In Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death, he takes to task the various forms of public discourse which have grown out of the rise of television, purporting that this shift has dumbed down the larger conversation as it relates to news, politics, religion, education, et al. The epistemological presentation of these subjects has an effect on the viewer’s understanding of what is presented, viewed under the guise of entertainment. On Postman’s line, learning through such means is a danger, as television cannot provide appropriate and adequate context conducive to gaining knowledge. For Postman’s argument, television’s only practical use is as a medium to entertain, not educate. As long as the programming does not try and present itself as an educational tool, then it remains harmless and, possibly, entertaining.
If Postman sees problems with the presentation of religion on television as well as televised general news programs, what would be his response to a program combining both elements? Since 1994, the esteemed televangelist Dr. Jack Van Impe (his doctorate, it should be noted, was obtained through an unaccredited university) has been filming his nationally syndicated television show, “Jack Van Impe Presents” (hereafter: “JVIP”), live on tape from Troy, MI. With the help of his wife, Dr. Rexella Van Impe (of similarly questionable scholarship), Van Impe provides an interpretation of the news of the week by way of Biblical scripture, specifically scripture as it pertains to the prediction of the Rapture. The actual presentation of the news is provided by Rexella’s reading of the seven or eight headlines in quick succession, with no further extrapolation or context given beyond the occasional chuckle or (arguably) witty remark. Following these readings, Van Impe fills in the rest of the story by way of his encyclopedic knowledge of the Bible. Surely, a headline reading “Obama’s Unreality Tour” (including Rexella’s vapid aside of “Unreality tour, what does that mean? OK, let’s go on…”) would not need further context before launching into accusations of Obama’s being the Anti-Christ who will lead us into World War III, which Van Impe then asserts. In presenting the news in quick snippet and interpretative fashion, JVIP is involved in a process not much different than the secular 6 o’clock news.
Behind his newscaster desk and backdrop and his TV-friendly set of veneers, Dr. Jack Van Impe’s role is that of a televangelist, spreading God’s word into millions of homes in the US per week (incomplete data on how many of these homes tune in), asking only for your devotion to guarantee salvation... at a nominal fee ($59.95 plus s&h will get you your very own “Jack Van Impe Prophecy Bible New Third Edition”). Postman offers, “I believe I am not mistaken in saying that Christianity is a demanding and serious religion. When it is delivered as easy and amusing, it is another kind of religion altogether” (121). In other words, on Postman’s line, Christianity presented on television is not Christianity, but something more characteristic of entertainment. While Postman grants that representations of Christianity are found throughout history in art, it usually does so in direct communication with the Bible or God. On television, where God is a “vague and subordinate character,” there can be no representation through images, and, therefore, the viewer must rely on the televangelist delivering the message as a stand in.
Against these charges of fraud, Dr. Jack Van Impe might reply, “Wait a minute, Mr. Postman! I am not entertaining the masses; I am providing a service by warning them of their imminent destruction!” Assuming that humanity’s destruction is not imminent and JVIP is a show on television, with the inherent faculties and subjectivity that go along with it (i.e. stories presented, graphics, makeup, set designs, etc), then is an entertainment program. Which is not to say, as Postman points out, that religion can’t be made entertaining. However, the question then becomes, “by [making religion entertaining], do we destroy it as an ‘authentic object of culture?’” (POSTMAN, 124). Postman is implying that by its very nature, religion on TV trivializes itself.
If Postman sees problems with the presentation of religion on television as well as televised general news programs, what would be his response to a program combining both elements? Since 1994, the esteemed televangelist Dr. Jack Van Impe (his doctorate, it should be noted, was obtained through an unaccredited university) has been filming his nationally syndicated television show, “Jack Van Impe Presents” (hereafter: “JVIP”), live on tape from Troy, MI. With the help of his wife, Dr. Rexella Van Impe (of similarly questionable scholarship), Van Impe provides an interpretation of the news of the week by way of Biblical scripture, specifically scripture as it pertains to the prediction of the Rapture. The actual presentation of the news is provided by Rexella’s reading of the seven or eight headlines in quick succession, with no further extrapolation or context given beyond the occasional chuckle or (arguably) witty remark. Following these readings, Van Impe fills in the rest of the story by way of his encyclopedic knowledge of the Bible. Surely, a headline reading “Obama’s Unreality Tour” (including Rexella’s vapid aside of “Unreality tour, what does that mean? OK, let’s go on…”) would not need further context before launching into accusations of Obama’s being the Anti-Christ who will lead us into World War III, which Van Impe then asserts. In presenting the news in quick snippet and interpretative fashion, JVIP is involved in a process not much different than the secular 6 o’clock news.
Behind his newscaster desk and backdrop and his TV-friendly set of veneers, Dr. Jack Van Impe’s role is that of a televangelist, spreading God’s word into millions of homes in the US per week (incomplete data on how many of these homes tune in), asking only for your devotion to guarantee salvation... at a nominal fee ($59.95 plus s&h will get you your very own “Jack Van Impe Prophecy Bible New Third Edition”). Postman offers, “I believe I am not mistaken in saying that Christianity is a demanding and serious religion. When it is delivered as easy and amusing, it is another kind of religion altogether” (121). In other words, on Postman’s line, Christianity presented on television is not Christianity, but something more characteristic of entertainment. While Postman grants that representations of Christianity are found throughout history in art, it usually does so in direct communication with the Bible or God. On television, where God is a “vague and subordinate character,” there can be no representation through images, and, therefore, the viewer must rely on the televangelist delivering the message as a stand in.
Against these charges of fraud, Dr. Jack Van Impe might reply, “Wait a minute, Mr. Postman! I am not entertaining the masses; I am providing a service by warning them of their imminent destruction!” Assuming that humanity’s destruction is not imminent and JVIP is a show on television, with the inherent faculties and subjectivity that go along with it (i.e. stories presented, graphics, makeup, set designs, etc), then is an entertainment program. Which is not to say, as Postman points out, that religion can’t be made entertaining. However, the question then becomes, “by [making religion entertaining], do we destroy it as an ‘authentic object of culture?’” (POSTMAN, 124). Postman is implying that by its very nature, religion on TV trivializes itself.
