Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Media

  • Christian Violence?

    A Christian game company is producing a game based on the Left Behind series. Their own advertising quotes the New York Times saying that the game “Combines Tom Clancy-like suspense with touches of romance, high-tech flash and Biblical references.”

    The game puts players in the position of either killing or converting their opponents and includes spiritual warfare, scriptures texts and more, according to a story in the LA Times Converting Video Games Into Instruments of God.

    I’m not going to go into this in depth, but I want to ask my Christian friends this: Can a game be made Christian just because we quote some scripture and include prayer? Is there going to be a time when God will sanction this type of behavior?

    From what I can see from the advertising, I don’t think this is an improvement over the average type of violent video game. I’m particularly concerned about the “convert or die” part.

    For full disclosure I should note that I do not accept the “Left Behind” interpretation of Revelation.

    (Thanks to Dispatches from the Culture Wars for alerting me to this.)

  • My Reaction to the Da Vinci Code

    There are some things you just can’t get away from no matter how hard you try. The Da Vinci Code, book, movie, or simply passing comment, is one of these. I have a friend who is much more interested in these things than I am, and I’ve even promoted his willingness to talk about it, and his published materials (the Consider Christianity Series, by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr.). Today I got an e-mail from Christianity Today, wondering if I was making the most of it. (No, I’m not personal friends with someone over at CT–it’s an e-mail notification I’ve subscribed to.) Now Christian groups in Asia are protesting the movie, and in at least one country, Thailand, have gotten it cut.

    So here comes my short response to the DaVinci Code, book, movie, or casual comment. You may wonder how I’m responding this morning, when the movie is released today. Again, I have no special friends. I haven’t gotten a preview of the movie. In fact, let me confess–no, let me proclaim–I haven’t even read the book!

    I’m not in any sense trying to say anything bad about those who have read the book or seen the movie, or want to do so. My bottom line on this book is that it is entertainment, it’s fiction (wow! whoda thunk it?), it’s supposed to be fun. If you think it’s going to be fun, go see it. If not, stay home, like me. If you think you can share your faith through discussion of the movie, go ahead and do so. That’s not my style, but I think it’s good that people do so.

    So if I think it’s fine to read the book, watch the move, to discuss it both literarily and historically (to the extent one can), what’s my problem. Let’s see. Oh yes . . . it bores me. That’s all. I’m just not interested. I’ve read dozens of books on the historical Jesus, ranging from volumes by authors who claim Jesus never existed, to fundamentalist defenses of the finest details of the story. I’m interested in that type of thing, but over time I’ve gotten to the point where I need something that challenges me intellectually. Books as wide ranging as John Dominic Crossan’s The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant and Darrell Bocks Jesus According to Scripture have great interest for me, as they both challenge my way of thinking and my understanding. But it just happens that right now I don’t want yet another theory about Jesus presented as fiction.

    I don’t know how good of fiction it will be, but the indications I’m hearing aren’t all that good. I’m absolutely not saying, “This is a bad movie, which is why I haven’t seen it.” I’m just telling you it’s OK not to find the whole thing all that interesting and to just continue to live your life. If The Da Vinci Code is your kind of movie, enjoy it guilt free. Use it in witness. Discuss it historically or literarily to your heart’s content. If, like me, you don’t plan to bother, don’t feel guilty. There really are people who just aren’t that excited about it.

  • Does Integrity make you a Wuss?

    DaveScot over on Uncommon Descent thinks that having integrity and good judgment makes one a wuss. Of course, unless he also has the guts and integrity already displayed by the folks over on Telic Thoughts, he’ll have to come up with something to say, and I suppose this is as good, or as bad as anything. Let’s just say that one lie leads to another, and DaveScot is busily digging himself in deeper and deeper.

    And note that the folks over at Telic Thoughts are not endorsing Dr. Pianka’s ecological ideas. Like many other people they are simply noting that he did not call for release of a nasty virus or desire the killing of 90% of the world’s population. His other ideas remain to be discussed. In fact, most posters on this topic have distanced themselves from some of Dr. Pianka’s ideas, while still challenging the false accusations.

    DaveScot’s reaction to the decision by the folks at Telic Thoughts? “Gag me with a spoon.”

    Keep it up DaveScot. Your credibility can’t get any lower, but perhaps this additional confirmation will keep someone, somewhere, from forgetting about your behavior.

  • Kudos to Telic Thoughts

    Telic Thoughts has issued a very forthright statement and retraction regarding certain comments they made about Dr. Eric Pianka. Since I had linked to them as one of my sources in my entry Christians and Defamation, I think it is important that I take note of this retraction and the very good intentions (and may I call it good advice?) that they offer: “The next time the media circulates an accusation that has the potential to do serious real-world harm to a person’s reputation, we promise to treat such accounts with extreme skepticism and caution” (A Promise). Good work!

