A.D. Episode 4

At the conclusion of Episode 4 of AD: The Bible Continues, I heard the voice of Russell Crowe's character in Gladiator, "Are you not entertained?!" Yes...yes...I was entertained. As a guy who gravitates toward anything intense, I was very entertained by Episode 4. There was suspense, excitement, and brutality--all the ingredients for a good action movie. Sure, there were more interpretive liberties taken with this episode than all the other episodes previous. But how could you not be intrigued when Boaz (the Jewish assassin) ended up in the camp of the Christians or when Pilate stuffed dead people down the throat of Caiaphas (Those were the ashes of some ancestor, correct? The kids were late in going to be bed, so I missed the scene when they were explained.).

The biblical timeline that was reflected in this episode was essentially chapters 4-5. We saw Peter and John's trial before the Jewish Council, the idea that the believers would share their possessions (I knew they were all communists! ;) ) and the increase in healings and other miracles. We were also introduced to Stephen, who was portrayed as an eager and young idealist, as well as Ananias and Sapphira. Yet let's not forget about the Holy Spirit. We were introduced to him as well. What a powerful and thought provoking characterization.

Ultimately, the rise of Peter's leadership was juxtaposed to the failings of Caiaphas and Pilate. In a span of 50 minutes or so, Peter was transformed from an uncertain leader to an empowered one who demonstrates the necessary wisdom and charisma to lead a fledgling group. We have the Holy Spirit to thank for that. Conversely, Pilate is portrayed as flirting with the edges of sanity, and Caiaphas is portrayed as one who is hindered by his adherence to his rituals and traditions. This juxtaposition was driving the episode as a whole, and it is indicative of the larger purpose of the miniseries up to this point--to display how one movement defied all odds, even an Empire, to become the greatest religion on earth.

There were two scenes that resonated with me. The first was linked to John's premonition, which eventually brought him to the Temple precinct. There he encountered a rich man who declared that while he had money, his soul was void. He posed an interesting question to John. Essentially, "Why do you limit yourselves to the poor and ill?" This was very telling. The Church is not just about social activism and ministering to the poor and downtrodden of society. Rather, it is fundamentally about healing the dead souls of people, and dead souls transcend socio-political boundaries.

Yet the most powerful scene, in my opinion, was the Ananias and Sapphira confrontation. In Acts, it is portrayed as one scene, but in the show it was broken up.It was powerful nonetheless. Particularly powerful was Peter's final confrontation with Sapphira. Having just witnessed the death of her husband, Peter intensely questions Sapphira, who, just like her husband, denies that they withheld any of the money from the sale of their property. Realizing that she has been fond out, Sapphira tries to rationalize things. She essentially states, "There was no malicious intent...We were simply being prudent!" This of course does not work, and Peter stands on and watches her suffer the same gruesome death as her husband and the hands of the Holy Spirit.

The reason why this scene was so powerful is because the rationale for withholding the money is understandable. When I tithe on a regular basis, I always consider what my family will need to pay the bills etc. Indeed, we tithe at least up to a certain level, but anything over that is always considered in light of my responsibilities as a father and husband. In other words, in my tithing I try to be prudent. However, here is where Ananias and Sapphira got it wrong. They lied. Importantly, this is the same lesson communicated by the Bible as well. It was not that they withheld any money as a safeguard. Rather, it was because they were deceitful and proclaimed that the amount given was the amount of the sale (cf. Acts 5:1-11). Be honest about your giving...

According to Acts, this tragic episode also served to emphasize the growing significance of the early community. The sudden deaths of Ananias and Sapphira gave the early Church and its leadership a level of credibility that could not be questioned. It verified the power of the Holy Spirit, and it was sanctioning it all. I think that this was well portrayed in the episode.

Nevertheless, a storm is brewing, and Peter's interaction with Mary at the beginning of the episode alluded to all of this. Those familiar with the bible know that Saul is on the horizon, and I expect him to be introduced very shortly. Boaz will be tracked down, and this manufactured story-line will almost certainly compromise the relative peace of the community. And all of this is faithful, in the general sense, to Acts, which also details how the momentum of the early Church was hindered by the death of Stephen and persecutions of Paul. However, Acts also maintains that this imminent struggle was the catalyst for taking the Gospel beyond Jerusalem and Judea.

