Expert Urges Effort to Counter Massive Effect of Television

Although Americans grow up glued to the television screen, scholars in religious education generally have ignored how much TV’s enormous influence hampers efforts to teach religious subjects at churches, synagogues and religious schools, said an expert in the field.

“We have pretended that it’s peripheral to our concerns because we are interested in the verbal and the literary”--lectures and books--said Charles F. Melchert, whose lecture opened a seminar of nearly 100 religious education specialists last week at the University of Judaism in Bel-Air atop Sepulveda Pass.

Melchert said television places conventional religious education at a disadvantage because religious themes are rarely dealt with on its programs, and the amateur presentations featured in churches and synagogues cannot compete with the professional quality of television productions.

The virtual absence of religious themes and news on mainstream television “communicates to the public at large that religion is not really very important; or, if it is, it is more a negative influence,” said Melchert, who teaches at Lancaster (Pa.) Theological Seminary, which is affiliated with the United Church of Christ.

*

And the high dramatic quality of television productions can make viewers, especially young people, feel that the less-impressive presentations in religious classrooms or houses of worship indicate the subject is insignificant. “Often by comparison, everyday life seems boring,” Melchert said.

Religious educators are “just beginning to think about these issues,” said Hanan Alexander, vice president for academic affairs at the University of Judaism and editor of the journal Religious Education.

A recent study by Michael Horan, who teaches religious education at Loyola Marymount University, indicates that religious education scholars have tended to ignore television’s impact.

His review of four religious education magazines and journals found only a “scant number of articles on entertainment media”--no more than a dozen by each--were published over the last 25 years.

Melchert noted that a Los Angeles-based group, the Center for Media Literacy, has worked for years to teach religious and other organizations how to analyze what they encounter in modern media, especially television. “I think they do a great job,” he said.

*

Sister Elizabeth Thoman, director of that center, said she disagrees with media critics who act “as though media creators were all-powerful manipulators, and viewers [are] only passive participants.”

Consumers can critique the media effectively when they reflect on such questions as what is shown and what is left out, and which social, political and economic groups profit most from what is shown, she said.

But Melchert contends “the deck is stacked” against television’s viewers. “I think there is a cumulative effect from the power of the media to set the agenda,” he said.

For example, he said, “There is a sense in this country that sports is an incredibly important part of American life, whereas data [on attendance and money donated or spent] suggests that religion is far more important in daily life.

“People not already in a religious community have acquired a sense from the media that it’s not really terribly important,” he said.

That does not mean explicitly religious programs are the only answer, Melchert said.

“If you put on good programs that say something about the human condition, then issues arise that are religiously significant,” Melchert said.

A similar stance is espoused by the Human Family Educational & Cultural Institute in Pacific Palisades, which sponsors the annual Humanitas Prize for best television scripts and conducts monthly workshops for screenwriters--efforts that grew out of the work of producer-priest Ellwood Keiser.

Similarly, Horan said many TV shows and films with secular subject matter often have subtle spiritual themes.