Runaway Planet

WHERE IS RELIGION ON MAINSTREAM TV?

Michael Higgins asks that important question in this perceptive Toronto Star column. He begins:

Religion, or more specifically, faith and spirituality, don't sell on television the same way sex and murder do. The recent U.S. election was largely fought on the cultural values issue, and one of the longstanding issues for U.S. voters is the no-holds-barred approach to network programming and scheduling. The election debates revealed great concern over the general fare of American TV, yet the ratings demonstrate a wide popular acceptance of, if not craving for, the most sexual, violent, lowbrow shows imaginable.

What gives?

As the television executives struggle to satisfy the needs of the "religious demographic," they have to respond to the market in the best way they know how. The result is arrant silliness. In November in The New York Times, Bill Carter concluded: "It is possible that some secondary characters on new television shows will exhibit strong religious beliefs, and an occasional plotline may examine the impact of faith on some characters' lives."

But with Desperate Housewives and CSI leading the ratings, TV shows are far more likely to keep pumping from the deep well of murder, mayhem and sexual transgression than to seek diversion along the straight and narrow. Talk about trivialization.

The failure of many, if not most, of the commercial and public broadcasting networks to incorporate religious themes and ideas into their programming has led to a proliferation of faith-based channels keen on either replacing or supplementing the national TV diet.

Eternal Word Television Network, Vision TV, CTS, Salt + Light Television, are just a few undertakings hellbent (pardon the expression) on providing a sane alternative to the coverage or portrayal of religious issues on major networks.

And who can blame them when you consider the embarrassing caricatures, dull-witted commentary, and blatant animus that too often define "secular" treatment of religion in the mainstream media. The danger lies, of course, in identifying religion as a niche subject, akin to golf or horror movies.

Exactly correct. Religion is treated as a niche subject in mainstream media and it is not. It is, as Higgins goes on to point out, the prime determiner of human meaning. It should be as big a part of the entertainment industry's output as it is a part of people's everyday lives. Read the rest of the article for an example of a show from BBC that pulls it off.

IS THE REAL WORLD SO PROMISCUOUS?

Television executives claim that TV's current infatuation with adultery and promiscuity (Desperate Housewives, for just one example) is simply a reflection of the real world. However, Chuck Colson isn't so sure. In this interesting article, he argues that this trend might just reflect the gay male worldview of the program's creators.

THE GOSPEL ON MTV

Last night (for the second Sunday evening in a row) I found myself flipping back and forth between  two very similar television programs: ABC's Extreme Makeover: Home Edition and MTV's Pimp My Ride. If you haven't seen them, both shows choose a deserving individual or family and completely renovate a piece of their property. In each episode, Makeover takes on a house, while Pimp My Ride fixes up a car.

It's really amazing to watch what these people can do. Not only do they repair what was broken and bring the house or car back to its original  state, they improve it immensely. The owners start out with broken down pieces of junk and end up with something that is better than it ever was. I love watching the transformation.

The hallmark of good art that it points one towards something more real and more important than the art itself. It may sound strange to call these shows art but I'm going  to because I think their strength is that they (unintentionally, certainly) give us a great picture of the fulfillment of deepest needs and desires. We live in a beat up, broken down world and we desperately, on both a personal and universal level, need to be made new. Of course that is exactly what the Bible says God is in the business of doing. The old is being made not only like new, but better than new.  When we see the finished product, I imagine our response will be even more emotional than the recipients of these benevolent networks. Unless of course, we refuse the offer of transformation.

TV AND THE LOSS OF REASON

You may have noticed that the presidential debates are no longer real debates, but rather dual press conferences in which each man is judged according to what “vibe” he puts across to the audience. In a real debate, people put forward linear, logical, well thought out arguments in support of a position and then someone tries to debunk that position by presenting a philosophically and evidentially well-supported argument against it. Our culture no longer values this process. We are looking for good emotions, not deep thoughts. We want a president to make me feel good about him, not convince me that he is right. Because of this, debates are now all about style. We choose a “winner” of the contest by evaluating posture, facial expressions and tone of voice; after all, these are things that produce emotional responses in us. This is not a good development and does not bode well for the future of our nation.

Unfortunately, politics is not the only arena in which we make decisions based on emotion rather than logic and evidence. It is also how we choose religions. It doesn’t seem to matter whether or not a religion has any evidence supporting its truthfulness or not; as long as it makes us feel good about ourselves, we’ll buy it. As such, real religious debates are about as common as political ones. When is the last time you heard two people honestly discussing whether or not Joseph Smith or Mohammed were really prophets of God? Or whom do you know that honestly chose a religion because the hard evidence convinced them it was true?

There are a few out there, I know, but they are few. Thankfully, one such man is trying to change all that. Lee Strobel does his his best to make people consider the evidence. He is an lawyer and author who is now venturing into television. His show, Faith Under Fire, debuts tomorrow night. It is being billed as the Hardball (the political debate show on MSNBC) of religion. As glad as I am that he is there, and as much as I encourage you to check out the show, I don’t expect a ton of people to suddenly be convinced of the truth of Christianity and changing their religion because of this show. The problem is that it is on television.

