84 Sermon Illustrations on Television

A few months before I was born, my dad met a stranger who was new to our small town. From the beginning, Dad was fascinated with the enchanting newcomer, and soon invited him to live with our family. The stranger was quickly accepted and was around to welcome me into the world a few months later. As I grew up, I never questioned his place in our family.

Mom taught me to love the Word of God, and dad taught me to obey it. But “The Stranger” was our storyteller. He could weave the most fascinating tales, adventures, mysteries and comedies. He could hold our whole family spellbound for hours each evening. He was like a friend to the whole family. He took Dad, Buck and me to our first major league baseball game. He was always encouraging us to see the movies and he even made arrangements to introduce us to several movie stars.

“The Stranger” was an incessant talker. Dad didn’t seem to mind. But sometimes Mom would quietly get up while the rest of us were enthralled with one of his stories of a faraway place, go to her room, read her Bible and pray.

I wonder now if she ever prayed that “The Stranger” would leave. You see, my dad ruled the household with certain moral convictions. But “The Stranger” never felt an obligation to honor them. Profanity for example, was not allowed in our house - not from our friends or adults. Our long-time visitor, however, used occasional four-letter words that burned my ears and made dad squirm. To my knowledge, “The Stranger” was never confronted.

My dad was a teetotaler who did not permit alcohol in his home, not even for cooking. But “The Stranger” felt like we needed exposure and enlightened us to other ways of life. He offered us beer and other alcoholic beverages often. He made smoking cigarettes look cool, cigars manly and pipes distinguished. He talked freely about sex. His comments were sometimes suggestive and generally embarrassing.

I now know that “The Stranger” influenced my early concepts of the man/woman relationship. As I look back, I believe it was the grace of God that the “Stranger” did not influence us more. Time after time he opposed the values of my parents, yet he was seldom rebuked and never asked to leave.

More than fifty years have passed since “The Stranger” moved in with the young family on Morningside Drive. But if you were to walk into my parent’s home today, you would still find him sitting over in the corner, waiting for someone to listen to him talk and watch him draw his pictures. His name? ... We always just called him TV.

Prayer: Father give me the discernment to know what I should and should not watch. Amen! In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen!

________

Copyright (c) 2006 – Christian Weekly Devotion - All Rights Reserved

*

[Original illustration at this number was deleted for being obsolete]

Various articles. Salvation as soap opera. Market-driven rather than message-driven. Too much reliance on numbers. Secular approach. Deficit spending promotes crisis appeals. Too much secrecy.

Side articles on various ministries.

Mrs. Marie Winn used to use TV as a free babysitter, but noticed that her kids looked like zombies. Wrote book called "The Plug-In Drug" and now writes on how to unplug it, offering crafts and other diversions.

#190 *

Television was introduced in South Africa only in 1976, and has ended many traditional forms of entertainment. The extent to which television has mesmerized people and broken down communication is illustrated by a recent event in Pietersburg in the northern Transvaal, where the body of the elderly Mrs. Anna Bronkhorst was discovered in front of her television set after she had been dead for three days. Her husband, Lourens, hadn't even realized that she was dead.

#314

*

Article on the influence Television has on Christians, and assumptions Television makes about religion. Religion is barely mentioned except on Christmas and Easter. Often conservative Christians are ridiculed.

A recent study by Professor Steven Gortmaker of Harvard blames television for a 45% increase in obesity among children and adolescents between 1960 and the early 1980s. A 1983 study indicated that children spent an average of at least 25 hours a week watching television. He personally believes the figure is much higher. This leads to a decline in physical activity; television commercials reinforce the desire for high calories foods.

Television can also lead to spiritual inactivity among young people.

Christian family decides to put away TV due to suggestion by radio program. They adjust and like it. TV has many bad programs; discernment is necessary, if not total rejection.

Television producer Norman Lear, speaking at a joint convention of the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature, said that he parts company with civil libertarians who are “so fastidious” that they would purge any reference to God or religion from the public schools. He further pointed out that although the libertarians have been successful in most legal battles, he is troubled by the fact that many are blind to the spiritual emptiness in our culture. Lear credited the rank and file of the Religious Right for helping focus a spotlight on the spiritual yearning of our society.

Penance can be a powerful healer of relationships.

My wife Celeste loved the TV series, “Hill Street Blues.” It had its perverse side, but the drama could be riveting.

In one memorable episode, the precinct sergeant hears that a vicious criminal has been released from prison. This criminal had been serving a long sentence for attempting to murder the cop. No one knows where the criminal is now, but he has put out word that he is looking for the policeman. All through the program, the sergeant is looking over his back and wondering what will happen to him.

In the final scene, they confront each other in a dark alley. The ex-con approaches hesitantly, and haltingly says, “When you met me, I was a violent man. But now I am different because I have repented of my sins. Jesus Christ has made me clean. I am sorry for what happened. This is all I own, and I want you to have it.”

He hands the sergeant a tattered Bible and disappears into the darkness. Astounded, the sergeant stares down at the Bible as the screen fades out.

Criminals in NYC copied the film “Money Train” when they torched a subway token booth on November 25, 1995. Filmmakers say they based the scene on what other criminals did in the 1980’s. However, copycat crimes involve only a minuscule fraction of the millions of people who watch the same movie or show. Far more troubling is the question of how our daily immersion in violent - in aggressive cartoons, brutal sporting events, graphic newscasts, shoot-’em-up movies and TV shows and harsh popular music - affect children and adults in the aggregate.

Forty years of scientific study lead to differing conclusions. A 22-year study in Michigan found that the single best predictor of later aggression - more than poverty, grades, a single-parent home or exposure to real violence - was a heavy childhood diet of TV carnage. Leonard Eron says, “Of course not every youngster is affected. Not everyone who gets lung cancer smoked cigarettes. And not everyone who smokes cigarettes gets lung cancer. But nobody outside the tobacco industry denies that smoking cause lung cancer. The size of the correlation is the same.” Epidemiologist Brandon S. Centerwall goes so far as to assert that without TV there would be 10,000 fewer murders in the United States, 70,000 fewer rapes, and 700,000 fewer assaults.

