"Why do people choose the substitute over God himself? Probably the most important reason is that it obviates accountability to God. We can meet idols on our own terms because they are our own creations. They are safe, predictable, and controllable; they are, in Jeremiah's colorful language, the 'scarecrows in a cornfield' (10:5). They are portable and completely under the user's control. They offer nothing like the threat of a God who thunders from Sinai and whose providence in this world so often appears to us to be incomprehensible and dangerous . . . [People] need face only themselves. That is the appeal of idolatry."
- David F. Wells
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Most of the men in my Lifegroup (church small group) are older guys, their average age is probably 60. A couple of weeks ago all of my Lifegroup men met for breakfast and the conversation turned to television, and the men started to talk about how they remember the first TV set in their homes.
For my kids, it'll probably be hard for them to imagine that a pre-Internet world existed before they were born. Similarly, I was born in 1976, and from my perspective television has always been around; it's an integral part of life. Not my life, necessarily, but life in the world at large.
Like the the present day Internet, the television and all that comes with it -- cable, satellite, video games, DVDs -- have achieved a technological coup in just a few decades. For better or worse, the television informs us, and, to a large extent, defines our thinking and dictates our moral convictions.
I've been recently reading a Christian book by an author who, I'm certain, is heretical in many of his opinions. As a result of my knowledge of this author I'm finding myself reading more proactively -- thinking about each paragraph, checking Scripture citations, trying to identify any exegetical fallacies. In the same way, I think, that sort of aggressive and proactive way of consuming a product is exactly the way a Christian should approach television viewing. Passive television consumption is dangerous because the box is always saying something, and most of the time it doesn't run parallel to the Book.
I don't think abstinence from television viewing is the answer for everyone, but I do think everyone -- Christians especially -- should take an inventory of exactly how much time is used every week watching television. Now compare those hours with the number of hours interacting with your fellow believers, praying, or reading the Bible. How many times this week did a television program tell you that fornication is glorious? Compare that with how many times this week God's word told you to run from immorality. How many times this week did the television show you glorified drunkenness and debauchery? Compare that with how many times you read the words of JESUS or Paul, encouraging you to walk in light and truth.
Like anything that feels good, the tube can be highly addictive. It's best to observe your behavior around it. How do you act and how do you feel when you're in the presence of your television? When you walk into your living room in the morning, do you automatically turn on the television? When you come home from work in the evening, do you reach for the remote like an addict reaches for a syringe? Does the cable programming wash over you, assuaging your anxieties, or, at the very least, allowing you to passively entertain yourself all evening? Can you imagine going a day, or a weekend, without turning it on?
My advice is to own your TV. Don't let it own you. Assume the box is lying to you until you actively confirm that it's telling you the truth, and, even then, be leery.
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/5519.
Comments on "TV":
3. Milly
- 07/19/2009 8:42 pm CDT
Good post Big T Bird,
I remember being the first family on the block to have a color TV. The kids were thrilled for a moment because we played outside a lot. I don't watch a lot of TV and doubt that I'd have cable if it weren't for the kids. I don’t have a hanker’n for TV at 4am. I will say I read a lot more now that I’m divorced. Books are so much better to entertain our brains.
4. Thirsty Bear
- 07/19/2009 8:46 pm CDT
Very good post. Recently, my Wife and I agreed to complete a 10-day viewing journal for the Nielsen Ratings.
Candidly, we thought we are going to fill every hour of this journal book. We assumed that we watched WAY TOO MUCH television.
For Neilsen, you have to agree to journal every viewing of 15 minutes or more...and every family member's viewing habits including DVR'd shows. Shockingly, we watched only 3 hours a week. It wasn't a moment of pride. But a moment of sobriety with truth.
My recommendation is journal when and what you watch for two weeks. You may be surprised and/or convicted. Then let God deal with you with that time(small or large) and what the content is what you watch. We did and found we could eliminate even more viewing.
5. Shrode
- 07/20/2009 7:30 am CDT
Good post, Bird! I know you are right. This is a convicting post.
I know that Piper would agree with you. Some other folks have been saying this to us Christians, and we just don't seem to be listening.
