Episode 8

I am just going to get my rant out of the way first thing. NBC’s AD: The Bible Continues is becoming a biblical account wrapped in fictitious events. Moreover, last night’s episode was particularly frustrating. How can you minimize the single greatest conversion in Church history? And yes…I do think that the fabricated storyline that involves Pilate, Tiberius, and an insane Caligula did just that—muscled the conversion of Paul to the fringes of the episode’s focus. Yet this is not the only reason why last night’s episode kinda drove me crazy. To someone who does not know the content of Acts, he or she may open up a Bible, flip to the book of Acts, and expect to read the accounts of Tiberius’ assassination, Pilate’s political maneuvering, and Caligula’s moral depravity. Acts is about the globalization of the Church—how it became a world movement out of a regional phenomenon. Indeed, it is okay to offer a larger socio-political context for the rise of the Church, but it is another thing to give it a fanciful context and drown out the Church’s progressions with ancient Near Eastern subterfuge and the political ambitions social factions within first century Palestine.

Okay…on to something about the episode that was somewhat enriching….

In this episode, we finally see Paul’s conversion. As I mentioned, I believe that this is the single greatest conversion in Church history. Not only was it about as dramatic as one could get, but the effect is second to none. The Church’s arch-nemesis becomes its greatest weapon. Yet what I appreciated about the portrayal of this event was not the Damascus Road confrontation, but rather the convergence of reason and experience.

In a telling scene, Saul is obsessively heading toward Damascus. He is demanding a crazy pace from his companions, and he is mumbling and spewing vitriol along the way. At one point, Reuben (the High Priest’s guard who was told by Caiaphas to accompany Paul) gets fed up with his travel companion from hell and confronts Saul, asking why he is so obsessed with Peter. Saul angrily states that it makes no sense that God would choose an uneducated fisherman. According to Saul’s mindset, the very choice of this vessel defies logic. So we see that Saul’s struggle with this whole Jesus movement, at least in part, appeals to perceived reason…to perceived logic.

Now juxtapose this scene with a later one. Paul, who has just been cured of his blindness, sits around a table with his companions having a meal. Ananias is there, and his travel companions sit there dumbfounded as Paul explains that he has given up his former way and intends to be baptized. He gets up with Ananias and leaves. Fast forward. We see him at the river, and Barnabas is there. Barnabas is visibly struggling with what he is hearing, but it is clear that Paul’s experience has consumed him. He cannot explain what happened, how it makes sense—only that he was blind but now he sees.

 

This juxtaposition represents what I believe is a hallmark of a mature believer, one who is neither purely cerebral nor purely experiential. Intellect and emotions must collaborate, and neither can drown out the other. If this happens, the Christian becomes a robot or a windbag blown by the winds of experience and emotions. Reason offers a framework to assess our personal experiences, and experiences breathe joy into our faith.

Also implicit in the scene of Paul’s baptism was an awareness that he was still unsure what this all meant. Yeah…he knew that he was now called for something special, but the specifics of that calling were still to be hashed out. The last image that we see of Paul in this episode was him bolting into the local synagogue, against the council of Barnabas and Ananias, because the burden of the call was too great. To heck with any questions he may have had, because he knew what he had to do. So, as this episode closed we already see that the same passion and conviction that characterized him as the Great Persecutor will drive him as the Great Missionary.

While the artistic freedom that is being used to paint a larger socio-political backdrop is starting to grind my nerves, the artistic freedom that is being used to fill in the gaps of Paul’s character development are very enriching and thought provoking. How often to do we just sit there and cripple ourselves with our questions of what we are called to do? As if the answer is going to be revealed in a dream or written on the wall… Why is it so hard to allow our convictions, which are made clear by the Holy Spirit, to drive our actions and trust that the intricate details will be made clear in due time?

