Our country is so corrupted by libertinism, multicultural mishmash, suicidal tendencies (keeping the southern border open for Middle Eastern Muslims to cross, for example) and so many other things, a Republican majority in Congress, the White House and in state legislatures is virtually meaningless. If anyone believes that George Bush’s re-election means America will become more “moral,” you’re deluded.
I weep for an ideal that will never be, that is, until Christ returns. Living in a fallen world means just that…a fallen world, filled with corruption.
That’s why I laughed when I read the lead to this article (reg. req.):
Leaders of The Parents Television Council today released a study of prime time programming that they say shows that Hollywood “has virtually no respect for religion.”
Big news, right? Besides the salaciousness of Hollywood, it’s downright disrespectful of Christianity. Notice how “fundamentalist” Christians are always portrayed as crazy, backward simps who harbor an irrational hatred of “the world” while everyone else is level-headed and kind.
I don’t know any Christian who walks up to people, shoves a Bible in their face and shouts warnings of hellfire and damnation. While it’s true that without Christ, they are going to hell, that’s not how the Bible instructs us to share the Gospel. But why would anyone expect trashy, Christ-hating Hollywood to portray biblical Christians in a positive way?
Before you say, “But what about Touched By An Angel?,” let me tell you the real deal. That show was nothing more than Hollywood throwing “religious” folks a bone, an unscriptural one at that. Jesus Christ wasn’t the focus of the show, and the God of the Bible wasn’t in view. I’ve seen only two or three episodes, but I’m willing to conclude that Christ’s name was never uttered once during the show’s entire run.
It was the we-worship-the-same-grandfather-in-the-sky-non-judgmental entity sitting up there watching us poor humans trying to manage. The unbiblical portrayal of “angels” meddling in people’s lives is foreign to any Christian doctrine I’m aware of. But hey, a bone is bone, right?
While I think it’s a waste of time trying to clean up Hollywood, I applaud the Parents Television Council (PTC) for providing a ratings system for parents concerned about the smut on TV. The PTC released a study which found that “television’s treatment of religion has become increasingly negative and doesn’t reflect the viewpoints of a majority of Americans.”
I don’t know why a report about Hollywood’s negative portrayal of religion is necessary. Let’s be plainspoken here. “Religion” is most often a euphemism for Christianity, not Judaism or Islam or Buddhism or any other religion you can think of. Something about the name of Christ drives people crazy.
The report, “Faith in a Box: Entertainment Television and Religion,” is the sixth PTC study to look at religion on TV. The last one, from 1997, showed fewer, but more positive treatments of religion.
In a press conference, Wright blamed the negative portrayals on Hollywood’s creative community which he said is unfamiliar with the subject of faith. “It’s a long standing issue with Hollywood. I think the issue has to do with the makeup of persons in Hollywood and their own personal convictions. I believe a low percentage of people in Hollywood consider themselves to be people of faith.”
[Brent] Bozell, a Catholic, said, “Is it because Hollywood is Jewish and taking care of its own? No, I don’t think that. In the popular culture of America, 99% of the public, and also in Hollywood, there is an understanding that respect is owed to Jews. It’s as simple as that. That same respect ought to be paid to other faiths as well.”
While Bozell is risking charges of anti-Semitism, which is just another way to stifle speech you don’t like, I must agree, though I risk the same. I refuse to let accusations of homophobia shut me up, so I have to say the same about anti-Semitism, but that’s another post.
By the way, I’ve decided to limit commenting on the new blog only to posts where I solicit reader input. I will retain trackbacks, which I think are vitally important to the growth and vibrancy of the blogosphere. This blog is my personal forum, and if anyone wants to respond to or challenge anything I have to say, they are free to start their own blogs or e-mail me.
Thanks for the feedback on the “Commenting” post. 
Update (12/18): “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” (2 Corinthians 4:4)
It’s been my experience that American Christianity is not Christian at all and that fundamentalists are hateful towards the world. I am a Christian myself, but it’s very clear that much of American Christianity is a joke and not connected to Christ at all. It is, at best, idolotry that includes Jesus.
Comment by Michael — 12.17.04 @ 9:06 am
Michael - Your assertions are completely gratuitous. How about some facts to back them up? Surely you wouldn’t indict an entire group because of the actions of a few.
Or are you one of those who likes to throw the hate word around in order to stifle dissent and marginalize your opponents?
Opposing the advancement of homosexuality in the public square and protecting the unborn can hardly be considered hateful.
Comment by Jeff Blogworthy — 12.17.04 @ 9:19 am
I’m glad you mentioned ‘Touched by an Angel’.
That show was pure junk I saw nothing Christian about it.
Comment by Keith — 12.17.04 @ 9:41 am
I can see now why La Shawn is starting to limit comments.
I shall probably do the same.
