Art for Oklahoma

My 9 year old daughter came home from school a day or two after a massive tornado hit Moore, Oklahoma and said that she wanted to do something to help.  Her school was collecting money to send there for aid and she wanted to give to it, too, but she didn't have any money to give.  She was very concerned about this state of affairs.

Frankly my first thought was just to give her some money to bring in since we probably would have contributed anyway, but before I could offer to do so, she asked if she could have a tag sale for Oklahoma like one of her classmates was going to do.  Her classmate was going to sell art projects at her tag sale to help raise money.  A tag sale did not fit into our schedule and neither did a whole bunch of crafting (sadly, I am NOT that mom!), so I asked her if we could think of something else that she could do.

She could draw pictures.  But would anyone buy my pictures, she asked?  

Oh, I bet someone would, I said.  I figured that someone would probably just be me, but that was fine, because at least she would have felt like she had done something to help.

She sat down right away and started working.

Copying my Wilton pewter pitcher for her still-life

Drawing these pictures is hard work!

It was so cute that I had to, of course, put a picture of her drawing on facebook and instagram.  I mentioned what she was drawing pictures for, and within a few minutes, a few friends and relatives commented that they would like to buy one!

When I told her that people were interested in buying her pictures, I thought she was going to explode with excitement.  I said she ought to draw at least 4 so that people could pick which one they like best, and if she did that, I would help her sell them.  A little while later, my bloggy friend Marc said that he would purchase a digital copy if I could scan one and email it to him.  What a great idea!  I told her that, once she finished her pictures, I would put them online and do my part.

Well, one thing led to another because it was her birthday week, and we had lots of baseball, so it took her a little longer to finish the pictures than she had hoped.  A week went by and she still hadn't finished them.  I thought she had lost interest, but when I asked her if she was abandoning her project she vehemently insisted that she still really wanted to do it.  I think being a very active 9 year old who can't sit for long and just got a new bike for her birthday got in the way of her good intentions for a little while, but her good intentions were most definitely still there.  We reminded her that it's not enough to just say you want to help, if you don't follow through then it won't really help anyone, and a couple days later she diligently finished her pictures.

Now it was my turn, but I had a lot going on so it was hard to find the time and then it ended up being more difficult to make the digital versions made than I had anticipated.  But now, as of this morning, they are ready to go!   We would have liked to have them available sooner, but I'm pretty sure the folks in Oklahoma can still use our help and it's not too late.  So if you would like to help support relief work in Oklahoma via a little girl's artwork, here are your choices:

"Butterflies"

"Hope"

"PBJ" (This one is for people to put in their kitchen, she said.)

"Pitcher Still-Life"

Digital copies (jpeg) are $10 each.  Originals are $25, first come, first serve (please contact me thru my facebook page to check availability before purchasing).

To purchase online, visit paypal ("send money to a friend") by CLICKING HERE and enter my email address: pjrichardson@snet.net.  (Please note: there is no fee for this service if you pay out of your bank account, but paypal charges a small fee if you use your credit card.)  Include a note stating which picture(s) you would like as well as the email address where you would like them sent (or your physical address, if you purchased an original).  If you are local to me and would rather not use paypal, contact me and we can set something else up.

Pictures will be available for purchase through Wednesday, June 19th.  After that date, I will total the funds and donate the money to Samaritan's Purse, designated for Oklahoma Relief.  I will post the total amount collected, verification of the donation (for those of you who may be wondering if I am an internet scheister - hey, don't worry, I'm a skeptic too), as well as the first names of those who contributed in a follow-up post by the end of the week next week.

I will do my best to fill orders as quickly as possible, and all orders will be filled by the end of next week.

Thanks for helping a little girl see that her efforts can matter, and thanks for helping the people of Oklahoma!

(If you want more information about Samaritan's Purse and their relief work in Oklahoma and elsewhere, CLICK HERE.)

The Flag and the Cross, and the Truth that gets Lost

As I've mentioned before on this blog, I love Memorial Day - specifically, my town's Memorial Day parade.  We didn't have a parade in the town where I grew up (or if we did, I don't ever remember going), so the one that now my family and I go to ever year seems extra-special to me.  I love the pageantry of the marching bands, the music of the bagpipes, the weathered faces of the marching veterans, the excitement of the caravanning little-leaguers, the creativity of the floats, the humorously diverse crowds of people that seem to come out of the woodwork... all of it.

This year we got to enjoy the parade on a sunny morning following several days of really crappy, rainy weather, and as always like the total parade-nerd that I am, I was really looking forward to it.  And to the parade we went, and it was nice in many ways (though it felt shorter this year), but about halfway through I found myself confronted with an idea that kept gnawing at my brain in an unpleasant way.

Now first let me say that I am not disparaging the celebration of Memorial Day in any way.  I have tremendous respect for the men and women who have fought and died for our country.  You don't have to go far in my family tree to bump into a veteran, and we have many friends who have served (or are serving) in the military themselves or have children in the service right now.  We love history in our home, we have taken our kids to more than one Civil War battlefield, and we don't shield them from the news when they talk about soldiers dying overseas.  It's extremely important to remember and honor the sacrifices made by men and women who died in service to our country, and if we don't, we really don't deserve to enjoy the freedoms that exist as a result of their sacrifice.

