Ian Boyne, veteran journalist and multitalented commentator, is the leading media commentator being the only one in three media - radio, television and print. It must be difficult to maintain a high standard at all times. And his standards are falling. He seems to lose objectivity when he hosts 'Religious Hardtalk' perhaps because his religious orientation was honed in the Herbert Armstrong movement and is now polished by the Ted Armstrong movement.

Last week's programme was exploring the arguments for and against tithing. A relevant topic based on its popularity as a Christian teaching and in the context of the pervasive prosperity gospel, whose purveyors depend on the tithe for much of its funding. However, not for the first time, Ian makes the claim that his programme is offering to the audience a discussion on a topic that they will not hear in their churches. How does he know what is discussed in all churches? And worse, he is apparently trying to establish himself as a super teacher who is giving people truths that are being withheld by ministers of religion or of which they are ignorant. Perhaps a little humility from Ian might be in order. Not only has he been affiliated with three denominations in his adult life, which is an indication that he is searching after truth, but he has made some prophetic utterances in one of his columns concerning the dangers of the unification of East and West Germany, which have not materialised.

Unfair advantage

In addition, in that programme, Ian was playing the roles of host and also antagonist. This gave him an unfair advantage. For the appea-rance of neutrality he needs to be the host only.

Furthermore, I would have hoped that the producer of the programme would realise that this practice of participants throwing many verses of scriptures quickly at the audience is tedious. Television is not meant for that. The programme needs either to have the scripture passages placed on the screen or restrict the number of reference passages given on the programme.

But a more fundamental problem with the programme is that most times it is dealing with some fringe esoteric issue that seems to be going nowhere and does not edify the Body of Christ. In 1Timothy there are warnings against "profane and old wives' fables" and that Christians ought to ignore "myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God". There is also a rebuke for those who do not agree with 'sound words' and instead have "a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind". It seems that much of the discussion falls into useless disputes and could aptly be described as 'Religious Soft Talk'.

I recall two preachers telling me that they make outlandish statements in order that the media will quote them. And the media did. Apparently, the more outlandish and sensational a claim, the higher the likelihood of being on the programme.

Hermeneutical approach

Many of the programmes have got soft with the main hermeneutical approach being the proof text methodology. The participants zealously try to find a scriptural text to support every belief, statement and practice with seemingly little understanding of the context or the principles of the Bible. Little difference is made between what God prescribes and what humans are describing in the Bible.

This pioneering religious programme needs to get back to core principles of dealing with the hard sayings, having principles of the Bible being discussed in an atmosphere of fairness with the hope of edification.

Devon Dick is pastor of the Boulevard Baptist Church and author of Rebellion to Riot: The Church in nation building. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.