a serious reason for concern about "The Bible" miniseries

While I haven't been able to watch the miniseries myself, some people that I trust have, and they don't speak very highly of it. But my concern isn't directly about anything in the series itself, though I can't help but think that it may well have effected the contents. It's about one of the main people behind it.

A gift from Heaven! Roma Downey returns to TV after five-year absence

For now, when she’s not shuttling the kids to their school–a 40-minute commute in each direction that’s earned her the carpooling crown–Roma continues broadening her horizons. She’s returned to painting, and is partway through a Masters program in “spiritual psychology“ from the University of Santa Monica. And yes, the fact that the university’s name contains “Monica” makes her smile.


Taking classes has been an eye-opening experience. “It’s like the peeling of an onion, layer upon layer of behavior, and learning why we do what we do and how we can potentially change our negative patterning,” she says.

So, a master's degree in "spiritual psychology"? Not sure how anyone has learned about how the minds of spirits work, but...

Ok, bad attempt at humor now over.

In reality, this "spiritual psychology" thing is hardly a laughing matter, especially when one is talking about someone who's behind something like this miniseries. Here are some excerpts from the school's site about this degree program.

M.A. in Spiritual Psychology

Experiencing enhanced spiritual awareness through knowing yourself as a Divine Being having a human experience.

Individual Evolution - Learning to relate to yourself with greater Compassion and Awareness of yourself as a Divine Being having a human experience.

Self-Counseling - Learning, through the process of Self-Counseling, to connect with your Inner Counselor, a source of Wisdom, Unconditional Loving, and Compassion that resides at the level of the Authentic Self.

  There's some other kinda mushy mystical language used on that page that may cause some alarms in one's mind, but these are the biggest, so I thought. How unbiblical can it be to think of oneself as "a Divine Being", basically that one is God? And how New-Agey can it be to try to "connect with your "Inner Counselor"?  

I suppose it could be said that it's unfair to bring this up; after all, I've heard nothing about the miniseries that says that these kinds of ideas are in it. So far as I know, no Old Testament person portrayed in the miniseries has told the people of Israel that they needed to know themselves as Divine Beings.  

Maybe, but can we say that a person who has been taught these things is someone whose views of theology are going to basically sound?  

Maybe Downey doesn't believe these things. Maybe she doesn't think that she is a Divne Being having a human experience. One could wonder how she hopes to finish her degree is she doesn't buy into those ideas, and why she would continue to pursue a degree that taught those things.  

But maybe someone should be asking her about what she's being taught.  

I know that many Christians in the media are all gung-ho over this miniseries, supporting it and telling others to watch it. Maybe they should be the ones asking the questions of Downey, to find out what she really believes, and make sure that what they are promoting isn't really theological poison.

state your control

There is concept, loosely defined, that is prevalent among emergents and their ideological kin--empire. Not necessarily in the Star Wars sense; indeed, I think they would consider the government in place before Palpatine declares a "Galactic Empire" to be as much an 'empire' in their sense, and I've no doubt that they would think much the same of the various incarnations of it that come about in the post-RotJ books.

Over against it, they set up their ideas of the Kingdom of God. One can see a bit of that in this theOoze article.

In some countries, the Christian faith is under the control of the State. These governments control the spread and expression of Christianity by regulating churches, and keeping pastors on the payroll. Those Christians who dare to speak out against Government policy or who criticize military operations or otherwise go against the grain are threatened with seizure of property or loss of certain rights.

Not to make a big deal about it, but it would have helped if the writer had maybe pointed a specific country or two where such a thing happens. Now, I've heard of some such goings-on with the Russian government and the Russian Orthodox Church, and maybe other parts of it could be like China and it's Three-Selfs churches (though how 'christian' those are is up for debate). That statement of theOoze writer may be perfectly true, but it suffers from vagueness

Many of you know exactly what I'm talking about because you live in America. Here, the Government requires that all Christian churches register with the State. These State Churches must have a 501(C)3 to operate legally. Without one they cannot open a bank account, claim tax exempt status on their property, or for donations received, or for pastoral salaries.

Oh, so, well, somehow the churches in the US are like those described in the first paragraph? Well, let's see...

I don't see how one can claim that the US Government "control(s) the spread and expression of Christianity" in much of any way, given the many churches and the many varieties of churches in this country that are either Christian or claim it, even when their beliefs are the exact opposite of other churches who also call themselves Christian. And while there are many instances, such as the banning of public prayers in schools, that can be considered sorts of restrictions, by and large those are more annoyances than the kinds of restrictions one would find in, say, almost all Middle Eastern countries, or China.

I can't think of many pastors in the US about who it could be said that they are on the government's payroll. Perhap military chaplains, or other forms of government chaplains, but outside of that, it seems a rather iffy statement on this writer's part.