What bothers me, though, is the frequent unwritten assumption that Christianity = American patriotism.  I saw this illustrated yet again today as members of a local church carried a banner that bore the image of the American flag as well as the cross of Christ.   Personally, I am proud to be a Christian and I am also proud to be an American and I have no qualms about saying that God has blessed this country.  The freedoms and liberties that we enjoy on a daily basis are evidence of this blessing and are directly related to the Judeo-Christian worldview held by our founding fathers.  However, from the very beginning of our nation it seems like for every time our leadership chose to employ godly principles, it also made a choice that was contrary to God's word and the teachings of Jesus Christ.   Because of this, even the weakest student of history can quickly name grievous wrongs that have been committed or permitted by our government.   It's for this reason that I don't like the cross and the flag being lumped together.  The flag, while grand, is also sullied and imperfect.  The cross is something entirely better.

Prove you love Jesus and America with this trusty pin...

I have certainly seen banners like the one I saw today prior to now, of course, but what probably made it seem freshly troublesome to me this year is the perspective I gained after recently reading a book by Richard Twiss, "One Church, Many Tribes."  Richard Twiss (who passed away several months ago) was a member of the Lakota/Sioux tribe, and was also born-again Christian.  His voice, and his work, was unique to anything I had ever pondered before.  Naturally I had heard of the atrocities committed against the Native American (or as he preferred to say, "First Nations") people during the birth of our nation but admittedly (and to my shame!) I had never thought all that much about it.  Through Twiss' eyes I saw not only the horrific treatment of these beautiful indigenous people, but also the devastating impact that this had on their budding view of Christianity.   While there were some Christian missionaries who genuinely desired to share the love of Christ through peaceful relationships, far more white men came in carrying a proverbial Bible in one hand and a sword in the other.  A disgracefully large number of our forefathers stole their land and murdered their families and still managed to sit and smile in church on Sunday, and because of their glaring hypocrisy driven by murderous greed, today only a tiny percentage of First Nations people are followers of Christ.   The actions of these marauding men in no way represent the will of Christ or biblical Christianity, but sadly that truth rings hollow to the people who were affected.  When many First Nations people see a flag and a cross they don't see two grand symbols of freedom - they see the destruction of all that their ancestors held sacred and the abusive religion that their desecrators hid behind.

And of course, I'm sure we all know that the First Nations people are not the only people group who have been mistreated and abused by our great nation.

I think that perhaps sometimes Christians in the United States need to be reminded that the cross of Christ is not an American symbol.  It is the symbol of the nation of the people of God - the Body of Christ.  This nation transcends time, gender, ethnicity, cultural heritage, socioeconomic status, or geographical location.  This nation transcends governmental rule and law, national bias, or historical afflictions.   The Body of Christ is not a white man's nation.  It is not an American nation.  It is a nation joined together by all of those who, red-or-yellow-black-or-white, have turned their eyes to and put their faith in the broken-and-risen Hebrew carpenter named Jesus and chosen to follow Him.

For some Americans, the sight of the American flag makes our heart swell with godly gratitude for the fact that we live in this great country and our eyes run with tears as we remember those who have fallen.  For others it brings up feelings of anger and betrayal and it smears the blood shed by our sinful forefathers on their eyes, obscuring their vision so that they can not see the real Christ clearly.   And while this is almost certainly not the intent of many Christians when expressing patriotism, because as followers of Christ our allegiance must be to Him first and our country second I would urge my brothers and sisters in Christ to think a whole lot harder about joining the cross and the flag together.

Yes, we ought to be proud of all of the good that our country has done, and for the brave men and women who have sacrificed so much for our nation.  Yes, we need to thank our Heavenly Father for the incredible gift of our amazing freedoms and remarkable peace.  However, it is our duty to do it in a way that does not accidentally imply that Christianity = American patriotism, because it does not, and it never will.

For my Grandparents, on their 60th Anniversary

Today is my grandparents' 60th wedding anniversary.

60 years.

I'll pause for a moment so you can stand up and cheer for Joan and Harvey Lapin.

My grandparents, May 2013

In a couple of weeks my husband and I will celebrate 15 years of marriage, which seems long in comparison to many of our friends, but against 60 years it's just a drop in a bucket.

It's funny because when I think about our own anniversary, it doesn't feel like we've been married for 15 years.  When you are busy living life, time passes quickly.  Stressful times, happy times, memorable times and commonplace times, in retrospect they all seem to have zipped by and they tend to blur together when you look back over your shoulder.  I honestly can't believe so much time has gone by since our wedding day.   I suspect that my grandparents probably feel the same way.

60 years.

My grandparents are a part of the last American generation to really take marriage seriously.  They know what commitment means, and that marriage isn't just about pursuing your own happiness, and that sometimes you have to give up a lot to gain the things that really last.  They know what it's like to live in the same home for six decades, and how to be intrenched in community warts-and-all and for better or worse, and how to appreciate and take care of what they have rather than tossing it aside for something new.  They have watched children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren be born, and they have buried their ancestors, countless friends, and family members whose days were much shorter than their own.  They have, in the midst of this, not only made a life for themselves and a home for their family - they have written a one-of-a-kind story.

Together.

I'm sure there were times when sticking by each other was not easy, or maybe it felt near-impossible.  I'm sure there were days when one or both of them wondered if this life they were building was really worth the sacrifice.  60 years is a long time, after all.

