TV or Not TV, That is the Question

I get it. I've read Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death. I've sat in many lectures and read many blog articles by Dr. Douglas Groothuis. I understand the reasons not to watch television. Glorified violence. Gratuitous sex. Triviality and banality. And I completely agree that many, if not most, shows on television are a complete waste of time and perhaps even sinful to watch, which is precisely why my wife and I do not watch those shows.

But what about that minority of shows that don't focus on these things? For example, I like to watch cooking shows. Why? Because I like to cook, and I learn new things by watching the professionals in action. My wife and I also like to watch documentaries like Nova or Secrets of the Dead. (Recently, e.g., we just finished watching the BBC documentary The Human Face on Netflix.) Again, these are shows in which you can learn something about science or the humanities and actually feel edified after having watched them. And, of course, I do like to do battle with the contestants on Jeopardy every now and again.

Now this isn't to say that I always watch high-quality shows like these. I do confess that sometimes, after an especially long day at work, I do crash in front of the tube and watch fairly trivial shows. But usually when this happens I am so mentally drained that I would be hard-pressed to pick up a book or have an enlightening conversation anyway. I have had to come to grips with the fact that I just can't be productive all the time.

So I pose the question, is some TV okay, if those shows are actually edifying in some way? Or is TV such a wasteland that one should avoid it at all costs?

Paul's Letter to the Roman-Americans

I just finished preaching a month-long sermon series on Romans at my church. I have to say, I was really struck by Paul's thoughts on what the gospel is and the impact is has on Christians. Romans is, in essence, Paul's grand treatise on the gospel--his sales pitch to the Roman church, as it were, whose support he was trying to obtain for a trip he had planned to spread the gospel to Spain. As one goes through the book, one sees the contrast between Paul's gospel and the gospel too many of us in the church today (including myself, far too often) live out:

Paul: Humans, left to their own devices, are under for God's wrath. (ch. 1-3)
Us: Humans aren't that bad; most people are good at heart.

Paul: Humans who try to find righteousness by adhering to a set of rules (the Jews, in Paul's case) are under God's wrath. (ch 1-3)

Us: Yes, Jesus died for our sins, but we've still got plenty of unwritten rules, don't you worry!

Paul: Salvation can only be found in Christ. (ch 3)

Us: Salvation can only be found in politics.

Paul: Should we go on sinning so that grace may increase? No way! (ch 6)

Us: A little sinning here and there isn't really a sin at all, as long as it doesn't violate one of our unwritten rules (see above).

Paul: The fact that people without Christ are under God's wrath should compel us to spread the gospel! (ch 9-11)

Us: The fact that people without Christ are under God's wrath should compel someone else to spread the gospel!

Paul: The gospel should cause a transformation in every area of our lives: Our church life, our citizenship to the state, our interactions with family, friends and strangers, etc. (ch 12-15)

Us: What I do outside of church is my own business.

Paul: We should put aside our freedoms in nonmoral areas for the sake of unity and peace. (ch 14-15)

Us: I'm an American; I have rights and I will use them!

I wonder what Paul would tell us today. How would Romans be different if we were his original audience? Would he have to change his message? Or would it be much the same, stressing the same things, since the Romans were humans just like us, too, struggling with the same issues day in and day out? I think the latter might be more likely. Preaching through the book, one finds Paul's letter to be extremely relevant today. In it we see our sinful nature. We see our redemption in Christ alone. We see the model of Christianity to which we strive to adhere.

I wonder if Paul knew how timeless his letter was when he wrote it...

On Being a Dad

I have learned a lot about what it means to be a father in the past six months. By no means would I consider myself and expert, but I have figured out a few things:

• Changing a diaper is not as bad an experience as I thought it would be.
• Sans diaper, baby-boy poop can travel as far as baby-boy pee.
• You can understand a fair amount of what a baby is trying to tell you if you're around him long enough.
• You can eat very quickly while only using one hand.
• Not much beats coming home from a long day at work at having your son smile at you.

As I ponder this experience of fatherhood, I remember a quote from a book by one of my college professors, Dr. Rodney Reeves. In his book A Genuine Faith: How to Follow Jesus Today, he writes,

Jesus cannot teach me how to be a good father because he was never married,
and that is too bad--not just for him but also for me. If he had been married,
if he had fathered many children, then his example would provide another model
of Christian behavior.

Jesus wasn't a father, he was a son. He can't teach me (at least not by example) how to be a dad, only how to be a son to my own dad. But God the Father knows exactly what it means to be a dad; after all, it's in his job title! Through his loving patience with the nation of Israel, I learn how to be patient with my own son. The sacrifice he made for me by sending his son to his death shows me the radical nature of sacrifice I am to provide for my own family as a father. God the Father instructs, exhorts, disciplines and provides for his children out of perfect love, giving me an example to follow as one whose task is the same--being a dad.

May I ever learn from his example!

Bigfoot: Fact or Fiction?

Belief in Bigfoot is logical.

I know what you are thinking right now—I am crazy. Look at the crazy guy who thinks it’s perfectly sane to believe in Bigfoot! Let’s all laugh and point! All right, all right, get it out of your system. Better now? Good.