Now, there could be some point to his last contention in that paragraph. I know that it is a rather recurrent argument, especially when election times come along (this article was written back in March of this year), about how politics comes into the pulpit and there is the occasions threat about a church losing its tax exempt status because of things the pastor says. Not much has come of it, so far as I know, but I do acknowledge that the threat is there.

Ok, so, does the fact that a church has to register with the state make it a State Church, like this Oozey writer claims? I frankly find the claim amusing. I suppose the fact that I have driver's license makes me a State driver? Or the fact that businesses need various registrations and licenses and permits and such makes them State businesses? I, as a 'State drive', can only drive where the government explicitly says I can?

No, I sense a scare tactic on this writer's part--saying churches are State Churches is him saying that churches are only supporting the Government. A rather lame argument, given how varied the politics in the US are and how varied the churches are.

Several times in American History the Government has threatened to revoke the tax exempt status of several of these registered State Churches whenever they speak out in ways that are not approved of. For example, on issues of abortion, or civil rights, or other political issues.

This is not to suggest that the Government is in favor of Politics without Religion, or Religion without Politics. On the contrary, the Government in America is very much in favor of how the State Church supports military efforts abroad. To that end, the Church has been one of the most vocally supportive segments of American Society when it comes to war overseas, the torture of enemy soldiers, and the loss of human life (other than American lives).

In recent years, the State Church in America has also been largely instrumental in helping to elect her Presidents and push political agendas for both the Left and the Right.

I hope it is understandable that I see this person's politics creeping in in these paragraphs.

The church has been supportive of overseas wars? Well, perhaps. Why is that wrong? Would it have been better to have allowed, say, Nazi Germany to possibly take over all Europe and Russia? Surely he's not saying we should not have gotten involved then? If anything, I suppose I would say that we should have gotten involved before we did, though I'll give the benefit of the doubt to those who had to make the decisions at that time.

Now, concerning the torture of enemy soldiers. I suppose some things must be questioned here. If, for example, he is writing about those who were sent to Guantanamo Bay, then I would question how they could be called 'soldiers'. Were they a part of a formal national army? Were they in uniform? Most, if not all, were simply terrorists, or accused terrorists. They may have been a part of an organization, but not an army, and one could call them 'soldiers' in only the loosest of senses.

Next, there is the question of what acts are considered torture. Is something like sleep deprivation the same as having fingers broken? Even if we should say that some of the things that happened at Abu Ghraib crossed the line, would that be enough to condemn other ways of trying to gain information?

It's a little interesting that a television program, 24, may have given us a glimpse of how such things may be. If, like Jack Bauer in that show, we needed to get information from a prisoner in order to stop a certain event that would like kill many people, what would we do in order to make that prisoner talk? And one simply cannot dismiss 24 as merely a TV show, especially as Pomo's like Rollins and Taylor make so much of movies and music and even other TV shows. To put it simply, 24 raised many interesting questions about this issue, and many people seem to have come to the conclusion that it's not a simple issue.

Or, if one watches the movie Taken, and sees the father hurting his daughter's kidnapper in order to learn what has happened to her, then we may come to the conclusion that the father was acting in a way that is understandable and even honorable, the well-being of the daughter being more important than the well-being of the man who kidnapped her. It's an arguable point, I admit, but one that I think as some merit.

So, has the church been supportive of "the torture of enemy soldiers"? Speaking as a religious and political conservative, I can't recall hearing of anyone who favors or supports the torture of anyone. They may get angry when, for example, news comes of US soldiers being kidnapped and later their bodies found, or reporters are beheaded on camera, or when soldiers and civilians are hurt or killed by IEDs or car bombs or suicide bombers, or when hearing tales of women being brutalized and murdered when they don't toe the strictest of Muslim laws that oppress them. Such anger is understandable and even justified, I think.

There is much to be wary of in that anger, I will admit. And a reasoned discussion could be had on what is good or not for us to do, what measured we should take to gain information that could maybe save people's lives. But the need for examination is not only on the right, but also on the left, among those who equate even spanking a child who behaves badly with child abuse. Such over-the-top rhetoric is not very helpful.

God as facebook

In modernity we created one theological connection point for the entire world: "You are a sinner who will die in your sins unless you repent. You must be born again." This sounds theologically correct, but is it really the case that this is the only connection with God through the Jesus story? I think not, though I think it is a connection to Christianity and has been the dominant mode of connection in the church post-Reformation. But is not the sole means. And in postmodernity, such exclusion has little chance of connecting with the seekers and practitioners of the new religious economy. Multiplicity, a network of connections, is necessary, making room for both the sinners and the sinned against, the broken and the whole. Speaking more of the writer Gadda, Calvino says, "Whatever the starting point, the matter in hand spreads out and out, encompassing ever vaster horizons, and if it were permitted to go on further and further in every direction, it would end by embracing the entire universe."
Barry Taylor, Entertainment Theology, p 198

Is the statement he claims was created in modernity really created in modernity?

