This whole business with Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake’s performance at the Super Bowl this past weekend has sparked huge controversy internationally (even the British are marking remarks). Did they violate obscenity laws? Is TV becoming too lewd and crude? What is it really that big of a deal?
The whole problem with this discussion is that one side of the argument insists that morals are a human construct, and that, subsequently, morals change, even ‘evolve’. On the other side of the argument is that side that declares that morals are constant, that they haven’t changed since the Ten Commandments were handed down (to use the words of the notable Rush Limbaugh). As Christians, we stand on the moral absolute side, yet sometimes I wonder if we don’t forget that we are often talking to people who don’t believe in moral absolutes. We know right from wrong because it is clearly spelled out for us in the Bible, and we need to remember that we are talking with people who, just because they weren’t offended by the display (and by continuing downward spiral of morality on TV), don’t believe it to be morally objectionable.
In the long run, the goal is the same as it always has been. Win souls to Christ. Encourage the saints. We aren’t going to change people’s minds about morals without first introducing them to the One who established morals in the first place.
Yes, Glenn Beck had a field day with it yesterday morning on talk radio. We discussed it in my English class today also. Christians should have a different persective. You are absolutly right. The world’s morals don’t see a problem with filth on T.V., so what’s the big deal? Which was the consences of my English class as well. They won’t agree with us because the Bible holds no authority. We must introduce the One who holds that authority.