Have you read, Neil Postman's "Amusing ourselves to death"? I need to, and haven't. :) I think he makes many of the same points.
My youth minister when I was a teenager used to talk about this. He talked about how the word was propositional truth. You have to either agree or disagree with it. But with TV, it just bypasses our reasoning, and goes straight into our brains.
He also pointed out how all of the Canaanites in the OT were "image-centered" people. But YHWH called the Israelites to be different. And YHWH was different. He revealed 10 WORDS on the top of Mount Sinai. All other gods were images.
God specifically forbid "images". He revealed himself through, the WORD, the Bible. He revealed himself through, the WORD, Jesus. God's people, both OT and NT have always supposed to be word-centered.
Yet with TV we become image centered like the pagans of old, and we are losing our ability to think critically, to even think at all.
6. nhe
- 07/20/2009 11:38 am CDT
This is also the age of the internet and other forms of entertainment besides the TV. I don't think this discussion is complete without including video games, web surfing, and yes, even blogging.
I also don't think that we necessarily have to watch TV passively.
My wife's guilty pleasure is "The Bachelorette" - which I think is the lowest form of TV there is, and I tell her so. I don't tell her not to watch it, but I do tell her, that if one of our daughters is watching it with her, they need to discuss the world view being portrayed. It has led to some good discussions among the girls in our house.
If I thought anyone in my household was watching TV passively, I'd turn it off immediately.
Sorry, but I personally get frustrated with the notion of "you should" monitor "how much" TV you watch each week. That really feels legalistic to me. My son and I watch the Falcons games together every week in the fall (that's 3 1/2 hours right there) and its a great relational time for us.
Rather, we should monitor what we watch AND how we watch it (discerning world views, relaxing legitimately, or giving into sloth and a lazy mind).
Also - as far as time wasters - I think internet is a far bigger time waster for Christians than watching TV. Yes, we can naturally view the internet more selectively - but we can be just as selective with the TV if we're intentional.
So if the issue is "wasting time" don't single out the TV (IMO).
I have always felt that some Christians can have a sense of "false pride" about how little TV they watch, as if its a badge of honor.
Again - the issue is not "how much", but rather "why" and "how" (or with what grid) when it comes to TV.
7. Andrew
- 07/20/2009 12:02 pm CDT
I agree, somewhat, with nhe's comment. Personally, my great vice would be books, and not TV or internet. Not that I don't watch TV, because I do, and I actually prefer a good TV show to movies almost any day.
I don't really know what's meant by "watching passively." Most of the time, I watch TV because I'm tired and feel I need something slightly mind-numbing. I don't consider the Biblical implications of Frasier actively, but I still know that promiscuity and vanity are wrong, and I've never found myself believing otherwise because I watch a TV show, even if I'm not watching actively.
I wouldn't say I watch a lot of TV. I don't have one in my dorm room, and when I'm home, I have to share with 5 other people, so my watching time is fairly limited. But I like TV. And I'm perfectly fine with the fact that I like it. :-)
8. Bird
- 07/20/2009 6:23 pm CDT
Thirsty, good thoughts.
God specifically forbid "images". He revealed himself through, the WORD, the Bible. He revealed himself through, the WORD, Jesus. God's people, both OT and NT have always supposed to be word-centered.
Shrode, I've heard that sort of thing before too. I haven't done any reading on it, though. There might be something to it. Who knows?
Sorry, but I personally get frustrated with the notion of "you should" monitor "how much" TV you watch each week.
nhe, given the content and worldview of most TV programs, I don't think it's a bad idea for Christians to take an inventory of how much they're taking in. I'm not sure that we disagree here, but perhaps coming down on different sides of the center? Personally, I watch TV (more specifically DVDs). My wife and I have watched two seasons of the West Wing in the past few weeks. During football season I too enjoy watching a pro game (go Texasn!) every Sunday afternoon. I only fault you for following the Falcons. :-)
Also - as far as time wasters - I think internet is a far bigger time waster for Christians than watching TV.
You may be right. Then again, who knows? I spend a decent amount of time just playing chess online. ;-) My post, though, wasn't necessarily about wasting time as much as being careful about content.
