Related articles and links |  1 of 9

For several years now ABC News has been committed to prime time coverage of religious topics, including the early history of the Christian faith. The attempt has been to cover these topics like "a news story," often a point counterpoint format in which a wide variety of opinions about the topic are on display, a kind of cultural kaleidoscope of scholarly opinion and spiritually driven reflection about this faith's roots. These specials are intended by their producers to inform and put on display the discussion and debate that swirl around key figures of the faith.

Now comes a mega-special, a three-hour extravaganza, tracing how an early, tiny Jewish movement became a world religion by looking at its two most central figures, Jesus and Paul, The Word and Witness. Does this special inform as to the facts surrounding these two figures? Does it put on display the discussion that rotates around these two key figures of history? We proceed in its successive blocks, like the special, working in the twelve units or so it gives us in those three hours.

Prime time engagement
However, before we begin, there is one observation that must be made. The fact that network television would give three hours to such a topic shows how our times have changed. No longer is religion, and the discussion of faiths like Christianity, a "private" affair. Gone are the days of the 1960s when the claim was that God was dead. Far from it, now he has become a public figure, being given the same kind of celebrity treatment of other, more modern, cultural icons. Now ideas about the faith and its origins are being digitized and disseminated for mass public consumption, meals of content for millions of watchers, the public square going really public on religion. This new reality places a special burden on the church to know its own identity and history.

Inevitably, such specials produce a kind of cacophony of opinion, where one might end up with the impression that no one can really know what happened, since the scholars do not agree. Many of the facts appear to be a matter of debate and widely diverse opinion. So how much can we really know? Most viewers have little idea that the scholars represent vastly different camps, even as they hear them disagree. The differences reinforce a popular perception that when it comes to religion everyone sees what they want to see. So it is all a matter of individual opinion and choice.

The historic church knows better—she has a real story to tell—and she needs to learn how to make the case in a world where multiple perspectives are valued more than an attempt to sort out those differing views. The church needs not to sit on the sidelines and wag its finger at such efforts, acting as if such specials simply trivialize, badly misread, or offend the faith, no matter how on or off target the information is. At their best, these specials are a mirror of cultural opinion, an insight as to where many of our neighbors, whom God calls us to love, stand when it comes to truths that direct and move people at profound levels. Our neighbors will watch them, even if we do not. So more is required than a boycott.

At their worst, they can be seen as seriously flawed for the explanations often struggle to process the claims of God's direct activity, sifting the facts through more natural lenses. When the public square goes so public, the church had better be sure she is in the square engaging to hear the longing and the curiosity, as well as the derision and error that often accompanies elements within such prime time reflection. She also had better be ready to supply a take on the topic that explains why so many do find religious faith, more than just a compelling, inner personal experience.

next page... |  1 of 9

April (Web-only) 2004, Vol. 48