The type of violence seems to matter - punished aggression does not have the influence that rewarded aggression does. Also, those with a previous inclination to violence are most affected by it. Two compelling studies were done in Canadian towns before and after they received television. In the United States, Canada and South Africa the murder rates doubled 10 years after television was introduced. George Gerbner argues that it is not the violent acts on TV that influence so much as its cultivation of “feelings of insecurity, vulnerability and mistrust, and - despite its supposedly ‘entertaining’ nature - alienation and gloom.” TV uses violence to define social relations between characters. Women and minorities are most often victims. (In reality, men are one and a half times more likely to be victims.)

So far the entertainment industry has resisted any change.

A few years ago, Neil Postman wrote a devastating critique of television called "Amusing Ourselves to Death." The book was welcomed by critics and reviewed in all the right magazines, but not once did we learn where Postman got his ideas.

It turns out he got them from the Bible.

Postman's thesis is that different types of media encourage different ways of thinking. The printed word requires sustained attention, logical analysis, and an active imagination. But television, with its fast-moving images, encourages a short attention span, disjointed thinking, and purely emotional responses.

The medium of communication actually helps shape the way people think.

Postman says he first discovered this connection in the Bible. As a young man, he read the Ten Commandments and was struck by the words: "You shall not make for yourself a graven image." Postman says he realized that the idea of a universal deity cannot be expressed in images but only in words.

As he writes, "The God of the Jews was to exist in the Word and through the Word, an unprecedented conception requiring the highest order of abstract thinking."

This is the God Christians worship today -- a God known principally through His Word.

Many religions have a scripture, of course. Yet most teach that the way to contact the divine is through mystical visions, emotional experiences, or Eastern-style meditation. Judaic Christianity alone insists on the primacy of language.

Gene Edward Veith, in "Reading Between the Lines," explains why: The heart of our religion is a relationship with God -- and relationships thrive on communication. We cannot know people intimately merely by being in their presence," Veith says. "It takes conversation to share thoughts and personalities."

Christians are meant to have an ongoing conversation with God. We address Him in the language of prayer, and He addresses us in the language of Scripture.

Historically, this emphasis on the Word has had a deep impact on Western culture. In earlier societies, reading was confined to an elite. It was the Reformation that first aimed at universal literacy, so that the Bible could be put into the hands of every believer.

Today missionaries are still doing the same thing. In non- literate societies, they reduce the native language to writing and teach the people to read the Bible.

And from there they can go on to read anything. They can read about sanitation, health care, democracy -- things that often transform their culture, much as the Reformation transformed Western culture.

Yet here in the West we are in danger of coming full circle: The visual media created by modern science may ultimately undermine literacy, transforming us back into an image-based culture.

If that happens, will only an elite be taught to read? Will biblical faith still flourish?

In the Old Testament, God's people were tempted by graven images. Today the images are graven by electrons on cathode ray tubes.

Christians need to learn when to flip the switch -- in order to remain true to our historical reputation as the "people of the book."

_________________________________

Copyright (c) 1999 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

A few years ago, a seven-year-old boy began to play with his three-year-old brother. Imitating a wrestling move he’d seen on television, the seven-year-old slammed his brother to the floor, accidentally killing him.

The three-year-old died because of something his brother had seen on TV. It’s every parent’s nightmare — and yet, every year, it seems, more and more violence is being pumped into our living rooms.

On April 25, the Federal Communications Commission adopted a report on the impact violent television programming has on children. Their research found strong evidence that when kids are exposed to media violence, they become more aggressive — at least in the short term. And as FCC chairman Kevin Martin notes, reputable researchers conclude that exposure to media violence leads to emotional desensitization towards real-life violence — and a higher tendency for violent behavior later in life.

And yet, prime-time TV violence has increased 75 percent in the last nine years. By the time they grow up, children are exposed to thousands of scenes of violence, including hundreds of depictions of torture. It’s relentless bloodbath, 24-7. And this doesn’t even include the video games.

The response by broadcast media and cable companies is to dump the problem into parents’ laps. Get a V-chip, they shrug, or — their old favorite — just turn off the TV.

But the FCC report found that current blocking technologies are insufficient, in part because TV ratings are unreliable. Plus, fewer than half of the TV sets in America are capable of blocking objectionable content.

Broadcasters, cable, and satellite companies could voluntarily choose not to air graphic violence when children are likely to be watching. They could offer a la carte programming choices, which would allow parents to choose family-friendly fare without being forced to buy channels featuring graphic violence.

But if broadcasters, cable, and satellite companies refuse to stop shoving blood, gore, and torture into our children’s faces, Congress must act. It could insist on the return of the prime time “family hour.” And it could require cable and satellite companies to offer programming on a pick-and-choose basis so parents won’t have to worry about channel-surfing kids accidentally seeing graphic violence. Other countries already do this, allowing consumers to protect their kids and save money.

Congress may soon be debating a bill that would take on this problem of TV violence. But what a shame that broadcasters and cable companies don’t care enough about America’s children to do the right thing on their own — now.

We’ve strayed so far from the biblical worldview that a society’s first obligation is to protect our children. We jettisoned this view for radical individualism — a view that says if someone wants something — even television programs that harm children — nobody has the right to stop them, or even restrict the time they can watch it. And if companies want to make money providing it, they say no one should be allowed to restrict them, either. If kids are harmed, if society is harmed — too bad.

We need to call the cable companies and broadcast companies, and our elected representatives, and demand that they address this issue. Children should not have to pay the price — including, tragically, their very lives — so that others can indulge their addiction to violence twenty-four hours a day.

And by the way, if they won’t act, turning off the TV is never bad advice.

________

Copyright (c) 2007 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #14123]

Teen-agers who watch more than an hour of television a day during early adolescence are more likely to be violent in later years, researchers say.

The rate of violence, including assaults, fights and robberies, increases dramatically if daily TV time exceeds three hours, according to researchers who studied more than 700 people for 17 years.

"Our findings suggest that, at least during early adolescence, responsible parents should avoid permitting their children to watch more than one hour of television a day," said Jeffrey G. Johnson of Columbia University and the New York State Psychiatric Institute.

"The evidence has gotten to the point where it's overwhelming," said Johnson, who led the team of researchers studying families in two upstate New York counties.

The work is the latest to associate aggression with television viewing. But while other studies have linked watching violent television to later aggressive behavior, Johnson said this is the first to investigate the total amount of time individuals spent watching and to follow those people over many years.