Things in this miniseries will transpire quickly over the next few episodes. Hang on...

AD Episode 3: Uncertainty in all its forms...

Episode 3 of NBC's AD: The Bible Continues was essentially a collapsed version of the first 3 chapters of Acts. What stuck out most was the way that the writers and producers structured the episode. The build up was slow and deliberate, displaying the interpretive freedom that has effectively become one of the series' defining characteristics. It took a while to get to the content of Acts, and the episode ultimately climaxed with 1) the empowerment of the disciples by means of the Holy Spirit's decent through tongue of fire (Acts 2) and 2) Peter's miraculous healing of the cripple near the Temple (Acts 3). To intensify the climax, Peter's two sermons recounted in Acts 2 and 3 were amalgamated into one sermon boldly proclaimed in front of Caiaphas, who stood of the Temple entrance. Peter and John are then beaten and thrown in jail.

If I could chose one word to describe the permeating theme of the episode it would be "uncertainty." The disciples were uncertain about what Jerusalem held for them. They knew the powder-keg to which they were returning, and they were uncertain as to what this Holy Spirit thing would mean for them. The only thing about which they were certain was that Jesus told them to go back. The Romans were uncertain of what this Jesus cult would bring next, and the Jewish leadership was uncertain as to what the variable of Pentecost would add to an already volatile situation. In a word, the buildup to the episode's climax was driven by these paralleled streams of uncertainty.

I like the element of uncertainty that has been developed over the first few episodes, even though it is a very clear example of interpretive freedom exercised by the writers and producers. It has effectively added flesh and bones to the characters of the Bible. What were the emotions of the disciples after the ascension? What kind of questions did they have as they pondered and waited for this promised Holy Spirit? They were never completely certain of things, were they? Nevertheless, in this episode I would have liked to see a little more emphasis upon the upper room event during Pentecost. According to Acts, this was the moment when the disciples realized a few things about the resurrection event (see Peter's sermon in ch. 2). It really was a watershed moment for the early Church, and so it is really difficult to overstate it importance. It deserves it time in the sun. In other words, the unfolding of the episode's climax felt rushed. According to Acts, this moment was about realization and empowerment. It was this moment that gave Peter and Co. the boldness to defy the Jerusalem leadership and proclaim that this Jesus cult was, perhaps, more alive and vibrant than ever. Indeed, there is a telling scene at the very end of the episode where Peter glares at Caiaphas as if to say, "You have no idea what is coming." This nicely visualized the newly endowed boldness supernaturally given to Peter. Yet all of it still left something to be desired.

Why did they rush the Pentecost event and Peter's subsequent healing of the cripple? It appears that the writers and producers has chosen to make the Church's rise in the midst of political turmoil to be a main story line, if not the main story line, for the miniseries, at least for the time being. But this is not to say that such a historical emphasis is misguided or wrong. No. It is correct...part of the miracle of the early Church was its ability to navigate the turbulent socio-political waters that were 1st Century Palestine. But as I reflect, I am struck with a question that I believe deserves asking. Is this point of emphasis in the miniseries more about creating a story line that is entertaining to a television audience than recounting the advancements of the early Church? I don't know. I realize that there is something quasi-political about the spread of the early Church, not to mention genuinely suspenseful about Acts. Time will tell if this artistic emphasis will compromise the major point communicated in Acts--the global spread of God's kingdom through the empowered and bold apostles (verses the deteriorating political climate of Palestine in the 1st Century).

There was a very telling scene in this episode, and it occurred between Peter and his daughter. Peter's daughter was pressing him, telling him that he had changed. She recounted how he used to know exactly what he wanted and how he went after it. In a word, her father displayed a history of being driven. She of course was contrasting this to his current state of confusion and anxiety. Peter essentially responded, "I knew that I wanted to fish. Fish meant money, and money meant food and clothes. Life was simple." To put it another way, Peter was declaring that life was predictable, but now Jesus and the implications of his ministry--and Peter realized that he could not ignore this man--had introduced a variable in his life that was difficult to anticipate. All he knew what that Christ demanded his allegiance, his full allegiance.