Click on my name to learn the connection between the MSM’s fixation with destroying Christianity and the prevalence of domestic terror acts. Is it any wonder why Scott Peterson gets more coverage than the D.C. sniper or the Montreal school bomber?
Comment by salt1907 — 12.17.04 @ 9:50 am
Hollywood hates Christ - Satan loves Hollywood - Christ hates sin - Hollywood loves and worships itself……….and so it goes.
Jesus Christ’s own words in Matthew 7:14 “small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”
Comment by Dave in AZ — 12.17.04 @ 9:55 am
Sadly I can’t think of a single character on television who represents a positive picture of committed Christianity. Some seem to come close, but I find they usually are sympathetic because of the ways in which their behavior is not Christlike i.e. the priest who cusses.
Just my thoughts.
Comment by Teem — 12.17.04 @ 10:51 am
The most Christian television drama I’ve ever seen was the short-lived “Nothing Sacred” on ABC. (Yeah, that show that some Catholics and Evangelicals got all hopping mad over.) The series concerned an inner-city (Philadelphia, I think) Catholics church and the various people who worked there. Unlike many “religious” television shows, they didn’t just talk about “God,” but had the guts to talk about Jesus, specifically. (Think about it; that’s pretty rare.) The characters weren’t perfect, and they stuggled to connect their faith with their personal lives. It was a fascinating show, and one that connected with me deeply. Sadly, it was treated poorly by ABC, always being moved around on their schedule, until it was cancelled with about 5 episodes having never aired.
I would love to see a DVD release of this program. I would buy it in a heartbeat.
Comment by Drew — 12.17.04 @ 10:59 am
Even a show like 7th Heaven, which is based around a minister & his family, doesn’t portray Christianity accurately. It’s a shame. There are several shows I won’t watch anymore b/c of their persistently negative portrayal of Christians (Law & Order springs immediately to mind).
Are there others I should be aware of so I don’t get sucked in?
Comment by LawWife — 12.17.04 @ 11:13 am
La Shawn,
It is comments such as the very first one on this thread from “Michael” that confirm for me that your decision to limit them in the future is a wise one.
Why should you be attacked in a public forum by snipers who hide in the shadows? Readers should note that “Michael” is indeed a cowardly sniper who launches his attacks not only against you but against Christianity from the safety of virtual anonymity.
As for you, “Michael,” it would behoove you to reflect upon the meaning of the name “Michael.” The name is a question and it means “Who is like God?” Here’s a hint at the answer to that question for you to meditate upon “Michael” — it isn’t you.
Comment by Frank Villon — 12.17.04 @ 11:15 am
Actually Frank, I found your reply to have more measurable venom and sarcasm than Michael’s. Whether we agree with Michael or not is another matter, but his posed an idea instead of simply criticizing another’s comments wholesale.
I have to admit, Michael, that I have wondered on many occasions about whether or not Jesus would recognize Christianity as it is today. There are so many different varieties with opinions that clash and contradict, even amongst the scholars who insist that they take the words of the bible literally and use His written words as their only guide.
I disagree with you that it is solely an American problem; I find the accusation that it is a joke and not connected to Christ to be offensive and incorrect. I will agree that we are not perfect, but I feel that humanity as a whole is stumbling in a good direction even as we are strive imperfectly to defend ourselves from Evil.
With respect to your accusations I assume that you are replying, in part, to LaShawn’s article and lamenting over their diluting influence in our culture. LaShawn and Keith’s example of Touched by an Angel represent the best face they (Hollywood) can put on the topic… and even it dilutes Christianity to a watery, flavorless porridge of politically correct good intentions.
What can we do, beyond making noise that we are not pleased and want alternative programming?
I will simply do my best as a parent to be as good an example as I can for my son, laud the efforts of people like the Parents Television Council and blogs like this one for providing a forum on topics that are interesting, poignant and good examples in and of themselves.
Comment by Michael E. Cummins — 12.17.04 @ 11:40 am
Yep. I’ll never understand it. I had this debate with this French guy whose biggest fear was religious people.
I kept asking him what in the world does he fear that religious people will do to you?
Criminals, psychopaths, rapists, murders, etc. I can understand people being fearful of. I’m not sure why people openly express such fear and hate of religious people.
I might’ve been able to understand if the guy was gay and he feared that his “right” to marry might be taken away….. but wait, he’s never been able to marry another man ever. And he does have a right to marry a woman and he could cheat on her and divorce and marry again and cheat and divorce and guess what…. no religious person is going to harm him.
Heaven forbid that religious people express their views according to this guy….
…. and Michael.
P.S. The most judgmental, accusation throwing, ready to throw someone in the brig type of people in my eyes are liberals with no faith. Just my perspective.
Comment by Baklava — 12.17.04 @ 11:45 am
Watch for the Internet, as technology increases, to replace TV shows with “home grown” versions that explore areas Hollywood is too terrified of or too filled with animosity toward to even approach.