I hope today that they know that it was absolutely worth it.

Grandma and Grandpa, you absolutely inspire me and I am so proud of you.  I pray, should we be granted long enough lives to do so, that Pat and I can celebrate the same milestone you are today.

Congratulations, from the bottom of my heart, and lots of love from all of us.

Jess

Shan and her "Zeide"

History Channel's "The Bible" - Week 5

On Easter Sunday, 11.7 million viewers tuned in to the last two hours of The Bible series on The History Channel.  It was a ratings smash that far exceeded expectations and highlighted the fact that, even in our increasingly secular culture, people are still interested in matters of faith.  I have some thoughts about various aspects of this episode, as well as the series in general now that I have seen it all, but first here is a list of the events covered in this episode and where you can find them in the Bible itself:

The events surrounding the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, beginning with Peter's denial and ending with Jesus ascending to Heaven (I did not break these down because they appear in all four gospels): Matthew 26:29 - 28:20, Mark 14:66 - 16:20, Luke 22:54 - 24:53, John 18:15 - 21:25

The Holy Spirit descends during Pentecost/speaking of tongues - Acts 2:1-12

Peter heals a lame beggar - Acts 3:1-10

Disciples brought before Caiaphas - Acts 4:1-22

Martyrdom (stoning) of Stephen - Acts 6:8 - 7:60

Saul (Paul) begins persecuting Christians - Acts 8:1-3

Paul's blinding and subsequent conversion - Acts 9:1-19

James beheaded - Acts 12:1-2

Jesus appears to Peter, Cornelius and his family baptized - Acts 10:1-48

John receives his revelation on the island of Patmos - book of Revelation, but quotes from Jesus in this scene is Revelation 21:4-5

He is pretty.  But his hole is in the wrong place.

Overall, as with the previous four episodes, I thought they did a good job generally speaking.  However, I have some objections to portions of the portrayals in this episode, and they are the following.

- Peter's denial is depicted as being accompanied by military force, which is not in the Bible!
- During the crucifixion scene, the nails are driven through Jesus' hands.  In reality, they were driven through his wrists.  Being crucified through the hand would have allowed the nail to tear through easily and would not have borne the weight of the body. This is not historically accurate.
- Mary the mother of Jesus appears in this episode far more often than she appears in the scriptural accounts.  A great deal of what you see of her here is completely dramatized and may have been included because of Catholic tradition of the producers but it does not come from Bible itself.
- They omitted Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy Jew who was a member of the council but had not approved of the crucifixion.  Joseph of Arimathea requested the body of Jesus after he died and buried him in a tomb he had purchased for himself.  This is an important part of the accounts because it answers the question of how a murdered, homeless preacher would have afforded a brand new tomb and it also underscores that there were Jews in leadership (other than Nicodemus) who were not opposed to Jesus's claims.  
- Mary Magdalene is depicted as going to the tomb by herself, when an overview of gospel accounts demonstrate that there was a group of women who went with her.  This is misleading and I would also say irresponsible given the fact that there are unfounded (but regretfully popular in some circles) rumors that Mary was married to Jesus.  Depicting it in this manner may lend credence to this notion, which is unnecessary and unfortunate.
- In the scene when Jesus appears to Peter and the disciples after He has risen from the dead, it seems that Peter "makes" Jesus appear by having communion (almost like invoking a spirit during a seance or something along those lines).  That's not at all how the Bible depicts it!  At all.  
- The stoning of Stephen is a MUCH larger event in the Bible, involving Stephen making a long and memorable speech that pulled no punches about finger-pointing at those who had crucified Jesus.  This is what raised the ire of the crowd that stoned him, it was not just that this nice boy was in the wrong place at the wrong time as is depicted here.  
- The depiction of Saul of Tarsus (whose is not referred to as "Paul" in the Bible until much later) inciting the stoning of Stephen is inaccurate as well as slightly bizarre given what we know about him from the rest of the Bible.  Saul was a devout Jew, highly educated, respected, and of social standing.  The man depicted here doesn't look like a religious Jew at all, and his demeanor is that of a total lunatic.  Yes, Saul was zealous to persecute the Christians, but he wasn't off-the-rails-on-a-crazy-train like this guy.  His zeal came from a deep commitment to upholding what he believed to be the truth, not insanity.   When Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus and showed him that he was wrong, that same zeal turned 180 degrees in the other direction and was used for God's glory.  Depicting him as a wacko initially makes him seem less credible, and that seems silly and counterproductive. 
-Two points of information: first, the Bible does not record how Paul and Luke met.  Second, much of what Paul is depicted as speaking to crowds ("love is patient, love is kind...") was not spoken by him, but was written by him in letter form.  I suppose maybe he spoke it at some point too, but the Bible doesn't tell us that.
- The depiction of the tiny bit of Revelation that is shown does not follow the biblical account, other than the scriptures that are spoken.  More could have been done with depicting the fact that John was seeing a complicated vision, not Jesus talking to him one on one, but I suppose these are the types of things that get altered when an entire book of the Bible is reduced to two sentences.

