re the vexed question of Reformed Christians and TV:

[jayce475]

My apologies if my semantics haven't been up to scratch in its precision.

Precision's very important when you're indicting people for libertine-ism or hypocrisy.

For the record, I've not indicted anyone, for those taking the contrary position have indeed used the word "liberty" to describe their position and I have merely pointed out that it is rather surprising that nothing has been spoken out against Dr Joel Beeke's article up till that time. I have not accused anyone of the heretical position of what we usually understand to be "libertinism". As for the matter of precision, I'll try harder and not stretch the semantics so much as to cause confusion in the future.

 

[Elizabeth]

SermonAudio.com - Should Christians watch Movies?

Oh, this was such excellent teaching. Dr. Murray is always wonderful to listen to, and this was esp hard-hitting. Esp when he takes to task folk who claim that, since the Bible has murder, adultery, treachery in it, it's okay for us to view such things in our living rooms, in the name of leisure and recreation or 'learning about the world'. His admonition is right around 40 minutes. If nothing else, take a listen to that bit.

Thanks for linking this!

 

[JennyG]

And just in case anyone wants to say that Beeke is not saying having a TV is a sin, he says, "[TV] is against the word of God. In Psalm 119 the Lord commands us to turn our eyes from vanity. The entire Bible speaks against television because of its unending list of evils."

but if just calling it sin is "binding others' consciences" and unacceptable, there will surely be a problem. Christians genuinely disagree over whether TV is allowable.
What the form can the discussion take, if not along the lines "this is a sin" - "no it's not necessarily"-?

 

[Covenant Joel]

but if just calling it sin is "binding others' consciences" and unacceptable, there will surely be a problem. Christians genuinely disagree over whether TV is allowable.
What the form can the discussion take, if not along the lines "this is a sin" - "no it's not necessarily"-?

That is the very point. It isn't a matter of across-the-board sin because a TV is simply a tool. One could point to all the possible problems of the internet (time wasting, inappropriate images/videos, advertising, etc) and say that we should all chuck our internet connections if not our computers. But we don't because we say that it is a tool which can be used for good or evil. It is the same with TVs. They can be used for great evil (time wasting, influenced too much by culture, desensitization to sin, etc), but they can also be used for good and for lawful entertainment. So to bring into the real of unequivocal sin is to deny Christian liberty.

I'm not sure why we need to feel we must say that every Christian should throw out his or her television. If we spent more time articulating clearly what is and isn't ok with the television, as well as recognizing that some may need/wish to throw it out altogether, it would be more beneficial. The physical box is not evil, and I don't know how you can argue otherwise. What we do with it can be. And that is the issue, not the presence of such a box in our homes.

 

[JennyG]

The physical box is not evil, and I don't know how you can argue otherwise. What we do with it can be.

I don't think anyone has a problem with the box itself.
One of the biggest problems I see with the use of it is just the fact that we don't do anything with it. We don't control what comes out of it. We can watch it, or not, and that's the limit of the discernment we can exercise.

 

[Steve Curtis]

We don't control what comes out of it

While I cannot control the programming of television generally, I can control what comes out of my television. If I turn on a particular program - the news, say, or a football game - and turn it off when that program is over, I have "controlled" what has come out. Of course, it could be argued that I cannot control the commercials, and that is true. However, I can mute them, fastforward through them (if I have DVR) or simply divert my attention. The same could be said when I am strolling in the park and see someone dressed inappropriately or stop for a cup of coffee and hear someone using coarse or profane language. In those cases, that is incidental to what I am doing, not the point of what I am doing. I can certainly refrain from going to the park or the coffee shop, I suppose. Likewise, I can refrain from watching the football game because of what may come on my television during the breaks. It seems to me a case of throwing out the proverbial baby with the bath water. For those who are convinced that they should toss the television into the dumpster, then, by all means, they should, and the case could be made that they are sinning if they do not. However, for the one who is not so convicted to be told that he or she is "sinning" and doing that which is "against the Word of God" is to have their conscience bound by something other than the Word of God. Scripture simply does not say, "Thou shalt not watch television," anymore than it says "Thou shalt not walk in the park or go to coffee shops."