Such is the gospel. It demands our allegiance, our full allegiance. And when we offer it, we must accept the fact that there will be times when we must accept a certain level of uncertainty. Where we will go? What will it demand of us? These are the questions that the apostles first lived out, setting an example of what it means to be a follower of Christ. So yes, there will be uncertainty...there has always been uncertainty. However, it is a tamed uncertainty, grounded in the absolute certainty that Christ is alive and empowers his people to proclaim the gospel boldly. 

A.D. Episode 2

Sunday night was episode two of NBC’s A.D.: The Bible Continues. I will admit that I was entertained. The episode was certainly dark at times, but it was an appropriate darkness. Overall, I was entertained. Nevertheless, if there was any doubt to the level of interpretive freedom that would, or would not, be exercised by the writers and producers of the min-series, it was laid to rest with this episode. Essentially, episode two can be described as a substantial amount of filling-in-the-narrative-gaps around selected episodes documented in the Bible.

The episode essentially began with the resurrection and ended with Jesus’ ascension. In between, the interaction of Jesus with his disciples was recounted, and the witness of John appeared to be a major source. There was the episode of Jesus calling from the shores to Peter and company to cast their nets on the other side of the boat, as well as Jesus’ three-fold command to feed his sheep (Jn 21). There was also doubting Thomas (Jn 20). Yet permeating the episode was a reconstructed blow-up between Pilate and Caiaphas. Much interpretive freedom was exercised here, and one could even say that it dominated the episode. Whether or not this will be a point of criticism remains to be seen. Nevertheless, I enjoyed it.

One of the reasons why I enjoyed it was that, upon final editing, it was used to provide a structure for the episode that effectively asked the audience to ponder the different experiences caused by Jesus’ resurrection. By moving between the Jesus’ interaction with his disciples and Pilate’s fight with Caiaphas (an interchange), a contrast was created. More specifically, it was a contrast between those who enjoyed the relationship of Jesus and the peace that it brought, versus the personal turmoil of those who actively opposed Jesus. Caiaphas’ world began to crumble, including what had been portrayed as a solid marriage with his wife. Pilate became more and more ruthless, even flirting with the boundaries of sanity and control. I thought that this was a great dynamic that really drove the episode.

The portrayal of Pilate, in my mind, was excellent. For a number of reasons, the prevailing opinion of Pilate, at least among the majority of the Church, appears o be that Pilate was some sort of spineless governor that really had a hard time standing up to pressure. Perhaps this is because of the biblical testimony, which certainly paints him as one who was swayed by political strategy and political pressure. However, one must remember that Pilate was a Roman governor, and a governor of one of the more volatile regions in the Roman Empire. A spineless governor in that context would have been eaten alive and spit out in seconds. I think that this series has done a great job with the characterization of Pilate, portraying him as a governor who could really throw the hammer down when necessary. The dramatic scene of murdering the guards in front of Caiaphas—as to clearly explain who was in charge—certainly did well to communicate this historical reality. But I would say the following quote from the episode did an even better job. I am paraphrasing from memory, but Pilate said something to the effect, “When faced with the opportunity to be fair or firm, I have found that being firm is best.”

Overall, I think that the writers and producers have done a solid job in emphasizing the uncertainty that was a part of the disciples’ lives during those initial days after the death of Jesus. In the first episode, the uncertainty was related to whether or not Jesus’ death was supposed to have happened. In the second episode, the uncertainty was a political uncertainty. What was going to happen in Jerusalem given that order existed on a knife’s edge and the proclaimed resurrection threatened aspects of that shaky order? We have to remember that the Gospel was paradigm shifting, and to have that assault on the socio-religious power structures occur in such a turbulent socio-political context was a recipe for skepticism, hesitancy, doubt, and drastic measures. I am amazed how these fishermen were able to navigate it all and become the pillars of the Church.

If it gets people to read the Bible...