Now on the positive side of things, the producers did a good job of showing the miracle of the literal, physical resurrection.   In addition, though I wish they were able to spend more time on it, they did also show the dramatic transition that took place in the lives of the disciples.  They went from being fearful, doubting men who scattered and denied Christ before his resurrection to being confident, fearless dynamos who defied threats of death and took the good news of the living Christ to their world.  This was a massive sacrifice for them, and all but one ended up being martyred for their message, but their powerful change underscores the power of the Holy Spirit in their lives as well as their certainty that Jesus really did rise from the dead.  And finally, I do like that they ended with one of the most beautiful scriptural promises in the New Testament.  The last scene, though not exactly accurate, was lovely.

So what did I think of the series?  I suppose, now that I think about it, my feelings for the last scene describe my feelings for the series in a nutshell.  Not always accurate, but generally lovely.  Overall, especially in comparison to similar endeavors, I felt that it was meaningful, well-done, and worth watching.  Though I rue their lack of commitment to specific accuracy, for the most part they seemed to make a good effort to maintain the integrity of the biblical figures and accounts.  I do wish the producers had done a better job showing the correlation between the need for the sacrificial system of the Old Testament and the need for the sacrifice that Christ made on the cross, because this concept is central within Christianity.   Without adequate explanation the viewer is left not understanding the connections between the two or the big-picture importance of either, and while they may have learned more about “Bible stories”, they probably haven’t really learned the main story of the Bible itself.   But other than that, I think they did a good job.  I'm glad they made this series, and I'm glad I watched it.

One final thing, and perhaps this is the most important thing of all, is the question of what comes next for people who watched this series and want to learn more about what they have seen.  The official Bible Series website highlights The Bible app, which is free and offers many translations of the scripture.  This is a great tool that is highly accessible and though Bible apps and YouVersion existed before this show (so I'm not sure how this app is any different than ones that already were around), it's good that they are drawing attention to it.  However, they are also marketing a book based on the series,  “The Story of God and all of us,” which frankly, I think is a travesty.  

This makes me want to shake my head until it falls off.  No, no, no.  I don't "like" this at all.

I am sympathetic to the fact that the Bible can be difficult to tackle for those who are not already biblically literate or familiar with the format, and reading a dramatized version of certain Bible stories may seem less daunting.  However, selling a book-based-on-a-show-based-on-the-Bible is exactly the opposite of what would be genuinely helpful to increasing biblical literacy.  People need help understanding how to read and understand the Bible itself, not another book providing a sketchy, dramatized, opinion-filled version of what the Bible says.   By writing and marketing this book, the producers have muddied the waters for people who are genuinely seeking to learn more, and that's really unfortunate.

I suppose that there is nothing inherently morally wrong with reading this book, just like there is nothing inherently wrong with watching the miniseries itself, as long as you are keenly aware that you are reading historical fiction and not the word of God.  But, if you are interested in learning more about the Bible or Christianity as a result of watching this series, I would really implore you to not waste your time with that book and pick up an actual Bible instead.  If you find the Bible difficult to read because of antiquated language, choose an NIV or ESV translation (and if you can get a study Bible that contains definitions, extra notes, maps, character studies, and more, that’s even better).  A good way to start is reading through the New Testament books of Luke and Acts, which clearly illustrate the life and ministry of Christ plus the beginning of the Christian church.  Jot down notes and questions as you read and keep an open mind, putting aside your preconceived notions about religion and just focusing on Christ himself.  I can't say for sure what you will think of everything you read, but if the Bible has been influential in human history for this long and you have already invested 10 hours watching a series about it, it's worth your time to do so.

And hey, if one person cracks open a real Bible as a result of watching this series, then I will overlook its occasional silliness and unfortunate book-marketing and deem it a success.

History Channel's "The Bible" - Week 4

It has yet again taken me all week to blog about the last episode of The Bible, and here I am again just a couple short hours before the next episode airs finishing up my post! But, today is Easter, so I blame my tardiness on the fact that I had to spend extra time this week preparing for a holiday.  At least I have an excuse!

I feel like I have been a wee bit critical of The Bible series so far (though hopefully not unfairly so), so I  am happy to report that episode 4 was my favorite so far.  It was different because it was the first episode that didn't jump around between multiple stories (and hundreds of years), so I felt like it was probably easier for people who are not very familiar with the Bible itself to follow.  It was harder for me to follow along in my actual Bible, though, since the events were pulled in somewhat random order from all four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), and some events appeared in more than one book.  I got frustrated with trying to find the scriptural accounts while I watched after only a few short minutes, so I decided to just note the stories I was seeing instead (to look up later) and enjoy the show.

Yes, he's too pretty.  But I do think he did a darn good job in Episode 4.

