Like it or not, television continues to become more dominant in our lives. Millions of Americans and Canadians extricated from its spell for the summer were wooed back to the tube by ABC’s six-night, semi-fictional extravaganza, “Washington: Behind Closed Doors.” Hooked again!
The early indications have been rather clear that the new television season not only has a greater hold on the public but that its moral effect will be more damaging than ever. If there are any idealistic people left who aspire to political careers, it is hard to see how their hopes could have survived the twelve-hour dramatization of the attitudes that led to Watergate and its aftermath. “Never before,” said a Washington Post writer, “have TV viewers been offered such a concentrated and sustained prime-time dose of bad news about the American political system and the possibilities for abusing it.” A sequel scheduled for next spring is already in the works.
Interestingly enough, ABC took considerable time following the showing of the first episode to set forth a rationale for what is being billed as the new realism (i.e. more sex) in a prime-time series. This is the way we are, the network argued, so why should we not face up to ourselves?
Okay, let’s take it from there. It is true enough that our society is marred by much that is sordid. Even people we look up to have failings. But there is also a great spiritual hunger in our land, a yearning for God, a strong movement toward doing what’s right. Any informed and honest observer of the American scene knows this to be true—including TV newsmen (see “Prime Time for Evangelicals,” August 21, 1977, issue, page 21).
Now if it be true that there is wheat growing up along with the tares, and the television industry claims to want to mirror accurately who and what and where we are, why then are we subjected to such an exclusive diet of tares?
When have you last seen a sympathetic handling of a conscientious Christian in prime-time drama? How often have the heroes been clean-living fundamentalists?
Where are the millions of church-going evangelicals represented positively? Can you name an instance when a humanist is made the butt of comedy?
The truth is that television “realism” reflects a strong bias toward skepticism, cynicism, and agnosticism.
The truth is that there is de facto censorship against network programming and even advertising that reflects favorably on biblical religion.
The truth is that evangelicals are usually barred from even buying television time, especially at good times on the most watched stations.
Our society and its opinion makers have not faced up to these facts. Fortunately, there is growing evidence that the networks want to scrap a policy dating back to the forties that discourages the sale of time for religious programming. Stations that do air leading evangelical programs get Nielsen ratings which approach those of the best syndicated talk shows.
Let us hasten to add that in calling attention to these injustices we are not alleging conspiracy or evil motives. Network executives and advertisers simply are unaware of the new spiritual vitality that has begun to characterize the American public. They still labor under the misapprehension that liberal religion with its indifference to individual piety is the social preference. Indeed, councils of churches—now generals without armies—continue to call the shots for the television industry as to what religious programming is presented. Evangelicals have plenty of potential to lobby for better treatment. Look at the success of concerned parents in lobbying to reduce violence on television. Changes can be made.
Advertising Integrity And the Newspapers
Years ago a country weekly newspaper editor devoted his page one signed column to an explanation of his advertising policy. It was simple. He believed that ads in his paper sold the goods and services, so he refused ads for goods and services that he considered unwholesome.
His case in point was beverage alcohol. The community had just shifted from “dry” to “wet,” and the purveyors of spirits were up in arms that the principal advertising medium would not accept their ads.
That editor never got rich running his little weekly. He did convince the merchants of the town that he thought ads in the paper really did sell. And he impressed not a few young people with the meaning of integrity.
We are happy to observe that some of the larger newspapers in America are now taking that same position. Such prominent dailies as the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, San Diego Union, and the Sacramento Bee have now said they will refuse certain advertising that they believe promotes unwholesome effects in their areas. These flagship papers have begun to turn down pornographic movie advertising, and they are hearing protests from all sides. Some papers have an all-out ban on any sex-related ads while others have imposed such restrictions—no pictures, no suggestive names of films or stars, maximum one column inch size for ads—that the porno peddlers have abandoned the papers. The actions of the leading papers have been noticed by others, and many smaller dailies across the country have done likewise.
The new policies will be costly. Not only will the Los Angeles Times lose ad billings of about $1 million per year, but it may have to shell out money to defend itself in a suit threatened by porno producers, distributors, and exhibitors. Other journals that turn down the ads will also lose revenue. Whatever losses there are can be recovered, however. As Time magazine pointed out in its coverage of the issue, many other major papers have been refusing ads for years, and they prosper without income from this source.
But as surely as policies can change for the better, they can also change for the worse. We know of papers that a few years ago banned suggestive pictures from ads only to let them creep back when theater owners demanded it. In the current drive to clean up movie ads, newspapers have had considerable support in some cities. Christians would do well to make it their business to support every improvement of advertising policy in the papers of their communities.
‘The Great Governor’
Two hundred autumns ago, representatives of the thirteen states met in York, Pennsylvania, to write the Articles of Confederation. It was an imperfect instrument providing for a very weak national government. The resolution proposing the articles did reflect, however, the framers’ understanding of who ultimately ruled the affairs of men and nations. In one “whereas” they spoke of “the Great Governor of the world” who had been pleased “to incline the hearts” of state leaders to work together. This testified to their belief that God not only created the world but that he also continued to have concern for the lives of his people.
Within a decade the Articles were found to be in adequate, and work on a replacement began. Even though it did not find explicit affirmation in the Constitution, the conviction remained widespread that God in his providence was indeed concerned with the affairs of the young nation. The conviction was reflected in numerous ways, noteworthy among them being the portrayal of the eye of God (see any one dollar bill). It is a continual reminder of our ultimate accountability to God.