    Incidentally, I agree that Dr. Pianka’s actual comments are extreme, and themselves require serious scrutiny, something I’ll leave to those more qualified than I in the field. I would be pleased to see these ideas examined and discussed dispassionately. Perhaps that can happen once the furor over the original false accusations has died down.

  • Consider the Alternatives

    Is Extreme Makeover: Home Edition some kind of exploitation? This seems to be the best thing some in the media could think of to ask of this positive reality show. I don’t like reality shows in general, but I do like this one.

    Joe Scarborough interviews Melissa Caldwell of the Parent’s Television Council on his show, and there are excerpts and comments on MSNBC titled Extreme Makeover or Extreme Exploitation?. Scarborough’s problem seems to be the idea that ABC and the show’s producers are looking for people with particular types of problems in order to make the show entertaining. Some problems are better subjects for television than others. Caldwell points out, quite correctly that they could hardly look for middle class families with no problems; they’d be criticized for ignoring the needy.

    Frankly, I think it’s obvious that there would be a selection process, and that the process would not involve simply asking how needy the person was. It’s a reality show, after all. It has to be entertaining to attract viewers, and it has to attract viewers to attract sponsors, and if anyone out there still thinks reality shows are real, then somebody needs to hand them their “stupid” signs (with a nod to Bill Engvall, via Snopes). Of course they edit it to make it more entertaining. But the media can’t really have fun unless they’re looking for scandal.

    Frankly, I don’t really watch many shows on ABC. At the moment this is one that I do watch from time to time, and my wife watches regularly. Why? It’s positive, and even if they look for families who will make good television, they do pick families who need the help. So the help is a drop in the bucket. Habitat for Humanity provides housing for more people. But as a positive activity for a television show, both in terms of helping people, and in terms of positivie influence, Extreme Makeover: Home Edition is pretty good.

    Just think of how much money was spent on Temptation Island on Fox. How many people did that help? The money’s going to be spent. Let’s not get picky when some of it is going to a good cause.

    UPDATE COMMENT: I forgot to mention the original source of the story was Smoking Gun.

  • Negative Perceptions of Islam Increasing

    In an article that should be no surprise to anyone, MSNBC lets us know that Negative Perceptions of Islam Increasing, something I’m sure none of us would have guessed had there not be pollsters to tell us.

    As an aside, you can check out their daily poll, a true example of the stupidity of online polls, at Poll: How do you view Islam? What on earth is that question supposed to mean? It’s a polling question for stupid people, and the results are meaningless. But then, all results of online polls are meaningless. This one just stuck out as more meaningless than usual. But even though it does not collect useful information, it suggests and reinforces an attitude, the attitude that suggests that we can deal with all who claim to be Muslims as a single entity.

    This would be as though we decided that all Christians should be assumed to be like the Christian reconstructionists, and that if you meet a Christian, or make policy for dealing with a Christian you should assume that set of beliefs. Whether you agree or not with Christian reconstructionists, you know that most Christians do not, in fact, hold that particular set of beliefs.

    I do not mean to suggest that we should not learn from experience. The fact is that those who are attacking us the most at this point do claim to be Muslims, and while they may be bad Muslims (I certainly am not going to try to judge “good” versus “bad” members of another faith), they do hold at least some claim to the title. So there are certainly things that we need to do to guarantee security. But if we fail to distinguish the good from the bad, and even different attitudes amongst the rest of Muslims, it can only make the situation worse. I don’t mean that we do this because it’s politically correct, or because we have to feel guilty about defending ourselves by force, or out of altruism. I say it because I believe it is the best way to deal with the situation.

    The only thing that can result from us building up prejudice and hatred here in America against Muslims is to increase the number of our foes, and reduce the number of our friends. It can make it strategically difficult to find help and to gather intelligence. If Muslims in the Arab world (and it’s important as noted in the MSNBC story I cited to distinguish “Arab” from “Muslim”) believe that we are intending to destroy Islam, than many who might be willing to work with us against terrorists will instead be pushed to work against us. The instinct for survival does that to people.

    We, in the United States, need to repeatedly make it clear who is the enemy and who is not, both by words and by behavior. If you are a “good” Muslim from our point of view, you should be certain that you are safe and that your legal protections are guaranteed and will be respected. By “good” here I don’t mean a good adherent to the Muslim faith–that is not for me to judge. What I mean is a person who abides by our laws and means to continue abiding by them and upholding them.

