The Gospel According to the History Channel, Review of Part 3

The History Channel's mini-series "The Bible" is shaping up much better than I expected it would and getting excellent, record-breaking ratings.  It's not perfect but, with lowered expectations, it's watchable and you might even learn a thing or two.  Episode 3 completed the telling of the Old Testament and brought us to Jesus, which enters dangerous territory.  It is incredible hard to portray the Son of God in drama without offending someone.  I can't imagine being a writer and inventing dialogue for him or being the actor and second-guessing every tone and subtle gesture.

But I liked episode 3, much better in fact than I liked episode 2, although every episode has had a ton of little nit-picky mistakes.  Some of these mistakes and distractions are just a part of film-making, others are matter of prop-masters not being up to speed on their archaeology or not having the budget to show that they are.

So here's my Top-10 nitpicks and random thoughts on episode 3:

1. Even though everyone else was upset that Satan looked like President Obama, which even my kids recognized, Tanner thought the prophet Jeremiah looked like the Three Stooges' Larry Fine.  I thought he looked like Doc Brown from Back to the Future.
2. I didn't like how they portrayed the fiery furnace.  It wasn't so much a furnace as it was a room they sort of set fire to.   It should have already been so hot that the guards died throwing them into it.  I also thought that Nebuchadnezzar's later insanity wasn't very clear to anyone who didn't know the story.
3. Ancient people used A LOT of eye shadow.  Especially bad guys.
4. "Just when I thought you couldn't possibly be any dumber, you go and do something like this... and totally redeem yourself!"  Did you see the two scenes showing them writing on and using cylinder seals?  Awesome.  I think that's the first time I've ever seen it in a movie.
5. I liked the portrayal of Daniel and the lion's den.  A lot.  It just clicked with me.
6. I thought the representations of Roman oppression, Herod the Great, and the history of crucifixions was spot on.  I've always pictured Jesus, living under Roman oppression, seeing crucifixions on the roadside.
7. Like almost every nativity scene, church play, and movie, they get the wise men a bit wrong.  We don't know how many wise men there are or their names.  And we can be pretty sure that the wise men didn't get to Jesus at the manger, but rather a year or two later.  Also, they learned of Bethlehem from Herod's people and Herod killed all the children under two years old, not just the infants.  Oh, well.
8. The location (Morocco) looks very Middle-East-ish, but it's not Judea (or Babylon, or Egypt).  So sometimes there are mountains and deserts in the wrong places and the poor little Sea of Galilee looked like a pond instead of a body of water eight miles across.
9. I liked that they showed baptism as full immersion although they left out a few important lines from the story of Jesus' baptism.
10. To condense the story they skipped Solomon's reign, the Divided Kingdom, Isaiah, Elijah, Ahab & Jezebel, Ezekiel, Jonah and almost all of the prophets, the writing on the wall, Nehemiah, Esther, Elizabeth, and young Jesus at the temple, et al.

Russell Crowe's UFO

As a minister preaching the Bible, I really resent conspiracy theorists and various nutjobs out there who call false things true.  They scare people and take advantage of their ignorance to lead them astray.  God's Word is historical and logical, it's not a bunch of ooey-gooey feel-good malarkey or spooky fear-mongering.  But people chase after ghosts, fortune-telling, UFO's, and all sorts of quackery.  So I love it when some of this nonsense gets debunked.  In fact, I often applaud the atheist skeptics (James Randi, Penn Jillette, et al.) for exposing these myths. 

The following is a video debunking a supposed UFO sighting by actor Russell Crowe.  I'm guessing that Crowe knows exactly what it is and he's just messing with people to be funny.  But some people are easily fooled, so here's a great explanation:

Random Thoughts 3/11/13

• We had a special offering at church yesterday to fund our revival.  We needed $1,000 during a difficult time and we asked that nobody give what they would normally give to our regular offering.  We were praying for God to show us his glory and we hoped for $1,000 to $1,500.  Instead, He blessed us with over $2,000!  Praise the Lord!
• The money will go to advertising the conference (April 26-28) and defraying the costs of the conference.  This way we don't have to take up an offering at each session.  Too many people think the church just wants their money, so it'll be nice to not need to ask.
• Congrats to K-State for all their success this year!  It's too bad both Kansas teams couldn't win their final games instead of losing them.
• Where do they find the well-dressed audiences for "America's Funniest Home Videos?"  There's no way those are Americans with their own clothes.  Do they put the audience through wardrobe?  Are they mostly actors, hired to be there?  Audiences in church on Easter Sunday aren't dressed this nice.
• So are we supposed to hold out hope that the new Kansas City Chiefs are really different and really have a chance next year?
• I'm dumbfounded with the reaction that people are having to the death of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.  The man was socialist dictator that robbed $2 billion from his people to line his own pockets.  He curtailed freedoms and made his country worse in many ways, yet "useful idiots" like Sean Penn and Oliver Stone are praising him as a hero.  I'm not asking anyone to be boorish about the death of a human being, but please, this man was demonstrably a thief and liar. 
• My favorite commentator on Fox News right now?  John Stossel.  His weekend specials about government waste and corruption and politics are absolutely fascinating.

