In actual fact it does.
I am not referring to those more obvious and frequently annoying television portrayals in sitcoms and “family” dramas that don’t reflect reality and provide the public with a cartoon version of what faith means, but really good television that almost sneaks it in when you’re not looking.
In today’s world, many people are searching for something, be it a meaning, an explanation, a purpose, a sense of comfort — and they will turn to a variety of sources. They willingly seek out self-help books, talk-show gurus, new fitness crazes and more, but they tend to shy away from religion as a source. It may be that in years past churches provided people with an image and an expectation that seemed impossible to fit into everyday life. It may also be that television assisted in the warped image by offering comic book characters such as Father Mulcahy from “MASH,” or shows that were saturated in holy goodness like “Highway to Heaven” or “Touched by An Angel” making it impossible to see how a Christian life on TV could relate in any way to the people who were watching. They didn’t want to be “preached to” and they didn’t find religion very entertaining and I can’t blame the viewers for either conclusion.
Television still offers a religious theme and has improved its delivery tremendously. It has almost become a form of invisible Christianity that reaches and speaks to people without them realizing it’s happening. One such show that is doing this and doing it very well is the medical drama “House MD.” The show is a production of Heel to Toe Films, Shore Z Productions and Bad Hat Harry Productions. It centers around a main character named Dr. Gregory House, who is played brilliantly by British actor Hugh Laurie (yes, that is an American accent he puts on for the show). The show is now in the middle of its fifth season. Each season has provided some of the best that television has to offer, including some episodes that can stimulate wonderful discussions about religion and faith.
Dr. House is a rude, obnoxious, drug-addicted doctor whose theory is that everyone lies. In most cases he is proven to be correct. He prefers not to talk to or interact with patients if he can help it. There are more than a few similarities between Dr. House and the fictional detective of Arthur Conan Doyle’s creation – Sherlock Holmes. Both men are drug addicts, both are brilliant and have little time or tolerance for anything less, both have what would be described in today’s terms as “poor people skills” and both are absolutely the best in their field. Similarity reaches as far as their home addresses. House lives at the address 221 on his fictional street, only a letter away from Holmes’ famous 221B Baker Street. Perhaps House is the new great detective now chasing down the mysteries of medicine and of life.
He has a staff of three assistants who get belittled and mocked but at the same time admit that they learn more working with House than they have at any other point in their career. House has only one friend – Dr. Wilson – who admits that he enables House more than he actually helps him to change. This cast of supporting characters provides a perfect platform for the show to dive into theological topics that receive arguments both for and against. The dialogue can be as challenging to viewers as any sermon or debate, covering topics such as God’s role in good and evil events, science versus miracles, the need for faith and belief and the use of prayer. The viewing audience is drawn into a discussion they may have had with others or within their own mind. House is usually cast as the sceptic and the others, well, they try. If you are a believer you have to submit your faith to House’s questions. If you are not a believer you have to consider what the others suggest.
The show is careful to avoid a conclusion where one person or one viewpoint is the right one, leaving the other as “wrong.” This is often how it must be in life. We can question and ponder but the answers are never fully there. Some take this as a sign that the notion should be dismissed, others prefer to continue wondering.
In one particular episode, Dr. House had a nun as a patient and a few theological discussions came up, but it was Dr. Wilson who captured the debate so well. He asked House if he had considered that in regard to the great question of religion and God he might be wrong;
House: “What do you want me to do? Just accept it? Pack it in?”
Wilson: “Yeah. I want you to accept that sometimes patients die against all reason and sometimes they get better against all reason.”
House: “No they don’t. We just don’t know the reason.”
Wilson: “I think the nuns would agree with you there.”
One of the brilliant touches about the show “House MD” is that these topics are discussed with intelligence and depth but they are not overdone. The show is primarily a “medical drama” and the majority of episodes are just that. As with life, we deal with work, children, bills, dentist appointments, and so on. Every now and again a religious moment or question comes into our lives just as it drifts in and out of House’s.
The themes and ideas presented in “House MD” are similar to the themes and ideas that are presented in many sermons on Sunday mornings. It is fair to say that most people who watch these episodes will not be aware of this similarity. There are other television shows and other episodes of both comedies and dramas that don’t make religion their central theme but touch on it once in a while in provocative and compelling ways. This process is almost invisible to those watching. Invisible Christianity.
To push these notions right into people’s faces, to force it upon them as past shows have tried to do and failed, would turn them off and prompt them to turn off the television soon after. This message can be delivered and is being delivered in very clear ways. The difficulty will now lie in showing the viewers that the help and the connection they are making with the characters in these episodes is a connection to God. The ideas are the same. The questions are the same. The challenges and the discussions are the same. The hopes and the pains are the same. This is nothing new. It’s just a different package.
Many unchurched viewers are searching for the very things churches did, or rather were supposed to, offer. The offer can now be found in a very familiar medium, in a non-threatening style, but somehow that connection needs to be made, that bridge needs to be built by our congregations. In the meantime, television has given them a great gift in that the message is still getting out there — the label has been removed. It’s going to be up to us to put the label back on.
Alice Cade attended Ryerson University in Toronto, Canada, and got a degree in Radio and Television Arts. She currently lives with her family in Vancouver, B.C.