 

[jayce475]

They can be used for great evil (time wasting, influenced too much by culture, desensitization to sin, etc), but they can also be used for good and for lawful entertainment.

Many a times the two camps part drastically on what is lawful entertainment, so what can be considered lawful entertainment is hardly universal. Why do we even feel the need to be entertained? Essentially, due to the need to cater to the tastes of viewers, there are hardly any programs on the telly that are of any worth. At least that's the case over here in Brisbane. If the shows over in the US are seriously different, let me know. Sports? Potentially idolatrous and takes up a lot of time. Cooking shows? Potentially idolatrous too, though some in the genre can be used educationally if the viewers don't become indulgent. Sitcoms? Blasphemous and making light of sexual immorality (Simpsons, Family Guy, Two and A Half Men). Hollywood tripe and dramas? Oh come on. Christian TV? Somehow somehow, there are never Reformed preachers on TV. Over here, there's Copeland, Meyers, ecumenical movement discussions, etc. Watching the news and documentaries to help us further understand/keep in touch with/appreciate God's creation and the world around us can be good for our faith, though we also need to be on the guard against ungodly messages. I cannot find much on the telly that is edifying, and if there is anything that is, they can be easily replaced by other mediums. Keeping the box is not a sin, though there is much potential for sin when it is around.

There are those who claim that many of the shows on the telly help us better appreciate the creativity that God has given us, whereas those on this side see a much greater potential for sin than edification. Herein lies the difference.

Anyway, methinks the greater question at hand is why we feel the need to be entertained and waste time on unprofitable things. Do we really have enough time edifying those around us? Do we really have enough time finishing up all of the duties that life demands? Do we really have enough time reading God's Word, reading literature by godly men and mediating in the Word of God? Do we really have enough time to evangelize to the lost? Do we really have enough time to pray and intercede for others? Do we really have enough time to give our bodies sufficient sleep in the night so that we can take of the body that God has given us? The last time I checked, I couldn't do these things while watching the television. Bottomline, shouldn't there be a godly purpose to everything that we do? "It's just entertainment, no big deal." Yeah, you've just wasted that last breath which God has given you on something that's worthless. And on the matter of time-wasting, it isn't just the matter of television programs, but also every activity which we do. Before we do it, should we not consider wherein lies the godly purpose for the activity?

 

[calgal]

Jason: the internet has a LOT of (really sick) pr0n and sites devoted to the sick and macabre that are quite accessible to the average viewer. Do you also suggest banning the internet?

Deleted by Admin

And to go back to the OP we have a TV to watch our favorite shows, the Cubs the Bears and the local news.

 

[Steve Curtis]

We should be painstakingly careful when we do, and support our accustations; However no one - Reformed or not - is sacrosanct.

 

[kvanlaan]

Once again we have "don't bind my conscience" vs. "what issues forth from the box is sin". Is it lawful to own the box? Yes. Is it beneficial? That remains to be seen. The box minus the filth is not evil in and of itself, but the filth is woven throughout even on network television, never mind cable. It is the same with the internet, though you can possibly avoid most of the truly questionable ads by staying away from certain sites. We do have the actual box, but we don't have TV in that it can't get any channels whatsoever - it is not evil in and of itself. It is used for movies that are screened by our Clearplay DVD player, that's it. So I say we don't have TV.

But I still don't see real interaction with Dr Beeke's article. I see reaction to it, but little interaction with it.

