RELENTLESS RADIO

 

Author:	Jerry Williams
Published:	September, 1998

 

Back in mid September 1998, after the Starr report had come out, but before the release of President Clinton's videotaped grand jury testimony was released, Sandi Brown and I were talking on the air* about the situation and some of the polls which had been published regarding how people viewed the president and his ability to govern in light of the events. What struck us then was people's willingness to hold two or more apparently mutually exclusive views. According to the polls, a vast majority of Americans believed the president to be lying, and said they no longer trusted him. But a similar percentage of those polled said they approved of the job he was doing, and that he should continue in office. Now I don't claim to be a statistical genius, but it seems rather elementary that if 65% of the people say the president is lying, and 65% of the people give him their approval, then at least 30% of the people believe him to be lying and still give him their approval. These things ought not be At the 1998 CRR AC Radio Seminar, Dr Rick Garlick, Senior Research Director for the Gallup Organization, had some very interesting things to say about the mindset of Americans and their propensity to embrace seemingly contradictory or incompatible points of view. (You can access some of the actual surveys Dr Garlick referred to at Gallup's website.) Here's a summary of some of what Dr Garlick had to say. Figures, when used, are ballpark. To see the actual surveys, click on the link above. A little over 40% of Americans consider themselves Christians (depending on the definition of Christian), yet of that 40%, a significant number believe that all religions are valid. A majority of those who said religion is important in their lives and/or belong to a house of worship (church, synagogue, etc) also stated that they attend infrequently at best. A majority (somewhere around 70%) of Americans do believe there are moral absolutes, however, they don't know what they are, and they don't want anyone else trying to tell them what they are. And while a majority said religion or faith is important in their lives, they also believe that religion has lost its ability to impact and be relative to society. The perception of religion's impact has been trending steadily downwards since the 1940's. I get all the news I need from Geraldo On the day we made those comments on the air, we got a phone call from a woman defending President Clinton. She argued some of the points we've all heard before; other presidents have had illicit affairs, no one's perfect, he's suffered enough, and the country's in good shape so leave him alone or we risk messing up the economy and making my financial state less secure. I argued that while some of those things may be true, none of them were relevant. If the president had indeed committed a crime or crimes he had to pay the consequences. The fact that others may have been guilty of similar actions and gone unpunished is no justification in this case. As we neared the end of our conversation, I asked if she'd read any of the report, and the woman said to me, "I get all the news I need from Geraldo." A few days later one of the local tv newscasts was doing a "man on the street" feature on the issue. One woman proudly proclaimed that she'd not read or watched anything on it, and then said, "But I think..." It would appear that many Americans don't want to be bothered by trivial things like the facts, truth, or logic. They just want to believe what best fits their current ideology or circumstance. Heaven forbid they should have to examine what they believe or how they conduct themselves. This would help explain how so many can say in one breath, "That Clinton's a liar." And in the next, "That Clinton's doing an ok job." It would also make it a tad easier to understand how so many can claim to be Christians and still think all religions are valid. They just haven't bothered to look at the facts, or if they have, they've not thought through a logical application of them. How else can we explain someone who claims to believe in the Jesus who said "I am the way, the truth, and the light. No man comes to the Father but by me." And still believes that there can any other faith that can lead to salvation? Jesus pretty much rules that out. So those people must not have gotten that far in their Bible study, or they'e kidding themselves. What does this mean for those of us in Christian radio? I think it means that we need to take seriously our responsibility to present the truth, even as it pertains to issues we wish we could ignore. I'm not suggesting we need to address the Clinton-Lewinski issue in all the graphic detail it contains. But I think we need to take a stand, in love, for Truth. Some of the information Dr Garlick and the Gallup organization present is very exciting for Christian radio. People are hungry for spiritual things, for fulfillment, for God's presence in their lives. The challenge for us is to bring them to the foot of the cross in language they can understand. We have to be careful not to offend with our presentation. And we must not use words that would exclude any, terms only those raised in the church or a certain denomination would understand. The potential for new listeners is huge, if we'll let them know we exist and make them feel welcome. *Prior to the sale of WCBW, St Louis, on October 1, 1997, a group of area Christian businessmen and WCBW employees formed a non-profit corporation with the purpose of acquiring a station and returning the contemporary Christian format to the air. Sandi and I were among that group. As part of the effort we time brokered afternoon drive, Monday through Friday, on a local AM station. It was on this program that these comments were made.

 

copyright 1998-2004 RELENTLESS COMMUNICATIONS

Recommend RELENTLESS RADIO