Baptists Change Mind On Documentary Screening (Press, 10 November 1984)
This is a Generative AI summary of this newspaper article. It may contain errors or omissions. Please note that the language in the summary is reflective of the original article and the societal attitudes of the time in which it was written.
Summary: Baptists Change Mind On Documentary Screening (Press, 10 November 1984)
A recent letter from Television New Zealand (TVNZ) has significantly impacted the 102nd annual assembly of the Baptist Union regarding the documentary titled "Jesus — the Evidence." The letter clarified that the upcoming three-part programme did not suggest that Jesus was a homosexual, a claim that had been improperly inferred by media reports. It noted that while such an idea was briefly mentioned, it was ultimately discounted. Additionally, the letter confirmed that two religious consultants, representing the Salvation Army and the Anglican Church, had approved the documentary's airing. The letter ignited a vibrant discussion during the closing session of the assembly, leading to an amendment of a motion that originally sought to condemn the programme. The modified resolution requested that TVNZ produce a fourth segment that would include discussions from British experts about the previous three parts of the series. This additional segment was in response to public outcry from British audiences. A second resolution was also adopted, which expressed discontent with some publications that misrepresented the documentary’s content, labelling this misrepresentation as both unacceptable and offensive to Christians. During the debate, the Rev. Mark Jackson defended the assembly's stance, suggesting that churches had been misled and that the press had become an unfair target for criticism. The Rev. Tom Cadman, who serves as the Baptist representative on the religious broadcasting committee, voiced opposition to the movement against the programme. He stated that he had viewed all four sections of the documentary and found nothing offensive. He argued against the idea of censoring a programme that most assembly members had yet to see, highlighting the contentious atmosphere surrounding the discussion of the documentary's content.
Important Information
The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact
The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand