Adventist Today

I strongly encourage y'all to click on the embedded link -- the one about in the middle of my blog that says "read article." There are more resources on kids and TV in this University of Michigan article than I have ever before seen in one place!

Like everything in life, balance is key. EGW would very likely simply advocate balance on this issue, very different from the hardliners ellenwhiteans in our midst.

Confusing children watching certain TV programs with adults muddies the subject. Children are not little adults and there are many things for which they should not be exposed, and than includes much that is on TV as well as movies.

This is why there is a PG rating for movies and gives parents the option to take their children or not. Movies, like many novels, portray moral lessons that often are better understood than straight instruction.

My 11-yr. old grandaughter has been raised with no TV in the home, and it is used, rarely, for movies which her parents select. It has never been a "baby-sitter" and only when she visits grandma does she watch the Disney Channel to relax after a school year and is on R&R. (What happens at Grandma's stays at grandma's.) We infrequently take her to movies that or chosen to be innocuous, and never the violence or sexual themes so pervasive today.

The Adventism which I grew up in, and many others, movies were of the devil, and one was always afraid her name would be called up and she would be in a movie which immediately damned her to hell. Today, I can comfortably watch many of the old classics which I missed during those years and find them, strangely, not at all the evil I was warned against. The problem: ALL movies were banned and we were not taught to choose either movies, TV, novels (fiction was of the devil) or classic literature that develops both mind and moral conscience. Moderation in all things is still a good motto to follow.

Cindy,

Don't faint. I agree. Making positive choices about what we allow into our minds is a great and continual challenge. Since we cannot avoid the messages surrounding us, how about if we put some creativity into displacing some of the negative messages with positive, morals-based stories that will be attractive to those who are not spiritually-minded?

William

With my trusty smelling salts, I have recovered. . .

And I also agree!. . .with your important suggestion to not leave the house of the mind empty. That's why I edit visionary4kids.org (just a little veggie commercial here) and promote student literature evangelists who distribute Jerry Thomas's kids books and even some Arthur Maxwell stories.

But I also subscribe to the theory that even though some are not spiritually-minded, there is a God-vacuum in that mind house.It is possible for carefully selected Christian literature to be an agency to lead some to the Water of Life, helping them recognize and fill their real heart-cry.

Cindy,

The "God vacuum." I like that description. The greater problem I see there is not the presence of that vacuum, but that most Christians have been given a limited model for how to introduce spiritual principles to people who obviously do not believe the same as they do and insist on inundating them with what fails to fill their vacuum.

Seeing the general ineffectiveness of our church's familiar methods for introducing people to God, I think we need to reevaluate everything we do. Good as they were, I'm glad there is an effort under way to replace the Uncle Arthur books with collections of stories that are more relevant to today's society. Hopefully they'll be available to you soon.

I totally agree with your blog, Cindy. I wasn't raised in the church, but we had TV when it seemed innocent by today's standards. But before we got one, the public school I attended would show movies once a month. When I saw my first movie (about age 6), I was horrified and had to hide my eyes because of the mild violence. Another one was on the last days of Pompeii--after that I refused to attend the movies and stayed with a Pentacostal girl in the classroom while the others went to the movies. Then when we got TV, I became desensitized to the violence. I can imagine what this really evil stuff is doing to kids today. I still don't like violent films or explicit ones, and when I went to movies in my younger days if the film was too bad, I got up and waited in the lobby for whomever I was with until they came out.
There are Christian media reviewers that can be found on-line, however, if one is so inclined to attend a movie or watch one at home. There are a few good ones out there that are worth the time.
I do admit to getting hooked in to some TV programs at times that aren't worth the time!

I thought I was the only one who had noticed the words in a dialogue from "Superman Returns" when I watched it some time ago and since then have mentioned it to others as well. I checked up on it when I saw this pertinent blog and found that the words from this dialogue were noted already and documented. What a tragic 'subliminal message'?

Here are the words from the movie:
-->Superman: I read the article, Lois.
-->Lois Lane: Yeah, so did a lot of people. Tomorrow night, they're giving me the Pulitzer...
-->Superman: Why did you write it?
-->Lois Lane: How could you leave us like that? I moved on. So did the rest of us. That's why I wrote it. THE WORLD DOESN'T NEED A SAVIOUR. AND NEITHER DO I.