Episode 7

He replied, "It is not for you to know the times or the periods that the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea, and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1:7-8; NRSV)

The book of Acts is laid out on a geographic trajectory, where the spread of the early Church goes through distinct phases. First, there was Jerusalem, where the faith was born out of the aftermath of Jesus' death and resurrection. However, it soon spread from its original confines to reach larger Palestine and, eventually, the epicenter of the known world--Rome. As for the catalyst for the spread, the reason why the Church morphed from a regional phenomenon to a global movement, Acts strongly suggests that it was not because the Apostles fully understood the divine intentions of Jesus' last words. Rather, Acts suggests that the spread of the gospel was a by-product of Saul's persecution of the Church. For example, Acts 8:4 tells us that the scattered went from place to place preaching. In other words, they were forced to leave, and they took the gospel with them (Saul, even when he was Enemy #1 of the Church, was responsible for the globalization of the Church. Talk about God being the author of history.).

I will admit that episode 7 of NBC's AD: The Bible Continues was a little disappointing. The whole Tiberius visiting Jerusalem, Pilate pleading his case and getting in bed with Caiaphas, Peter confronting Saul in the streets of Jerusalem, Saul pursuing Peter in Galilee and threatening his daughter, etc. was unnecessary, particularly since this was episode 7 of the miniseries and we still have not seen Paul's conversion. Thankfully it will be next week, for there is so much that needs to be covered! However, Philip's interactions in Samaria was a redeeming quality. Yet as I went to bed the issue of the Church's persecution resonated in my mind most loudly. Namely, the role of persecution within the vibrancy of the Church, how the Church defines itself through it, and how the Church responds to it.

Simply put, the America Church is clueless when it comes to understanding persecution. Sure, we read about it in books, even in Scripture, and, from time to time, we watch reenactments of it on television. However, if we are honest with ourselves, people who have grown up in the American Church just can't relate. We live in a country where we have the fundamental right to freely practice our religion, as religion cannot be regulated by the state (I am not going to get into the conversation of "Well we are persecuted in America...there is a double standard.") Perhaps then this is the real tragedy of America's cultural influence upon the American Church--no frame of reference for what it means to be a part of the persecuted Church.

Nevertheless, we are currently living in an unprecedented time, a time when American Christians can obtain a better understanding (although not an intimate understanding) of persecution. ISIS is currently storming through the Middle East, subjecting all to their intense religious agenda and forcing people to get on board. If one refuses, then they are beaten, killed, etc. Sometimes, a mass of opponents are killed and then broadcast across the world via the internet and social media. Americans, at least those that are not living under rocks, are confronted with these realities and can no longer claim ignorance to the struggles of the global Church. More importantly, we are being forced to ponder, "How do we respond?"

I recently heard a very popular conservative radio talk-show host say that he believes that Christianity must become militant (vs. violent...whatever this means...) if it wants to survive. Really? Is this the answer? A militant Christianity? I may not know the answer, but I do not think a militant Christianity is the way to go.

According to Acts, it was the Church's ability to absorb and channel persecutions through the power and direction of the Holy Spirit. Just as ISIS uses brutal killings as a platform to proclaim the essence of their religion, the early Church used persecutions as a platform to proclaim the essence of their faith. Steven boldly proclaimed Christ as he was being convicted and stoned. Peter preached and was beaten...so he preached some more. Even Paul would be flogged and physically assaulted for his preaching, only to use it as motivation to keep going.

So what is my point? Ultimately, I don't really know. What I do know is that history has shown that something weird happens in times of intense persecution. Persecution is a complex reality, and according to the book of Acts, it was just what the Church needed to get it moving. It was out of this treacherous situation that convictions were strengthened, people empowered, and the community was more precisely defined. Most importantly, seeds of the faith were planted elsewhere, and, given the right circumstances, these seeds would later germinate to produce a fruit that would eventually envelope a vast majority of the world.

From time to time, the Church will face storms. It is a polarizing institution, if you stop and think about it. It was built on the claim that it gets it right where others get it wrong. And when one considers that it confronts people with the intention of re-calibrating fundamental impulses of human existence, the question is not if detractors will come about but when. Violent ones are also an inevitable reality. But let's remember that history also shows us that these storms will not wash away the institution, but rather it they produce something that is more convicted, defined, and driven than ever. 

