a structure's decay
the move of the networks towards cable-quality programming has continued to evolve over the years. as more and more words have become acceptable on television, more and more words have become acceptable in everyday conversation...even among christians. with the language has come the level of violence and sexual content. there are many who argue that people shouldn't waste their time fighting such things; it's not that big of a deal, just turn off the tv. fair enough, we do have that level of control. but are we really supposed to just throw our hands up and say to hell with our culture...literally? especially when the decay has started showing up in the church as more and more people become desensitized to it, with many actually becoming a part of it? "oh, well, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." i don't think the "i can reach more people if i identify more closely with them" really works. all too often i'm afraid they're just reaching us.
admittedly, our mandate to be in the world but not of it is a tough one to live out. i do not believe nor support a separatist mindset or agenda. i do support the church changing strategies and often appearances to better meet the needs of those around us. but where do we draw the line? at what point do we stop and say, "no further...we've moved too close and identified too much"? frankly, i'm not sure where that line is, but it seems to me the line is becoming fuzzier everyday.
i'm not a big boycott person. sometimes it works to change things and sometimes it doesn't. sometimes those who boycott win the battle but lose the war. sometimes i quietly boycott something simply because i don't want to be a supporter of what is going on without trying to make some "political" statement. but at what point do we stand up, not as a political special-interest group, but as a people who care deeply for the world around us and, at the very least, make it known that we don't agree with what is happening? it's a tough call. there were times when Jesus stood up and very clearly made His displeasure known. there were times when He, Himself, appeared to have blurred the lines. yet He always did it in an appropriate way. there are some who think they've got it all figured out; that they always know the appropriate way and time in which to engage the culture. i am not one of those people. i struggle with it, but i am struggling. i do want to engage the culture in a meaningful and honest way who very lovingly but sometimes strongly takes a real stand. enough of the chameleon christians.
i came across an article related to the move of the networks towards more promiscuous programming choices. recently abc aired saving private ryan in which they chose not to heavily edit it. the result was a movie during prime time that was riddled with profanity and, you know if you've seen it, very graphic violence. here is the writer's take on it:
admittedly, our mandate to be in the world but not of it is a tough one to live out. i do not believe nor support a separatist mindset or agenda. i do support the church changing strategies and often appearances to better meet the needs of those around us. but where do we draw the line? at what point do we stop and say, "no further...we've moved too close and identified too much"? frankly, i'm not sure where that line is, but it seems to me the line is becoming fuzzier everyday.
i'm not a big boycott person. sometimes it works to change things and sometimes it doesn't. sometimes those who boycott win the battle but lose the war. sometimes i quietly boycott something simply because i don't want to be a supporter of what is going on without trying to make some "political" statement. but at what point do we stand up, not as a political special-interest group, but as a people who care deeply for the world around us and, at the very least, make it known that we don't agree with what is happening? it's a tough call. there were times when Jesus stood up and very clearly made His displeasure known. there were times when He, Himself, appeared to have blurred the lines. yet He always did it in an appropriate way. there are some who think they've got it all figured out; that they always know the appropriate way and time in which to engage the culture. i am not one of those people. i struggle with it, but i am struggling. i do want to engage the culture in a meaningful and honest way who very lovingly but sometimes strongly takes a real stand. enough of the chameleon christians.
i came across an article related to the move of the networks towards more promiscuous programming choices. recently abc aired saving private ryan in which they chose not to heavily edit it. the result was a movie during prime time that was riddled with profanity and, you know if you've seen it, very graphic violence. here is the writer's take on it:
FCC Chairman Michael Powell has asked that no action be taken against the ABC stations that aired over 20 uses of the "f" word and at least 12 "s" words during "Saving Private Ryan," which shown during prime time last month.as i said before, there is always the opportunity to simply turn the station. frankly, i agree that in order for an adult to fully understand really what happened over there, as i think we should, much of the language and violence needed to be accurately portrayed (just as the violence was necessary in the passion of the christ), but i also think that can be seen by renting the dvd. i don't think it necessary to put it on a network channel during prime time, despite the warnings of the content. we must remember that we as tax-payers own the airways. networks basically lease the usage of them, so it is not outside of our rights and, frankly, our responsibility as owners to say something. however, if the manager is taking sides with tenants, it seems the only option is for the owners to either make a change or lose the whole building. for many christians, at least, the debate seems to be over whether the "building" is even worth keeping up.
Powell's reason for taking no action opens the door for broadcasters to show any type programming. He believes there should be no action because the use of the profanity was part of an accurate representation of the events depicted, and this made them acceptable.
Using Powell's reasoning, a show about the sex life of two homosexuals would be free to show graphic sex because it would be an accurate representation of their sexual activity. There would be no limits regarding what could be shown and the law regarding indecent material would be meaningless. Any program, no matter how indecent, could claim that the material was needed in order to be an accurate representation.
If Powell can get only two other Commissioners to agree with him, then the networks and local broadcasters will be free to show anything. Everything they show, no matter how indecent, could be classified as being an accurate representation. That is what they have been wanting for years. Powell is only two votes away from giving the broadcasters their desire.
We realize it is important for families, especially our children, to recognize the sacrifices made by our loved ones during wartime. However, airing excessively profane language during prime-time television hours is not necessary to convey that sacrifice. We believe ABC should have aired their salute to heroes without violating broadcast decency laws.
The movie could have easily have been edited for TV, but ABC refused. Powell is now defending ABC's move, making it possible to open Pandora's box on program content.
Labels: David C. Price
posted by DAVID C. PRICE at 12/16/2004 09:30:00 AM
|
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home