Later on, I found that the events depicted in the show are in the following places in scripture:

Jesus heals the paralyzed man - Matt. 9:1-8, Mark 2:1-12
Jesus cleanses a leper - Matt. 8:1-4, Mark 1:40-45, Luke 5:12-16
Sermon on the Mount - Matt. 5
Woman caught in adultery - John 7:53-8:11
Nicodemus defending Jesus to the Pharisees - John 7:45-53
Jesus miraculously feeds 5,000 - Matt. 14:13-21, Mark 6:31-44, Luke 9:10-17, John 6:5-15
Jesus discusses his identity with his disciples - Matt. 16:13-20, Mark 8:27-30
Jesus walks on water - Matt. 14:22-33, Mark 6:45-52, John 6:16-21
Jesus reads messianic scripture in the synagogue - Luke 4:14-21
Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead - John 11
Jesus enters Jerusalem on a donkey - Matt. 21:1-11, Mark 11:1-11, Luke 19:28-44, John 12:12-19
Jesus overturns tables in the temple - Matt. 21:12-17, 21:23-27, Mark 11:15-19, Luke 19:45-48, 20:1-8, John 2:13-16
Jesus confronts Pharisees - Matt. 23
Jesus answers question on taxes - Matt. 22:15-22, Mark 12:13-17, Luke 20:19-26
Jesus predicts destruction of temple - Matt. 24:1-2, Mark 13:1-2
Nicodemus approaches Jesus - John 3:1-21
The last supper in the upper room - Matt. 26:17-30, Mark 14:12-26, Luke 22:7-39, John 13:1-17:26
Plot to kill Jesus - Matt. 26:1-16, Mark 14:1-2, Luke 22:1-6
Jesus predicts Peter's denial - Matt. 26:30-35, Mark 14:26-31, Luke 22:31-34
Jesus prays in the Garden of Gethsemane - Matt. 26:36-46, Mark 14:32-42, Luke 22:39-46
Jesus' arrest/healing of Malchus' ear - Matt. 26:47-56, Mark 14:43-50, Luke 22:47-53, John 18:1-11
Jesus before his accusers - Matt. 26:57-68, Mark 14:53-65, Luke 22:66-71, John 18:12-24

As there have been in the other episodes of this show, there were several times when the producers either used created dialogue, overlapped events, or cut out parts of verses/accounts to move the story along more quickly (and therefore make it less accurate in the process).  But generally speaking I think they did a good job maintaining the integrity of Jesus' personality and mission, the courage as well as the failings of the disciples, the majesty of the miracles, and the tensions in the religious and social community that affected the actions of the accusers.  In fact, I think they did such a good job that I hate to nit-pick a lot of it and instead want to focus on the big things they did right.

1. They let Jesus be who the Bible says he is.  Jesus has always been a controversial figure, and it's not because he kissed babies, cared for the marginalized and gave out food to people.  Jesus is controversial because he claimed to be the Son of God, frequently defied religious convention, and was not always "nice."  All of these aspects are clearly illustrated in this show, and these aspects are very important to understanding who Jesus is.  Yes, Jesus healed and fed people, but he also overturned the tables of the moneychangers in the temple and used very strong language when dealing with the Pharisees.  To only paint Jesus as Mr. Nice Guy would have been not only incomplete, but completely wrong.

2.  There is no room being left for prejudice.  The gospel accounts of the life of Christ show that sexism and prejudice do not have a place in the Christian life.  However, shows and movies about the Bible often leave the impression that all of Jesus's most dedicated followers were men or they lend fuel to the fires of anti-semitism making it look like the "Jews killed Jesus".  Neither of these impressions linger here, because they show Mary traveling with the disciples (she is not traditionally numbered with the disciples though scripture records that she as well as other women did this), and also because it makes it clear that JESUS AND ALL OF THE DISCIPLES were Jews themselves, so there is no room for anti-semitism to be justified through the biblical accounts.
 
3.  Jesus' divinity takes center stage through the miracles and fulfilled prophecies shown.  Detractors of Christianity sometimes attempt to find middle ground with people of faith by saying they don't believe Jesus was divine, but he was a "good teacher."  However, since the gospels are replete with not only Jesus' own claim to divinity but with these sort of acts as well, this is not a realistic option.  If He wasn't the Son of God, then he was either a liar and master manipulator, or he was completely crazy.  "Good teacher" is simply not a possibility, because deceiving people through magic tricks and telling them you are God is not good by anyone's standard.  Either he's God, or he's a monster.  There is no other choice.

And is he God or is he a monster?  I haven't seen the last episode yet, but I have read the book itself, and I have to think that the answer to that question is in what happens next.

Happy Easter!

History Channel's "The Bible" - Week 3

Well I admit I've been a bit distracted this week, between having to finish my taxes, having my house hit by the stomach bug and having my town hit by the national media, so I am just finishing my third installment on the History Channel's "The Bible" series today - a few short hours before the next episode airs!  Sorry about that!  Better late than never, I suppose.

And in fairness to me, I had a lot more to say this time around, which is part of why this has taken so long.  So, here it goes!

King Zedekiah, the prophet Jeremiah, and the siege of Jerusalem by the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar.
This account is taken primarily from the Old Testament book of 2 Kings 25 but also includes background from Jeremiah 27, Jeremiah 19:9 and Lamentations 4:10.  

• Generally speaking they did a nice job following much of the biblical accounts, though I do wish they had spent a bit of time fleshing out WHY the prophet was warning them to repent (what had they done that was so bad?) because without that background the judgment of God seems a bit unwarranted or at very least capricious.  
• In addition, as they have done before they altered the timeline of things to make the story more tidy.  In the scripture (Daniel 1) it records that Daniel and his friends were taken to Babylon during the reign of Jehoiakim, King of Judah, not Zedekiah.  Jehoaikim was king before Zedekiah was (and actually there was another king in between them) so the timeline here is way off because in reality Daniel was taken during another earlier attack and not the siege depicted here.  But oh well.