Christians have a responsibility to be active in and glorify God through all manner of work and labor, including movies and television.
Comment by Christopher Taylor — 12.17.04 @ 1:18 pm
Shocker that the PTC would come to any other conclusion.
Comment by actus — 12.17.04 @ 1:50 pm
*Sigh* The more I read, the more I’m amazed by the unbelievable irrational hatred out there. Is it just me, or has “christophobia” crossed the line from absurdity to delusional and paranoid?
I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised. There was a time when Christians were thrown to the lions, after all. Somedays I wonder if our wonderfully enlightened society is so far removed from doing that again?
Comment by Feeble Knees — 12.17.04 @ 2:35 pm
RE: Frank Villon’s comment “As for you, “Michael,” it would behoove you to reflect upon the meaning of the name “Michael.” The name is a question and it means “Who is like God?” Here’s a hint at the answer to that question for you to meditate upon “Michael” – it isn’t you.”
Wow. Mike’s comment was a valid critisim of much of the idolotry that goes on within the disguise of being Christian, and this is the response? Gee La Shawn, maybe this crowd isn’t ready for comments.
There is an awful lot of idolotry that goes on among us, but that is a topic for another day.
Re: the Jews…We as Christians should shoulder some of the blame. Good shows on PAX and other networks hardly get a notice. We do have a responsibility to show the networks that these shows are commercially feasable. When PAX starts showing up with ratings near FOX, then we will see some movement on the issue. Remember, your loudest voice is your money.
Comment by stephen johnson — 12.17.04 @ 3:02 pm
Joan of Arcadia, which could be considered a hipper version of Touched by an Angel, doesn’t proclaim the gospel either. The premise of the show is that a teenage girl is given assignments by God to make the world a better place. While things do turn out for the best ( how could it not; its TV)Joan spends most of her time questioning and being rude to God. God, in turn, never demands Joan to repent, and never mentions His Son. Therapy replaces holiness in the world of television, and the message of the cross is completely ignored
Comment by Steve — 12.17.04 @ 3:08 pm
Actually, we as Christians should shoulder ALL of the blame. After all, the country is overwhelmingly Christian. Playing the ‘blame game’ is not appropriate, IMHO.
Comment by stephen johnson — 12.17.04 @ 3:08 pm
Good post, as usual. I must say, however, that I liked “Touched by an Angel.” Ok, it was not scriptural. But it was so much more watchable and inspiring than most of what is out there. The Hallmark channel is not a bad family channel, though not all of it is good. I have a friend who works on the PTC, because she cares very much about trying to improve the world. Just because we know that these are the end days, and that the world won’t really get better until Christ’s return, doesn’t mean that God doesn’t expect us to try to bring as much light and goodness to the world as we can, I think. Anyway, you do so much good work here, and I am grateful for it, and for your inspiring us all.
Thank you!
Comment by Peggy Snow Cahill — 12.17.04 @ 3:08 pm
I didn’t find Michaels comments offensive at all. He qualified it by first stating “It’s been my experience…”, so if that is the conclusion he comes to based on his experience, well, so be it. While I don’t necessarily agree with his assessment of American Christianity or that fundamentalists are hateful, for that particular word is ambiguous at best. I do agree though that much of modern Christianity in this country in particular is not authentic and has become very commercialized and down right false. My contention comes mainly from what I’ve experienced and seen in the Black church. High degrees of emotionalism, using faith as a force, evoking the name of Jesus like a voodoo spell, and promises of great material blessings from “sowing seeds” come to mind as some examples of this. These among other examples have contributed to the inaccurate and false portrayals of Christians in the media.
Comment by Jerry McClellan — 12.17.04 @ 3:10 pm
Jerry- “what I’ve experienced and seen in the Black church. High degrees of emotionalism, using faith as a force, evoking the name of Jesus like a voodoo spell, and promises of great material blessings from “sowing seeds” come to mind as some examples of this. These among other examples have contributed to the inaccurate and false portrayals of Christians in the media.”
Blackfolk have neither the lock nor the concession for being spiritually emotional. Further, I think your ‘voodoo’ comment was both snide AND insensitive (at best, racist at worst).
But rather than get upset, in the spirit of La Shawns new no comments policy, I will invite you to Church with me. There are several ‘Black’ (God has no color, nor does His church) churches that may challenge your concept of black spirituality.
We are not a bunch of converted savages replacing your good ‘white’ savior with our ancient pagan gods…
Wow. There are caring and compassionate Christians and then there are…
Comment by stephen johnson — 12.17.04 @ 3:27 pm
In regards to my voodoo comment, I guess you can find racism in anything. Who exactly did I offend?
“We are not a bunch of converted savages replacing your good ‘white’ savior with our ancient pagan gods…
”
Who is “we” and where did I say my savior was white?
