Return
to Question and Answers Page
Dear Arthur:
And last (but not least), are some thoughts on the En-Gedi
Series! This is potentially going to be quite long, as I talk
through all the various thoughts that have flowed through
our heads over the last few days/week. It's quite a challenge
you pose in the series, and I guess I'm not even speaking
of the "media-fasting". Hopefully by the end of this email,
something will have been distilled! I should also mention
that I perused the TD web site, and read some of the Q&As
that related to this stuff, so I may be referring to ideas
I read in that as well as what was on the recordings.
I guess initially, after listening to the series, I found
myself in a little bit of disagreement with some of what I
heard (I'm sure you can guess what, judging from the Q&A on
the TD site). I didn't disagree that we should seek to give
God our best, and that even though we have the "freedom" to
do certain things, it's not best/most God honoring to do those
things. I also agree that a lot of media (TV/Movies/Games)
do try to cater to our basest desires, and can result in arousing
our minds with unrighteous things. I guess the part I struggled/disagreed
with was whether or not abstaining from watching any media
(movies, TV, Games, certain websites), was "absolutely" better
for all Christians (you guys must be tired of hearing this!).
I hear you and could even be persuaded that this may be
true if it's one's special calling. But what about MOST Christians?
In 20 years of ministry, I could probably think of perhaps
one or two people that this may be true for; I've dealt with
countless more (you and I included) who would be the better
off nearly abstaining.
That said, let me add that "media" in and of itself isn't
the issue. It's the fact that it is a carrier of lots of sin.
My exhortation isn't to cut out media as much as it is to
cut out sin. If media happens to be what is carrying and spreading
sin, then, yes, cut as much out as is necessary to cut sin
out.
I guess the things that drew these questions were the
examples I saw at (my church). For example, (my pastor) has
mentioned on several occasions that he watches TV shows (24
as an example) and movies. But I don't doubt for a second
that his priorities are in order. It seems like he reads a
great deal both in scripture and out of scripture (3 theology
type books a week is a figure I think he's mentioned), spends
large amounts of time with his 4 children and wife, and it
seems quite clear that God is #1 on his priority list. I don't
know exactly what filters he has in terms of what he will/will
not watch, but it seems like in his instance, he's able to
watch TV as perhaps a way to refresh/relax.
Well, I don't know him, so I won't comment on his personal
practices, except to say that one of the great truths in life
is that you can't have it all in this life. You can't have
this AND that AND that; Christ AND anything else. We all must
decide what or who it is we want, rank our priorities, pre
decide what it is we're willing to give up (if necessary),
and then run with all our might, in all sincerity, and in
all wisdom toward it. We must then have faith that the rest
will take care of itself.
All I'm saying is that whenever I'm presented with someone
who either has it all or does it all, some area of his/her
life is paying for it. Take Billy Graham, for example. As
great as he is in evangelism, it didn't come without a price.
It never does. His family life was lacking, and his kids'
lives growing up demonstrates that. Thankfully, God was faithful
to them. Like many sexually transmitted diseases, it doesn't
always show up right away - it could take many years to manifest
itself.
I assume and hope he's very selective and stringent in his
filters; and if so, I see nothing wrong with that. But if
he's being entertained by that which Jesus came to die for,
and it isn't for some special calling or purpose, then I would
be pretty disappointed and would follow his leadership with
reservation, for what goes in a soul will most certainly always
come out.
Another thing is that (my church) as a church hosts "Film/TV
and theology" type nights, where people come to the church,
watch a movie like "the matrix" and then discuss what sort
of theological ideas are being communicated. (My church) has
the philosophy of "engaging culture and redeeming it", which
it seems to be carrying out through these classes. The church
advocates not trying to "declare war" on the culture, but
seeking to honor God, serve and love others, and through that
engage and influence the culture. I think this was illustrated
most recently in the last few sermons from Genesis, relating
to the life of Joseph in Egypt. Boiled down, Joseph was in
essence the only Christian in Egypt, and could have founds
endless things wrong with the pagan Egyptian culture. He could
have "declared war" and called out all the things wrong, but
instead he focused on trying to honor God, and serve and love
the people around him. He did that consistently, and through
that God raised him up to a place where he was able to influence/bless
an entire nation. I've probably butchered the message [it
was really great when (my pastor) spoke on it], but I guess
the point I'm getting at is that (my church) uses things like
Movies, TV, Jazz festivals, Art festivals, etc. to minister
to and bless the city, and through that bring people into
the church that might not come otherwise and ultimately get
the Gospel out.