"I was surprised to see a fivefold increase in aggressive behavior from less than one hour to three or more hours," Johnson said in a telephone interview.

The study is appearing in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

Among youths who watched less than an hour of television daily at age 14, just 5.7 percent were involved in aggressive acts by the ages of 16 to 22, the study found.

For those who watched between one and three hours, the aggression rate jumped to 22.5 percent, and the rate was 28.8 percent for those who watched more than three hours, the study found.

The effect was most pronounced for boys with rates of 8.9 percent committing aggressive acts for those who watched less than an hour of TV at age 14, 32.5 percent for one to three hours and 45.2 percent for those watching more than three hours of television. For girls the rates were 2.3 percent, 11.8 percent and 12.7 percent, respectively.

A researcher whose 1998 analysis found increased violent behavior in youths who watched more than six hours of television daily welcomed the report.

Mark I. Singer of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, who was not connected to the new research, said it was "an important study" that covered a significant period of time and took into account potential outside influences.

He said part of the importance of the new report is the indication that there is a relationship in both sexes between television viewing and aggressive behavior.

Dennis Wharton, a spokesman for the National Association of Broadcasters, said Wednesday he has not seen the study but found the results surprising.

"Anyone who watches much television knows that broadcast television is far more tame in program content than that found on cable and satellite," he said. He cited recent research that suggests violence on TV has fallen over the past two years.

In a commentary accompanying the report, Craig A. Anderson and Brad J. Bushman of Iowa State University said the findings were "important evidence showing that extensive TV viewing among adolescents and young adults is associated with subsequent aggressive acts."

The effects are "not trivial" and suggest it may be worthwhile to restrict the viewing time of adolescents, they wrote.

The American Psychological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians and American Psychiatric Association also have reported connections between viewing violent television and aggressive behavior.

Johnson said the increase in aggressive behavior associated with higher television viewing held true both for people who had previous violent incidents and for those who had not had shown earlier aggression. That means the findings are not merely the result of people already prone to violence being more avid viewers.

The study also looked at young adults, measuring television time at age 22 and the odds of a violent or aggressive acts by 30.

Overall, just 7.2 percent of 22-year-olds who watched less than an hour of television daily were later involved in aggressive acts. For those watching one to three hours the rate rises to 9 percent and at more than three hours it is 17.8 percent.

The rates for males were 14.6 percent, 14 percent, and 18.8 percent. For women the rates were 0 percent, 3.9 percent and 16.8 percent.

More than 1,000 families started the study, ending with reports on 707 after people moved or dropped out for some other reason. The subjects were in Albany and Saratoga counties, both urban and rural areas. They were 91 percent white and 51 percent male.

Television viewing was studied through interviews in 1975, 1983, 1985-86 and 1991-93. The later aggressive acts were determined both through interviews and from local, state and federal police reports with a last check in 2000.

*

Cable television's Ted Turner, who has condemned abortion foes as "bozos" who "look like idiots," recently lashed out at Christianity. "Christianity is a religion of losers," Turner told the Dallas Morning News. Referring to Christ's death on the cross, Turner said, "I dont' want anybody to die for me. I've had a few drinks and a few girlfriends, and if that's gonna put me in hell, then so be it." Turner also told a group of broadcasters, "Your delegates to the United Nations are not as important as the people [broadcasters] in this room. We are the ones who determine what the people's attitudes are. It's in our hands." Quoted in February, 1990 Confident Living, p. 36

Ask most Christians what they think is wrong with movies and television shows and they’ll probably cite examples of violence, sexual content, and profanity.

But the problem with a lot of what we watch isn’t only what’s there, it’s also what is not there: namely, the notion that someone is in charge of the universe.

Christians call this idea “providence.” John Calvin defined providence as a “governing activity” rooted in the idea that God is the “Creator and Preserver [of the universe] ... [and] that he sustains, nourishes, and cares for everything he has made....”

Belief in providence went beyond matters of religion. Historically, belief in a governing activity enabled the various plot strands in drama and comedy to come together in a satisfying ending -- an ending that left the audience thinking that the world had order and wasn’t spinning out of control.

As Thomas Hibbs of Boston College points out, we see providence at work in the movies of Frank Capra, for example. Whether the movies had a religious reference, like IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE, or didn’t, LIKE MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON, the message is the same: some force is at work rewarding good and punishing evil.

But as Hibbs chronicles in his book, SHOWS ABOUT NOTHING, that has changed in the past three decades. Since the early 1970s, much of what we watch is characterized by what Hibbs calls a “demonic anti-providence.” These are films like THE EXORCIST, SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, and the recent hit, HANNIBAL. You can find something similar in shows like SEINFELD, which advertises itself as a show about nothing.

This goes beyond making television and the movies religion-free zones, or depicting religious believers in negative ways. The world depicted in movies and television is often one where “...ultimate justice is elusive,” and “where we are tempted to see the underlying force as malevolent and punitive.”

As a result, says Hibbs, this worldview sees “violence and ineradicable guilt as the underlying truth about the human condition....” In place of the hero, we have what Hibbs calls the “demonic anti-hero” who -- unlike the hero who knows what is right and seeks to do it -- is bound by no moral code and, in fact, invites the audience to celebrate his liberation from morality.

The demonic anti-hero, and the worldview that produced him, are the product of cultural attitudes towards belief in God. It’s true that most Americans profess to believe in God, but this God is a far cry from the God of Scripture. More than a century of naturalism has eroded our belief that God is providential -- that is, in charge of all events. Likewise, there is little sense that he rewards good and punishes evil. And what we see onscreen not only reflects these beliefs, it reinforces them.

Over the past three decades, the entertainment industry has become the dominant cultural force in our culture. Films and television have little effective competition when it comes to shaping our -- and our children’s -- moral imaginations.

This is why we can’t stop at knowing just whether a film contains nudity or violence. Even films without either one can teach a worldview at odds with historic Christianity. To understand the impact of media on our lives, we have to look at the worldview being depicted. And that starts with asking if, according to the show, anyone is really in charge.