As far as my comment regarding the Black church, I will clarify a bit, I am specifically referring to those churches that fall within the pentacostal and word of faith movements. Although, I don’t believe my earlier comment implied that all Black churches fall within such criteria.
Thank you for the invite but I enjoy my church just fine. What is “Black spirituality” anyway if God or His church have no color?
Comment by Jerry McClellan — 12.17.04 @ 3:47 pm
Jerry - I think you have some explaining to do.
Those styles of worship are not limited to the ‘black’ church (as you attempt to smear them, nice try). There are white Pentecostal faiths that are ‘highly emotional’ in their worship style. There are many ‘prosperity’ churches who are non-black and support sowing seeds. I’ve seen examples on television.
And I’m so sorry but I’ve been to several churches that were prodominately non-black, where people clapped, sung and exalted the name of our Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus and guess what: THEY DID IT OUT LOUD.
Your comments are counterproductive to the spirit of this discussion.
May God open your eyes, ears and heart to try to understand that people may worship differently but the intent is always the same: to edify and magnify the Father.
Comment by Tiffany in Minneapolis — 12.17.04 @ 3:49 pm
And while I’m at it: Though I might agree that Christianity is becoming commercialized in this country, I don’t don’t think any particular race or religious group has a monopoly on commercialization.
Flip through TBN, BET Sunday Gospel or any of your local religious programming stations and you can see what I’m referring to. You don’t think Pat Robertson, Joel Osteen or Joyce Meyer aren’t commercial as Creflo Dollar or Bishop McClendon???
Try again, Jerry, try again.
Comment by Tiffany in Minneapolis — 12.17.04 @ 3:58 pm
You did not say, penecostal, or another denomination, you said, “what I’ve experienced and seen in the Black church.”
“Although, I don’t believe my earlier comment implied that all Black churches fall within such criteria.” Sir, that is exactly what your earlier comment implied. you called it “the Black church.” The structure of your sentence, logically, referred to all within the category of “the Black church.”
I appreciate your clarification.
“What is “Black spirituality” anyway if God or His church have no color?” You’re asking me? You were the one discussing the “Black church,” you tell me what you meant. Oh, that’s right, you meant to dismiss pentecostals and ‘word of faith’ (though to be honest, I have no idea what that particular denomination is), not ALL Black people of faith. OK. Sorry, I can see that so clearly from your post…*sigh*
And I was doing so well, playing nice with others….
Comment by stephen johnson — 12.17.04 @ 4:00 pm
Why is it that when somone points out the shortcomings of Blacks, people get on the defensive and have to point out the shortcomings of Whites and other groups also? Pointing out the actions of one group doesn’t justify the actions of another, does it?
My original statement was based solely on my experience in being a part of and observing the Black church, mainly pentacostal churches as is clarified in my original statement here:
“My contention comes mainly from what I’ve experienced and seen in the Black church.”
Stating such doesn’t exclude the fact that there are also predominantly White churches who are guilty of the same. Why is my statement seen as an attempt to smear the Black church just because I don’t mention White churches?
“And I’m so sorry but I’ve been to several churches that were prodominately non-black, where people clapped, sung and exalted the name of our Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus and guess what: THEY DID IT OUT LOUD.”
No need to be sorry but this comment seems out of place given that my comment was not about worshipping God out load vs. quietly.
Comment by Jerry McClellan — 12.17.04 @ 4:01 pm
Jerry, you are called to answer for your categorization of “the Black church.” I call into question your views on (And the quotes are for your benefit) ‘Black spirtuality.’ We (as in black people) don’t ALL clap and sing in the manner the penecostals do. They are not wrong in that (which I think is the REAL problem with your point, degrading the way someone else glorified Christ), but that is hardly the norm for ALL Black people.
I found your analogy disrespectful, and because the kind of worship you describe is in the minority, I find your utter lack of knowledge very telling. Rather than admit, “well, I just didn’t realize there was so much diversity…Perhaps I was a little disrespectful,” you challenge on the grounds “why is it ALWAYS about race?” But nobody made it about race but you. I only called you on it.
Comment by stephen johnson — 12.17.04 @ 4:09 pm
“somone points out the shortcomings of Blacks…” What ’shortcoming of MY PEOPLE did you point out exactly?
“my experience in being a part of and observing the Black church, mainly pentacostal” By virtue of this staement alone, you prove my contention that you have visited but the MINORITY of ‘black churches’, as Penecostal isn’t even that popular of a denomination…Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalian, A.M.E.’ers, Catholics; wow off the TOP of my head the main denominations of Afican Americans in this country come to mind. Your pentecostals don’t even make the top 5. So with that being the case, how thourough would you describe your “experience in being a part of and observing?”