The Gospel According to the History Channel, Review of Part 2

So the first episode wasn't so bad.  It wasn't great, but I've seen a lot worse.  So how did the next episode fare?  Here are my Top 10 random thoughts:

1. Why take the multi-ethnic approach to casting the show?  In past Bible films, the actors have been too Caucasian.  But is it too much to ask audiences to accept a show with a mostly Middle-Eastern cast?  At least the Jewish roles should be played with Jewish-looking actors.
2. Rahab doesn't get near enough credit for having faith and negotiating a deal for her family in Jericho.  Read Joshua 2; the original was more dramatic and made Rahab more noteworthy.
3. I think Sampson's story is a hard one to tell.  I didn't like this version at all.
4. It's amusing watching the show be discreet about things like sex, foreskins, and killing the messenger.  It might be inappropriate for television, but quite a bit of the Old Testament is very much "rated R."
5. Ancient Israelites, especially David the shepherd boy, apparently had the whitest… teeth… ever.  But Goliath brandished a bronze Khopesh sickle-sword, so that was good.  However…
6. The production obviously didn't bother (or couldn't afford) to make "hero" sword props, which are polished and sharpened for closeup shots.  The props used for fighting are often ugly, blunt replicas made out of rubber or wood, which looks okay when viewed a distance.  But the closeups of the weapons in this episode were obviously the same props used for the fighting, with dented edges as thick as the spine of magazine.
7. Why do the kings get to visit the Ark of the Covenant?  It's supposed to be in the tabernacle.  To be fair, perhaps the Ark was traveling with the army at the time.  Maybe.
8. I liked King Saul, though his part of the story (and Samuel's) was too brief and condensed.  In contrast, I thought the actors that portrayed David were both very mediocre.
9. I really liked how they portrayed Uriah.
10. To shorten the story we lost out on a bunch of important characters, like Gideon and the other judges, Hannah, Ruth and Boaz, David's other sons, David's other wives, and many others.

Ministering to One Another

Today one of our church members had a heart attack while working in her yard.  One of the first things she asked for when she came out of surgery was for someone to go finish cutting up a fallen tree so that her husband wouldn't do it.

Understand, in ministry, we often see people with needs that can't be met or needs that can't be met right now.  Often we find out after the fact that the church missed an opportunity to help someone who was in genuine need.  It causes a lot of disappointment, not only for the people unhelped, but for those who would like to help.

Today, everything fell into place perfectly.  Joe S. was already at the hospital with me and Dale D. received the request for help at his home computer.  In ten minutes, the three of us were in her back yard cutting up tree branches and picking up the mess.  In thirty minutes we were done.  Meanwhile, Chris C. got her husband a late lunch and Ashley T. went to the house and let the dog out, loaded their dishwasher, put the clothes in the dryer, and gathered some personal items for the hospital stay.  Many others called and visited the hospital room to express their concern.  It was a beautiful display of Christian love.

But why did it work out so nicely this time and not other times?  Part of it was timing.  If you're going to have an emergency, do it on a clear day in the middle of the day when absolutely nothing else is happening.  Part of it was proximity.  She was local, had her heart attack at home, and went to the local hospital just down the street.  Part of it was communication.  Her husband let us know immediately.  She identified her needs as soon as possible, so we knew how we could help.  And finally, part of it was example.  This lady is one of the most consistent examples in our church of someone who works hard and eagerly helps others.  She visits hospitals and attends funerals and labors at work days, usually without any recognition.  As a minister, I'm happy to help anyone (even those who don't want it), but it puts an extra skip in your step to help a saint you know has eagerly helped so many others.

So often you say, "Let us know if there's anything we can do," and usually there's not anything to do.  But today it worked out beautifully and it couldn't have been more enjoyable to see God's people eagerly helping each other.

