Tom was the proprietor of Blue Barn Grocery. Tom was proud of his new business, but the name seemed to be a problem. His rural customers didn’t understand why a barn would be a funny color of blue. This seemed to cause a slow start; business was not good. Instead of changing the name, Tom drove into the uncertainty. He put the image of a Blue Barn everywhere and on everything. It was part of his television campaign; on billboards, social media, internet ads, even t-shirts and hats. Soon, no one was asking what it meant but accepted it as it was. Business picked up and everybody knew Tom as the Blue Barn grocer. 

Tom used media to create a sense of familiarity. Once his potential customers were comfortable with connecting the image of a blue barn to a locally owned, home-town grocer, they were ready to buy from him. The Blue Barn marketing campaign introduced an image into the marketplace that slowly changed peoples’ perspective.

Similarly, in association with the entertainment media, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) has been quietly doing the same thing for the past twenty-four years. In November 2019, they released their “Where We Are on TV 2019-2020” report where Sarah Kate Ellis, president and CEO of the organization said, “The role of television in changing hearts and minds has never been more important. Indeed, our nation’s cultural institutions are being called to stand in the gap at this tumultuous time in the history of our movement for full acceptance.”

The report suggests they are seeking equity between the real number of LGBTQ+ individuals in society and characters that populate entertainment programming. However, Frank Camp of the Daily Wire contrasts the claim with research information stating, “Using GLAAD’s data, LGBTQ television characters would outweigh the LGBTQ population by 40%. Using Gallup’s data, the difference would be even more stark, with LGBT characters on television outweighing the actual LGBT population by 77.5% by 2025.” It appears that Ellis and her organization wants to create a narrative that is just as much fiction as the characters on any sitcom.

With a goal of “full acceptance,” GLAAD and their accomplices in Hollywood are trying to create an authority that is both coercive and persuasive. Its coercive nature is heard in the language used throughout the report when they say, “. . . Hollywood must include lead LGBTQ characters whose stories are told with nuance and depth that reflect the real world that audiences know if they want to retain and grow their audiences.”1 The threat is veiled but real and Hollywood knows it. Power is now in the hands of those leading the LGBTQ+ movement to force compliance, not by law, but by cultural pressure. Any business or institution reluctant to agree with their arguments will be dealt with accordingly. 

Theologian J. I. Packer says of persuasive authority that it manifests as a “pedagogic authority that ought to be recognized for moral reasons, that is, reasons of truth and holiness.”2 Packer argues that authority cannot exist on coercion alone, but needs to teach foundational truth claims that lead to a morality based on God's eternal precepts. The LGBTQ+ movement follows this philosophy by constructing a system to teach a morality based on their worldview. Such a pedagogy now appears on our television sets that is catechetical in nature. It seeks to teach us truth as outlined by the gay/transgender movement in America.

Ellis says in the report, “GLAAD was founded by advocates who recognized the power of entertainment and media as the most powerful vehicle to share our stories.”3 If you are brave enough, a simple inspection of any show, on any day, at any time of the day will reveal positive characterizations of the gay and lesbian lifestyle. At this point Christians need to be careful lest we drift into conformity. 

We can never say that something is positive that God’s word calls negative. The gay and lesbian lifestyle diverts sexuality from God’s holy way revealed in the Scriptures. The 1689 Baptist Confession succinctly states the issue when it declares, “Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife, for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and for preventing of uncleanness.”4 Because of their willingness to “share our stories,” entertainment media is producing a catechism which teaches a morality not of God’s holy way but of license, and conformity. 

The morality being taught is further defined as, “to combat negative or dehumanizing headlines.”5 Fighting the good fight from the perspective of the gay agenda means battling against their idea of bigotry. The problem with the report is that it never points to who is producing the negative headlines but does lead us to believe that any contrary voice is negative. We are also told what their hoped-for outcome is: “(To) create a culture shift that makes it safe for LGBTQ people to live authentically as ourselves.”6 

The result of this “culture shift” will make it safe for gay and lesbian lifestyles but dangerous for any other perspective. To live as “authentically” gay or lesbian is anathama to Christian discipleship. This is not to say that a well-meaning individual cannot choose such a lifestyle, but that does not make it a biblical choice (see Romans 1:24-27). For example, a person might want to abuse drugs. This is their free choice but the ability to make a free choice does not make the thing chosen good for them. A Christian lives according to the way of the Lord revealed in the Bible. They may make decisions that are not in keeping with a biblical lifestyle but that does not mean it is a Christian choice. 