If one has read the Bible and has even a basic understanding of it, how can one say that that is a rather accurate summation? Does the Bible not say that we are all sinners, and come short of the glory of God? Does it not say that the wages of sin is death? Was not the message of Jesus and the Apostles that people needed to repent and believe the Gospel? Did not Jesus Himself say the we must be born again?

Upon what basis, then, can Taylor say that is not the sole means? How can he say that repentence and believing the Gospel is not the universal place where all must begin, the door through which all much enter? He may have a point that not all like that way, or like the door, but what does that mean? Does the fact that one doesn't like the door mean that one can try to climb in through the window? Does he give one scriptural source for his position? I've given the place where this paragraph may be found in his book, you may look for it and see for yourself--there is no scripture given in the context.

And when he starts writing about 'multiplicity' (wasn't that the name of an old Michael Keaton comedy movie, something about clones?) and 'a network of connections', does that strike you as him making God seem like Facebook, or some other social networking internet site? Have you made God your 'Facebook friend'? Have you left any comments lately on his wall?

Whatever Calvino or Gadda may have meant by that last bit Taylor quotes, I don't think there's any doubt what Taylor means by it--universalism. That only acceptable religious idea is one that would "end by embracing the entire universe". The most correct religious teachings are the one that embrace the most--the most people, the most other ideas, the most other beliefs--that that is embraced by the most--the most people, the most of the correct kinds of people, the most followers of other religions (so long as they are of the right beliefs, too), the most seekers and practitioners of what is considered the new religous economy.

If, in Taylor's view, God seems a lot like Facebook, Christianity becomes like Bill Clinton--everything must be polled and tested, to see what people want, and only then is a decision made about what to do and what to believe and what to teach. God, then, ceases to be the authority, and the power passes to the people--the correct kinds of people, of course.

waterworld as philosophy???

'Waterworld' is essentially a modern tale. The central dream is to get back to dry land, which, when finally discovered by Mariner and his newly fashioned and reconfigured family, is reminiscent of Eden. It is the return to Milton's 'Paradise Lost' rather than the discovery of new frontiers. The film represents the modernist's desire to return to the old order, achievable only in the cinematic imaginery, but still a compelling image to many. A key message in the movie is that real life and living as humans are possible only on dry land, the utopian tendency of modernity's universalizing binary oppositions. Mariner stands as a testament to the fact that life in other permutations is quite possible, somthing that is daily being explored in postsecular situations.
Barry Taylor, Entertainment Theology, p 91

First, I hope you will join me in a few chuckles, at the idea of using 'Waterworld' as a deeply philosophical metaphor. Sadly, Taylor doesn't seem to have gotten too far into the canon of works made famous (or infamous) by Mystery Science Theater 3000, so we will not get further philosophical breakdowns of such great works like how mythology meets science "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians", or maybe the conflict between ancient religions and modern technology in "The Robot versus The Aztec Mummy", or the misadventures of modern people in their quest through the desert of the real and the perils of looking for a helping hand in the classic "Manos: The Hands of Fate".

No, we shall just have to accept that Taylor had to use what even he called a "box-office dud", p 89, to try to convince us that we live in a water-world of postmodernism.

"A key message in the movie is that real life and living as humans are possible only on dry land". Umm, yeah, we humans are just so made for life on the water. Don't we like to swim around in water, eat fish, and all that? So, come on, dive in, leave the dry land behind!!

One could get the impression that Taylor and those like him are trying to outdo even Jesus. Jesus, after all, only compared a man building a house on sand to one building it on the rock. These are going even further, saying that not only should be build our houses on water, but that it is a much better think than to build it on the rock.

Oops, don't stay under water too long. You may drown.

Wait, Costner's character had gills!!! You can...well...you can...well...well.

Oh, that's right. It's Costner. And, it's a movie. The normal person doesn't have gills.

Oh, and there's the food, too. Yeah, we can eat fish, clams, and such things, for a while. But what about the vegans? Are they going to have to subsist simply on seaweed? And don't us normal omnivores need veggies every now and again, too?

"Mariner stands as a testament to the fact that life in other permutations is quite possible". Umm...Costner's character is fictional!!!! You know, made up, not real, likely not even possible. I know, one can find some science fiction that could be considered predictive, but I doubt that Waterworld falls in that category, especially when it comes to Costner's character and his sudden development of gills.