After twenty-five years, Oprah Winfrey closed her highly popular daily television show on CBS-TV. The show was a marked improvement for television programming, and even sponsored popular spinoffs such as the counselor, Dr. Phil. and the physician Dr. Oz. The shows addressed real problems of persons and called for better understanding and conduct from viewers/listeners. Concluding her series Winfrey made reference to Scripture and to Christ as having spiritual meaning and influence in her life. It was clear during the latter years of her programs that she was deliberate in trying to gain a spiritual insight for those who would respond to her effort, and some of her work was eclectic even in spiritual meanings. With the decline in the participation of clergy in the media, widely seen in previous decades with Graham, Sheen, Robinson and others, the mantle seemed to fall to those who were more generalists in their approaches. These, with personalities like Winfrey’s, seem to carry the motivation with some respect but reduced specificity. They did hold out for improved conduct in society, so should be respected in that effort.
However, something seemed wrong. There was easy acceptance of some humanism forms contrary to biblical inspiration. Not only were pluralism and cultures made acceptable to faith, but advanced by Winfrey’s show, sometimes inadvertently. Opponents to the historical perception of marriage and sexual experience, sometimes historic conduct, were implied to be phobic in some way. This was partly advanced in achieving some high purpose as when, in some shows, Winfrey was effective in gaining repentance of racially prejudicial opponents to acceptance and rights for all persons. The carried over concept was that the sexually prejudiced ought also to see the error of their ways, and be forgiven. All this is yet to be played out, and one wonders if Winfrey in developing her own television network will gain or lose influence. Her approach is so much improved over what emerged from general sources that one is reluctant to be critical. (The point for us is that acceptance and eclectic presentation is not redemptive.)
Her show became religious/altruistic in its direction – as in some of the forms of entertainment in music, and the lives of musicians who do not represent her high human standards. The four-letter-words, and some of their accompaniments are used by some of her guests as though acceptable. Lights are shining in all sincere persons to be acknowledged and followed. So the story goes. It becomes humanistic sometimes seeming crude, even when the crudity is not deliberately gross and stern. There is something lost in the style of Jesus in the conversation. The conversation can’t be cleaned up and approved because of a fetching personality, with generosity to others, and an infectious smile/laugh of a true listener. Problems are not solved in quite that manner, although the manner has value to solutions. That some problems are confronted and solved through Winfrey’s efforts there ought to be no doubt, but the questions ultimately become: What would God have me do? Can I serve in the way a sound biblical response indicates?
So it is that one may applaud those, like Winfrey, who lift human relationships to higher motivation, meaning, and performance than we find in so many celebrities and other influential persons – even those impressed to review concepts of the Swedenborgians. Groups immigrated to early America under effective and devoted leadership. A community was established in the new and free State of Pennsylvania. Concepts were quite modern in some ways. The main emphasis was that there are a number of ways to God, even if Christianity is to be preferred by most. What happened was, basically, the building of religion as an eclectic (the best teachings of several contexts) process. Human resistance to exclusiveness in faith was seen as a barrier to acceptance of God. The general public finds this attractive in theory and practice. They may be eclectic (Swedenborgian) in general culture. Eclecticism has not worked in serious faith. The focus is on mankind, not really on God. The movement now has fewer than 20,000 adherents. Scripture denies the generosity, permitting God to reveal his identity, and the qualifications for his acceptance. Mankind does well to surrender that right to God, and follow the directives. The story of redemption stands, and will not be altered. Concepts of good works and elements of Christian life conduct can’t be substituted for the offering of Christ in redemption of those who will believe. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020