============

Hibbs, Thomas S. SHOWS ABOUT NOTHING: NIHILISM IN POPULAR CULTURE FROM THE EXORCIST TO SEINFELD. Dallas: Spence Publishing, 1999.

or in trade paper:

“Mister Rogers is dead.” That was a tough newsflash for a whole lot of people. Fred Rogers, in his trademark cardigan sweater, had created a TV neighborhood that was an island of decency and innocence in the sea of not-so-decent television. He was an uplifting influence on generations of kids, with “Mister Rogers' Neighborhood” airing nationally in the United States for 34 years. In an interview a few years ago, Fred Rogers was asked what motivated him to get into TV in the first place. I was surprised at his answer. He said, “I got into television because I hated it so.” That's an interesting answer.

Well, I'm Ron Hutchcraft and I want to have A Word With You today about “Light Where It's Needed.”

It sounds like Mister Rogers didn't like what he saw on television. But did he curse the darkness? No - he turned on a light. Which, as I understand it, is what Jesus had in mind for anyone who follows Him. John 1:5 described the impact of Jesus' coming to our world this way: “The light shines in the darkness.”

And according to our word for today from the Word of God, that seems to be what He expects you and me to be doing. In Matthew 5:14, Jesus said, “You are the light of the world.” And then, “Let your light shine before men that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.” He didn't say evacuate your world or hide from your world or complain about your world, but light your world! Like Fred Rogers and his antipathy toward television, you decide to invade a darkness you don't like with an alternative that illuminates that dark corner.

Our tendency as Christians is to put all the lights in one room together and then leave the rest of the house in total darkness. We need to spread out our lights into every dark corner, showing what Jesus is like in places where Jesus is little known or little honored. Jesus calls us to infiltrate our world, not retreat from it. That's why He prayed for His followers this way: “My prayer is not that You take them out of the world but that You protect them from the evil one.” (John 17:15)

There are plenty of dark places - places where much that happens there should be repugnant to someone in whom God's Holy Spirit lives. That's Holy Spirit. But those places are not to be abandoned to the darkness by retreating Christians. If we don't take the Light there, who will? You may look at your school, your workplace, your profession, your neighborhood, your local media as a place full of darkness. Or you may hate a lot of what you see in the military or in your particular interest group or your sport. Don't go there, of course, and change colors like a chameleon, taking on the color of your surroundings. You may be their only hope of seeing the Jesus-difference - unless you compromise it away. But they can't see the light if you abandon them for a corner that's already nice and bright.

Like Mr. Rogers, do something to redeem the darkness in your personal universe. You are the light of their world, according to your Savior. They need you. Don't blame the darkness for being dark - it's dark because there's no light shining there. Make up your mind that, in Jesus' name and with His power, you are going to change your environment instead of your environment changing you. You can hang out with believers forever in heaven, but you have just a few short years to help others be in heaven with you. And remember, a small light can illuminate a big, dark room. It doesn't take much light to totally transform a dark place. So, light your world!

________________

Copyright © Ron Hutchcraft Ministries, Inc., PO Box 400, Harrison, AR 72602. Used by permission. Written by Ron Hutchcraft. "Practical Answers to Real Life Issues"

*

[original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #13206]

When Edward Bello committed his most recent crime, he expected to go to prison. Instead the judge sentenced him to nine months with no television. He said he wanted "to create a condition of silent introspection" in order to induce Bello to change his behavior.

Bello's lawyers were outraged. They're appealing on the grounds that making Bello keep his seven TV sets turned off is "cruel and unusual punishment" -- and thus violates the Constitution.

Oh, brother, now I've heard everything. When our Founders outlawed cruel and unusual punishment, they were thinking of things like floggings and amputations. Forcing someone to watch mind-rotting entertainment might also qualify, but equating a ban on TV with torture is a sad sign that television has become far too important in our culture -- important and destructive.

TV critic Michael Medved says the problem with TV isn't just the programming: The problem is the medium itself.

Medved notes that families began falling apart around 1960 -- the time the first generation raised on TV hit adolescence. These kids grew up on the wholesome sitcoms of the 1950s. Yet by 1965 the family, by every measure, had undergone massive deterioration.

The principal cause, Medved says, "was that most ... influential of all American institutions: television." Medved argues that television encourages attributes that are "deadly to the survival of marriages and families."

For example, TV encourages impatience by showing programs that solve every imaginable problem in thirty minutes. "And the whole point of commercials," Medved adds, "is to make you want things and to want them now." Both of these elements undermine the quality of endurance necessary for family life.

Television also promotes depression. The focus of TV news is relentlessly negative, Medved observes. If a father works three jobs to support his kids, that's not news. But if the same father shoots his children, we watch the gory details on dozens of stations for days.

Finally, TV leads to selfishness because it creates what Medved calls "the syndrome of entitlement" -- the sense that we're all entitled to "ceaseless arrays of ecstatic pleasures" -- just like the characters on "Friends" or "Ally McBeal." Programs like these teach that if some aspects of our lives -- like our marriages -- are not endlessly exciting, we ought to replace them.

In short, Medved concludes, television undermines those attributes most necessary for family survival: patience, sacrifice, optimism, and deferred gratification.

And he's right. We ought to take a good look, not just at what we watch, but how long we watch.

Next week is national TV Turnoff Week, in which Americans are encouraged to hide the remote and find other things to do. Why not figure out how much time your family spends watching TV every week -- and then spend that time doing things like reading aloud, going for walks, or volunteering in your community.

Your kids may initially view it as cruel and unusual punishment, but, in time, they'll achieve something far more important than learning what happens on their favorite sitcom: They'll be strengthening their family ties.

=======================================================================

"Editorial: Cruel and unusual punishment," editorial, THE CINCINNATI POST, 8 March 2002.

Federal Judge Alvin Hellerstein's sentence was not only generous, but too cute by half.

For $27,000 in credit-card theft, the judge sentenced Edward Bello, who has a 30-year rap sheet of petty crimes, to 10 months of detention in his suburban New Jersey home. Bello can leave to go to work, shop for groceries, visit the doctor and for educational and religious activities. The one thing he cannot do, the judge ruled, is watch TV during the 10 months.

The Associated Press quoted Hellerstein as saying he instituted it "to create a condition of silent introspection that I considered necessary to induce (the) defendant to change his behavior, to adhere to the right and to eschew wrong."

Bello's lawyers are appealing on the grounds that the ban on TV is a violation of the constitutional guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment.

We beg to disagree.

If Hellerstein had wanted to get ugly about it, he could have ordered Bello to turn on, and leave on for the duration of his sentence, all seven of his televisions. Now THAT would be cruel and unusual punishment.