Episode 6: Saul before Christ

Selfishly, I wish I was told more about Paul before his conversion on his way to Damascus. What we are told largely appears in just a few chapters in Acts. We are told that he brutally heads up the persecution of the early Church—dragging men and women from their homes to prison for the even the slightest association with the Church (cf. 8:1-2; 9:13-15). Heck, he was apparently so nasty that Ananias verbally questions God when he is told to go and heal Paul after his Damascus Road experience. As if to say, “Um…God? Seriously?! I know that you have heard about this guy…and you want me to seek him out?!”

Later in Acts, in two locations (chs. 22 and 26), Paul himself recounts what he was like before his conversion. Yet the way he does it is very interesting. Furthermore, it really becomes his modus operandi on the topic: speaking to his past only to emphasize the dramatic nature of his conversion. And we see other examples of this in the New Testament (for example, Galatians, Philippians, Corinthians, etc.). So, on the issue of Paul pre-conversion, the New Testament, as a whole, largely discusses the topic only when it needs to. It certainly does not dwell on it. Nevertheless, given what we know about Paul as a missionary and preacher of the gospel—how bold, convinced, and decisive he was—it is a worthwhile endeavor to consider what he was like before his conversion. Consequently, I applaud the writers and producers of AD: The Bible Continues for devoting so much time in episode 6 to Saul as a Pharisee and persecutor of the Church.

I thought the portrayal of Saul was creepy good. As I watched it, I felt his conviction, his passion. I saw a man who was utterly convinced that this fledgling movement was heretical and posed such a threat to the traditional institutions of the Jewish faith that it had to be squashed...violently if necessary. Throughout his monologues, the camera kept focusing on his eyes, and boy did those eyes cut right through the TV screen. There was one scene that was particularly effective in communicating Saul’s obsession. When Saul visits Caiaphas, who reluctantly grants him audience, Saul begins to confess his opposition to the movement. Very quickly Saul flirts with loosing emotional control. He begins to move his fingers uncontrollably, his eyes become fixated on Caiaphas’ desk, and he has trouble stopping his diatribe. At this point, Caiaphas, and the audience for that matter, knows who sits there. This scene, perhaps more than any other, visualized the passion and conviction that consumed this man—both as a persecutor and later a missionary.

There was another telling scene in the episode that I thought was effective. Early on in the episode Paul and Peter have a rhetorical sparring match. Paul tries to reason with the crowd, for he thinks they are being intellectually victimized by the Apostles. However, Peter counters by appealing to life of Christ. On the one hand, this gives us another snippet of what will come to mark Paul’s ministry. Yes, he was passionate, focused, and convicted, but he was also educated and intellectually gifted. Paul was a rhetorician, and he thrived on making arguments for his positions. For example, Paul will later find himself in the Agora of Athens reasoning with the Greek elite over the significance of Christ. On the other hand, reason alone is not the totality of the Christian faith. As exemplified by Peter, experiencing Christ is the other half of the equation. What secures the logic and reasonableness of the faith is one’s experience with Christ.

Again, there was so much artistic freedom exercised in this episode, and I can see how people may be getting fed up with how the miniseries has unfolded. Yet before one gets too bent out of shape, he or she must consider how that artistic freedom is being utilized. Simply, "How is the freedom being used to push the flow of the episode and overall miniseries, and is that flow honoring the message of the biblical text?" Overall, I cannot complain too much. By the end of this episode, we have been introduced to a man who is passionate about destroying a new movement that he believes threatens the core of the Jewish religion. Sure, none of this is in the Bible, but we have a better of understanding of the type of person who would later experience a world-altering encounter with Jesus and who would later channel those same traits for the glorification of God and edification of the Church. And that is true to the message of Acts.