Andrew, good thoughts.
9. nhe
- 07/21/2009 10:02 am CDT
Take me with a grain of salt Eric, I'm a different sort when it comes to this stuff.
I actually believe that it is more "damaging" to spend an hour watching "Hannity" than watching 3 hours of network TV. He epitomizes Pharisaical older-brotherness to me, which I think is more damaging than "younger brother" sins like watching too much mindless TV. I'm weird, I know.
Back when NY PD Blue came out, a petition went around my Sunday School class to have it banned from being shown in Atlanta because it was the first Prime Time show to have PG language and PG-13 nudity. I was the only person (in a big class) who didn't sign it. For me, watching "Home Improvement" with a "Tool Time Girl" in a tight t-shirt is far more exploitative of women and far more damaging to a society that something like NY PD Blue - again, I've got weird opinions.
10. Bill
- 07/21/2009 10:44 am CDT
nhe,
"For me, watching "Home Improvement" with a "Tool Time Girl" in a tight t-shirt is far more exploitative of women and far more damaging to a society that something like NY PD Blue - again, I've got weird opinions."
I was tracking along with you until I read this. Huh? First off, the Tool Time girl was no more revealing (probably less) than many commercials seen on prime time TV, and constituted, maybe, 30 seconds per episode. The show, overall, was clean, and delivered positive messages about parenthood and family (albeit, counterbalanced with the now-tiresome negative message of "Dad's an idiot").
I never watched NYPDBlue, although I know a bit about it. I'm confused how a tight T-shirt on a bit-player for several seconds an episode does more damage to society than prime-time nudity, casual sex, and violence.
11. nhe
- 07/21/2009 11:49 am CDT
For me, its a matter of intent with regard to content. You and I will disagree on Home Improvement. I thought that the constant cutting of each other, and putting a girl in a tight shirt for no objective reason, was despicable. If that's "wholesome entertainment", count me out.
NYPD Blue showed no more sex or violence than a PG 13 movie. Its intent was to be realistic (IMO). It showed sinners sinning, and showed the consequences of their sin. Affairs and one night stands were portrayed as negative, and you could see the affects on the characters. Violence was also never without consequence on that show. This (again IMO) is much less destructive than intentionally demeaning another person for a laugh.
I know I'm in the minority with this opinion.......I wasn't a huge fan of NYPD Blue, but I have enjoyed "Big Love" and other shows with well-written PG13 content.
12. jez
- 07/21/2009 12:02 pm CDT
"I thought that the constant cutting of each other, and putting a girl in a tight shirt for no objective reason, was despicable."
There was a reason, the show-within-a-show "tool time" was a cheesy infomercial for Binford tools, and the girl was to sell the tools. This is just as realistic as the violence in NYPD blue, this is how commercials operate, in fact commercials tend to be worse. It might work as a symbol of Tim's casual sexism which is an overt theme of the show.
13. nhe
- 07/21/2009 12:11 pm CDT
It might work as a symbol of Tim's casual sexism which is an overt theme of the show.
yep.......and I'm not looking for that in my "wholesome family content"......which actually is what I'm trying to say. Home Improvement (fair or not) was thought of by a lot of Christians as wholesome family entertainment. I'm sorry but I just never saw it that show or shows like it. Its not Andy Griffith or the The Waltons.
I did not want my kids watching Home Improvement when they were young because I didn't want them to think it was ok to talk to each other that way. However, if I were to call it "wholesome", it would be endorsing it as acceptable behavior.
I take Romans 12:10,11 "out do one another in showing honor" as seriously as I do 2 Tim 2:22 - "flee youthful lusts".....I guess that's what I'm trying to say.
15. Bill
- 07/21/2009 12:54 pm CDT
nhe,
I have absolutely no beef with someone who doesn't want to watch Home Improvement because of its content. Please don't hear me wrong on that (did I say it was wholesome?)
Romans 12 is one of my favorite chapters. Yes - I completely agree with you on that, and that many/most shows do not depict outdoing one another in showing honor. I also like Everybody Loves Raymond, but I know that show offends many (Jared, for instance). I completely understand.