One of the traditions of Easter is to have the token Jesus-shows broadcast on network and cable television. Naturally, the Ten Commandments was on. Yet I found myself watching the Dateline special that was devoted to the mini-series "AD." NBC devoted an hour special in anticipation of the initial episode to interviewing Mark Burnett and Roma Downey about the production of their series, which incidentally is a follow up to the popular "Bible" mini-series that aired on the History Channel a while back.


Anyone who knows me knows that biblical programming simultaneously fascinates me and drives me nuts (...it is that PhD thing again...). Consequently, I was thoroughly intrigued to hear their rationale in making the mini-series, as well as the thoughts of media critics from Variety, NY Times, and others. However, at times I found myself throwing my hands up in the air in frustration. For example, When Downey and Burnett were discussing some "lessons learned" from their previous production--the Bible-- they mentioned how they received some critical feedback suggesting that their casting was "too white." In turn, Downey and Burnett made a conscious decision to put together a cast that was more diverse. So, as they put it, they cast a Hispanic Jesus, Mary Magdalene, as well as an African American John. Moreover, NBC then interjected a snippet from a pastor from a prominent African American A&E church in the DC area who said that he wished that they would have done more.

Now, I am not a marketing person and I am not going to pretend that I understand the dynamics of producing a successful television series. Mark Burnett, and this is pretty universally accepted, is great at this. Downey was a star of the successful Touched by an Angel series. Therefore, Downey and Burnett know what drives the Hollywood machine, and for their efforts to be successful, they likely realized that the diversity issue was something that had to be addressed. Nevertheless, their decision brings an interesting dynamic of the mini-series to the forefront--the interaction of making television that has wide appeal with accuracy.

Let's face it. We live in a time where diversity is an unavoidable issue. However, if you want to be as accurate as possible, you need to portray John, Mary, and the others as Middle Eastern people because that is what they were. (I am not the only person to have commented on this. See my professor, Dr. Ben Witherington.) What is interesting about this dynamic is that during the interview Burnett states that he believes that one of the reasons for the intense criticism around the recent movies of Noah and Exodus stems from a reaction against taking too many liberties...even going so far as "messing with the text."

Artistic license is an unavoidable reality of Hollywood, and so I eventually conceded that I should not be too agitated with the issue of casting diversity, even it is for the sake of what appears to be cultural appeasement. In turn, I found myself focusing more frustration on the fascination with Mary Magdalene. During the NBC interview, the producers of Dateline went out of their way to emphasize the role of Mary. This recent infatuation is made possible by the whole Gnostic Gospel debate, and it is the Gnostic Gospel debate that drives me nuts. I cannot go into that here, but suffice it to say that just because "other gospels" were floating around does not give them a footing in theological discourse, particularly orthodox theology. And don't give me the socio-political power play argument--that the reason why the Gnostic Gospels were deemed heresy is that they posed a threat to the developing power-structures within the early Church.

But as I am sitting there watching these shows with my wife, and as I was venting my frustrations, Ginny looks and me and says something to the effect, "If it gets people to read the Bible, is it really something to get worked up about?"

Well, that puts it all into perspective doesn't it?

So I ultimately realized that while all of my frustrations are legitimate, they must be put in their proper context. Indeed, they can have their day in the sun, because the details matter. Historical accuracy matters. However, I think that they should be entertained among mature believers, and certainly not in a manner that turns off people who happen to be legitimately interested in the gospel. If Christians bicker too loudly among themselves, it gives the impression that Christians are inherently a discordant bunch. And who wants to be part of a movement that spends their time arguing?

So, at this point, I am going to try to enjoy this mini-series and try to speak to its (hopefully) positive contributions. The initial episode was, in my opinion, well done overall. In particular, I think that it described well the frustration and confusion that ultimately ran rampant among the disciples during the days after Jesus' death. Remember, the disciples' expectations of what they thought was going to happen did not mesh well with reality. Psychologists refer to this as cognitive dissonance, and this phenomenon produces a range of reactions, which include frustration, anger, confusion, etc. Furthermore, I found the zealot story line to be an interesting touch, and the interpretation of Pilate's character was thought provoking.

So...we will see....if it goes off the rails, if the details start to pile up and erode the integrity of the biblical narrative, then my position will likely change.