Just to be clear, I'm not declaring war on culture; I'm
declaring war on sin, and if sin happens to be what drives
culture, then let the chips fall where they may.
I don't mean to sound so negative, and I'm sorry if I do,
but Joseph and Daniel are two of my favorite Bible saints.
In fact, I believe Joseph did "declare war" on the culture
within his own mind (he was in no position to do it socially
or politically), which is why he was able to make the decisions
he did, take the stands he did, and react to situations the
way he did. He was on a totally different plane of thought,
values, and spirituality than the culture. It's why I admire
him so much :). That goes for Daniel too, who graciously refused
to enjoy the culture's fare (king's food), lest he become
its slave.
We must take into consideration, however, that
1) both Joseph and Daniel went through EXTREME valleys in
their lives that allowed them to develop a character, wisdom,
strength, and trust in God that most don't have; it's a school
most Christians haven't graduated from;
2) they were Providentially put in their circumstances;
what I'm saying is that it was their calling to be where they
were, not their choosing. God had a special calling, and thus
a special equipping and anointing upon them that were unique
to them to demonstrate to us His magnificent faithfulness
toward His own. They were unilaterally placed in situations
where they had to make tough decisions. Because of the integration
of their private lives, they were able to see the situations
clearly and make godly decisions. Note, however, that they
didn't volitionally place themselves in these difficult and
tempting situations, unlike many Christians today in the name
of freedom, reaching out, etc.
3) they were once-in-a-generation type people placed in
unique historical and political-type settings - our identification
with them can only go so far.
When I take an honest evaluation of Joseph's and Daniel's
lives, what truly separated them from the crowd and set them
apart in the eyes of men was their integrity and personal
holiness. They were quite set apart in that respect; so much
so, that they were admired (and envied) by their peers; and
they had the authorities won over. They indeed engaged their
culture. How? By being in it but not of it.
I found the following on (your church) website: "As image-bearers
of God (the master storyteller, whose story spans all of creation)
we in turn have a yearning to both create and be entertained
by stories. This is evident even within scripture as Jesus
teaches in parables. Holistic lessons are often learned more
effectively through narrative than with bullet-point outlines
and graphs."
The rule of thumb in properly interpreting and applying
the Bible is to make sure historical narrative is interpreted
in light of the didactic (explicit teaching). In the case
of Joseph, we read the narrative and are inspired to follow
his lead, but we must be careful to ensure that the principles
gleaned are subject to the clear teaching of Scripture. The
Bible is replete with clear instruction to not let sin be
named among us; we are to rid ourselves of sin (Matt. 18),
take up our cross and follow Him, etc., etc.
Another point I'd make is that Jesus did use parables to
illustrate TRUTH (not silliness nor falsehood), but He never
described and illustrated sin in a titillating, glamorous,
play-by-play format. He just told us what the sin was. Why
do you think He refrained from telling His stories the way
modern day secular screen writers often tell theirs? I tell
you, not all stories are created equal.
If I may extrapolate and make an application here: We do
not have to be of the substance of the culture in order to
influence it. In fact, we ought not to be. This has rung true
in a couple of conversations I've had in the last couple of
months. In one conversation, a brother I had recently met
had explained to me why it took him many years to come to
Christ. It was largely because the Christians he had known
"looked, felt, and smelled" like everyone else. In fact, he
stated that he lived a more morally pure life than his Christian
counterparts. That really bothered him. He didn't see anything
particularly excellent in them. Why did he need a God like
that?