On one level, this simply furthers the current culture of intersectionality. Ellis continues, “Yet, our community finds itself in 2019 facing unprecedented attacks on our progress.”7 What we see in GLAAD’s report is a sense of deep tribalism which casts an “us against them” motif over the whole argument. The “unprecedented attacks” statement creates a boogeyman effect (an enemy never directly identified in the report), which is the foil for any intersectional argument. Yet, this is not the greatest threat to American culture. 

The true threat is the open targeting of children. If our children can be won over to believe that this agenda is simply a natural choice, then the next generation of adults will continue to demand more adoption of LGBTQ+ principles in the culture and by the church. 

The report says in its review of kids and family programming, “Representation in daytime kids and family television is growing rapidly, thanks in part to GLAAD’s focus on the genre in recent years.”8 The report mentions platforms such as Cartoon Network, PBS, Nickelodeon, Netflix and Hulu as vanguards in the effort to reach the hearts and minds of children. These platforms notwithstanding, GLAAD is looking forward to the inclusion of LGBTQ+ characters on other streaming platforms for children like Disney+. This juggernaut of indoctrination is already on a TV near you. As Christian parents, we must stand against the moral revolutionaries knocking on the door of our homes and teach our children God’s word. 

James Ussher, the archbishop of Armagh, Ireland, in his Sum and Substance of the Christian Religion gives us multiple reasons for the necessity of catechizing our families. With regard to  children, he says, “All children are made blind in the knowledge of God and of religion by Adam’s fall; and consequently they must be enlightened and informed by teaching.”9 The world seems to have learned this lesson better than the church and are actively catechizing them in a doctrine of deviancy. This indoctrination does not lead to a knowledge of God but rather a full-bodied knowledge of humanism. We cannot allow this to continue unchecked on our watch.

How should the church handle such a blatant threat? So far the response has been anemic. Albert Mohler says, “It is also the case that we have many Christians in America who are saying one thing and doing another. . . . They let this programming into their homes and show it to their own children. They say, ‘We’re not going to put up with it,’ but they do.”

Is this where the church parts company with entertainment media? We should ask ourselves some important questions. Will our Christian faith be strengthened by letting go of broadcast, cable and/or streaming entertainment? Will our children be benefited by removing entertainment media from their daily routines? Will we deal a blow to temptation and the schemes of the enemy by turning off our televisions? If the answer to these questions is yes, then perhaps it is time to part ways with the TV. Yet, there is something more important for us to do than just shutting off the television. 

Just as Ussher stated, it is the responsibility of the Christian home to teach the knowledge of God. We must return to a deliberate effort of catechizing our children in the Word of God. As the Psalmist says, “I will meditate in thy precepts, and have respect unto thy ways” (Psalm 119:15). If we expect to be strong enough to walk in the ways of the Lord, it will not be on a diet of LGBTQ+ doctrine. We must teach the truths of God by catechizing our children, our young people, and our adults in God’s Word. This is our only hope against a tidal wave of cultural rot that wants to ruin the Christian witness and put an end to the only authoritative voice that can stand against GLAAD and their allies.

1 “Where We are On TV 2019-2020,” GLAAD Publications, 9.

2 J. I. Packer, “The Reconstruction of Authority,” in Readings in Christian Ethics, Volume1: Theory and Method, eds. David K. Clark and Robert V. Rakestraw (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 93.

3 “Where We are On TV 2019-2020,” GLAAD Publications, 4.

4 The Baptist Confession of Faith and the Baptist Catechism, (1689; repr., Port St. Lucie, FL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2014), 53.

5 “Where We are On TV 2019-2020,” GLAAD Publications, 4.

6 “Where We are On TV 2019-2020,” GLAAD Publications, 4.

7 “Where We are On TV 2019-2020,” GLAAD Publications, 4.

8 “Where We are On TV 2019-2020,” GLAAD Publications, 33.

9 James Ussher, “The Sum and Substance of Religion,” in The Principles of the Christian Religion; with a Large Body of Divinity, Methodically and Familiarly Handled by Way of Question and Answer for the Use of Families. (London: 1678), PDF, Early English Books Online, 2.