 

[Covenant Joel]

Many a times the two camps part drastically on what is lawful entertainment, so what can be considered lawful entertainment is hardly universal. Why do we even feel the need to be entertained? Essentially, due to the need to cater to the tastes of viewers, there are hardly any programs on the telly that are of any worth. At least that's the case over here in Brisbane. If the shows over in the US are seriously different, let me know. Sports? Potentially idolatrous and takes up a lot of time. Cooking shows? Potentially idolatrous too, though some in the genre can be used educationally if the viewers don't become indulgent. Sitcoms? Blasphemous and making light of sexual immorality (Simpsons, Family Guy, Two and A Half Men). Hollywood tripe and dramas? Oh come on. Christian TV? Somehow somehow, there are never Reformed preachers on TV. Over here, there's Copeland, Meyers, ecumenical movement discussions, etc. Watching the news and documentaries to help us further understand/keep in touch with/appreciate God's creation and the world around us can be good for our faith, though we also need to be on the guard against ungodly messages. I cannot find much on the telly that is edifying, and if there is anything that is, they can be easily replaced by other mediums. Keeping the box is not a sin, though there is much potential for sin when it is around.

Notice that I tried to get clarify earlier as to whether Dr. Beeke was talking about the physical box or network television. If that former, I just don't see that he has a leg to stand on. If the latter, he has much more of a leg to stand on, though I don't completely agree.

There are those who claim that many of the shows on the telly help us better appreciate the creativity that God has given us, whereas those on this side see a much greater potential for sin than edification. Herein lies the difference.

And that is a legitimate point to make. But that's different than objecting to having the physical box in one's home.

Anyway, methinks the greater question at hand is why we feel the need to be entertained and waste time on unprofitable things. Do we really have enough time edifying those around us? Do we really have enough time finishing up all of the duties that life demands? Do we really have enough time reading God's Word, reading literature by godly men and mediating in the Word of God? Do we really have enough time to evangelize to the lost? Do we really have enough time to pray and intercede for others? Do we really have enough time to give our bodies sufficient sleep in the night so that we can take of the body that God has given us? The last time I checked, I couldn't do these things while watching the television. Bottomline, shouldn't there be a godly purpose to everything that we do? "It's just entertainment, no big deal." Yeah, you've just wasted that last breath which God has given you on something that's worthless. And on the matter of time-wasting, it isn't just the matter of television programs, but also every activity which we do. Before we do it, should we not consider wherein lies the godly purpose for the activity?

Those are great questions, but that's hardly something limited to TV, in any of its forms. That applies to playing sports, to having a game night with your family, etc. I think you would be hard pressed to argue that no entertainment is allowable. Is it something to be careful about? Absolutely. But that would be a huge case to make that no recreation is allowed (consider for example that the WCF/WSC/WLC refer to us resting from 'worldly employments and recreations,' which assumes that recreations are permissible 6 days a week).

---------- Post added at 10:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:09 PM ----------

Once again we have "don't bind my conscience" vs. "what issues forth from the box is sin". Is it lawful to own the box? Yes. Is it beneficial? That remains to be seen. The box minus the filth is not evil in and of itself, but the filth is woven throughout even on network television, never mind cable. It is the same with the internet, though you can possibly avoid most of the truly questionable ads by staying away from certain sites. We do have the actual box, but we don't have TV in that it can't get any channels whatsoever - it is not evil in and of itself. It is used for movies that are screened by our Clearplay DVD player, that's it. So I say we don't have TV.

Again, that was partly what I wanted to clarify regarding Dr. Beeke's article. Is he saying we shouldn't own the box, or is he saying we should reject network TV? Those are two different issues, in my opinion. We have a TV, but we don't have bunny ears or cable, etc (more because we're not willing to spend the money and time on it than because of any issue of conscience necessarily). We select the movies we watch, etc. Is Dr. Beeke saying that is illegitimate? After reading the article, I'm not sure I have a clear answer on that.

But I still don't see real interaction with Dr Beeke's article. I see reaction to it, but little interaction with it.

That's a legitimate point, but again, I'm not sure my main question has been answered regarding what he's saying. I may try to give some substantive interaction tomorrow.

 

[jayce475]

Jason: the internet has a LOT of (really sick) pr0n and sites devoted to the sick and macabre that are quite accessible to the average viewer. Do you also suggest banning the internet?

Yes there is, so we ought to be extra careful. But the internet is also one of my main sources of godly information, so I wouldn't chuck it, but I pray each time I go on the web that I may walk straight. On the other hand, the telly does not quite have the same amount of potential for good as the internet, at least not where I live.

Notice that I tried to get clarify earlier as to whether Dr. Beeke was talking about the physical box or network television. If that former, I just don't see that he has a leg to stand on. If the latter, he has much more of a leg to stand on, though I don't completely agree.

General TV programming, without network ones, can be still potentially harmful to the soul. Once again, as previously answered by others, the box is not the issue. Owning the box is not a sin, but it may be wise to chuck it so as to keep ourselves from sins.

Those are great questions, but that's hardly something limited to TV, in any of its forms. That applies to playing sports, to having a game night with your family, etc. I think you would be hard pressed to argue that no entertainment is allowable. Is it something to be careful about? Absolutely. But that would be a huge case to make that no recreation is allowed (consider for example that the WCF/WSC/WLC refer to us resting from 'worldly employments and recreations,' which assumes that recreations are permissible 6 days a week).

You're absolutely right. The issue isn't confined to television. Of course I would accept that recreation is permissible as well, though we would do well if there is a godly purpose behind each form of recreation that we engage in. And in moderation, so that it doesn't consume us. And we pray for godly wisdom in engaging in any of them at all times. The hobby of television watching, however, is in general often rather harmful for the reasons listed by Dr Beeke.

---------- Post added at 02:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:34 PM ----------

We will not be accusing our Reformed brethren of perverting the gospel.

We should be painstakingly careful when we do, and support our accustations; However no one - Reformed or not - is sacrosanct.

I assume these have got something to do with a reply to what I've said? So something I've said has been deemed to be perverting the gospel? If there is such a charge, I would answer it.

 

[JennyG]

While I cannot control the programming of television generally, I can control what comes out of my television. If I turn on a particular program - the news, say, or a football game - and turn it off when that program is over, I have "controlled" what has come out. Of course, it could be argued that I cannot control the commercials, and that is true. However, I can mute them, fastforward through them (if I have DVR) or simply divert my attention.

You make it sound like quite a full-time job!
And so I believe it would be, if you really tried to exercise such control that nothing ungodly ever came out of that box.

The same could be said when I am strolling in the park and see someone dressed inappropriately or stop for a cup of coffee and hear someone using coarse or profane language.

True, but you aren't about to invite those people into your house to do likewise.
Throw out the baby with the bathwater, hmmm -
I see the filthy disgusting bathwater all right - I'm not so sure there really is a baby in there any more. Maybe a very small one, a baby newt or tadpole, that isn't really worth the trouble of searching for
Your argument I think on the other hand really does apply to the internet. It's the easiest thing in the world to control what I view via that!

 

[Bern]

My wife and I stopped paying for a TV license a couple of years ago. Most healthy thing we could have done. It is my personal opinion that regulating what comes into your living room when you have broadcasted TV is far too difficult. It is too tempting to just stick the TV on before dinner for 10 mins, but then not turn it off for another 3 hours. I used to feel so empty and like I'd wasted precious time after sitting in front of the TV for a long time.

We found the best solution is to have the TV but no ariel. That way we can choose exactly what we watch and when we watch. If we ever have kids, I DEFINATELY won't be getting an ariel! We have too many friends whose kids are allowed to just sit there for hours watching TV, and even if they're not actively watching it, the TV is left on in the background to pacify them! No wonder todays youth are in a world of their own and (especially boys) grow up far too late, many of them not becoming anything that resembles a man until they are in their 30s. Even I am a product of this being born 30 years ago, so I dread to think what todays toddlers will be like at my age.

 

[Steve Curtis]

I assume these have got something to do with a reply to what I've said? So something I've said has been deemed to be perverting the gospel? If there is such a charge, I would answer it.

There was no charge directed at you.

 

[jayce475]

I assume these have got something to do with a reply to what I've said? So something I've said has been deemed to be perverting the gospel? If there is such a charge, I would answer it.

There was no charge directed at you.

Nevermind then.