Another recent convert to Jesus in the workplace had asked
me if I could meet periodically with him to help him grow
in his newfound faith. We've met for hours. When I asked him
why he wanted to meet with me, when there were others he could
turn to, he replied that over the years, he had observed my
choices, my stances, the way I lived out my faith, and he
liked my "brand of Christianity" - not thumping people over
the head, but quietly living my faith loudly (as you can see,
he's never seen me at church :)) I don't tell you this to
pat myself on the back; rather, just to make the point.
Again, I refrain from making comment on (your church's)
programs, not having been there, experienced it for myself,
nor hearing (your pastor's) vision.
I guess in summation of the previous two paragraphs, it
seems like there are people and situations for which abstaining
from media is not necessarily better, which was part of the
struggle in my mind.
That could be true, but I have no problem saying it's not
true for most. We must live by general prudent, godly principles.
If God calls us out of these principles in special situations,
and gives us special immunity, that's His prerogative. However,
because there may be rare exceptions, it doesn't negate the
norm. I would say that even in these cases, like in Joseph's
and Daniel's, it's not a call to just sit and enjoy the exception.
No, it's a call to endure the exception for the higher, special
purpose.
On the flip side, I see the reason for abstaining from
media as well. (My wife) and I have both watched movies in
the past that were not edifying, and succeeded in planting
images in our mind. And the time we spend watching movies
could definitely be better spent reading God's word and spending
time with God in prayer, or even in conversation with each
other. After talking to (her) about it, we can kind of see
parallels with our pre-wedding abstinence from all physical
contact beyond holding hands, and all remotely dangerous situations.
It's pretty easy to imagine how extreme and "legalistic" our
rules could seem to couples who hadn't experienced the full
repercussions of not being "extreme". Where as to us, at that
point, we knew how we had grown to that place, and how much
we needed to set those rules. Not so that we could be "legalistic"
about our interactions, but so that we could seek to give
God our best. I suppose that it's quite possible that the
"fast" from media seems extreme to me(less so to her I think)
since I'm on the side where I don't fully see what immersion
in media can lead to...
1. You and (her) have a powerful, marriage-saving (!) story
to share with people now. That would not have happened had
you not taken the measures you did. Along those lines, are
people sinning if they go beyond the line you took? Not necessarily,
but could they possibly be harmed by taking that line? I don't
think so. Could they be enormously blessed? Quite probably.
2. You DO know where that immersion in media can lead to
... and you almost paid dearly for it. Always remember how
gracious God has been to you.
So I guess after mulling all these things over, I guess
the conclusions I came to were:
- It seems that the acceptability of Media/etc. seems to
really boil down to the heart behind it's use.
I agree, and would add "the wisdom" behind its use. Media
is much like a drug that creates feelings. As a general rule,
I try to really monitor the external sources that can artificially
manipulate my nerves and feelings without it being under-girded
with truth and commitment, whether its media or drugs or whatever.
Do I get emotional, convicted, and experience highs? Absolutely,
but I want them to be a fruit of a committed relationship,
a response to truth, or the like.
It seems like for (our church's) "film and theology" things,
the heart really is to reach and engage people (non-believers),
and bring them into interaction with Christians. Through that,
hopefully they will be exposed to the love of Christ, and
join the body of Christ (I believe they call this the "Celtic"
mode of evangelism). The heart is for God's glory and honor.
Again, noble intentions; again, I think we can engage our
cultures on much more neutral and noble grounds. The fact
is, whenever we ingest poison (visual or otherwise), no matter
how noble the intent is, we still have poison in our system
... and poison is never good for you. You can't perform your
duties well with poison in your system. I'm not familiar with
any passage in the Bible that asks us to pollute or poison
ourselves, even a little, for His glory.
Jesus left the perfection of heaven to engage a fallen world
but He never embraced its worldviews and ideas, or allowed
them to be His nourishment, to do so.
The old fashioned heart to heart - "let's have dinner/coffee
together and talk" technique - is still the best way, I think.
