. nhe
January 14, 2006
1:00 AM
Jim,
Thanks for the clarification. However, I was not trying to downplay the destructive influences of the media. Rather, I have simply disagreed that these influences have gotten worse. They’ve been this bad for a while. The Paris Hilton ad was topped 10 years ago in it’s risqueness by the Calvin Klein ads. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Blest,
You’re late to the party. I’ve clarified over and over that I just want to understand how people without TVs relate to non-Christians. I don’t think that this is an unreasonable thing to wonder. Quite simply, the people I know who do not have TVs (and I don’t know that many) are what I would call isolationists.
This does not mean that you have to have a TV to be a good witness. I’m just conveying my observation.
37. Mike Perrigoue
January 14, 2006
1:01 AM
My wife and I have been without cable (and even the fuzzy free channels) for over five years. We’re alright. We can even hold normal conversations with people. And it actually feels good to have no idea what people are talking about at the water cooler at work. Hey, is Friends still popular? Justing kidding.
I’m glad to hear that you Tim, and others that have commented here, also take issue with the commercials. My habit (when we are at the in-laws watching the Seahawks and/or UW football and b-ball) is to just turn away during the commercials.
Interestingly enough I could hear a Toby-Mac song (Slam) playing in the background last weekend during one of my “turn away” instances. My wife said it was for a movie called Transporter II (I never heard of Transporter I…of course the only movies I ‘ve seen in the theatre lately have all been from Tolkien and Lewis!) She looked the movie up on a screening website when we got home. Yeah, thats not exactly a movie I hope youth pastors are taking their flock to. I can already hear it, “ah, but it’s got Toby-Mac in it!”
Whelp, I think I just got off topic. Sorry!
P.S.
I’m very happy to see that nobody used the excuse…hey those commercials are okay if you can handle them…garbage!
38. nhe
January 14, 2006
1:07 AM
Blest Quote:
“Second, you also make a pretty big assumption that many tv non-viewers are hypocrites and watch inappropriate films on a regular basis”
Is that really what you think I’m assuming? Geez. My point was simply that I see some logical inconsistencies out there. It had nothing to do with any specific assumptions at all - where do you get that? You completely missed the point.
Blest Quote:
“After reading those, I generally find I can keep my money. But I know enough about the film to discuss it if I need to in those all important water cooler conversations…
I’m so amazed at how often people act like life will suffer immeasurably if the tv is cut off. That ought to be a clue that it is more than a hobby. More than a source of info… The word that springs to mind is Idol.”
I don’t know what to say here except that this is just mean-spirited.
39. Carla
January 14, 2006
1:28 AM
NHE,
I’ve just finished reading all the responses to your question of “I’m curious to know how you keep from being an isolationist when you have no TV, and therefore can’t even interact with neighbors or co-workers” and to be quite frank with you, it seems to me it’s been answered, several times.
It’s clearly very hard for you to believe that folks without a tv are a.) not isolationists, as you keep inferring, and b.) capable of finding common ground with unbelievers, enough to carry on a rational conversation.
I have a suggestion. How about you turn off your tv for say, the next 6 months, and see for yourself how it works? And yes, I’m serious. You might find a brand new perspective on this that you can’t quite grasp right now.
SDG…
40. blestwithsons
January 14, 2006
9:55 AM
mean-spirited?
How?
41. TAW
January 14, 2006
11:15 AM
When questions come like this, it seems that some seem to pit evangelism against holiness. The contemporary church growth movement is built on the premise that you can’t be different from the world and still evangelize. When you say that you don’t go to movies or watch certain shows on TV, you’re accused of isolationism and a lack of desire for evangelism. The truth is that Phil. 2:13 tells us that Christ gave Himself for us that He might redeem us from all iniquity, purify to Himself a possession of His name, and make us zealous of good works. Evangelism without holiness isn’t true salvation.
42. DLE
January 14, 2006
1:49 PM
Francis Schaeffer wrote much about whether or not the best position for the Christian is to be an isolationist or to engage pop culture by bringing the mind of Christ into it. I think that his insights are credible.
Paul was not afraid to walk into the domain of philosophers and debate their God-opposing ideals right in their own backyards. We need more Christians who are biblically-grounded and wise to do that very thing. Unfortunately, we hold people who do this in little regard. That’s too bad for us.
I think we Christians today need to pick and choose our battles carefully. The Holy Spirit lets us know what may be more of an issue with me than with you and we need to respect that. Some people can engage culture and walk away unscathed while others can’t.
Railing on about who can endure what will only make us look petty in the eyes of the world. Being a fool for Christ and being petty are two different things—we need to realize that and compensate accordingly. Sometimes it comes down to nothing more than a matter of degrees and this is where listening to the Spirit’s guidance makes a difference.
For instance, withdrawing from all news input might seem a way to mitigate the awfulness that the news media pummel us with, but it also makes it impossible to bring a reasoned Christian response to our times. Jesus Christ is Savior of the world and He overcomes all wordly problems. If we cannot show the world how Christ makes a difference in the problems of the world featured in the news, then we are cutting off a great opportunity to show the truth of the Gospel triumphs, that Christ is above all.