Comment by stephen johnson — 12.17.04 @ 4:15 pm
Not that I mean any disrespect to any denomination. Pentecostal or otherwise. Beleif in the divinity of OUR LORD and SAVIOR is what matters. At least so I thought.
Gee Jerry, maybe you were right about Michael’s original post. Perhaps, “fundamentalists are hateful towards the world.”
Or, perhaps you are not as open as you first believed.
Comment by stephen johnson — 12.17.04 @ 4:19 pm
Jerry - You know exactly what you were saying when you said it so don’t try to play me or Stephen for some idiots.
You said: ‘I do agree though that much of modern Christianity in this country in particular is not authentic and has become very commercialized and down right false. My contention comes mainly from what I’ve experienced and seen in the Black church.’
The implied message in your statement is that worship styles that you have noted in SOME black churches translate to being the reason Christianity has become commercialized and down right false in this country. I’m a black woman but you don’t have to be black to know that’s that a loaded statement.
And my last comment: And I’m so sorry but I’ve been to several churches that were prodominately non-black, where people clapped, sung and exalted the name of our Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus and guess what: THEY DID IT OUT LOUD.”
You responded:
No need to be sorry but this comment seems out of place given that my comment was not about worshipping God out load vs. quietly.
This comment related back to the point you were attempting to make about the ‘high emotionalism’ in the worship style of SOME black churches and my attempt (obviously failed, because you didn’t get it) to point out that non-blacks worship in an emotive style as well.
And I agree with Stephen, don’t try to trump with the race card. That dog don’t hunt.
And don’t get annoyed because he called you out either.
I’ll be the first to admit when black folk are wrong, but I’m not going to sit idly and let someone make blanket baseless statements either.
Comment by Tiffany in Minneapolis — 12.17.04 @ 4:26 pm
The reason that your ‘voodoo’ comment came across as racist is because voodoo is practiced by and was introduced to Americans through the African slaves who came through the Caribbean islands. I don’t think that you did it intentionally, but that’s a big ouch.
And Tiffany is correct about pentecostal churches of all races. There are plenty of white Pentecostal churches that do a lot of ‘holy rolling’. I don’t “get it”, but apparently they do. I guess I’m not the type to get whipped up into a frenzy about much of anything.
Comment by RepJ — 12.17.04 @ 4:31 pm
Separate comment for the actual topic!
I was never thoroughly impressed with Touched by an Angel. I think Hollywood has had it out for Christians for years. They’ve convinced themselves that they are victims of one thing or another, unable to let bygones be bygones and unable to let go of their own inner struggles. I think their hatred towards Christianity is an inner hatred that they have of themselves.
Comment by RepJ — 12.17.04 @ 4:38 pm
While I do enjoy spirited discussions, sometimes things tend to get personal and people pick sides and jump all over one person, sarcasm flowing freely. I understand the tendency to do this because I do it myself. I just think the original point of the post is being lost.
No offense to anyone commenting on this post, but this is one of the reasons I’m looking forward to blogging with no comment feature. Whoever has a problem with me can e-mail and/or respond on their own blogs, and I don’t have to keep checking to see who’s being unfair to whom, who’s misrepresenting the other’s argument, who’s getting too personal, and so on.
Comment by La Shawn — 12.17.04 @ 4:39 pm
Jerry, see what you did! lol…
Hey La Shawn, if I’ve perpetrated any of the above I’m sorry. I did invite the guy to church though, which is what my Mom always said to do in cases like that.
Comment by stephen johnson — 12.17.04 @ 4:43 pm
LaShawn,
My bad. I was off topic and apologize for hijacking the thread from the original topic.
I have a habit of liking to have the last word…:)
Comment by Tiffany in Minneapolis — 12.17.04 @ 4:47 pm
Wait a minute, you only called me on it? Amazing!
First of all you responded with…
“Blackfolk have neither the lock nor the concession for being spiritually emotional. Further, I think your ‘voodoo’ comment was both snide AND insensitive (at best, racist at worst).”
If that is not making it about race then what is?
Secondly, as has been clarified over and over again, my comment is solely based on my own experience and observations within the Black church and doesn’t imply that all individual Black churches participate in such practices.
Third, I never stated that all Black people worship the same way nor was my statement about how Black people worship. You are reading something into my statement that is not explicitly or implicitly stated. Nor am I degrading how someone glorifies Christ.
If you actually read what I stated you will see that my points are quite clear as to what I am referring to, high degrees of emotionalism, using faith as a force, evoking the name of Jesus like a voodoo spell, and promises of great material blessings from “sowing seeds” , are among many examples that contribute to a false understanding of Christianity.
How is such a statement disrespectful? If, according to you, what I described really is in the minority, then why be offended by it? Pointing out that I have witnessed and experienced such behavior within the confines of the Black church doesn’t imply that all Black people worship the same way. There is a logical disconnect happening when you accuse me of being racist at worst and disrespectful at best for pointing out such a thing.