[Scene from Superman Returns – 2006]

Could this line "The world doesn't need a saviour. And neither do I." be just coincidence? Or was it 'put in' intentionally? Whatever reason, it speaks volumes. A sinful, debased, dying world - NO SAVIOUR? Just one line = one sermon - whether intentional or not - a 'blockbuster' for satan - nonetheless...

I found the following 'scary' info on a website:
http://www.icr.org/article/know-enemy-a-critique-anton-laveys-books-satanism/

"There are television sets in every home, every restaurant, every hotel room, and every shopping mall— now they're even small enough to carry in your pocket like electronic rosaries. It is an unquestioned part of everyday life. Kneeling before the cathode-ray god, with our TV Guide concordance in hand, we maintain the illusion of choice by flipping channels (chapters and verses)." 1

The writer was the man who founded the most famous public Satanist organization in America (the Church of Satan founded in 1966), Anton LaVey. He is also the author of a number of other books including "The Satanic Bible."

He also says: "... The birth of TV was a magical event foreshadowing its satanic significance. The first commercial broadcast was aired on Walpurgisnacht, April 30th, 1939, at the New York World's Fair. Since then, TV's infiltration has been so gradual, so complete that no one even noticed. People don't need to go to church any more; they get their morality plays on television." 2

1 Anton LaVey, The Devil's Notebook (Portland, Oregon, Feral House, 1992), p.84.
2 Ibid. p. 86.
------

So yeah, maybe some factions within the Church should stop blaming traditional Adventism for the loss of young people and accept the fact that Hollywood ain't Holywood. TV has a detrimental influence on both kids and adults who are somewhat 'addicted' to the 'tube'. This 'one eyed monster' (as a christian brother in my hometown puts it), is truly a dangerous medium if/when used incorrectly or the wrong purposes.

Say What? 4 to 5 hours a day? Kids Watching? That's soo BAD - soo SAD! I know this may sound extreme but I think tv is most definitely one of the 'channels' that Satan is using to further his sicko debased social disorder through filth, immorality, profanity, blasphemy, violence, violence and more violence, etc., in open defiance to God Almighty and His Son Jesus Christ. It not only desensitizes us from violence but also the broader results of sin and wickedness. At least this is one EVIL they can't pin on the 'third world' for instigating. Huh!

In the only true MEDIAtor - Jesus Christ!

T

From your linked article, "Shows with a prosocial message can have a positive effect on kids' behavior; programs with positive role models can influence viewers to make positive lifestyle changes."

How's that? I did not see 3abn mentioned, or any other "show" that teaches Bible principles. Alternatively, I'm not aware of any TV shows or movies that really teach children good moral values. Even the witchcraft of Harry Potter claims to be "goodness."

The rapidly moving images of entertainment TV puts the brain in alpha mode in 17 seconds. This is a form of mesmerism akin (or can lead to) to Nuero Linguistic Programming which prepares the mind to accept what is presented. Satan's agenda is transmitted through all Hollywood productions as well as with many or most independent film producers. Additionally, whether it is a Christmas play in the church (BTW, Ellen White was not exactly having fun when she attended her granddaughters play)or any theatrical production, the Spirit of Prophecy condemns all such activities, whether it's a misguided attempt to teach the gospel through the drama or play, or watching entertainment productions, comedy's, or other paraphernalia. These things all war against the spirituality that we need in Christ Jesus.

Within Adventism; Ellen White, Battlefield Hollywood,(Little Light Studios) Dr. Neil Nedley of Wiemar Center, and Joe Crews book, "Creeping Compromise," the "The TV Trap," chapter, and Steve Wohlberg; all utilize Biblical principles while exposing the entertainment industry.

Elaine,
If we use ourselves and our own wisdom to try and ascertain if movies are "evil" we will be sure to fail. In heaven before the fall of man, Lucifer bent his master mind in deception so powerful that his tale (lies) deceived one third of the angels in heaven. Part of his story was that holy angels were sufficiently wise to govern themselves, and needed no governing or law by God to guide them.

