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.