Once again, Mr. Johnson, what is Black spirituality if God has no color nor does His church? (your words)
Thank you RepJ for the clarification, although it is still not a justification for taking the defensive on such a small point made. Voodoo is an evil practice because it falls outside of the will of God. There are many similarities between the practice of voodoo and the current worship practices found in the Black church, hence my referring to it. Furthermore It should only be a big ouch if you still practice voodoo or if, for some reason, you identify with with such practices.
My statement still stands as is. If you do not like it, well that is your right.
Miss Barber, I apologize for allowing myself to be sucked into a back and forth debate here allowing the topic to go off on a tangent.
Comment by Jerry McClellan — 12.17.04 @ 4:58 pm
Mother may I?
Comment by stephen johnson — 12.17.04 @ 5:05 pm
Why don’t we do it this way: If you want a personal reply via e-mail, what don’t you send me an e-mail? - Admin
Comment by kimberley — 12.17.04 @ 8:29 pm
Movies, if they have people identified as Christians in them as all, usually focus on one character who is a little strange if not outright unsympathetic by being an obvious hateful bigot. What almost always is missing is following the life of Christians as Christians and their life experience in the church. About ten years ago I was in a midweek prayer service where we were receiving missionary reports about the killings Rwanda. I remember one woman saying, “Why don’t we read about all this in the papers?” The people in this church were very involved in sending help to other countries and helping their own community by supporting such things as Foodshare and the local crisis pregnancy center. What is interesting is that if anyone of them were questioned about how they were helping make the world better, an answer might not have been forthcoming because it is so much a part of their life, they don’t even think about it. Mostly, they worship God and give thanks to their Savior. So do so many of us. The media, like many individuals, are interested only in the bad things the church or Christians can be associated with. The first challenge I ever heard about race relations was in a Sunday evening service in a Pentecostal Church I was visiting. The speaker was a Black minister. While in college, the Church I attended had members of all races. The night I was baptized, a Navaho Indian was baptized with me. One church where I was a member sent a team of church members to various missionary sites to help with various projects. They were in Africa helping drill wells in a drought area one year before the media “discovered” the drought. Church activities like these are rarely covered in movies or TV. Perhaps it is because by watching we might learn that there are much better things to be doing that watching movies and TV.
Comment by Evon Bachaus — 12.17.04 @ 9:03 pm
I wouldn’t call “Touched by an Angel” exactly Christian, but it did have a philosophy that was more Christian than Hollywood. In particular, it was about how people are subordinate to God, how we achieve significance through God, and can’t live fulfilling lives outside of God’s will. It’s about sin and redemption. And it’s about eternal life.
It was designed to be acceptable to a wide variety of religious conservatives: Christians, Jews, Mormons, and possibly Muslims. It wasn’t Christian, but it was a lot more acceptable to Christians than most other television.
Comment by Doc Rampage — 12.17.04 @ 9:15 pm
LaShawn,
I noticed how anti-conservative Hollywood was about ten years ago. Movies that I caught unnecessary political propaganda in include, ‘Assassins’, ‘Birdcage’, and ‘Distinguished Gentleman’.
It hasn’t stopped and progressively gets more noticeable. Recently we had movies such as ‘Day After Tomorrow,’ Mythical Moore’s ‘Propaganda 911′, and ‘The Manchurian Candidate’.
With all the political propaganda coming from Hollywood, is it any wonder why America isn’t more liberal?
Comment by Jeff Blanco — 12.17.04 @ 11:43 pm
La Shawn,
I hope you are feeling better. After reading through these comments, I can understand why you decided to eliminate comments. No one should have to wake up in the morning and sort through a mixed lot of thoughtful responses and hateful comments, some directed at you, some at Christians in general and therefore you, also, and some at other commenters. I wouldn’t do it. Stay well and in Him. Evon
Comment by Evon Bachaus — 12.18.04 @ 12:03 am
The best thing that true followers of Jesus Christ can do is turn the TV off–permanently. Maybe if those of us who claim the name of Christ would actually get to know Him intimately, our need to be constantly entertained by the garbage the world feeds us would slough off like it should.
Comment by DLE — 12.18.04 @ 1:55 am
I think Hollywood is reflecting a true picture of the prevalent attitude that American culture–maybe even world culture—has toward Christianity. They are fed up with us and they want to do their own thing without somebody telling them what they can and cannot do. Also, it is so easy to pick on stereotypes for both humor and to elicit a feeling of identity with someone. It leads a person into an us vs. them situation. Christianity is loaded with stereotypes.
I am an evangelical Christian and have a son who has rejected his faith, claiming he is grown up now and no longer believes. My wife and I pray for him. That’s all we can do. We cannot even bring up the subject.