But I sense a false dichotomy. You take Romans 12 seriously, so don't watch Home Improvement. You take it as seriously as 2 Timothy . . . so where does that leave you with NYPD Blue? Most things on TV are bad, for various reasons. It wasn't that you objected to Home Improvement. It's the idea that somehow NYPD Blue is something good to watch, something that is helpful.
I guess I'm the weird one. :-)
16. nhe
- 07/21/2009 1:20 pm CDT
I guess my answer to that Bill would be, do you watch movies on occasion with PG 13 content that includes muted unmarried sex (including seeing a rear end or two that we need to turn away from) and violence?
If you do, then what is the difference?
I admit that I do. Though I do seek out specifics on sexual content and overall theme on the film before I view it. I believe also that a lot of the innuendo in some of the "approved" PG13 films is worse than seeing a heiny.
Also, for what it's worth, the scenes in question on NYPD Blue (muted sex scenes) were always the last 30 seconds of an episode - very easy to tune away from and not miss anything (which is the route I chose).
Phil 4:8 is ultimately the guiding principle - where is my mind while I'm viewing? I'll take something rated R with a redemptive theme and brief nudity (The Shawshank Redemption) over something that insults my comedic tastes and my faith (Bruce Almighty) any day of the week. If my mind is on the redemptive themes, I think that is the point.
18. Bill
- 07/21/2009 2:28 pm CDT
Those who have seen both shows would say Sipowicz (NYPD Blue) by a mile.
Maybe. I think I'm going to back out of this conversation because I find that we're talking about differences in how we receive entertainment - you don't see what I see (I saw a lot of redemptive activity, every week, in the old Home Improvement show) and I don't see what you see. But the debate, particularly in the question about PG13 movies is getting dangerously close to "Therefore, Bill, can't you recognize your own obvious hypocrisy?" For the record, I'm pretty tame in my movie watching - never see R, don't watch that many movies in general. The last one I saw in the theater was Up. I did see Taken recently, which had a lot (a LOT) of violence. I can't pretend like that was good for me to see. I would probably be just fine if I'd never seen Dark Knight either. I know that not everything I see is good for me.
For the record, I think, from reading what you've written, that you have your perspective in the right place and appear to be very careful in what you watch, and for that I applaud you. You and I are different in where we find our redemptive content, but I don't think I'm better than you in that area.
Good conversation. I'm willing to bow out now.
19. nhe
- 07/21/2009 3:59 pm CDT
I think this is a very interesting conversation, and we're really only scratching the surface, so I'd hate to see anyone bow out.
I would not want to call out hypocrisy on this intentionally, sorry if it sounded that way.
We agree on "Taken" - I thought it was lame and unredemptive. I loved the Christ typology at the end of Dark Knight - "he's not a hero, he's what Gotham needs him to be".....that's a worthwhile thought to walk away considering......is Jesus a hero?, or is He more than that? - exactly what the people need most. For me, if I walk away thinking on things like this, it has been worthwhile - with regard to TV and movies.
Jared and I liked "The Sopranos" though, which is a whole different discussion. So again, its a rich topic, because it helps us wrestle with what really is redemptive/worthwhile entertainment and what isn't.
20. Jared
- 07/21/2009 4:20 pm CDT
"Taken" was awesome.
People who didn't like "Taken" not so much.
;-P
21. Bill
- 07/21/2009 4:21 pm CDT
So again, its a rich topic, because it helps us wrestle with what really is redemptive/worthwhile entertainment and what isn't.
I'm sure it is :-) - I just find myself usually standing alone in the debate (because I've got weird views, or maybe just because I'm an old geezer :-) and think having someone like Jared or Bird engaging would be more edifying/beneficial.
22. Bill
- 07/21/2009 4:25 pm CDT
Heh, just read Jared's last comment. Maybe you should just stick w Bird
23. Bird
- 07/21/2009 6:31 pm CDT
Ahh, yeah, just throw me out to the lions now, eh, Billboy? No, thank you.
25. Jared
- 07/21/2009 10:08 pm CDT
It was an action film. I didn't expect airtight logic.