    I believe it is possible for us to recognize how our own actions provoke reactions in the Arab world without blaming ourselves for causing the terrorist attacks. What I mean is that we can consider our words and deeds from a strategic point of view. What type of speech and behavior will make it easiest for us to live in the world and protect our security? One can teach a tourist, for example, what areas of the city to avoid in order not to be a victim of crime without also telling that tourist that he or she is to blame if victimized.

    But the reason I chose to comment on this story is simply this: If we think of Muslims as a monolithic group, all to be treated in precisely the same way, then we will restrict our ability to act effectively. Asking, “Do you have a favorable impression of _____?” and naming the group is sloppy thinking, and it can lead to sloppy actions.

  • AFA Continues Campaign against The Book of Daniel (NBC)

    The American Family Association is continuing its campaign against The Book of Daniel on NBC. I just received another e-mail calling on me not to watch the show, of course, but also to ask my local affiliate to stop airing it, and also to ask the advertisers not to sponsor it.

    In support of this, they quote mail in which their viewers discovered, horror of horrors, that the characters in this drama are human. They have problems. They do things they aren’t supposed to do. But I ask this: In precisely what way does this distinguish them from the rest of humanity? I imagine that the leaders and staffers of the AFA live in a world in which people don’t struggle with these kinds of problems. Perhaps they believe that evangelical churches are never plagued with these issues.

    Some people need to listen to the opening sermon in the show. We sin. We struggle. And our pastors and church leaders do so no less than the rest of us. If we can’t acknowledge this fact and get on with healing and building up, then Christianity does, indeed, have a problem. But our problem is not NBC for portraying Christians as people. It’s with us for trying to pretend that we’re so much better than other people.

    But all of that is beside the point here. Why cannot the AFA simply issue a note to its members that they have previewed this show and that they don’t recommend watching it? Why do we call for affiliates not to air it and for advertisers not to sponsor it? This certainly suggests that the issue is not helping their constituency make good choices. It’s about controlling what the American people can see, hear, and think.

    There is a proper way to deal with shows that we disapprove. We don’t watch them. We tell our friends we don’t like them. If we’re a big organization, we can tell all our members and those we influence not to watch them. Then people make choices.

    And to provide more evidence, currently featured on its web site (January 9, 2006) is a headline indicating they may boycott Ford Motor Company. Their complaint against the company? Ford is fostering the “gay agenda.” (This started six months ago. To get more details, see Another Swing of the Pocketbook (from MSNBC).

    I emphatically reject these kinds of efforts. The only thing I will boycott or advocate boycotting is a bad product. By not buying bad products I encourage people to produce good ones. That goes for TV shows or cars.

  • ID on West Wing

    I want to congratulate West Wing on NBC for providing some thoughtful coverage of the ID issue. While scientific and theological articles and books may cover the issue more thoroughly, intelligent handling in the context of a popular TV show helps get the message through the culture.

    Presidential candidate Matt Santos, played by Jimmy Smits, answers questions indicating that he believes the universe is designed–as a matter of faith, but that he doesn’t want his faith taught in the classroom. In one exchange, an audience member tells him that he wants his children to hear his view in the classroom.

    This latter incident brings up the other side of intelligent design in the classroom. I certainly do not want the science curriculum to be diluted with elements that are not tested science. ID has failed to demonstrate that it is a viable scientific theory. Until it does (an unlikely event), it doesn’t belong in High School science classes. But as a person interested in spiritual matters, and an active, committed Christian, I have an even more disturbing problem with this. Who is going to be teaching religion to the children and young people of my church? When a theological concept is taught in science class, it will have to be taught by science teachers, who are not qualified to teach theology. I find this quite disturbing. Not only are we introducing theology into the science curriculum, but we will almost certainly be introducing incompetent theology there. I doubt that many science teachers are going to be interested in trying to learn to teach theology.

    Of course, as a moderate Christian, I am likely to find some of this theology objectionable. But my more conservative brethren will, I think, find some of it even more objectionable? So why are they advocating the teaching of faith in the science classroom? Simply because this will be a first step. Once you have the precedent set of one religious idea that can be taught in the high school classroom, the next will be much easier. The intention, make no mistake about it, is to get conservative Christian views–the views of only some conservative Christians–introduced into the public school classroom, and enforced on the children of many parents who will disagree.

    So why can’t each of us have “our view” taught in the public school science classroom? First, we don’t all have the same view. To teach “our view” we will have to teach many views. Second, because our faith views are not part of the field of competence of the science teachers, and should not be.

    There is a much better solution. Let’s teach science, consensus science, in the public school science classroom, and leave the teaching of religion to churches, synagogues, mosques, and other private centers of religious education.

    Oh! Wait a minute! That’s what we’re doing now, isn’t it?