Publication date: 03-08-02

=========================================================================

For further reading and information:

Learn more about "Turn Off TV Week," April 22-28, by visiting these sites: and .

Michael Medved, HOLLYWOOD VS. AMERICA: POPULAR CULTURE AND THE WAR ON TRADITIONAL VALUES (Harper Collins, 1993).

The mission of the Parents Television Council is to bring America's demand for positive, family-oriented television programming to the entertainment industry. Learn more by visiting its website .

_________________________

Copyright © 2002 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. 'BreakPoint with Chuck Colson' is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

My Source:

THE REMINDER

October 3, 1999

Author: Roger D. Campbell

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

MAYBERRY MORALITY

by Roger D. Campbell

ganroger@juno.com

This is the title of an article that I recently read in a periodical. The article was written over a year ago, but the practices mentioned in it continue until the present hour, even in the state of Tennessee. There are some relevant matters in this article that deserve our attention.

In June 1998 a congregation of the Lord's church in Huntsville, Alabama “began a weekly Bible study based on episodes of The Andy Griffith Show.” A recent article in the Cleveland (TN) Daily Banner (9-1-99) indicated that a denominational “ministry” called “Heart of Atlanta Network” has also started using “The Gospel according to 'The Andy Griffith Show'“ approach. In addition, the newspaper article said some 50 “church congregations” have contacted the Huntsville, AL church about using this form of “study.” The original article that our brethren published last year about the church in Huntsville reported that the class “begins each week by watching a 20-minute episode of the classic sitcom.” Then, the class discusses moral issues, based on the TV show they watched. At one point the article's author spoke of the actions of sheriff Andy Taylor in one of the episodes and made this observation: “This is a Christian example, admit it.”

First of all, though some of the characters in this often hilarious TV series may at times have acted in harmony with the teaching of Jesus Christ, to my knowledge there is no indication in any of the episodes that any of the characters portrayed were Christians. Thus, it is certainly out of place to refer to their behavior as “a Christian example.” The New Testament uses the word “Christian” in three passages (Acts 11:26; Acts 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16). We must be certain that we use the word “Christian” only in reference to those who are truly in Christ (Galatians 3:27), and thus members of the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13). To apply the word “Christian” to individuals who are not in Christ is to fail to speak “as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11).

Second, this “Mayberry mentality” shows us that some brethren have simply lost track of what attracts people to Jesus Christ. “Mayberry Morality” smacks of trying to draw people by the ways of the world (1 John 2:16). One can come to the Christ only if the Father draws him. How does God draw or attract men to His Son? “And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me” (John 6:44,John 6:45). Through what do men hear and learn from the Father? Through the teaching of the Scriptures. Thus, God draws or attracts men to Christ through the Bible. The early church continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine (Acts 2:42). Have we “advanced” so far that we cannot see the difference between Barney and the Bible, or Andy and the apostles' doctrine? What does it say about our hearts when we want to turn to a secular program instead of the Book?

Third, spiritual shepherds of the flock of God have the God-given duty of feeding or tending the flock (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:1,1 Peter 5:2). With what must the elders do this feeding? With that which makes the sheep (members of the church) grow. What is that? The word of God. “But desire the sincere milk of the word that ye may grow thereby” (1 Peter 2:2). Paul's exhortation to first century overseers is still appropriate for bishops today: “I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them that are sanctified” (Acts 20:32). The design of “Bible classes,” which are under the oversight of elders, is to teach and study the Bible, not watch some sheriff smile and laugh at a drunk man in jail!

Fourth, all the foolishness that is taking place in the church today under the guise of building up or edifying the church ought to make us all renew our commitment to a serious study of the Bible. Jesus charged the Jews of His day to “search the Scriptures” (John 5:39). Our Lord constantly prefaced His remarks with “It is written” (for example, when He was tempted, Matthew 4:4,Matthew 4:7,Matthew 4:10). It is he who meditates in the law of the Lord day and night that is blessed (Psalm 1:2). These passages and scores of others point us to the word of God, and not to some modern invention of men, for our guidance and strength. It is time for all of us to give more diligence to be people of the Book.

Fifth, it is high time for a number of congregations seriously to analyze what is being taught and just what goes on in those periods that are supposed to be devoted to Bible study. True, most congregations of the Lord's church are not yet ready to begin using Andy Griffith episodes in their classes as an attraction to draw a crowd. But the fact remains, some materials published by supposed “Christian” publication houses contain error. It is just as wrong to teach error by using a textbook as it is to preach it from the pulpit. Elders need to be certain that the Bible class materials that are being used are sound. Yet other material that is used in Bible classes is extremely weak, and is just not very challenging to those in the class.

Also, I can tell you from the experience of my children, that even in some of the teenage classes of sound churches, on occasion there is time wasted and time spent talking about non-biblical topics. My kids have sat in Sunday morning or Wednesday night classes in which a lot of time was spent talking about Michael Jordan and sports, or some other modern entertainment. I personally do not take kindly to turning my kids over to a teacher, fully expecting him to teach them the Bible during the whole class period, and have him “fiddle around” in class. If our young people turn out to be imitators of those Israelites who lived after the death of Joshua (“And there arose another generation after them, which knew not the Lord, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel,” Judges 2:10), then surely part of that ignorance is going to be because some of our Bible classes have not done an effective job.

Are we totally against television, and Andy Griffith in particular? Not at all. But in our search to find what pleases Jehovah, we are to hear Christ, not Andy (Matthew 17:5), the gospel, not Aunt Bee (Romans 1:16).

_____________________

Note: All quotations in this article re: “Mayberry Morality” are from WINESKINS (July-August, 1998, pages 20-22). At the time the above-mentioned “Mayberry Morality” article was published, this periodical was co-edited by Mike Cope and Rubel Shelly, two outspoken “change agents” who have done extensive damage in the church.

My Source: Bulletin of the Viva Drive church of Christ

Trumann, AR

Author: Keith Currie

=========================================

THE STRANGER

by Keith Currie

A few months before I was born, my dad met a stranger who was new to our small Tennessee town. From the beginning, Dad was fascinated with this enchanting newcomer, and soon invited him to live with our family. The stranger was quickly accepted and was around to welcome me into the world a few months later.