"Taken" blew chunks of awesomeness.
26. Bill
- 07/21/2009 11:21 pm CDT
I'm the Lions now? How'd that happen?
We Thinklings stick together, Shawshank-boy.
28. Thirsty Bear
- 07/23/2009 4:21 pm CDT
I'm assuming your son is young. So how do you explain the redemptive qualities of E.D. commercials during football games? How do you justify the glorification of alchohol sponsorhips while watching your Atlanta Falcons? Tight t-shirts on Heidi on Tool Time...give me a break!
The purpose of my reply was to offer a method to understand how/what television is being watched in your home not to become legalistic at all.
BTW...Taken ROCKED! Yeah it was violent. And the daughter was tough as nails to take singing lessons after her ordeal.
29. nhe
- 07/23/2009 4:39 pm CDT
TB - are you serious?.......I see nothing difficult to explain to a 15 year old about ED commercials.....and what is wrong with them? - the ones I've seen pretty clearly depict married couples.
I also have no problem with beer commercials, I'm not sure where you're going with that. I even occasionally have a frosty one while watching the Falcons game.
My point about the Tool Time girl was that she was in a show that (at least my) Christian friends viewed as "wholesome entertainment"......she just scratches the surface btw on the problems I had with that show. 25 minutes of cutting each other down and a tacked on 5 minute denouement with some kind of "life lesson"......awful (IMHO) and certainly not "wholesome entertainment". Sure, that can be said about a lot of sitcoms, but to hear folks talk, Home Improvement was the best sit com for Christians since Andy Griffith - maybe that was just my Christian circle.
We look forward to the fall actually to see what kind of new campaign Bud Light comes up with - they traditionally have a brilliant creative marketing department - again, I'm missing the problem here.
30. Bird
- 07/23/2009 4:55 pm CDT
25 minutes of cutting each other down and a tacked on 5 minute denouement with some kind of "life lesson"......awful (IMHO) and certainly not "wholesome entertainment".
nhe, I think that problem is true of most -- if not all -- sitcoms. I don't have much of a taste for sitcoms, even old school ones. (I admit many of them are funny, but funny isn't the universal virtue that cancels out all vice.)
32. Bird
- 07/23/2009 5:04 pm CDT
nhe, I know. I was agreeing with you though it sounded like I was saying, "Yeah, but that's true of most sitcoms." It wasn't meant to be a yes-but type response. Sorry.
34. G. Frederick
- 07/23/2009 7:40 pm CDT
NYPD Blue showed no more sex or violence than a PG 13 movie. Its intent was to be realistic (IMO) not according to its creator. I read an interview with him and he said his sole intended purpose was to see how much he could get away with. and he was specifically directing it at so-called religious people.
35. Thirsty Bear
- 07/23/2009 11:53 pm CDT
I think the point of the post by Bird was to take inventory of time and content of TV watching in relation to Bible Reading and Christian Fellowship. Bird also mentioned that tv is addictive and we should be wary of our behavior around it.
While doing a Nielsen survey, my family discovered that our viewing habits were limited in time but may not have glorified God in content.
Since you asked. Yes. I am serious. Because it is a serious issue.
Your boy is 15...mine are 12 and 9 and I have no issue explaining ED to them as well. But the question was the REDEMPTIVE qualities. I would prefer not explain ED to my kids and prefer explaining when a Nickel defense should be used while watching my Dallas Cowboys. But there are families that are disgusted by these commercials. Is it weird to hear a 4-year old girl in Sunday School singing a song about a blue pill because the jingle is a remake of an Elvis tune? Did her family take her to an adult club to hear that tune. No. She was watching television.
The anticipated beer commercial may be creative but it glorifies a lifestyle contrary to a Spirit-filled life. These examples came from television and aren't hard to find.
You didn't buy this in a 24-hour store. You didn't stuff this into a brown paper bag or slide it between your mattress. You just turned on your television in your home. Your home...your sanctuary...your safe haven for your family.
Then we gather our family around it. And we justify it by saying we are bonding and we hash over the sinful content to our kids saying-"Well I was in the room and any question was fair game." Yeah...but would you watch it with Jesus in the room. (GOSH...I dislike that statement. I can't believe I posted it.)
