How can a medium be "unworthy"? To me this is the entire problem with the ultra con view.
You guys try to humanize technology. Television is nothing more than a means of communication like books, radio, billboards, telephone, etc.
If your gripe is that the majority of the programming is not good then lay that blame at the feet of Christians as they have conceded the medium to the "prince of the air" for the most part.
I find no logic in considering technology evil or "unworthy". It is a conduit and putting the Gospel message in that conduit for some to see and hear that may not any other way is good.
I don't think we are "humanizing" the technology of TV. How do you advertise on something that most will agree has few redeeming attributes? We would be advertising on a medium is unwholesome and mostly unfit to watch. I agree that is partly because the religious right has condemned programs and then watched them that much of the filth is broadcast.
When you consider that the majority of Americans innately distrust and ignore TV ministers, I don't have much hope for saving vast numbers of souls. I feel more of our children will be lost to the teaching on TV than we will ever save. Using your logic, we should go and witness in bars and topless clubs.
The content on the medium is expressly controlled by a group of the most ungodly people you could dredge up anywhere--producers.
And you willingly concede that to them without offering any positive alternative to what they provide.
As I have said ad naseum Tv is not a cure all answer for evangelism but to deny that it can reach people who will otherwise never hear the gospel is inexcusable.
There are large urban areas where the only concept of Christianity is the RC church and other old dead mainline denominations that don't even hold scripture as infallible any more. It would be nice for these folks to at least have the opportunity to be exposed to the gospel while channel surfing.
We never took an official stance as a movement against radio like we did tv.
that is the difference.
There were some men who preached against it, but it was never a collective agreement endorsed and ratified by the body of voting ministers.
My Grandma Kloepper told me that radio was a big "no-no" back in the day when it first came out. Maybe it was just an understood rule, but not official.
And you willingly concede that to them without offering any positive alternative to what they provide.
As I have said ad naseum Tv is not a cure all answer for evangelism but to deny that it can reach people who will otherwise never hear the gospel is inexcusable.
There are large urban areas where the only concept of Christianity is the RC church and other old dead mainline denominations that don't even hold scripture as infallible any more. It would be nice for these folks to at least have the opportunity to be exposed to the gospel while channel surfing.
If we were ever going to do it, it should have been before the televangelists totally ruined all credibility for tv ministry.
Furthermore, I don't think tv is a very effective medium for communicating the Gospel.
There is a pretty good slug of research to suggest that tv ministry redistributes converts, but doesn't make many.
I don't think we are "humanizing" the technology of TV. How do you advertise on something that most will agree has few redeeming attributes? .
Because the bible says to go out into the highways and byways and compel them to come in!
The people that are watching the programming you don't approve of are the very people you want to reach.
The logic is just amazing. I am glad I am not going to have to sit at the white throne judgement and explain why I didn't utilize every means to communicate the Gospel. That I would not use one because I didn't approve of the other things being communicated on it.
Why don't you boycott printed Bibles since Playboy magazines are also printed on presses and sold in stores as reading material? The logic is the same.
Linear Mode