I’ve talked before about how television is a medium in which rational debate is next to impossible. The TV screen simply is not conducive to intelligent discourse. Television is inherently about visuals and emotion, and therefore does entertainment very well. However, it is not a good place to make people think. TV numbs the brain – it does not stimulate it. Show’s like Hardball are successful because they entertain, not because they convince anyone to change the way they think. The format is to pit two or three dogmatic, outspoken people against each other over an issue and let them yell at each other. It is not rational argument – it’s a side-show. I hope that Faith Under Fire can strive for a higher level, but the fact of television is that if it doesn’t entertain, it doesn’t stay on the air long, so we’ll see what happens.

EVERYTHING YOU EVER WANTED... THEN WHAT?

I've been blogging a bit less lately and that will continue at least over the long weekend as I try to catch up on some other things in my life. The fact that there might be more to life than blogging is a tough pill to swallow, but I am trying.

I did find time to catch some of the American Idol finale last night. I thought Fantaisa was a good choice but the most interesting part of the night for me occurred when Simon Cowell was asked what the winner would receive as a reward. He said something to the effect of “Everything she has ever wanted – money, fame, money, celebrity, and more money” I’m paraphrasing a bit, but you get the idea.

My only thought at that point was “How sad.” Assuming Simon is right, and the singers are in the contest only for fame and fortune (and it may not be - Cowell's comments may be saying more about himself than the finalists), one of these hard working kids is finally going to realize their dream, and they are going to find it utterly unfulfilling.

These types of dreams are unfulfilling becasue they are too small. Humans were not made to be satisfied by material and temporal things. We are eternal, spiritual creatures, made for union with God. Until we get restoration of that relationship, all other pursuits are a waste of time.

IT ISN'T REAL UNTIL IT'S ON TV

I've noted before how America has moved from a word based and therefore cognitive society to one that is overwhelmingly visual and therefore emotional. One of the strange side effects of this development is that, even with unprecedented access to information, people don't latch onto a story until they see pictures and can really feel it. Over at getreligion, Terry Mattingly does a great job of explaining how stories of prisoner abuse in Iraq have been out for months but it wasn't until we saw the pictures that the "scandal" erupted. He also suggests some other interesting applications of this principle.

FORMER FRIENDS, THANKFULLY

Gotta agree with Adam Buckman: "I'll say this for "Friends": It went out as it came in 10 years ago - as the blandest, most artless comedy series ever to top the Nielsen charts in the history of television."

THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT

So I thought the highest form of acheivment in life is fame and fortune. Isn't that what society tells us all the time? Isn't that why we worship rich celebrities? So then why is Pat Tillman being hailed as a national hero? He gave up millions of dollars and the status of pro football star to become an army ranger after 9/11 and then was killed serving in Afghanistan. (His memorial service was today.) One would think that he would be held up as an example of what not to do with your life. Why isn't he? Becuase the truth cannot be completely suppressed. Every so often it will poke its beautiful head up for a brief shining moment before being shoved back down. Our consciences know that sacrifice for others is better than fame and fortune because that is the way the universe is set up. God created it that way. It is simply the truth. Unfortunately, by tomorrow evening's American Idol telecast it will be forgotten.

TV HOMICIDE

Good stuff from Max and Liz Goss's blog:

Last night, Britain's Channel 4 televised My Foetus, a documentary containing footage of the abortion of an unborn baby four weeks into a pregnancy. Here is an interesting article from the Herald Sun about reactions to the documentary.

One bit of the article was particularly heartening:

"Journalist Lauren Booth, a pro-choicer who has also had an abortion, said she recoiled when watching the film's pivotal moment.
'My hand flew to my mouth in shock,' she said.
'I swallowed. I didn't want to say it, but the word 'murder' came to my lips.'"

That just about sums it up.

WHO'S OPEN MINDED NOW?

One of the more interesting things about last night's Peter Jennings Jesus program was Jennings' legitimate wonderment at how the "Jesus Movement" went from absolute obscurity (the death of the leader and the scattering of all His followers) to the largest religion in the world.

When asked by Jennings, liberal and conservative scholars agreed that the crux of the answer is two alleged appearances of the risen Jesus: to the disciples on resurrection Sunday and to Paul on the road to Damascus. Before these appearances, the movement was essentially finished. The disciples were huddled in a room, depressed and afraid and Paul was a persecutor of Christians. After these appearances, both Paul and the disciples became radical world changers for Jesus.

No serious scholar doubts that Paul and the disciples believed that Jesus was resurrected. The transformation in their lives was too great for them to be simply making it up. It is clear that these men must have seen something as one does not face persecution for something one knows to be untrue. So the question becomes, "What did they see?"

I think an unbiased look at the evidence suggests that they actually saw the risen Christ. There is no better explantion. Unfortunately, namy scholars cannot accept that because they have a prior commitment to metaphysical naturalism. They say that, although we don't really know what they saw, since we already know supernatural things don't happen and therefore men don't rise from the dead, it couldn't have been the risen Christ.

It's too bad and more than a little ironic. These liberal scholars usually present themselves as the "open minded" ones. However, because of their own bias against the supernatural, their minds are closed to the light that leads to life.