For me, I read movie reviews and talk with people to keep
up to date and "engaged" with this part of the culture. If
there are parts of the movie I'm not familiar with, I ask
them to share it with me.
- In terms of evaluating whether or not to watch TVs
and Movies, it seems like if one needs to honestly evaluate
whether their priorities are in order, and that they can watch
something with a clean conscience.
In (my pastor's and others') case, their priorities seem
clearly in order, and things like TV shows are able to refresh
him without distracting...
Some, yes. Most, no. I did not (on the CD) and am not saying
that we can't watch something once in a while. In the past
few months, my family watched Mulan and the Anne of Green
Gables series on video. I would also endorse Sound of Music
and a few more. I would not endorse most of the movies I've
seen in my life that have left me "diminished" rather than
edified.
- The "much more time spent with God" is probably most
applicable area for myself and (my wife)...
On that last point, we spoke about it, and while we do
watch some TV and movies (maybe 1 hour of TV a week, and maybe
1 movie every few weeks), it's not something that really is
a large time or thought consumer for us. When we do watch
things, we try to think about what we're watching, and engage
the underlying philosophies and ideas presented (I do find
myself analyzing what values are trying to be communicated,
and end up discussing them with my wife). But for the most
part, I think (my wife) and I are much more prone to kill
much more time by surfing the internet. Not really unholy/unwholesome
things. We can spend HOURS reading things like CNN/news sites,
blogs (online journals if that term is unfamiliar, but you
teach high schoolers so you must be hip to the lingo), and
various hobby sites (random technology/car sites for me, and
random puppy/knick knack sites for her).
I think the principle that we want to try and grow in
is really analyzing what and how we are using our time and
energy on, and capture that for God. It seems like that is
what was at the heart of the En Gedi series. To think about
where and how you're investing time, what it does to your
mind, and how you can capture and use that time growing in
your relationship with God. The media aspect seems to be a
tangible and very appropriate area to apply the principles.
I think you got it! That's why the series is entitled "Pursuing
En-Gedi." That's the whole point of this, to actually love
God more purely and passionately and according to His desires,
not ours! Declaring our love for Him while getting our "nourishment"
from stuff designed to mock Him is disingenuous.
To that end, while I don't know if I would say that I
think that abstaining from TV/Movies/Media is a must/"absolute
better", I do believe that it can and most likely will be
a beneficial thing to try, as long as it's actively coupled
with the "spend lots more time with God" aspect. So I guess
we will try to participate in the challenge, though for (my
wife) and myself, I think that what we need to add is monitoring
our time spent idling through the internet.
All I ask is for you and (your wife) to try it, and do it
with full gusto. I don't think it will hurt you but it could
definitely do something special for you. It did for me - a
clearer, purer, sharper mind. As I said over and over in the
lectures, it doesn't make you righteous. It just may give
you a better chance at it. That's a chance worth taking, in
my book. It's almost like Pascal's wager.
It's one of those things that I can't exactly describe what
it may do for you; you just have to try it for yourself. Also,
may I ask you to listen to the series one more time? Several
people have listened to it several times and they pick up
stuff they didn't the first time around.
So that's all I(we) have to say in a nutshell! (My wife)
may have more to add/things she disagrees with me on. I probably
forgot or jumbled half my thoughts, as it's just past 2am
now and I'm not the most clear headed! Thanks for reading
this far, and let me know if I'm way off or just being plain
unbiblical! I can always use correction!
So can I, brother! I truly appreciate the time you took
to write what you did, which is why I spent so much time writing
what I did. As always, I'm totally open to someone disagreeing
with me. It's what keeps us sharp and I certainly don't take
it personally. So, feel free to respond any way you like.
It's all in love.
In any case, thanks again to both of you for the blessing
of your friendship and counsel! Hope you guys are doing well
(for Arthur, hopefully better than that laundry list of ailments
you had 2 months ago), and we look forward to your reply!
It's our joy to be your friends in the Lord. We appreciate
you!
Blessings,
Arthur (and Sandra)
Return to Question and Answers
Page 