And I agree with La Shawn earlier. We live in a fallen world and really should not be surprised by this. In addition to being full of stereotypes, Christianity is full of anachronisms: first will be last, die to live, lose to find, etc. Christ told us to expect difficulty and persecution. No maybe about it.
The main problem is that as Christians we are called to evangelize and/or proselytize to the four corners of the earth. That bugs people. We cannot be Christians without accepting the Great Commission. Unfortunately evangelism is seen by the unchurched as one of the following: the kind we see on TV (groan), someone getting in your face asking if you’re saved, someone passing out tracts, etc. We on the inside know it can be different, but from the outside looking in, it’s pretty awful.
Also, most other religions are content to co-exist peacefully, with possibly the exception of extreme Islamic fundamentalists. You do your thing. I’ll do my thing. Also, we must admit that religion in general has a pretty bad record of going around starting wars and killing people over the centuries. And aren’t the established churches messed up? How many hundreds of denominations are there? We can’t agree on many huge issues such as gay marriage or abortion. And, the real killer: are Christians lives really that different from most people?
No, Hollywood is probably being pretty accurate. Unfortunately. As Pogo once said, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”
PS. La Shawn , I really love this blog!
Comment by Charles — 12.18.04 @ 4:08 am
It finally happened! La Shawn Barber is a victim of her own success. It happens at one time or another to all of the great bloggers. Disabling comments (as much as I enjoy reading some of you) will be a welcome addition. La Shawn’s posts alone provide the strength to keep this blog going.
With that being said; good day. Adios. Perhaps I’ll e-mail you one day. *tips hat*
Comment by likwidshoe — 12.18.04 @ 7:00 am
What sort of flip-dibbly codswallop is this?
If I’m wrong for praising my God, as the Bible prescribes, then you do not read the same Bible as I do. I do not serve a DEAD God and I will NOT give him DEAD worship and praise. Shabach, Barak, Halal, are these all foreign to you? Are the methods of praise outlined in Psalm 150 too ‘outrageous’ for you?
I recall what happened to David’s wife when she chided him for praising his God when the Ark of the Covenant returned to Israel. Or perhaps, you’ve never read that story.
David — ‘highly emotional’. Ha! Curse him for loving God so!
Just as you say ‘icky, emotional praise’, I cannot stand a DEAD church with DEAD people bound by tradition and a desire to be locked in a cushy routine that neither sets the captives free nor heals the blind.
Comment by Alex — 12.18.04 @ 9:42 am
I recognize my comment is rather simplistic, however, history as shown to us the results from changing the word “Christmas” to the word “Yuletide” the world ended up with Hilter’s Nazi Nation.
Whitewashing religion out of public eye is a totalitarian tactic of which we will all benefit from fighting against.
Comment by susan — 12.18.04 @ 10:29 am
I read the PTC’s report. And even their own report seems fair and balanced.
Here’s the breakdown:
22 percent of religion depicted on TV was positive
24 percent was negative
The other 54 percent was neutral
Now, if the PTC is looking for some kind of thesis aruging that religious depictions on TV is skewed in this country, it need to look at its own report.
I’m fine with neutral presentations of religion on TV. I don’t mind when they’re presented in storylines.
Particularly, the PTC seems upset that Law & Order continues to portray Catholic priests in a negative light. If the priests would stop bringing it upon themselves, then perhaps Law & Order would have to go find another “ripped from the headlines” storyline.
There’s only a two percent difference between positive and negative depictions. Hardly a landslide for the PTC to push forth with its thesis.
Comment by Mike M. — 12.18.04 @ 11:08 am
Remember all the big name from Hollywood that were bashing “The Passion” a year ago. Remember all the bad or negative movie reviews 10 months ago? Bet it will not be “Picture of the Year” next year?
How can anyone believe that Hollywood hates Christ. Next thing you’ll say is the MSM hates Republicans!
Comment by Rod Stanton — 12.18.04 @ 3:46 pm
LaShawn
Speaking as a Christian brother (hopefully in a spirit of reasonableness) I’d like to pipe up in modest defense of “Touched by an Angel”.
Firstly, I will concede that the program was by no means an evangelical outreach, nor could it be considered a primer on Biblical theology or hermeneutics. That said…it was far from being offensive to even a stolidly Bible-believing Christian, and certainly should not be considered heretical.
Bland pabulum at times? Yes definitely. There was frequently as much of an emotional appeal in the bones and meat of the plot in many episodes (what I call ‘gut-wrenching slop’) as there was a call to Christian moral values and/or spirituality.
Contrary, however, to the conclusion you were willing to draw from having viewed two or three episodes, God and Christ (and the enemy) were clearly and definitively identified in a number of episodes. Moreover, their spiritual “roles” and agendas were never portrayed ambiguously.