Before Adam and Eve had a chance to grow in the knowledge and love of God, they too fell being taken in a snare by Satan. Since then, man has had to depend wholly upon the merits of Christ and His Word to guide his way back to that perfect garden, and that perfect Holy existence without pain, suffering and eventual death. I wish, but I cannot have back, the hours and hours, days and days, years and years, spent wasted in front of a TV or movie screen when I could have been studying to get to that paradise that is coming soon--and to help others get there.

Happily, I returned to the LORD instead of following the road to eternal death. So now I need that Guide, the Bible and the SOP to finish guiding me home in these last, very dangerous days. Worldliness is spiritual death to the soul, and only in the light of the 1000 years judgment will the risen saints know the power of TV dramas, comedy's and theatricals, and their significant part in the eternal destruction of those for whom Christ died.

(1John 2:15 [AKJV])
Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

(1John 2:16
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

(1John 2:17
And the world passes away, and the lust thereof: but he that does the will of God stays for ever.

(Rom 1:28
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

(Rom 1:29
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

(Rom 1:30
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

(Rom 1:31
Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

(Rom 1:32 [AKJV])
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but **have pleasure in them that do them.**

Sin is viewed on TV and movies, and elsewhere, and as the non-participant feels "neutral" and not involved--yet he/she takes pleasure in these sins vicariously. What does the Bible say they are worthy of? Strong language sometimes is needed to get the attention of some. With most, nothing works.

Surely, all movies and TV are not evil. Adventists use TV to send sermons and other events. Movies are neither evil or good but depend on the content. We have only our own conscience and God-given reason to make decisions. Adults may safely read books, see movies, and TV that are not appropriate for children unless one is content on "dumbing down" all his material that are approved for children.

Education in the home is where children should be taught discrimination in everything: food, entertainment, and more. To say all such is "out of bounds" is to turn children loose to face such decisions when they leave home, without any guidance or discernment.

"Hold on to your own belief, as between yourself and God--and consider the man fortunate who can make his decision without going against his conscience" (Rom. 14:22).

Elaine,

Your Bible text is used out of context and does not reflect either good exegesis, nor does it follow Paul's meaning.The context shows that Paul is speaking of not causing ones brother to stumble and to keep his faith to himself. Trying to use this verse to justify theatrics which the apostles and Jesus never used is incorrect.One may correctly teach their children the joys of following Scripture instead of the world and certainly does not include "discrimination in entertainment,"which to me means, if there are 10 degrees of evil programming, do I accept the 4 or the 7? All entertainment TV has degrees of evil that war against Christ. Either we teach our children good Biblical values, or we let Satan do it through his mediums.

Pro 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

It's more correct to perhaps say, "I will do as I will regardless of the Word of God and the SOP guides me to do." That's what I would say in any context should I decide to follow the worlds agenda apart from Christ.

Let's get some context here, and following is an excerpt from the Commentary with which I agree.

Rom 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things with which one may edify another (AKJV, same as the KJV).
Rom 14:20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eats with offense.
Rom 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby your brother stumbles, or is offended, or is made weak.
Rom 14:22 Have you faith? have it to yourself before God. Happy is he that condemns not himself in that thing which he allows.
Rom 14:23 And he that doubts is damned if he eat, because he eats not of faith: for whatever is not of faith is sin.

From The 7th Day Adventist Commentary:

22. Hast thou faith? Important textual evidence may be cited (cf. p. 10) for the reading, “The faith that you have.” The pronoun “you” is emphatic in the Greek. “Faith” in this context is the faith to “eat all things” (v. 2).

Have it to thyself. Such faith is not to be paraded openly to the offense of the “weak” (v. 1) brother, but is to be kept between yourself and God.

Happy. Gr. makarios (see on Matt. 5:3). This happiness is the blessedness of a clear and undoubting conscience.
Alloweth. Gr. dokimazō (see on ch. 12:2).

23. Doubteth. Or, “debates within himself.” Compare the description of the double-minded man (James 1:6; cf. Matt. 21:21; Mark 11:23; Rom. 4:20).
Is damned. Gr. katakrinō, “to condemn.” The man who eats, in spite of the doubts of his conscience, is condemned.