AD Episode 5

Episode 5 of NBC's AD struck me as a transition-episode. It tied up some older story-lines and introduced new ones. On the whole, this episode assumed much of the interpretive freedom that has come to mark the mini-series. We continue to see Pilate and the deteriorating relationship between his wife and his very loyal (yet increasingly troubled) officer Cornelius. Caiaphas' wife continues to display her dominant personality, which was punctuated by a verbal chastisement of Pilate's wife. And we are introduced to Philip. But let's not forget Boaz, the Jewish assassin.

In this episode we see that Boaz finally surrenders himself, first to Caiaphas. He is then brought to the Roman authorities, and he finally gets his audience with Pilate. However (and you could see this from a mile away), he was stabbed with the intention that he be publicly tortured. However, one of his assassin friends shoots and kills him instantly by an arrow from a roof top, saving him from a week of agony.

This entire story line has been manufactured for the sake of entertainment, not out of fidelity to the biblical account. Yet what we have to understand about it is that it has been functioning in this miniseries as a parallel to experiences of the early Church. Just as the early Church sought to confront the political status quo and incite a revolution, so too did zealots. However, the Church's intention were markedly different. For the zealots, it was all political, physical, and immediate. In both cases though, the potential outcomes were the same--death. As this story line is closed, it concludes with a bang.

The possibility of death for the Apostles was brought to the forefront in a very emotional scene between Peter and his daughter Maya. After Peter and his companions have been beaten to bloody pulps, Maya confesses to her father that she will go home. She confesses that she cannot take it anymore, and she wants to try and return to normalcy. Essentially, she cannot bear the thought of suffering the same fate as her father, which now includes very intense beatings and the very real possibility of death. This decisions stands in contrast to her father's, who painfully realizes what he must do. Peter must say goodbye as he cannot return to Galilee with her. He is convinced by his mission. It has been set before him and he cannot throw in his towel, period.

What was so powerful about this scene is that it reconstructed a moment in Peter's life where, while not documented in the Bible, undoubtedly existed. His lot was cast, and it was not to be with his family or with his old way of life. No. It was to be something different, something more, something eternal. Peter's past life was gone, and his new life was going to be boldly serving the Kingdom of God no matter where it took him. In this scene, we see Peter consciously and finally leave behind the comforts of his past life, his family, etc. for the sake of the Gospel. Yes, a similar choice was made earlier in the mini-series, but at that point Peter had not been beaten numerous times. This time was more difficult, more personal, more definitive.

The Gospel is hard stuff...it demands our allegiance and our loyalty...the totality of who we are. We have been bought with a price and are therefore, servants of Christ Jesus.

Nevertheless, the most powerful scene, and the scene that brought the Boaz parallel to the forefront most vividly, was the final scene. It was also the hardest scene to watch--the stoning of Stephen. We have read about it is Acts, but to actually see a reenactment of someone being drug out to the fringes of the town, strapped to a tree, and then pelted with stones was awful. The sound of rock hitting flesh was cringe-worthy. Think about the iron stomach, intense anger, and violent impulses you must have. Furthermore, the scene portrayed the masses, the ones who actually threw the stones at Stephen, to be robotic pawns of the Temple leadership, which is incidentally faithful to the implications of Acts 8:1.

In this scene, we are also finally introduced to Saul, and what an introduction!

He says nothing....NOTHING. Rather, he intensely watches Stephen as he is knocked unconscious. Then he reaches down to pick one last stone. He hands it to one of his stooges, who them throws it and hits Stephen in the temple. As he slumps, we realize that this was the death blow. Saul just looks for a moment, and then callously (and victoriously) turns to leave Stephen tied to the tree. I thought this introduction was simple but very effective.

Yes, Stephen's speech was horribly truncated in this episode (vs. what it is in Acts). And sure the context of Stephen's arrest was different (In Acts, it was due to false testimony versus a personal response that stemmed from his anger over the beatings of his friends). But the point of this scene was more than absolute fidelity to Acts 7. It was to bring what had been boiling to a head. Sufferings and the potential of death has just become very real for all the Apostles and the Church. What makes it worse is that there is a mysterious new sociopath that now seems to at the center of this violent response.