Viewing any single episode separately, rather than as a part of the overall body of work is taking the value of the program (and the concepts it promulgated) out of context. While this is clearly nowhere nearly as risky an error in judgment or practice as would be taking any portion of the Holy Scriptures out of context - nonetheless, it can have the result of “selling short” the potential value of the program. I think it was constructed around the basic premise of “entertaining angels unaware…” found in the Scriptures of the N.T.
Some clear principles I drew from long-term regular viewing were:
a) the angels were always obedient/subservient to, and dependent upon God, (ergo the messenger never superseded the Primacy of the Sender and His message),
b) The angels were created beings (not humans who died and returned to earth to “watch over us”- a trendy, New Age-old lie of satan),
c) the message was always targeted, not at what the human recipient thought they wanted/needed or what the angel of limited understanding might have wished it - but rather, what an Omniscient Omnipotent Omnipresent God (as their Creator)knew it should be.
The angels were represented as creatures possessing freewill (not far out of line, given that our adversary began as a “Sheltering Seraph”) and as such on occasion, they made errors in their own judgment and disobeyed what they knew perfectly well they ought to follow.
Surprise! Their behaviour netted them serious consequences - a concept rather foreign to Hollywood (okay, to our ‘modern Roman’ society in general) and few punches were pulled.
Yes, I offer a spirited defense of what was after all, a television program - but it was just that. It was never a Sunday morning nor Wednesday evening homiletic, a treatise on salvation. It was however, acceptably wholesome family entertainment which did not assault nor offend Christian moral sensibilities.
God and His Son were reasonably portrayed in more than a few episodes (I am tempted to summarize at least one example; for brevity I won’t). Hope I have been helpful!
Kyrie Eleieson
Justinian (of “AmericanArchConservative”)
Comment by Justinian — 12.18.04 @ 10:46 pm
Who is supporting Unholywood on television and the movies? Seems to me that so-called “Christians” are the ones holding those movie tickets and turning on those ungodly tv shows every day.Seems to me that these materialistic “Christians” are lined up at the the stores 6am in the morning to fight over the toy of the year.
WE are talking the talk but not walking the walk.When are Christians going to say enough is enough.
Jesus spoke of apostasy in the church in the last days are your eyes open? Can you see anything?
Comment by ratso ferrari — 12.19.04 @ 3:01 pm
Something interesting showed up last night on tv, of all places on ‘The Simpsons’. THe episode was actually complaining about taking the Christ out of Christmas. Whodathunk.
Comment by Ray Phelps — 12.20.04 @ 8:27 am
best line of the Simpsons…
Let’s just say that on this day, a million years ago, a dude was born that most of us think was really magical, and if you don’t believe in him, that’s ok too…but we’re probably right.
Comment by stephen johnson — 12.20.04 @ 10:28 am
Click on my name to read about Peg Noonan’s proposal for the Democrats to regain some lost ground by opposing the secularization of Christmas. You will see also why the Dems would never do it - as it would cost them the heart and soul of the party.
Comment by salt1907 — 12.20.04 @ 11:17 am
Whine, whine whine, Hollywood is crap, haven’t you figured that out?
Comment by Jake — 12.20.04 @ 2:18 pm
One more reason I’m looking forward to disabling comments.
Comment by LB — 12.20.04 @ 2:21 pm
It dont surprise me at all since they have been trashing MEL GIBSON for daring to question the status quo by making THE PASSION while they roll around in blood and gore soaked films and movies like HELLBOY which make a freaky hero from a evil demon and sex films like SIDEWAYS i mean hollywood is becoming as bad as SODOM and GOMMORAH
Comment by firebird — 12.23.04 @ 8:53 am
I think that we, as Christians, must finally and without reservation abandon the comfortable lie that America is in any meaningful sense a “Christian nation.” This is certainly true in a generally historical way. It is true, in other words, nominally and statistically. But not substantively.
For all practical purposes, this is a pagan country. Watch the Mardi Gras celebration, catch the Super Bowl, turn on your television for more than thirty seconds, listen to the radio, or just take a trip on the subway. Part of our problem is that we sleepwalk through all of this, imbibing it and accommodating our behavior and, worse, our faith to the thoroughly amoral, godless sludge that is our culture. What were until very recently considered matters of common Christian consent are now shunned as the most radical of Orthodoxy. My own Catholic Church is absolutely no execption.
Unless and until we realize that 1) our faith is really, really true, not simply “true for me” and 2) we are very much behind the lines of spiritual battle here in the US, we will continue to delude oursevles with fanciful notions that only a minor adjustment here, a friendly judge there will cure what ails our dying civilization. The proper role of the small-”c” church is and always will be counter-cultural. We must embrace this fact with the same fervor and joy as any crank Marxist revolutionary, and live lives of entirely Christ-like disregard for the consequences.
We must.
Comment by Sage — 12.31.04 @ 5:56 pm