Faith. Here referring to a conviction of right and wrong, resulting in the determination to do whatever is believed to be God’s will. Paul’s meaning is that if a Christian does not act from strong personal conviction that what he does is right, but, instead, complies weakly with the judgment of others, then his action is sinful. The Christian should never violate his conscience. It may require educating. It may tell him that certain things are wrong that in themselves may not be wrong. But until convinced by the Word and the Spirit of God that a certain course is proper for him, he ought not to pursue it. He must not make others the criterion for his conduct; he must go to the Scriptures and learn for himself his duty in the matter (see 2T 119–124).
{Nichol, Francis D.: The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Volume 6. Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1978; 2002, S. 641}

Who was speaking of sermons and such good teachings? I was not at all writing on that context; mine was purely on entertainment "fiction" based productions which do include items like "The Ten Commandments;" with Charlton Heston and Yul Brynner. Cindy's articles does mention the Hope Channel as a good alternative.

For me, entertainment is a dangerous word; one that is very problematic indeed. I know Adventists who show up in church on Sabbath, warm the pew, and virtually never crack a Bible open. Their conversation is of the world, almost never on Biblical topics and that related to Sabbath conversation. Entertainment TV and movies as well as the fiction novels, cause undue excitement and can lead to a condition called anhedonia; the inability to experience pleasure and joy.

"Anhedonia: Loss of the capacity to experience pleasure. The inability to gain pleasure from normally pleasurable experiences. Anhedonia is a core clinical feature of depression, schizophrenia, and some other mental illnesses."
An anhedonic mother finds no joy from playing with her baby. An anhedonic football fan is not excited when his team wins. An anhedonic teenager feels no pleasure from passing the driving test."
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=17900

Fictional productions whether, books, movies, TV, plays operas,can most definitely lead to a diseased imagination.

"That which many term experience is not experience at all; it has resulted from mere habit, or from a course of indulgence, thoughtlessly and often ignorantly followed. There has not been a fair trial by actual experiment and thorough investigation, with a knowledge of the principles involved in the action. Experience which is opposed to natural law,—which is in conflict with the unchangeable principles of nature,—is not to be relied upon. Superstition arising from a diseased imagination is often arrayed in opposition to reason and to scientific principles. To many a person, the idea that others may gainsay what he has learned by experience, seems folly, and even cruelty itself. But there are more errors received and held through false ideas of experience than from any other cause. There are many invalids today who will ever remain such because they cannot be convinced that their experience is not to be relied upon." {CTBH 109.2}

This should need to explanation--how rampant in Adventism are beliefs based upon experiences that conflict with God's word? If it looks good, sounds good, tastes good, then it is good.

Excess entertainment is certainly sin, the Bible and the SOP are clear!I totally regret letting my children watch TV, and I really believed that I was doing "good" by keeping them away from Sabbath cartoons and those extremely "evil" TV shows, movies and Nintendo games. I realize now how wrong that I was. The TV should have been designated for the dumpster unless it was used for sermons, some limited news, or good childrens' Bible stories (3abn).Hollywood movies or anything of that nature should have been never viewed along with all sports productions.

No matter how successful a parent can be in protecting his children from the influence of entertainment, when they leave home they must have the ability to make good judgments. If there has been no TV or movies, you can guarantee that they will not continue to never watch them. But, if they have been taught good values, they will have developed their own criteria, which is what "growing up" means: the internal conscience must have developed rather than having parents over their shoulder telling them "No" to such attractions.

great point Elaine , I fully agree with you . When I left home , I wanted to try many of the things that my Parents did not let me do .

Lumping all movies, novels, or TV into the same garbage dump would be eliminating some of the world's greatest literature and great movies.

I am reminded that when my oldest daughter graduated SDA academy, she had never been introduced to Shakespeare in all of her four years! Nor, was she allowed to play any music from a movie!

Failure to learn discriminating has indicted all such expressions in the garbage pail which is to deprive ourselves of great giants of literature (one of whom is quoted). '

Only when I began undergraduate and graduate studies was I captivated by the greats of literature for which I will ever be grateful. Wasn't it EGW who warned against novel reading? The theater? Dancing? What a Puritan!
Definition: "Puritanism is the haunting feat that someone, somewhere, may be happy."