"PG-13 Movies have more sex than NYPD Blue" is a weak argument and justifies a behavior. That frustrates me. Or NYPD showed the bad results of affairs and sin. Well, so does the Bible.
A reality show that offers a young woman into compromising situations with different men and is shrugged off as entertainment is voyeuristic and demeaning. That is someone's daughter...or as Driscoll states that is God's daughter.
NYPD Blue creator's intent was to see how much he could get away with. Interesting. I wonder how many Christians daily in their walk try to see how much they can get away with.
I tease Bill about his stance on certain movies. But in reality that is a strength that I could only aspire to.
36. nhe
- 07/24/2009 7:29 am CDT
I guess every family is different. My son asked me what ED was a few years ago. I gave him a medical answer and he can kind of shrugged and said "ok". I'm still missing why you see an issue there.
I agree that there often is a lifestyle being celebrated in beer commercials. Our kids are crystal clear however about why we don't embrace that lifestyle.
Gosh, I don't think we're justifying sin by calling watching a ballgame together "bonding" - that's a pretty harsh thing to say. I'm willing to admit a blind-spot, but we talk a lot as a family about maintaining a Phil 4:8 mindset no matter what we're doing.
I still maintain that (for me, not for others) NYPD Blue is a more redemptive way to spend time than Home Improvement. I've mentioned some of the reasons.......I'd need to explain the rest in person somewhere over a beverage of your choice.
I would never call anyone a hypocrite in a public forum, but I do see a double standard among a lot of believers when they say no to certain TV content and yes to the same (and more) when it's packaged in a movie. I think that's being logically consistent (not giving a weak argument).
You're right about Bachelor/Bachelorette reality shows. I totally agree - they're destructive and have zero redeeming value.
37. Bird
- 07/24/2009 8:33 am CDT
prefer explaining when a Nickel defense should be used while watching my Dallas Cowboys.
Thirsty,
Growing up in Houston, it was always frustrating to see how many Cowboys fans lived in Houston. So, tell me, how did you become a Cowboys fan? (If you're from the Dallas area and moved to Houston, you get a pass. Any other excuse doesn't fly and speaks directly to your depraved mentality.)
Good thoughts, by the way, Thirsty. Same to you NHE.
38. Thirsty Bear
- 07/24/2009 9:11 am CDT
Thanks Bird.
nhe-no disagreement on your thoughts. Lord knows I have my issues with hypocrisy in the men I see in churches. My tone is intentional. We're men having a discussion on a public forum. Men can do that. We can say what needs to be said (right or wrong) then offer to purchase each other drinks and discuss further.
Bird...unfortunatley no excuse will suffice...I'm from San Antonio...no hometome football team...our household was blue Cowboy all the way. I'm transplanted into Houston. Which I believe is the GREATEST city on the Earth. (there goes my credibility) Now...I love the Oilers/Texans...but I grew up a Cowboy fan. Tom Landry, Staubach. Yes..I'm depraved.
39. nhe
- 07/24/2009 9:22 am CDT
I'm willing to place a friendly wager for those drinks on the Falcons/Cowboys game this year. These are two teams passing each other - one on the way up, the other on the way down......no clearer sign of this than the Cowboys seeing the "pile jumping, over-the-hill" ex-Falcon Keith Brooking as a LB upgrade. Nice guy though......see ya on our way up.
41. Bill
- 07/24/2009 3:57 pm CDT
General note on the conversation: there's plenty of hypocrisy to be found in all of us.
About the Cowboys . . . Man! There was something greatly to be admired in the Staubach/Dorsett/Pearson/etc. days. Lots to be admired in the Aikman/Smith/Irvin days too.
Now? Romo hanging by the pool with Jessica Simpson with a big playoff game on the line, no playoff wins for evah. Plenty of talent, zero character.
I'm with nhe . . .
[Bill raises his iced tea in a toast, and challenges Thirsty Bear to an arm wrestling contest. Pass the nachos, dudes!]
Leave a Comment:
You go, Bird! Go hard!