Daniel and his friends Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah (whose names were changed to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego) as Babylonian captives.
These events are found throughout Daniel 2-Daniel 7.

• This begins in with the account of Daniel interpreting Nebuchadnezzar's dream and then moves to Nebuchadnezzar's golden idol, Nebuchadnezzar going crazy, Daniel being thrown in the lion's den, and Daniel's dream.  Throughout this some of it is accurate but some is not.  For instance, there is no record of Daniel talking to Nebuchadnezzar and defending his friends who would not bow to the golden idol.  The scripture does record them speaking to the king themselves, and in the process of explaining why they will not bow to the golden idol they make one of the most famous statements of faith recorded in the Bible.  It's hard to understand why the producers omitted this famous scripture and put in a fake conversation instead.   
• Another thing that they changed that I wish they hadn't is during the part when Nebuchadnezzar goes crazy.  They depict Daniel mocking him and expressing displeasure, and leaves you with the impression that this was the end of Nebuchadnezzar.  Not so.  Daniel 4 records that Daniel was respectful of the king, and that the king was actually restored to his proper mental health.  In addition, King Nebuchadnezzar became a follower of the true God at the end of his life!  Why did they leave these cool details out?  I don't know.
• When Daniel is thrown into the lion's den they refer to "King Cyrus", when the Bible records that the king's name was Darius.  Cyrus was actually the king who followed Darius, and he was also the king who eventually released the Jewish people from captivity (Ezra 1:1-2).  I think this is another instance of them fast-forwarding a story, or combining two characters into one for the sake of a tidy tale. 
• At the end of the section on Daniel, Daniel tells Azariah that he "fears for his people because he has had a vision."  His vision is taken from a few chunks of Daniel 7, and it is a direct prophecy of both the Roman empire and the coming of Jesus Christ.  It took 500 years for these prophecies to be fulfilled, but they were, and the fact that they included this provided not only a convenient segue for producers but a peek into one of the many fulfilled prophecies that speak to the validity of the scriptures themselves.  I love that they included this.

And then... fast forward 500 years and we're on to the New Testament!

The Roman Eagle on the temple (not an original picture, of course. They didn't have cameras back then.)

Mary, Joseph and the birth of Jesus
These events are found in Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2

• When the show moves into the story of Mary and Joseph, it begins with a fair bit of creative license in both the scene with Herod and the leeches as well as the scene of Mary and Joseph at prayer.  Both of these are fabrications. However, there are two things shown in those first few minutes that, though they are not in these scriptural passages, are indeed verified through other historical sources.  One is the presence of the Roman eagle over the temple, and the other is the jewish uprisings that were going on.  I liked the way the producers tied in these outside facts, because it reminds us that tons of biblical events are verifiable through history and archaeology, not just the pages of the Bible itself.
• Again in this part we see another mention of Old Testament prophecy that were fulfilled by the birth of Christ.  Found in Matthew 2:6, it references a prophecy from Micah 5:2 that states that the messiah will come from Bethlehem.  Considering that Micah prophesied some 700 years before this event occurred, this is pretty remarkable.
• The account of Jesus' birth is pretty good, IMO.  They do maintain a couple silly conventional ideas that are not scriptural, such as the presence of three wise men (the Bible does not say there were three) and the fact that the wise men came to see Jesus in the manger (the Bible records that they were staying in a house by the time the wise men got there) but neither of these are a significant detraction.

John the Baptist and introduction of adult Jesus

These events are found in Matthew 3, Mark 1, Luke 3, and John 1.

• Here we go with yet another Bible movie giving us a "pretty" Jesus.  I won't get on my soapbox about the fact that Jesus is yet again NOT ETHNICALLY CORRECT, because that is probably obvious at this point.  But I do need to mention that the Bible, though it doesn't tell us exactly what Jesus looked like, does mention that he "had no beauty or majesty in his appearance to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him" (Isaiah 53:2).  In other words, he wasn't a handsome guy like this guy.  So no, Jesus wasn't a studmuffin.  Sorry.
• I have a huge beef with this scene, and that is that it's missing the most important part!  In the scriptural accounts of this scene it describes the Spirit of God descending on Jesus in the form of a dove after he comes up out of the baptismal water, and a voice from heaven saying "This is my beloved son, with whom I am well pleased."  This is public confirmation of the deity and messiahship of Christ and it officially begins Jesus' public ministry.  This is of the utmost importance, and they left it out!? What the heck!

Jesus' temptation in the wilderness

These events are found in Matthew 4, Mark 1, and Luke 4.

• Generally speaking I liked how they did these scenes, but there was one major issue with them.  In the biblical accounts, it records Jesus refuting each of Satan's temptations by quoting scripture. The things that Jesus said back to Satan are accurately depicted here, but each is missing the words "As it is written..." before them, as appear in the biblical accounts.  This gives the impression that Jesus is resisting Satan simply by his own might and not by the power of God's word, which is unscriptural.  In addition this fails to demonstrate the importance of the individual believer's ability to use God's promises to fight against temptations in their own lives, which is one of the primary applications of these passages.  It's hard to understand why they left this out.
• Some flap has occurred over whether or not people think that the actor portraying Satan looks like Obama.  This idea didn't occur to me after I watched the show myself, but I guess I can see it a little bit.  I doubt it was intentional though.