God’s grace is sufficient for each of us. Hopefully, we’ll do a better job of remembering that.
43. blestwithsons
January 14, 2006
2:14 PM
DLE, beautifully written comment. I sincerely appreciate it. And I do ponder on those things. However, you do see that one can turn off the box without being an isolationist, don’t you?
And personally, I don’t worry much about who’s watching tv and who’s not. It’s not that big of a deal. I’m just startled by the vigor with which people frequently try to talk non-TV people into being TV people. When I asked for prayer in my Sunday School class because I truly viewed tv as an addiction in my life that I needed help giving up (I will write about this on my own site sometimes soon) I was openly mocked and the conversation quickly turned to reviewing the latest hit shows and “Ooh did you see what happened on last night’s…?!” I had not asked anyone else to join me in eschewing tv - all I had said was that I needed to.
(Although to be totally honest, I really do think that tv is one of the most pervasive idols in our culture. Look at how much time is spent before it… Look at the impact it has. I’m not pointing fingers at specific people, I’m not saying it’s all bad… I’ve just been thinking a lot about this issue.)
To me - it’s as if someone said they want to give up sugar for health reasons and people start throwing candy at them and saying “If you’re not eating sugar you can’t engage the culture. After all, we Americans eat a lot of sugar! And if you lose weight, you’ll impact your ability to interact with heavy people. ”
Plus, as I pointed out earlier, one can be educated about the news and goings-on of the world without a tv. Obviously everyone in this discussion knows how to use the internet…
44. nhe
January 14, 2006
4:06 PM
Quote:
“The contemporary church growth movement is built on the premise that you can’t be different from the world and still evangelize………”
This is not true. I attend a Willowcreek association church, which I’m sure is what you’re at least in part referring to. You’ll have to back up a statement like this.
Quote:
“Meanspirited how?”
by inferring that I’m committing the sin of idolatry by what my comments appear to say. Granted, you may have misunderstood me, but I don’t think that gives you the right to accuse me of sin.
I’m a little disappointed in some of the reactions to my posts, but I suppose it is expected when one has a dissenting view. If you take the time to read everything I’ve said in context - especially where I’ve clarified where I’ve been unclear, I don’t think you’ll find me as outlandish as you think.
I hope that when I disgree with someone in a forum like this, that I will give an opposing view and ask questions that show where I think they’re wrong or unclear, so that they can clarify. That way, I’m giving them grace and the benefit of the doubt, rather than flying at them with both barrels.
45. blestwithsons
January 14, 2006
5:04 PM
nhe…
You are doing the same thing that tweaks you when done by others.
You imply that it seems that those who have no tv are likely to be unduly isolated and unfruitful for the Lord.
I would also be curious to know how many of you here who have given up TV feel that you are having a vital impact on the lost world around you and are regularly seeing people coming to Christ thru your witness.
Then you can’t understand why people might get a little defensive…
I say that people who fight tooth and nail against the prospect that it might be healthy to give up tv might have a problem with tv idolatry - you start pulling out the I’m under attack words like “mean-spirited” and “coming at you with both barrels”.
I speak from experience about television idolatry. As I mentioned above - I’m a recovering addict. (grin) I have no idea how much or how little you love your tv - and I didn’t say you personally were idolizing it. Tim didn’t even remotely suggest in this post that anyone should give up tv. He just said that he was thinking about doing it. Some commenters say that we have given up tv and don’t regret it. Still no one has said that all people should give up tv.
Why does it matter so much to you if Tim, or I, or anyone else decides not to have tv in their lives? If the often heralded blessing of Christian Liberty (not that I recall seeing it tossed about much here) can be dragged out to say that we have freedom to make our own choices about whether to watch Sex in the City (or whatever) than surely we also have the liberty to choose NOT to watch it.
One other thing I have been thinking in response to this thread… It sounds really wonderful to say that we can watch tv to “engage the culture” and use it to connect and witness - But honestly - is that why most Christians watch tv? I haven’t heard anyone outside of a hypothetical blogthread mention it. Real live humans mostly watch tv to “veg out”. (and I’m not saying that’s all bad, mind you)
Francis Schaeffer was able to philosophically analyze the worldviews being presented in media and use the information to discuss and present the gospel to others. How many Christians can and do do that? How many of them spend enough time reading and learning instead of watching tv so that they are able to bring an informed opinion to the tv and to the people with whom they discuss the shows? And how often would a water cooler discussion on the woman whose name rhymed with a body part (classic Seinfeld - a discussion of which got someone fired by the way) segue into a sensitive discussion of how Jesus treated women…or anything related to Christ?
46. DLE
January 14, 2006
5:29 PM
Blestwthsons and NHE,
It is possible to be a Christian and disengage from culture. It is possible to be a Christian and engage. It is possible to do both—most people do.