What alarmist tripe being written here. Novels whether written, theatrical plays or movies can contain great truths about humans and their interactions. The liberal use of "satan is everywhere" using all of the media to lead us astray is laughable and takes away from our own personal responsibility.

There are some great fictional and non-fictional films to be viewed that deal with complex subject matter and I for one am enriched by the theatrical experience. The phantom of the opera is fiction but is a poignant reminder of the prejudices of society and the warped view of "beauty" which focuses on the physical and rarely on the content of character of a person.

TV with the great variety of content, like cooking shows (which I watch regularly) and history channel, military channel have fantastic content and should be watched. The view that we should shun the world and bury ourselves in our SDA alternative universe smells of cult like behavior.

For those interested in reading more about the context from which Ellen White wrote, I would highly recommend D.P. Nord's volume "Faith in Reading: Religious Publishing and the Birth of Mass Media in America." Strictly from the standpoint of media theory, Ellen White and her contemporaries fit best within what has been called the "hypodermic needle" theory of media effects. Less than a well established theory, it was a belief in the direct, immediate and universal effects of mass media. If you take the General Conference Department of Education's summary of Ellen White's counsel on fiction and compare it against Nord's history, there is a remarkable correspondence of thought and language. Since that time, however, there have been many other well-researched constructs for understanding the media that deserve our attention. And its important to understand that Ellen White did not have these at her disposal, especially in light of the fact that her gift of inspiration often drew selectively upon available resources. How would Ellen White enter the discussion about media today? It's a question that calls for conjecture, but also asks us to consider the changing ways in which spiritual arguments can and should be framed or nuanced across time. Cindy's arguments are a nice summary of concerns drawn largely from contemporary research in the "media effects" tradition. However, today's effects researchers acknowledge the fact that the effects picture is much more complex than those subscribing to the "hypodermic needle" view ever supposed. This, of course,does not stop the popular press from distorting effects research data along the lines of "A causes B." One of the common errors in interpreting much of this research is arguing causatively from correlative research. If we wish to be credible in making arguments within the effects realm, it is important to not misinterpret or overstate findings. The bottom line is: media effects research does not provide a scientific 'slam dunk' against the opposing team. As Cindy suggests, there has to be some kind of spiritual and moral analysis going on, as well, and perhaps this is where the church ought to focus its energies. Although, I would suggest that this leads us beyond a mere concern with behavioral "content" (sex, violence, language, etc.) in the direction of ideological, mythical and theological analysis. The result would be more of a dialogical approach to media than simply a prohibitionist one. To be certain, there is content that should be avoided, and this may vary with age. But a much more fruitful approach is to teach people how to think critically and theologically about the media in all of its many aspects.

Just one last note. Cindy's praise of the HOPE Channel actually illustrates why a focus on content alone is not enough. Media literacy is fundamentally based on the understanding that all media re-present the world to us, and do so with a particular set of motives. Allowing our critical faculties to rest, even when consuming religious programming, would be a mistake. The very existence Adventist Today speaks to the need for alternative media within the context of church-run media whose nearest counterpart would be state-run television. Just because 3ABN or HOPE do not contain sex, violence or strong language does not mean that the view of the church or the world presented by them is necessarily faithful or true. In the words of Paul, "Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good." (1 Thess. 5:21)

This is my first time posting so I hope I am not breaking any rules here!
In my recent study of Esther, I saw that it wasn't the Uncle Arthur fantasy of a beautiful Queen where everything turns out wonderful.
It was a falling in love with the devil story, that made the Jews backsliders and did not want to follow Gods' plea to return to their own people.  Esther had been in the Kings court of concubines for 12 years befor she and Mordecai took there public stand for God. 
Media of all kinds, provides a distraction of time spent away from the purpose of spreading the Good News. 
We can justify by saying we use media for outreach, just as we use books, cars, buildings, etc. 
Time is the ONLY equal measure that has been given to all.  HOW we use that time comes from our heart. 

So, we are back to matters of the HEART or motive.  To WHOM does our heart belong to?