Jesus at the sea of Galilee/calling of Peter/miraculous catch of fish

These events are mentioned in Matthew 4, Mark 1, Luke 5 and John 1.

• The calling of the first disciples (which was not just Peter, but also his brother Andrew and two others) is mentioned in 3 places and the accompanying miraculous catch of fish is most clearly illustrated in Luke 5.  The portrayal in the show really does not resemble the scriptural account in almost any way, with the exception of the large number of fish!  This irritates me because it's inaccurate in multiple ways, plus the dialogue about Jesus "giving Peter a chance to change his life" is completely fabricated and paints Jesus like a smooth-talking prosperity preacher, not the messiah!  This portrayal would not surprise me if this show was being produced by someone who doesn't respect Christianity, but since these producers (supposedly) do, this does not make any sense to me at all.
• Maybe I've just seen the commercials too many times, but that scene with Jesus saying (in his non-ethnically-appropriate accent) "we're going to change the world" drives me NUTS!  Did the ministry of Jesus change the world? Yup.  But with all of the great scriptural quotes they could have used to illustrate this point, the fact that they created a commercial-ready catch-phrase for Jesus makes my eyes roll until they hurt.

The beheading of John the Baptist 
These events are mentioned in Matthew 14, Mark 6,  and Luke 9.

• John the Baptist was indeed beheaded by King Herod, but not at this time, and not for the reason shown here.  He was imprisoned for speaking out against the fact that King Herod had been sleeping with his brother's wife, and was beheaded as a favor to her daughter.  Again, the producers evidently changed the story to tidy things up and make things flow more according to their liking.

So after three episodes, I still like the show, but I am growing increasingly frustrated with two major things. The first is the frequent "tidying up" of stories through tweaking the actual timelines and characters to fit more cleanly together.  I understand the time constraints that exist, but often this is makes it difficult for people to discern what is actually biblically recorded divine providence and what is not.  The second is the intentional omission of very important and theologically significant things that could have easily been included (the holy spirit descending on Christ, for example).  It's truly impossible for me to understand why someone who respects Christianity would have omitted these things, and this casts doubt on either the knowledge or the doctrinal integrity of the producers, or both.

With two more episodes to go, I'm still interested in seeing how they handle the rest of the story.  It may not be perfect, but if it's got me digging through my Bible and people across the country thinking about Christ, then it can't be all that bad.

And to anyone who is not personally familiar with the scriptural accounts of Jesus, these next two episodes might give you a good excuse to check them out for yourselves.  Either the New Testament book of Matthew or Luke would give you a good overview of probably most of the things you will see in the rest of this series, and they're worth reading.  

As always, I'd love to hear what other people think of this series!  Thanks for reading.

History Channel's "The Bible", Week 2

It seems that my kids and I have a new tradition, and that is, sitting down on Monday nights to watch our DVR'd episode of "The Bible".  They watch and ask questions and eat ice cream while I watch and take notes and leaf through my (actual) Bible to see how closely the show is going along with the text.  This has become fun for us, and though hearing my TV say: "The Bible, brought to you by Wal-mart" weirds me out entirely, I think I will be sorry when the show ends.

This Sunday's edition of "The Bible" on the History Channel continued the same fast-paced, sometimes grand, and sometimes groan-worthy treatment of scripture that we saw in the first episode.  Most notably it covered the stories of Rahab, Joshua and the Battle of Jericho, Samson and Delilah, and the kingships of both Saul and David.  I have some thoughts about how all of these accounts were portrayed, so I'll take them one by one.

Rahab, Joshua, and the Battle of Jericho:
These accounts are found in the Bible in Joshua 2 and Joshua 5:13-6:27.

•  Generally speaking I think they did a good job of fleshing out these two sections of scripture.  My only real concern is that I don't know why they showed the spies holding Rahab's family at knifepoint and threatening to kill them if they do not help.  This is not in the scriptural account and there is no indication that Rahab did not help them willingly.  This is at odds with a positive portrayal of Rahab in the New Testament and therefore seems to be unfair conjecture.
• I thought the way they showed the walls crumbling was pretty cool.

Nonso Anozie as Samson

Samson and Delilah:

These accounts are found in bits and pieces throughout Judges 13-16.

• Personally, one of my pet peeves is when casting directors for shows like this make ethnically-inconsistent choices for actors who play biblical roles.  Usually this takes the form of white actors being cast in roles that should be filled by people of middle eastern descent (which they did in the last episode with Moses!).  But in this episode, my peeve took place in the other direction as they filled the role of Samson (and his mother) with black actors.  The Bible doesn't indicate what Samson looked like, but it does say that he was a Danite, which means he was a member of one of the twelve tribes of Israel.  Maybe I'm missing something (and if I'm wrong, please enlighten me), but I don't see any reason to believe that he would have looked so different from all of his kinsmen.  The actor who played Samson did a great job, but I have to think this must have been confusing as it leaves the viewers with the impression that Samson was an outsider and not an Israelite himself - a distinction that muddles the story.
• There are a large number of sizable gaps and gaffes in this portrayal as compared to the biblical account.  In addition, several things were tied together to make the story more "tidy" that don't really go together in the Bible.  For instance, they showed Samson meeting Delilah immediately after slaying many Philistines as revenge for his wife's death.  The Bible records that this didn't happen until 20 years later.  And, it shows Samson meeting Delilah when he demands her water jug because he is so thirsty from fighting.  In the scriptural account it says that Samson was thirsty and he cried out to God, so God made water come out of a rock so that he could drink.  Why on earth would the producers decide it was a better idea to cut out a miracle and instead make Samson look like a water-stealing bully?  I have no idea, and this is only one of the inconsistencies in this account.  I could go on and on about them but you could see them yourself plainly if you read the chapters from Judges.  They're short, and interesting, and it's worth checking out.  

