Is Bad Press Better Than No Press?

Last night my husband and I watched the History Channel's new mini-series, "The Bible." I admit, I went in fairly skeptical after reading about who some of the so-called theological consultants were going to be. Yet, I wanted to see for myself how the interpretation of these stories would be conveyed.

We came away disagreeing. Not on its accuracy or characterizations - we both agreed, they totally botched that. Rather, what we disagreed on was whether or not, even with all the inaccuracies and questionable theological interpretation, any press, even if it was seemingly bad press, is really better than no press at all?

My husband's argument was that it was still telling a basic Biblical story that might get someone interested enough to actually find out more for themselves and eventually lead to faith. That its overall message of "have faith" was in and of itself enough to warrant a little skewing of the story lines and characters.

He has a point. (Yes, you can mark that down and hang it on your wall.) If it gets people talking - that's always a good thing. The fact that "The Bible," "Abraham," "Hagar" and "Moses" were the top trending Twitter items for the evening was something of a monumental event. You'll probably never see that again. That it was the History Channel's highest rated show in years - well, not sure what that says about the History Channel. (This is the network that produces "Ancient Aliens" after all) But yes - those are all good things.

However... my concern is what message is actually being conveyed? As a pastor, I spend a lot of time undoing damage done by bad theology. Correcting misconceptions, spending my Sundays helping people re-imagine these stories that so often get watered down and simplified, pulled out of context and are many times devoid of the overarching themes and motifs of scripture.

The beginning of this series was, at least from my perspective, simply one more push toward a legalistic view of scripture that I will eventually have to work on undoing at a later date. That the perceptions people will walk away with if they are not already Biblically literate will be that God is a vengeful, wrathful, judgmental God that scares people into submission. That this is yet another venture in discussing the bad theology, the skewed characterization, the flat out wrong details, the armor-laden ninja-like angels that go into Sodom and Gomorrah... (Ok, maybe we can keep that.)

I was a bit annoyed by, but let go of, the fact that Abraham and Sarah looked like they were maybe in their mid-fifties when they set out from Harran (Abraham was actually 75 when he started travelling cross-country). I let go of the fact that they skipped some pretty primary elements to Abraham's story. That they just leap-frogged over the next three major characters (Isaac, Jacob and Joseph). I was initially annoyed that they didn't bother to tell the part about Abraham giving his wife away to Pharaoh after he passed up the Promised Land in favor of settling in Egypt, thus jeopardizing the promise. I thought this was important because his son, Isaac does the exact same thing - but they fixed that problem by just eliminating the story of Isaac all together.

Movie-makers have time constraints and have to take a certain amount of creative license and make editing decisions in order to fill in the allotted time. The entire Bible in 10 hours.

Ok, some things had to be dropped. I understand that.

And I don't even mind if they're going to take some creative license with the dialogue. Jesus never flat out said he was going to "change the world" like he does in the trailers. But as a writer, I am fine with taking a little license there - provided the general intent, meaning and progression of the story is not lost.

Thus, it was the story of the Exodus and the characterization of Moses that finally sent me over the proverbial "edge," and de-railed my tolerance level. Dreamworks' "Prince of Egypt" and the Cecil B. DeMille classic, "The Ten Commandments" ran theological rings around this farcical attempt at telling this primary event in the history of God's people. I realize, as a pastor, I'm going to be overly critical. But there are just some things you don't use the "creative license" to monkey around with. Moses' call story is one of those things.

I confess, perhaps I'm a bit sensitive to this as hearing and understanding Moses' call for the first time by one of my future instructors during a school visit was what actually helped me make the decision to attend seminary.

The compelling part of Moses' call and exchange with God at the burning bush is one of the central points in all of scripture regarding the "prophetic call" that sets the tone for the call of all other prophets in the Bible. In the Biblical version - Moses is a reluctant prophet. He makes excuses not to go. He even flat out tells God "send someone else." The feelings of unworthiness, fear and reluctance to go where God is sending are  integral parts of how ordinary humans face being called by God to do extraordinary things. It is a prophetic trend that is repeated throughout scripture - Jonah, running away on a boat and even throwing himself into the sea to die to escape his prophetic duties; Isaiah exclaiming he his a man of unclean lips; Jeremiah stating he's too young; Simon/Peter telling Jesus to get away from him because he is a sinful man.