The Staff Of Life
Surely one of the most memorable statements of our Lord is his announcement, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst” (John 6:35). Some people might think Jesus was concerned with physical nourishment; after all he miraculously fed many thousands of men, women, and children with five barley loaves and two small fish (vv. 1–14). But Jesus gives them no excuse for thinking in those terms when he said “do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you” (v. 27).
Bread is necessary to sustain physical life; without food we die. Even so we need something from outside ourselves to have eternal life; without it we suffer eternal death. This “something” is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ himself. He is the bread of eternal life. Physical bread is distributed rather unevenly around the planet. But our Lord’s promise is that “him who comes to me I will not cast out” (v. 37).
Our Lord’s statement that faith in him was indispensable to eternal life was naturally abhorrent to those who were satisfied with their own righteousness and religion. They murmured at him, saying “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?” (v. 42). It is noteworthy in this instance that our Lord did not deign to correct those who were rejecting him. They thought they knew his father and mother; they thought they knew he was the son of Joseph. Their minds were made up; they were not open to being confronted with facts. There comes a time when it ceases to be profitable to try to counter the arguments of those who persist in willful unbelief.
Jesus presented a stark alternative: either he was to be accepted and the prevailing religious views renounced, or he was to be rejected as a madman, claiming to be “the bread of life” and uniquely sent from God. We should not be surprised to learn that “many of his disciples … said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’ ” (v. 60). “After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” (v. 66).
But many continued to follow him. Many still do. When asked why we can answer no better than answer as Peter did when the Lord asked him, “Do you also wish to go away?… Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (vv. 67, 68).
The following is a brief excerpt from a new book, “Death Before Birth,” by Harold O. J. Brown (copyright 1977, published by Thomas Nelson; used by permission), which will be available in December. Dr. Brown, head of the systematic theology department at Trinity seminary near Deerfield, Illinois, is active in the pro-life movement. Here Brown examines the problems of child abuse in the light of current attitudes toward abortion.
Among the probable results of easy abortion, we must list the rapidly growing problem of child abuse, which has reached almost epidemic proportions. Child abuse includes physical assault; recently, attention has been drawn specifically to the sexual abuse of children. More and more frequently, one hears of children being used for pornographic purposes. Legislation is currently pending in Illinois and elsewhere which would forbid the use of children in pornography.
Child abuse was one of the arguments used in favor of abortion. In fact, in congressional debates on the subject, one still hears the argument that an unwanted child is more likely than a wanted child to become the victim of abuse. Hence it is supposed to be kinder to the unwanted child to abort it than to allow it to be born and possibly suffer mistreatment. (Here we have a principle that goes too far—rather like the suggestion that a person who is afraid of being mugged can protect himself by suicide.)
The pro-abortionists have had their way. Since 1970, we can conservatively estimate that there are 5 million fewer children between the ages of one and seven in America than there would be if we had not legalized abortion. Since these 5 million were the “unwanted” who supposedly would have been the prime targets for child abuse, it would seem reasonable to look for a remarkable drop in child abuse in the same period. It may seem reasonable, but it hasn’t happened. Since abortion on demand, child abuse has grown to virtually epidemic proportions.
If abortion eliminates “unwanted” children, then who is being battered and abused? The answer lies in two errors involved in the assumption that since “unwanted” babies are the likelier candidates for abuse and abortion gets rid of them, abuse will drop as abortions increase.
The first error lies in dividing babies into the categories of “wanted” or “unwanted.” Few babies are totally “wanted” at every point during their mother’s pregnancy, but quite a few “unwanted” babies become wanted when they actually make their appearances, however unwelcome they seemed beforehand. On the other hand, many babies that were thoroughly wanted become burdens and nuisances to parents after birth.
The second error lies in the failure to recognize what we might call the “educational impact” of nationwide abortion on demand. The West German Federal Constitutional Court (Supreme Court), in its February, 1975, decision banning abortion on demand during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy (as passed by the Bundestag) stated, “We cannot ignore the educational impact of abortion on the respect for life.” The German court reasoned that if abortion were made legal for any and every reason during the first trimester, it would prove hard to persuade people that the second- and third-trimester fetus deserves protection simply by virtue of having grown a few weeks older.
Apparently, what the West German court feared would happen to late fetuses also happens to children after birth. Parents, perhaps unconsciously, may reason, “I didn’t have to have him. I could have killed him before he was born. So if I knock him around a little now that he is born, isn’t that my perfect right?”
It is unlikely that anyone actually reasons that way in a conscious sense, but some such unconscious rationalization must be taking place. After all, if one can legally kill the child a few months before birth what can be so bad about roughing him up a little without killing him? Many parents who are burdened with their children must feel resentment at not having taken advantage of the opportunity to abort them; thus, they take it out on them after birth.
Among the psychological and psychiatric complications of abortion, then, we must include the increase in the number of battered children as well as the rise in the mentality that considers children a burden and caring for them an unreasonable choice. Where will such a mentality lead us? Clearly, right to a population crisis—but of a different kind from the one so many have been predicting. It will lead to a drastically declining population. If we think the “population explosion” threatens the “quality of life,” we ought to take a good look at the impact of the birth dearth.
