David Anguish
In 1986, New York University communications professor Neil Postman wrote a provocative book entitled, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. Postman argued that the greatest threat to the American system is not the strict totalitarianism of George Orwell's 1984, but the "trivial culture" of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. "As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, [those] who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny 'failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions'" (Postman, vii-viii).
Postman illustrates the difference between what used to be and what is by comparing the reaction to the Lincoln-Douglas debates to modern attitudes. In 1858, frontier people with little formal education stood for hours and were able to comprehend the complex vocabulary and arguments of those history-shaping discussions. Today, attention spans and patience with logical discourse have been drastically reduced. Postman argues that there is a close connection between the modern media, especially television, and this lack of reflective thought and discussion.
Of particular interest to us is his application of his thesis to televised religion. He observes that, "on television, religion, like everything else, is presented, quite simply and without apology, as an entertainment" (116). He quotes "the executive director of the National Religious Broadcasters Association [who] sums up what he calls the unwritten law of all television preachers: 'You can get your share of the audience only by offering people something they want'" (121). He acknowledges "that religion can be made entertaining," but asks if, "by doing so, . . . we destroy it as an 'authentic object of culture'" (124). In light of these observations and questions, he challenges the way modern religion has come to be practiced: "Though it may be un-American to say it, not everything is televisable.... Television preachers... have assumed that what had formerly been done in a church or a tent, and face-to-face, can be done on television without loss of meaning, without changing the quality of the religious experience" (118).
The point here is neither to disparage television per se nor its use as an evangelistic tool. We have long advocated more extensive use of the media for spreading the Word, whether in print, audio or video form. But it is vital that we see what the obsession with the trivial and the physical senses is doing to us as a culture. More importantly, we must come to terms with what it means for our practice of faith.
Can there be any doubt that what has been assumed by television evangelists has spread into non-televised religion? As we reflect on our culture, with its love of the trivial and brief, can we seriously say that we don't understand why so many - in as well as out of the church - are just not as interested in serious study as people used to be? Do we really wonder why committed discipleship is so hard to generate? Why missionaries cannot convince churches to invest in missions over esthetics? Why worship services are expected to be both shorter in general, and chopped into entertaining "sound bites"? Why there seems to be such a clamor for these same services to be more entertaining and less reflective (and please note that "entertaining" and "enjoyable" are not necessarily synonyms)?
Serious study is needed to avoid a reactionary approach to cultural shifts, to make sure that our traditional way of doing things has not been made equal to divine law. But that same level of seriousness is needed as we reflect upon whether we will allow culture to blunt our influence by keeping us absorbed with the trivial, or whether we will be the counter-culture Jesus expects, able to make a significant and eternal difference.
The truth is what frees, whether from tyranny or trivia. Because it corresponds to reality, the truth can also be hard to accept. May God give us the courage to both face and proclaim it.