This could make for some pretty powerful dramatization and cinematic footage to boot. Moses is a complex character - a man who tries so hard not to be the man God wants him to be, and eventually turns into an intercessor for and defender of the Israelites when God decides he's fed up with them and wants to destroy them.

Instead, Moses came off as some sort of deranged avenger, telling God to use him to free His people, an almost psychotic glint in his eye as he stared down the camera. Startled, as I heard those utterances, I yelled out, "That is SOOOO not what Moses said or how he reacted!" (Yes, I yell at the television when I see theological debacles much like I scream at the TV when the Huskers fumble the ball away during a football game. Same basic problem as far as I'm concerned.)

Then, they went on to leave out the whole golden calf incident. Another atrocity in my view regarding some primary elements to the story of not just the Exodus - but of Israel's rebellious nature. The golden calf episode is the driving force behind the unfaithfulness that would plague the nation of Israel throughout the rest of their history. Golden calves will be seen again and will lead to the downfall of the Northern Kingdom.

But let's just leave that part out.

It's kind of like leaving the cross out of the crucifixion story. But... details.

Bottom line was that, to me, there is a vastly different message being sent when you have a man who goes, "Yes, use me to free my people," as opposed to "send someone else."

There is so much more going on in these stories at such a deeper level than just portraying "events," most of which come off portraying God as a pretty blood-thirsty, legalistic deity. Not that there aren't some pretty disturbing events in the Bible or that God doesn't engage in some questionable genocidal tactics. However, there seemed to be an emphasis on making sure the battles were conveyed - for example, Abraham yelling "trust in God" as he slaughters Lot's captors - but fails to tell the subsequent story of Abraham meeting with the high priest Melchizedek on his way back from this venture and turning over ten percent of all that he owned. It's a topic that takes up several chapters of the book of Hebrews in the New Testament, emphasizing the kind of priest Melchizedek is that trumps the Levitical priesthood of Aaron's descendants and is held up to the same level as Jesus.

The scene takes up a grand total of two verses in Genesis 14, so it's easy to see why it gets overlooked and dumped on the editing room floor. Yet, at the same time, many of these seemingly minor events come back to have greater significance later on. A more theologically-centered attempt at story-telling would have picked up on these overlooked elements. Spent perhaps a little less time wreaking carnage and a little more time reading between the lines, so to speak.

Perhaps those nuances are not being understood by the general public in this way and my concern is unfounded. There were certainly many Christians out there who loved seeing these stories "brought to life." Jesus does say that those who are not against us are for us. I have no doubt the makers had a genuine desire to tell the story of their faith and they took on a daunting task. Kudos to them for that.

But what message do those not so familiar with these stories walk away with? If it's simply "have faith," then that's all well and good. Yet, some of the responses I saw from the non-faithful were more along the lines of "yup, more bloodshed and stupidity coming out of the Bible. Nothing new there." Some people will get out of it what they want - which is not much - regardless of how deeply theological the story-telling is. I get that. However, would this portrayal push a "fence-sitter" in the direction of faith, or drive them further away from it?

I suppose both the theologian and the story-teller/filmmaker within me will always rail against cinematic endeavors that convey questionable theology and shoddy details. That I am allowing my disappointment in what could truly be "the greatest story ever told" wound up being trite, emotionless and still misses the mark in bridging the gap of several thousand years worth of history to how these stories are relevant to us today to override my sense of "at least it's something." Perhaps my husband is right - and even bad press is still better than no press. Dubious interpretation is better than no attempt at interpretation.

And, who knows - maybe it will get better. Maybe they'll (pardon the pun) redeem themselves when it comes time to introduce Jesus into the story of human history. Though I'm not overly optimistic in this department.

But what do you think? Is it better than nothing?