The Gospel According to the History Channel, Review of Part 1

So we watched the first episode of the History Channel's new mini-series, "The Bible"…

…and it wasn't awful.  In fact, perhaps because of low expectations, I kinda liked the first two hours of the series.

Here are my Top 10 random thoughts on the matter:

1. I was expecting lots of really bad theology.  Other than condensing and a little dramatic license, the first two hours took a very straightforward approach with fairly little compromise.
2. There was lots of focus on God's wrath in episode one.  Though some may react poorly to it, if that is intended to set up thematic elements for later, it could be really good.
3. I liked Adam sitting up covered in mud.  Great shot.  And thank you for making the forbidden fruit NOT an apple.  Dodging that cliche scored all kinds of points with me.
4. I liked Lot's wife being included early and often.  It made a lot of sense.
5. I'm still not sure about the ninja angels of Sodom but I liked the actor who will play Jesus playing the Angel of the Lord when talking to Abraham and Sarah.
6. I liked everything they did with Sarah: the laugh, the tension with Hagar, the fear for Isaac.  The best scene in the first two hours was Sarah spotting Isaac after the sacrifice (though she would have had to run three days to get there [Nice catch, Chris]).
7. I wasn't too sure about Moses acting so deranged.  But Shannon made the point that others probably saw him like that.
8. I hated that they skipped Melchizedek, Jacob and Joseph and his brothers, Moses' wife, father-in-law, and children, the tabernacle, the pillar of fire, etc. etc. etc.  But unless this mini-series was going to be a hundred hours long, I guess you have to cut something. 
9. Whoa, small crowd at the Exodus!  The wide shots looked like barely a thousand people when in reality the group may have consisted of over a million people. [Good eye, Eric]
10. I'm still really nervous about the dramatic license the show may employ.  How much will they go off-script with Jesus' dialog?  If Moses or Abraham make an off-the-cuff extra-Biblical comment it's not nearly as big a deal as putting those words in the mouth of Jesus.

Bonus and completely unnecessary nitpick:

• Bronze Age swords really shouldn't look so much like stainless steel.

The Gospel According to the History Channel

So tonight the History Channel airs the first part of its mini-series, "The Bible."

*sigh*

I just hate seeing the Bible put on screen.  It's almost never done well; small budgets, dramatic compromises, and theological compromises are rampant.  Miracles are explained away, scripture is misunderstood, and Hollywood directors try to spice things up.  Specifically, I'm skeptical that these producers (of "Survivor" reality-show fame) will be able to tell the story without exaggerating the drama to super-Biblical proportions.  They manipulate reality for dramatic effect every day – how will they be able to convey scripture without embellishment?

But I'll watch, because I know other people will.  If it's great, it'll be a blessing to have a visual reference point for people new in their faith.  If it's cheesy, misguided, and inaccurate… well, I need to be up to speed on that too because people will have questions.  It will be valuable in coming years to be able to recognize when someone is drawing a conclusion from something they saw on television versus something they may have actually read in the Bible.

It'll also be worthwhile to watch this with my older boys and have them help me fact-check the episodes.

Random Thoughts 3/2/13

• March is a happy month for us.  We have three March birthdays in our family (and many friends and relatives with March birthdays also).  My beautiful wife adds another year on the 4th, Anneliese turns four on the 12th, and Graham turns seven on the 16th.
• Aren't you glad you didn't give up on the Jayhawks during that 3-game losing streak?  Rock Chalk!
• As a Jayhawk fan, I have little or no interest in seeing a scheduled Mizzou game in KC.  Missouri deliberately hurt our conference (and especially the KC area); they left for the sake of leaving, so let them go.  Maybe Kansas will play Missouri in the NCAA tournament some day.  It mystifies me why Kansas City Big 12 fans would want to do Missouri any favors.
• My wife keeps trying to pass off venison as hamburger.  The kids are beginning to think she's just not a very good cook.  Or worse, that they don't like hamburger that much.
• I've begun reading The Chronicles of Narnia to Elijah and Graham each evening.  Back in the fall of 2007, I read the seven Narnia books to Brennan and Tanner at ages seven and almost six, respectively (Eli was barely two years old and didn't participate much).  So now it's time to read to the next pair of boys, who are just shy of nine and seven years old.
• In our house, if you read a book, you can stay up 30 minutes past bedtime.  Elijah is capitalizing on this more than any of the kids and is rivaling Tanner for the most voracious reading appetite.  The problem is that we often forget about him because he'll disappear into our room or a closet to read and we don't remember him for an hour or more.