As I grew up I never questioned his place in our family. In my young mind each member had a special niche. My brother, Bill, five years my senior, was my example. Fran, my younger sister, gave me an opportunity to play "big brother" and to develop the art of teasing. My parents were complementary instructors--Mom taught me to love the word of God and Dad taught me to obey it.

But the stranger was our storyteller. He could weave the most fascinating tales. Adventures, mysteries, and comedies were daily conversations. He would hold our whole family spellbound for hours each evening.

If I wanted to know about politics, history, or science, he knew it all. He knew about the past, understood the present, and seemingly could predict the future. The pictures he could draw were so life-like that I would often laugh or cry as I watched. He was like a friend to the whole family. He took Dad, Bill and me to our first major league baseball game. He was always encouraging us to see the movies and he even made arrangements to introduce us to several movie stars. My brother and I were deeply impressed by John Wayne in particular.

The stranger was an incessant talker. Dad didn't seem to mind but sometimes Mom would quietly get up--while the rest of us were enthralled with one of his stories of faraway places--go to her room, read her Bible, and pray. I wonder now if she ever prayed that the stranger would leave.

You see, my dad ruled our household with certain moral convictions. But this stranger never felt obligation to honor them. Profanity, for example, was not allowed in our house--not from us, from our friends, or from adults. Our longtime visitor, however, used occasional four letter words that burned my ears and made Dad squirm. To my knowledge the stranger was never confronted. My Dad was a teetotaler who didn't permit alcohol in his home--not even for cooking. But the stranger felt like we needed exposure and enlightened us to other ways of life. He offered us beer and other alcoholic beverages often.

He made cigarettes look tasty, cigars manly, and pipes distinguished. He talked freely (probably much too freely) about sex. His comments were sometimes blatant, sometimes suggestive, and generally embarrassing. I know now that my early concepts of the man-woman relationships were influenced by the stranger.

As I look back, I believe it was the by grace of God that the stranger did not influence us more. Time after time he opposed the values of my parents. Yet he was seldom rebuked and never asked to leave.

More than thirty years have passed since the stranger moved in with the young family on Morningside Drive. He is not nearly so intriguing to my Dad as he was in those early years. But if I were to walk into my parent's den today, you would still see him sitting over in a corner, waiting for someone to listen to him talk and watch him draw his pictures.

His name? We always just called him TV.

Side by Side

(Author Unknown)

They lie on the table side by side,

The Holy Bible and the TV guide.

One is well worn and cherished with pride,

Not the Bible . . . but the TV guide.

One is used daily to help folks decide,

No, not the Bible . . . but the TV guide.

As the pages are turned, what shall they see,

Oh, what does it matter, turn on the TV.

Then confusion reigns, they can't all agree,

On what they should watch on the old TV.

So they open the book in which they confide,

No, not the Bible . . . but the TV guide.

The Word of God is seldom read,

Maybe a verse as they fall into bed.

Exhausted and sleepy and tired as can be,

Not from reading the Bible . . . from watching TV.

So then back to the table side by side,

Lie the Holy Bible and the TV guide.

No time for prayer, no time for the Word,

The plan of Salvation is seldom heard.

But forgiveness of sin, so full and free,

Is found in the Bible . . . not on TV.

Four recent studies find that sex doesn't sell as much as once believed, and teens are indeed aware that television impacts viewers' attitudes and actions. Researchers found that televisions in children's bedrooms have a negative impact, and in the latest viewing season, father figures returned to television shows in significant numbers.

The studies found:

-- Television programs laden with strong sexual references or violence significantly reduce the viewer's ability to recall commercials included in the programs, according to a study conducted by researchers at Iowa State University.

The study concluded that people watching shows filled with sexual innuendo, performers with revealing clothes or sexual scenes were much less likely to remember the ads both immediately after the show and a day later.

According to a June 16 Washington Post article, if the research is replicated and confirmed, it could severely challenge the popular notion that more sex in shows equals more viewers and a wider response to advertisements. The researchers say their work could show advertisers and programmers that sex and violence do not sell after all, potentially revolutionizing the television industry.

"The simplest explanation is that people who watch a sexual program are thinking about sex instead of about the ads," said Brad Bushman of Iowa State in an interview with the Washington Post. "People who watch a violent program are thinking about violence, not laundry detergent or soda pop. If you don't pay attention to the ads, you won't encode them in memory."

-- Seventy-two percent of teens surveyed by the Kaiser Family Foundation recently said that sexual behaviors on television influenced the sexual behaviors of their peers "somewhat" or "a lot," according to a June 7 issue of "The Pastor's Weekly Briefing" by Focus on the Family. However, only 22 percent think that television influences their own behavior, despite the fact that 43 percent say television has taught them how to talk with a boyfriend or girlfriend about "safer sex" and 60 percent say they've learned from television how to say "no" to a sexual situation that makes them uncomfortable.

-- Children who have televisions their bedrooms watch five-and-a-half hours more television per week, according to a study conducted by the Minneapolis-based National Institute on Media and the Family as reported by "The Pastor's Weekly Briefing."

"What the research shows is that kids who watch more television ... play less well with friends," said Dr. Douglas Gentile, co-author of the study conducted during the 2001-02 television season. "They are more likely to become obese, they do less well in school, and they are more likely to be aggressive and violent as adults."

-- Prime-time television shows featuring fathers who are more involved in their children's lives are more common today than in years past, according to a study conducted by the Parents Television Council. Even so, the television programs are not promoting traditional families in which children live with both married parents, the study found.

According to a June 17 Washington Times article, 64 percent of children on all 119 sitcoms and dramas live with their biological fathers, and 83 percent have father figures, but the study found that less than 50 percent live in traditional households.

"This is a glorification of the broken family," said L. Brent Bozell III, founder and president of the Parents Television Council. "But as a result, what we're seeing is fathers are getting more involved in their children's lives because of these broken families. So this is both good and bad news."

For those of us out there who are both ideological conservatives and fans of quality television, NBC's enormously popular political drama "The West Wing" presents something of a quandary. The show is undoubtedly one of the most well-written television programs on the air. At the same time, as numerous people have previously observed, The West Wing often functions as little more than the propagandistic efforts of NBC to parade the leftist political and moral views of the show's creator, Aaron Sorkin.

While a degree of fairness is sometimes attained, more often than not conservatives are represented as mean-spirited and downright irrational, while liberals come out looking like the true champions of American morality. This "liberal as moral champion" mentality is what makes one of this season's episodes, "We Killed Yamamoto," so worthy of note.

President Josiah "Jeb" Bartlett (played by Martin Sheen) is threatened with a very difficult situation. A foreign dignitary will soon be visiting America as a guest of the president.

The problem arises when U.S. intelligence discovers that this very dignitary is also the secret head of a terrorist organization that has recently attempted an attack on a U.S. military base. A debate ensues between President Bartlett and the Joint Chiefs over the best course of action.

The problem is how to effectively take the suspected terrorist into custody without violating international laws governing diplomatic immunity. The president leaves the meeting convinced that the only alternative is not to allow the diplomat to enter America.

Following the official meeting, a clandestine one takes place between the president's chief of staff, Leo McGarry, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Fitzwallace. During this second meeting, Fitzwallace manages to convince Leo, with the assistance of fuzzy legal definitions, that the president has to let the diplomat into the country, presumably so he can be dealt with decisively.

The pivotal scene in the episode occurs at 1 a.m. in the Oval Office. Leo approaches President Bartlett with his suggestion, and the two begin to argue about whether breaking international laws is justifiable. In the middle of this argument, Leo makes the stunning comment, "That's the only problem with your liberalism, Mr. President. You believe in moral absolutes. There are no moral absolutes."

This argument convinces the president to allow the suspect to enter America, though the two do not decide what course should be followed after that. The president concludes the conversation by weakly stating, "There are moral absolutes," to which Leo simply shakes his head. It sounded like President Bartlett was trying to convince himself as much as he was Leo.

The message of The West Wing is clear. Not only are social liberals the safeguards of true American morality, that morality includes no absolutes. This should come as no surprise. Hollywood and the television industry have been trying to convince us of the absence of moral absolutes for years.

The postmodern philosophy that is so prevalent in entertainment is, at its root, a denial of all absolutes. Even if absolutes in truth and morality were to exist, there would be no way for us to determine them. So, in short, morality is subjective, to be determined by the individual circumstance. Joseph Fletcher's situation ethics has become the holy scripture of American morality.

Ironically, the moral vagueness we see articulated so clearly in The West Wing is not simply a postmodern development. Many nations throughout history have attempted to exist and prosper with an absence of any meaningful moral restraints. One noteworthy example is found in the pages of Scripture. We read in the Old Testament that during the time of the Judges, "there was no king in Israel and every man did what was right in his own eyes."

Biblical scholars note that this phrase, which is repeated numerous times, represents the major theological theme of the book. What the verse means is not that Israel needed a human king to control morality, but that Israel had rejected God as their king.

God, who was the author of moral absolutes, was ignored. In short, God's chosen people lived like they did not know who he was. They were functional atheists. To paraphrase Dostoyevsky, when men ignored God, anything was permissible.

Unlike Israel, America is not God's chosen land, but many of the same principles are applicable to our own moral climate. Polls consistently show that an overwhelming majority of Americans consider themselves Christians. Many of them would even identify themselves with such phrases as "evangelical" or "born again."

Yet, America is a country where, for the most part, every person does what is right in his or her own eyes. Multitudes claim to have a faith in God, but they live as though God (and his moral absolutes) is of no consequence to their daily lives. There are many Americans who are merely "cultural Christians" at best.

While cultural religion is never a substitute for saving faith, the problem is not limited to spiritual imposters. Regrettably, far too many authentic Christians go to church and affirm absolute truth, when in reality they are like Jeb Bartlett, trying to convince themselves that their notions of morality are not antiquated. Like ancient Israel, we are a nation of functional atheists.

Many Christians have a somewhat misinformed view of our founding fathers, believing them to be modern-day evangelicals who just happened to live in the 18th century. While this is a rather simplistic, rosy view of American history, there is no doubt that the founding fathers drafted our historical documents under the Judeo-Christian assumption that there is a God and he created a world of moral absolutes. How else can one explain the language of "inalienable rights." Absolutes were simply taken for granted.

Unfortunately, that is not the case today. In our pluralistic culture, we can no longer assume that all Americans have basically the same worldview in taking absolutes for granted. That is why it is so important for Christians to cling to the notion of moral absolutes. It is our responsibility to speak up for absolute truth and morality.

We must engage our culture in such a way that the biblical worldview is shown to be the only truly viable option. So do not buy into the lie that moral absolutes are a thing of the past. The West Wing may possibly be the best show on television, but its government does not represent the values America needs the most.

*

It was not a sight for the faint of heart: The woman was shackled to a chair. And then her tormentor picked up several needles and drove them into her arm until they came out the other side. The woman grimaced in pain and began to sweat profusely. Blood dripped from her arm. How much more could she take before she broke?

Torture is a terrible thing, and we've heard a lot of talk lately about whether we should torture al-Qaeda terrorists. And just this week in Germany it was reported that a policeman will be prosecuted for threatening to torture a kidnapper to find out where the child he kidnapped was being held.

Most commentators say that we should never resort to torture. But ironically, the torture scene I was just describing was not involving terrorists or kidnappers. It was torture being administered for the entertainment of a television audience -- another indication of how degraded our culture has become. No one had to watch, of course; they watched willingly.

The woman in the chair was a “guest” on the NBC program FEAR FACTOR, the latest and perhaps vilest of so-called “reality” TV.

It was bad enough when, in past weeks, FEAR FACTOR contestants ate cockroaches or allowed themselves to be bitten by rats to win big money. And chowing down on liquified pig livers and reindeer testicles is beyond gross even if you get your “fifteen minutes of fame.”

More than one reality TV reviewer says that, while he is revolted by what he is watching, he can't tear his eyes away. And that ought to sound a warning bell for Christians.

The early Church faced a similar situation when it confronted the bloody and murderous gladiatorial contests. In the second century, the Bishop Tertullian criticized Christians who enjoyed these spectacles and warned that their own degradation would result from nourishing a “passion for murderous pleasure.”

A story from Augustine's CONFESSIONS helps us to understand why. Augustine's friend Alypius vowed that he would never again witness a gladiatorial contest. But one day he was dragged by some friends into the arena.