Seriously, though, I believe that Bigfoot exists. Let me explain why. First, the discovery of animals once thought mythical is not unprecedented. At one time gorillas were considered mythical creatures. The kraken was thought to be a figment of frightened sailors’ collective imagination until someone brought in a colossal squid. Similarly, the coelacanth was thought to have been extinct for millions of years until a fisherman caught one in 1938. And of course previously unknown fauna are being discovered all of the time.

Second, there is possible physical evidence to corroborate the existence of Bigfoot. Hair and fecal samples of unknown origin have been collected near alleged sightings. Piled rock, stacked wood and damaged trees—all seemingly intentionally done—have been reported in those areas, as well. Of special evidential import, however, are films, pictures and footprints. The famous Patterson-Gimlin film has been subject to intense scrutiny, but it has never been proved to be a hoax. (Indeed, if it is a hoax, it is one of the best ever done.) Various pictures, including the recent “Jacobs creature” photos, show something very primate-looking. (The Pennsylvania Game Commission said that the picture was of a mangy bear. Decide for yourself.) There have been many footprints discovered over the years. Some have proven to be hoaxes. Some, however, seem to be genuine, to the point of having possible dermal ridges.

Third, there are thousands of reported sightings of a large, hairy primate in North America. All throughout the continental United States and Canada, people claim to have seen such a creature. One can even find reports dating back nearly 400 years to the native peoples of the Northwest. In many cases, the eyewitnesses are of reputable character (not mentally ill, not known to be habitual liars, not seeking fame, etc) have no reason to lie, are experienced woodsmen[1] (many sightings occur deep in the woods where few urbanites would venture), do not know and therefore cannot collaborate with other persons who report sightings, and simply cannot come to any other explanation of what they saw. Furthermore, the details of the sightings are very often extremely similar. The object of the sighting always has a human-like face, very broad shoulders, hair of roughly six inches in length, a height of 7-9 feet, arms that extend down close to the knees, and so on.

The logic of my belief in Bigfoot (meaning an undiscovered large, bipedal, North American primate), then, can be represented by the following inductive argument:

1. Animals not thought/known to exist are often discovered.
2. Physical evidence exists that may corroborate the existence of Bigfoot.
3. Therefore, the existence of Bigfoot cannot be rejected a priori.
4. Many sightings by reliable people of reputable character occur, most of which contain extremely similar details describing a large, bipedal primate.
5. Therefore, it is not likely that all sightings are lies or fictional accounts.
6. Many sightings are reported by experienced woodsmen.
7. Therefore, it is not likely that all sightings are misidentification of known animals.
8. Some sightings have been shown to be as a result of hoaxing.
9. Some sightings have not been shown to be as a result of hoaxing.
10. Sightings have been reported over a vast amount of North America for hundreds of years.
11. It is not likely that a vast network of Bigfoot hoaxing has been in existence for hundreds of years.
12. Therefore, it is not likely that all sightings are the result of hoaxing.
13. Not all sightings have been identified as lies or fictional accounts, misidentification of known animals, or hoaxes.
14. Therefore, it is likely that some sightings are real and reliable accounts, the object of which is a large, bipedal, North American primate.
14. Therefore, it is likely that a large, bipedal, North American primate exists.
15. Therefore, a large, bipedal, North American primate exists.
16. Therefore, Bigfoot exists.

In the end, I suppose, belief or disbelief in Bigfoot is trivial. In fact, I prefer that most people disbelieve in its existence; that means fewer people are out there trying to bag one. But one day, when you take your kids or grandkids to the zoo to see the gorillas and the sasquatches in the primate enclosure, remember me. I’ll be the guy in the corner thinking to himself, “I told you so!”

[1] Many such people, in fact, have often seen bears in the wild and are adamant that what they saw was not a bear. Thus the misidentification of known animals cannot account for all reported sightings.

Gratuitous Lesbianism

This post isn't about homosexuality.  I promise.  This post is about a trend I have noticed in the land of Television.  Over the past several months, I have thrice had the occasion to be watching network television when, out of nowhere, for no reason, one of the characters is announced to be gay.  Each time it has been the same.  A female character's love life is brought into the show, and lo and behold, she's in a relationship with another woman, and there's always a man who thinks he can bring her back.  The women, of course, are portrayed as beautiful, happy and smart, and the guy is always of the "handsome but full of himself" variety.  

Now I can understand that some might think of this as a good plot twist or sub-story (indeed, Seinfeld had a quite funny episode devoted to the topic), but the problem is, each time I have seen this idea used, it is completely out of step with the rest of the show.  There is simply no need to make one of the characters a lesbian.  It does nothing to further the story line; indeed, it's not related at all.  It's like someone down at the station inadvertently stuck a scene from some other program into the one I was watching.

Of course, I know what's going on here.  It's the land of Television's way of saying, "Hey, everybody, look how cool and sexy and smart these lesbians are!  Isn't being gay great?"  Fair enough, I guess it's their show.  But it seems to me that they are sacrificing their show's quality by inserting random pro-gay commercials into the plot.  

At least when I preach, it's in context.