 

[Covenant Joel]

I've read through Beeke's thoughts again, and I have a few thoughts:

(1) His whole first section refers to entertainment in general. I'm sure that he does have some valid points: so many of us are addicted to having something entertaining/exciting/stimulating at every moment. But I don't believe he gives a very nuanced presentation of the issue, because as I noted above, the WCF recognizes the validity of 'recreation.' What is needed is careful reflection on the place of entertainment along with a warning against the abuses of entertainment. There is nothing in the first section that applies only to TV, but to all of recreation, so I think it needs more nuance.

(2) Regarding time, he does give some very disturbing statistics. I think that such TV consumption habits would be a serious problem. And I know that many people do indeed plop down in front of the tube in such a way. But I think again it needs more nuance. There are many people that have television (both the physical tube and either regular channels or cable) that don't abuse it in such a way. What of them then? What if you watch 1 TV show and 1 movie per week? Is that acceptable? Sure, if you're watching 5 1/2 hours a day, that seems ridiculously problematic. But what about those who don't use it like that? He seems to skip right over that possibility.

(3) Regarding his application of the 10 commandments to the issue, I think he has some good points: if one is watching 5 1/2 hours per day, he should probably ask whether it's become an idol (thus violating the first commandment). Clearly, many shows that people watch show things that cause them to violate the 7th commandment, and that is a cause for deep concern. Clearly if we watch advertisements on end, one might break the 10th commandment in a myriad of ways. But at the same time, I'm not sure that he's adequately defended a few of his ideas:

Few TV watchers realize that every time they willingly watch and hear such things, all those sins are reckoned to them on account of their willing participation.

Anytime I hear a cuss word on TV, that sin is reckoned to me? Does that hold true if I have friends that insist on using such language? That's a strong statement, and one that should be defended, not just asserted. Even if it is, there are things like TV Guardian that will bleep out all bad language on TV and movies.

The trouble with violence on TV is that it does not show the real consequences of violence. The guilt that is left behind in the soul of the murderer, the bereaved family, the orphaned children, the filled hospitals, and the solemn graveyards are not shown. Especially in children's programs violence is often totally unreal. Their heroes are often crushed or blown into pieces and moments later reappear unscathed. TV is artificial violence glorified instead of showing real violence in all of its ugly and terrible long-term consequences.

That's a huge generalization. There are certainly many shows/movies that do indeed have this effect. There are plenty that glorify violence. There are also many that show the true nature of such sin. Watch a movie like The Boy in the Striped Pajamas and tell me that sin is glorified. Tell me that the unintended consequences of sin are pointed out. It's one of the more terrifying illustrations of the unintended consequences of sin, and yet done without showing much actual violence.

So once again, we need nuance, not absolute rejection. Many things that he mentions are legitimate concerns in many movies/TV shows. But they're not universal. There are plenty of things that don't fit in with that criticism.

Again, the simple presence of sin on television (stealing, lying, coveting in characters) does not to me prove that it is sinful to watch it. Surely one could benefit from reading and/or watching a movie on the life of Luther (e.g., the movie Luther). One would hear blasphemous things said by the Catholics. One would see actors portraying sinful actions and ideas (lying, coveting, etc). Is it wrong to watch that? I don't believe so. Would it be dangerous to spend a lot of time watching things like that, particularly ones that glorify the sin? Yes, undoubtedly. But to make a blanket statement that ever seeing sin on TV is wrong is, in my opinion, unhelpful. We need nuance, not blanket statements that don't always hold true.

(4) His statements on control, if taken alone, apart from the admonition that therefore one should just ditch TV, provide some helpful thoughts. Surely it would be wise for Christians to carefully consider how much time they spend on TV. Surely time spent in conversation during dinner shouldn't often be replaced by TV. Those are all wise things. We shouldn't be addicted like the people in study he discusses. But none of that determines that we must throw it based on God's word. It says that just like the internet, just like computers, just like alcohol, just like food, we ought to control it. We ought to be wise and responsible and careful. We shouldn't be controlled by TV or any of the rest of those things. But that doesn't mean that we must throw TV out because it can be used in ungodly ways.