There are Christians who contend that computers are doing us no good. I can understand that position. Yet here we all are using computers to write to each other.
Again, each person has to work out before God how much of the culture he/she is able to engage. Some parts of culture might be too much for a person. I know some guys who can go into bars and witness with no problems and others that such a thing would be their downfall. My dad was an alcoholic, yet I can have a glass of wine from time to time and not feel bad about it. I can engage that part of culture because it does not pose a problem. However, there are other cultural components that are more of a threat to me. Those I need to stay far from.
Even when it comes to children, we can’t keep them isolated from the world or else they will have no discernment skills for living in it once they are out from under our roofs. On the other hand, we don’t have to plunge them into all manner of filth so they know how to act in each case. Wisdom is known by her children. Again, this is why we so desperately need the Spirit of God to guide us into knowing how to walk. When my son encounters advertising, I unpack that with him. But I also try to limit his exposure.
Blessings.
47. blestwithsons
January 14, 2006
7:03 PM
Dan, with a good deal of affection, good humor, respect, and appreciation for your tone, I say -Argh!!
Did I ever say that I was completely “disengaged” from the culture? Or does culture mean nothing anymore except television and movies? How about the culture of actually interacting with real live people? Something which has experienced a rapid decline since television took over, by the way (my mom told me of a book out there called “Television ate my best friend” I need to find that one). How can we engage anyone if we’re all sitting inside staring at a 25 inch screen?
It’s just tv! It’s just flickering images of fake people acting out fake situations saying fake lines with a lot of lighting and edits!!! (bws makes mental note to cut back on the caffeine) My kids are not going to be unable to handle the world just because they haven’t gotten to watch SpongeBob and the Fairly Oddparents. Or is television the only way we have to prepare our kids for the world? Dan, you would probably like the conversation my oldest son (he’s 7) and I had just a few days ago which ranged from Proverbs to Robin Hood to George Muller. We had a rousing chat on situational ethics and moral relativism. I didn’t need a commercial or tv show to have that teachable moment with him.
And for the record… I didn’t give up tv because I “couldn’t handle it”. It’s not that I was tempted to sin by what I saw. It’s that I was wasting tremendous amounts of time sitting slack-jawed while fake people did the living and experiencing for me. The fact that my kids now get exposed to less filth is just a fringe benefit.
Anyway. I’m getting too worked up. I’ll save what little I have left and just write a tv manifesto for my own site. Tim, I apologize for waxing so long. Thanks for the forum!! :-)
48. Tim
January 14, 2006
8:40 PM
Note to self: write an article discussing the relationship of culture and television.
49. Tim
January 15, 2006
10:52 AM
I don’t expect TV to teach, inspire, edify, uplift, encourage, enlighten, reprove, rebuke, correct, or improve my lot in any way.
I do expect TV to entertain.
How about them Seahawks and Broncos?
50. Angela
January 15, 2006
2:06 PM
I’ve been following the back and forth of this particular discussion. I personally used to watch a lot of TV but don’t really anymore, and when I do I notice that I am now more likely to notice the more questionable things instead of being desensitized to it. I used to watch Leno and laugh at all the jokes and just brush off what he said, but after not watching it for awhile I have begun to realize what is really being said. That however was the main point of me posting …
My main thought I’d like to share that it is nice to cut out the TV, but sometimes we just replace it with something else. I’ve been thinking about the amount of time I spend reading blogs… It all began because I wanted to search out and learn about the Emerging Church, and I now I find I spend more time than I really think I should on blogs. It is of course good to read God honoring things and the blogs I read are, but I am filling time that could be used for more study or more time interacting with people face to face. I read author’s blogs, but how many of their books have I read? I should support what they do by buying and reading their books, and spend my time doing that. All of this to say, that even something that looks good can take too high of a position in our lives. Something else to consider among the TV convo. (I don’t think it can just be narrowed down to just TV)
51. Stephen Morse
January 18, 2006
11:29 AM
Blestwithsons… When can we get together and hang out? I also am blest with sons (and daughters) and the point that you make about the substance of tv programming: flickering images and etc…etc… It definitely hits home with me! I want my children to experience real life.
I am not trying to say everyone must quit tv but… give me a break! Why do people get so defensive about it?
What is it about the idea of getting rid of tv that offends? What is it that makes it so negative to so many?
My wife and I are blest with 5 sons and 4 daughters. Yes, they are all ours together, naturally. How many times do we respond to questions only to have to convince people that we are not trying to get them to reject birth control. (I wonder how many people will miss that point and argue with me about birth control?) Something about the fact that we have been blest with 9 children offend people. What is it? I think it is the same kind of thing with the tv.
Anyway….
There is nothing intrinsically worthy about tv is there? On the other hand there is nothing intrinsically sinful about electrical currents responding to specific stimulation to produce color images on a screen either.
But there is something sinful about the content of the images and the audio that is simulated on the screen. There is something sinful about our response to those images.
I for one struggle enough with the garbage that is already in my mind. I don’t need to pipe more of it in!