Augustine writes that “Alypius shut his eyes tightly.... [But] if only he had shut his ears as well! For an incident in the fight drew a great roar from the crowd.”

Alypius couldn't contain his curiosity. He opened his eyes, and, Augustine says, “His soul was stabbed with a wound more deadly than any which the gladiator had received in his body.” He reveled in the gore, drunk with bloodlust. Alypius was hooked.

The secular Roman playwright Seneca warned that when we make a sport of maiming and killing human beings, we render ourselves less humane. We destroy the respectful kindness, the humanitas, characteristic of the virtuous person. Research bears him out. Criminologist James Q. Wilson describes research that links violent television with real-life copycat crimes.

Most commentators believe that torture is something in which no civilized people should engage. That includes the torture of terrorists or kidnappers for information. But can we, on the one hand, oppose that, and then enjoy torture in entertainment? TV shows that offer torture for fun destroy our humanity -- our compassion toward our fellow creatures for whom Christ died.

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION

Lynette Rice, “When Reality Attacks” (a roundtable discussion with TV executives), ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY, 10 March 2003. http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,430049~3~0~whatswrongwithreality,00.html

Judith Martin, “Reality TV as a Teaching Tool,” WASHINGTON POST, 2 February 2003, F03. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6101-2003Jan31

Ethan Campbell, “Running Man Revisited,” BOUNDLESS, 21 June 2001. http://www.boundless.org/2000/departments/atplay/a0000447.html

BreakPoint Commentary No. 030213, “Reality or Something Like It: Reality TV and Boredom.” http://www.breakpoint.org/Breakpoint/ChannelRoot/FeaturesGroup/BreakPointCommentaries/Reality+or+Something+Like+It.htm

BreakPoint Commentary No. 020208, “Must-Close-Your-Eyes TV: The Chair and The Chamber.” http://www.pfmonline.net/transcripts.taf?_function=detail&ID=2423&Site=BPT

Lisa Leigh Connors, “A bloody cutting edge,” ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER, 9 March 2003. http://www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/ocr/article.do?id=28806&year=2003&month=3&day=9

Gregory M. Lamb, “TV's higher threshold of pain,” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, 23 August 2002. http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0823/p13s02-altv.html

“Children-TV Violence Link Has Effect,” MSN, 9 March 2003. http://entertainment.msn.com/news/article.aspx?news=117064

Lawrence Toppman, “If you can't find a babysitter, stay out of R movies,” THE CHARLOTTE OBSERVER, 7 March 2003. http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/entertainment/columnists/lawrence_toppman/5336075.htm

Read Tertullian's DE SPECTACULIS (The Shows), as translated by Rev. S. Thelwall in 1869. http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-09.htm

St. Augustine, THE CONFESSIONS OF SAINT AUGUSTINE (Whitaker House, 1996). http://www.parable.com/breakpoint/item_0883683822.htm

Richard Winter, STILL BORED IN A CULTURE OF ENTERTAINMENT: REDISCOVERING PASSION AND WONDER (InterVarsity, 2002).

____________

Copyright (c) 2003 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #18689]

Philips bude vyrábìt obrazovky na Moravì

Nizozemci pøinášejí do zemì dosud nejvìtší investici

P r a h a (mp) - V Hranicích na Moravì vyroste druhá nejvìtší továrna na výrobu barevných obrazovek na svìtì.Plánovaná výroba v dobì dokonèení investice v roce 2007 je osm milionù televizních obrazovek roènì, 95 procent výroby je urèeno na export," píše se ve zprávì k projektu Philipsu, který dnes projedná vláda. Investice je rozdìlena do osmi let, již po pìti letech se tržby firmy mají vyšplhat na dvacet dva miliard korun, a spoleènost tak bude patøit mezi nejvìtší tuzemské výrobce.

Turn on your TV set any night of the week, and you'll see entertainment that would have delighted the most bloodthirsty citizen of ancient Rome.

Out of a sense of decorum, television news programs usually omit the most horrific images of crime or tragedy. But for those who relish every bloody detail, we now have "shockumentaries" -- and they have no problem living up to their names. They seem to be getting worse.

One recent program showed police photos of the naked corpse of a young woman, lying by the road where her killer dumped her. Another program routinely shows murder victims in the blood-spattered rooms where they died. Narrators describe every detail of how victims are kidnapped, raped, tortured, and killed.

And if that's not enough to turn your stomach, tune into shows that include "dramatic reenactments" of the actual crime -- reenactments that dramatize every sickening detail.

"Shockumentaries" are so popular that during ratings weeks, networks pull their regular shows to provide extra helpings of real-life blood and gore. But Christians ought to hit the off button long enough to ask themselves what impact these programs are having.

The early church faced something very similar: It took a strong stand against the bloody gladiatorial contests. In the second century, the Bishop Tertullian criticized Christians who enjoyed these spectacles, and warned that their own degradation would result from nourishing a "passion for murderous pleasure."

A story from Augustine's Confessions helps us understand why. Augustine had a friend named Alypius, who was disgusted by the brutality of the gladiatorial games: He vowed to avoid them. But one day Alypius met some friends who dragged him to join them at the arena.

Augustine writes that the arena "was seething with the lust for cruelty. Alypius shut his eyes tightly, determined to have nothing to do with these atrocities. If only he had shut his ears as well! For an incident in the fight drew a great roar from the crowd."

Alypius could not contain his curiosity. He opened his eyes, and, Augustine says, "his soul was stabbed with a wound more deadly than any which the gladiator had received in his body." He reveled in the gore, drunk with bloodlust. He was hooked.

The Roman playwright Seneca warned that when we make sport of maiming and killing human beings, we render ourselves less humane. We destroy the respectful kindness, the humanitas, characteristic of the virtuous person. Modern research bears him out. Criminologist James Q. Wilson describes research that links violent television with real-life copycat crimes.

Those of us who would never dream of watching a trashy film think nothing of sitting down to an evening of real-life murder and mayhem. But programs that turn human suffering into entertainment coarsen us, making us less sensitive to the pain of others. And, as Alypius discovered, they're addictive.

So, the next time you're channel surfing, surf right past the "shockumentaries." And whatever it takes, don't let your kids watch these programs. For so- called entertainment programs like these literally destroy our humanitas -- our compassion towards those for whom Christ died.

_________________________

Copyright (c) 2001 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*