(4) By keeping television you are stepping on and fighting against your own conscience.

This seems to me to be quite presumptuous. There are many of us that are very careful in what we watch, that don't spend inordinate time on it, and whose consciences are not troubled by it.

(5) You are wasting precious God-given time for which you will have to give an account one day. Would it not be far better that you take the time spent watching TV to read Scripture or good books, or listen to sermon tapes?

Again, this is nothing specific to TV watching. This could be applied to playing sports, playing board games with the family, going to a theme park like Six Flags, etc., etc. Should we all think carefully about the place of entertainment in our lives? Absolutely. Could we all probably reevaluate how we order our time? Yes. But what would be more helpful to Christians in doing that very thing would be clear biblical principles about how to view recreation in general, and how to determine where to draw lines in that recreation, rather than just generalizing one form when it can be used for good or evil, just as almost ever form of recreation can.

 

[CatherineL]

We don't believe that everything on TV is bad, but we didn't like paying a lot for something we're always trying to limit and that we had little control over minute to minute. We found a middle ground that works for our family - a tv, but no cable. We use Netflix through our Wii to watch things they have on instant play. No commercials, and you can pick exactly what you want to watch and read reviews / screen for kid-appropriateness easily online. We think there's a lot of appropriate shows available, at least to justify the $14 it costs per month. Still, its only used a few hours a week and usually we're watching something all together, so it has to be something I would let my little kids watch (whether they "get it" or not is not a big deal).

Honestly I don't have a problem limiting tv time, for me its reading or noodling around with my music / crafty stuff. But I don't think the answer is to toss out everything that's fun, rather I need to set limits on "amusement" time and only use them when I have more important things done.

 

[KensingtonerRebbe]

I killed my TV 4.5 years ago and there's no looking back for this guy. My behaviour is quite different from when I used to sit in front of the tube for several hours a day. One of the best choices I made, ever.

I do think there's room in the life of a Christian family to watch educational programs and movies from time-to-time.

 

[JennyG]

I'm not speaking of my own knowledge here, but I've heard tell that Calvin upheld strict moral reforms in Geneva - weren't there restrictions on theatres and play-acting?
How should we view that?

 

[kvanlaan]

Anytime I hear a cuss word on TV, that sin is reckoned to me? Does that hold true if I have friends that insist on using such language? That's a strong statement, and one that should be defended, not just asserted. Even if it is, there are things like TV Guardian that will bleep out all bad language on TV and movies.

Let's say it is not reckoned to you. Is it good, noble, etc.? And if your friends are taking the Lord's name in vain, why are you saying nothing? I don't think that they could be friends if they continue to blaspheme the name of God (or by cussing are you talking about vulgarities?) If you are using TV Guardian, then you are cutting out the worst of it, but you're still consuming a lot of garbage in the commercials, and even in the general subject matter of the shows. What's the attraction?

I'll give you an example. We used to watch CSI - it was one of those DVDs you could get in China that gave us a little taste of the West while we were in 'exile'. They were very well written and kept you on the edge of your seat. BUT even if you could block out the taking of the Lord's name in vain, the themes of the shows (at least the early ones, I can't comment on them now) were simply horrid. If it was a nice traditional family setting and the daughter died, the perpetrator was likely the father, who had first abused the girl for years, before killing her because he was finally refused by her. He had covered his tracks well, but the CSI team figured him out. He may have been brilliant and cunning, but they were more so. That sort of dreck has no place before the eyes of a Christian, the removal of cussing and other specific words notwithstanding. (That was not an actual episode, it was just an amalgamation of bits and pieces from here and there in the series).

I'm not speaking of my own knowledge here, but I've heard tell that Calvin upheld strict moral reforms in Geneva - weren't there restrictions on theatres and play-acting? How should we view that?

As a cultural/historical issue - that's the easiest way around it.

 

[py3ak]

I don't know if other people are enjoying this thread anymore, but I'm certainly not.