King Saul/David and Goliath/King David/David and Bathsheba

These accounts are found in bits and pieces from 1 Samuel 8 - 2 Samuel 11.

• My thought as I leafed through the scriptures while watching this was that it felt like the whole story was on fast-forward.  I know that this is necessary due to time constraints, but I couldn't help rueing the loss of depth to these accounts.  There is SO much that is skipped over that helps you understand the relationships between these people, the whole unfolding of the Goliath story, the depth of Saul's animosity, the anguish felt by David as he is pursued by the king he trusted and loses his best friend Jonathan (who is in the show, but just barely, and the importance of their relationship is not explored), etc.  I guess they hit the high notes, but so much is lost that the high notes just don't carry the impact that they should.
• I have absolutely no idea why Goliath had blue eyeshadow on.  
• I was a little frustrated when they showed King David coming in to Jerusalem and hitting on Bathsheba (who he had not yet met) in front of her husband Uriah since this is not in the biblical account.  Also, there is no record of Bathsheba expressing reluctance when David calls to her for a sexual encounter, so we don't have any reason to believe that she reacted negatively as is portrayed.  These two slight changes portray David as more lecherous than the bible records, and since an honest portrayal of his actions with Bathsheba would have been negative enough, this seems gratuitous and a little bizarre.

Generally speaking, I think this episode did a decent job of portraying the big picture of these various accounts.  I am still pleased with the quality of the production and special effects as well.  I am definitely glad that I had my Bible open while watching so that I could compare the actual accounts with what I was seeing on the screen.  I continue to think that this series is worth watching, but will only be properly understood if people take the time to read some scriptures for themselves (and this is why I've included where I found those things in the Bible... to make it easy for anyone who wants to do so).

There was one thing that struck me over and over as I watched this episode and read the passages in my Bible that I want to bring to light because it's hugely important.  This is the notion of grace, and the fact that God uses imperfect people to fulfill his perfect plan.  And not just imperfect people, but people with some serious sin issues.

• Rahab was a prostitute, but God used her - and her faith in Him - to protect the Israelites and further his plan.  In addition, the geneaology in Matthew 1:5 records that she was in the line of Jesus and Hebrews 11:31 lists her alongside other heroes of the faith such as Abraham, Isaac, Joseph and Moses.  The fact that a non-Israeli prostitute would be in the lineage of the Messiah and regarded as a hero of the faith shows that God has a plan for even the people that society views as dirty and unredeemable.  This is a picture of grace.
• Samson had some serious issues with self-control.  He was one of God's chosen people, his birth was foretold by an angel who said he was set apart by God and he lived under the strict religious Nazarite vow.  However, he was also angry, vengeful, and prone to weakness with women.  As I was leafing through the account I noticed that in Judges 16 it says that Samson spent the night with a prostitute (before he met Delilah).  They didn't show that on the show, and I don't remember learning that in Sunday School as a kid, either!  But, it shows just how imperfect he was, I have to think that since one sexual indiscretion often leads to another this probably made him more vulnerable to Delilah's wiles - which led to his demise.  However, as his last act, while in chains and with gouged out eyes, Samson asked God once more to remember him and give him strength - and God did.  Samson died that day, but so did more Philistines than had at any previous point during his life.  His death mattered. Even in spite of Samson's failures, God still allowed him to turn to Him, to "make good" at the end of his life, and to make a positive difference in the lives of God's people.   This is a picture of grace.
• David was referred to earlier in scripture as "a man after God's own heart", and in 2 Samuel 7 it is recorded that God promised him that His love would never be taken away from David, and that his kingdom would endure forever.  However, in 2 Samuel 11, David allowed himself to be drawn through his lusts into adultery and murder.  This came with great consequences for him personally, but God forgave his sin, allowed him to rule for the rest of his life, and continued the kingdom through his son Solomon.  This, and the fact that God - who knows the future - knew that David was going to sin with Bathsheba and still promised his love to him anyway, is a picture of grace.

I love the fact that the Bible records the imperfect (and downright terrible) actions of so many "heroes of the faith" for two reasons.  First, it lends credibility to the integrity and inspiration of the scriptures themselves, because if some person was going to set out to invent a religion they probably wouldn't make a note of all of the serious personal failings of its founders!  Second, it gives us hope, because it shows us that God doesn't just value, love, and use perfect (or even really good) people.  Among God's chosen and dearly loved you will find harlots, adulterers and murderers (in addition to liars, thieves, and pretty much every flaw you can think of).  These people who either turned, or turned back, to Him were forgiven, redeemed, blessed, and given more lasting purpose than they could have imagined.  If God can use them, He can use us, no matter what imperfect or downright terrible things we have done. That is the hope and grace that is a part of the "big picture" of the Bible, from the Old Testament to the New, which I suspect we'll see more of over the next couple weeks.