What's the Deal with David?
by Heather Koerner on 03/24/2009 at 1:43 PM
Last week, I was intrigued by a headline in my local paper: "New Take on Bible Stories: NBC's Kings a modern David-and-Goliath tale."
So I started reading the description of this new NBC drama. Evidently, there's a King Silas, the monarch of a fictional kingdom called Gilboa, who takes his orders from a higher power. There's a protagonist, David Shepherd (wonder if his middle name is "the"), who performs a heroic act of saving someone by facing down a tank called ... you guessed it ... Goliath.
"Hmmm," I'm thinking, "a modern day David and Goliath? I wonder how that got by the TV execs?" It didn't take me too long to find out.
"So we drew from a lot of different sources, and we just let the story take us wherever it was going to take us," says creator-executive producer Michael Green. Translation: We like using the familiarity of the Biblical account to draw people in, but have absolutely no intention of honoring it.
Chris Egan, who plays "David Shepherd", seems to realize where a lot of their source material is coming from, but tries to maintain a kind of tolerant-speak: "I think the story is fantastic, of a king with a young guy who he thinks could be a protégé (his son is viewed as weak), could be an enemy, could be a rival, who knows? But he takes a chance with him. And, of course, it's ordained by somebody else. It's got nothing to do with what Silas does in the end. It's far greater forces at work like fate, kismet, Sanskrit, karma, whatever you want, whatever language, whatever religion or whatever you can refer to."
David and Goliath? Fate, Sanskrit and karma? I threw the paper across the breakfast table in disgust.
Then, a few nights ago, I caught a section of the History Channel's new special, Battles BC--David: Giant Slayer. The battle scenes in these specials tend to be a little gory for my taste, but I left it on thinking it might prove interesting. Interesting, it was.
It only took about three minutes for my ears to perk up. The narrator described how David and his six hundred men fled from Saul to the Philistines. Then, (the narrator's voice lowered and darkened) David had to prove his loyalty to the Philistines by raiding Israel villages.
"Wait," I told my working-on-the-computer hubbie, "that's not right!"
Hubbie gave me a "hmmm", but I was busy listening again. Then, the narrator continued, the Philistines made David the king of Israel because they knew they could trust him. So David continued on his next mission-- (dark and lowered voice again) the annihilation of Saul's blood line.
"This is such malarky!" I cried as I ran to look up 1 Samuel. "See? See?" I jabbed at Hubbie, who was by now kindly listening to my David rant. "They say he raided Israel, but he didn't. And they say he tried to annihilate Saul's blood line, but he refused to touch Saul and even gave Mephibosheth Saul's lands!"
I was a tad red in the face by now. "Well, hon," Hubbie asked. "Did you really expect them to tell it correctly?"
And it hit me. I did. I did expect them to tell it correctly. Or to at least acknowledge that "though the Bible says such and such, we simply don't believe it and have come up with our own power narrative." I did expect NBC to at least have some semblance of respect for a Biblical account if they were going to name their main character after a man after God's own heart.
But they didn't. And I realized once again that I won't find God's truth out in the world. Only in His Word.
1. A Slightly Soggy Lurker said the following at 2:17 PM on Mar 24:
I gave up on finding Biblical accuracy on such programs back in college when I saw a 'mysteries of the Bible' show that explained that Sodom and GOmorrah were anihilated by some ancient bomb and Ezekial was actual seeing some sort of UFO which of course are both much more believable than the actual Truth!
2. Craig M said the following at 2:41 PM on Mar 24:
Actually, I don't think TV producers will NEED to do a lot of reinventing to make the David story salacious and violent enough for "hot" television. Saul's efforts to kill David, Bath Sheba (and David's many other wives and concubines), Absolom, violence and death....
Making Jonathan into a pansy is a bridge too far, though...
3. Elizabeth said the following at 2:42 PM on Mar 24:
Things like this anger me. I have seen it more frequently in textbooks and novels where they twist twist and keep twisting. It is especially angering when non-Christian friends talk to me with completely wrong ideas about God or Biblical facts as a result of watching or reading something completely wrong. It just makes correcting these views so much more difficult.
It even happens in Churches sometimes - my cousin went to see a Passion play that 'added' to make the play seem more interesting. When I mentioned that there wasn't actually a romance weaved around the death of Jesus my cousin seemed surprised. Reminds me how important it is to truly know the Bible.
4. Craig M said the following at 3:04 PM on Mar 24:
Gotta add this though. We live in the most free, open, democratic society in world history. We also live at a time of unprecedented access to information. For millenia--literally--the majority of the population was illiterate and books were in short supply. They had to be copied by hand, and besides the physical unavailability, the governments of the age controlled access to literature and scripture tightly. Today even a walk down the street to the library is unnecessary--try a walk to the living room to log onto the computer.
My point? If people in the developed, free, open, western world can't understand the David story, or the passion, because they saw a movie once that took too much dramatic license....that's THEIR fault. Sometimes we make too many excuses for people. I have to say that I think folks believe pretty much what they want to believe, and most do a pretty good job of shielding themselves from any wave that might tilt their comfortable little ship.
5. brx said the following at 3:12 PM on Mar 24:
Regarding the NBC Kings series,
I can't comment on the latest episode because I haven't seen it yet, but I and other friends thought the Kings premier episode was fantasticaly loaded with allegories from the Bible and other great literature! We enjoyed spotting and pointing them out to each other as we watched it. I think if the writers can keep this up, we'll be hooked on it for a while.
Maybe we enjoyed NBC's "Kings" because we did not expect it to have more that the basics of a David 'slaying' a Goliath. We expected a fictional story - and, we were thrilled to see much more allegory worked into the subtleties.
The only thing I didn't like was the character king Silas' statement to his homosexual practicing son "you can not be what God made you!" which served to lead and affirm viewers down the path of thinking mabey God makes people have same-sex attractions and therefore it should be ok to act on those desires.
There was a non-Christian in our group that was missing out on spotting all the Biblical allegory; so, I think it's a great opportunity to encourage her in jumping into God's Word at 1 Samuel.
For those who are too disgusted that NBC's "Kings" is not exactly an accurate, modern day retelling of the first kings of Israel, no need to fret. "Kings" may not last the season; it's ratings sorely paled in comparison to "Desperate Housewives".
Grace & adventure
6. Leah W said the following at 3:36 PM on Mar 24:
I had heard about the David-spin on "Kings" and (even though I'm an optimist) my first inclination was hesitancy. I *wanted* to believe that we might be turning the media, but the larger part of my mind knew it couldn't be a good as it seemed. I'm wondering if they're not "testing" the Christian tv market. (???) I honestly believe Hollywood was stunned by the success of "Fireproof" and want to see just how tolerant Christians will respond to this tv show. Especially since they are being so open about it being about David/Saul/Jonathan/ect. I think they might be trying to corner a market. But their using half-baked bait! I think a truly Christian show(non-denominational but with clear moral standards that ppl can look up to) would blast away competitors and leave media mogels speechless in its wake! (See I told you I'm an optimist! :D) Guess I'll just have to continue to settle for less-than-the-Best tv.
7. BDB said the following at 4:08 PM on Mar 24:
I think I'll go watch some Joan of Arcadia re-runs. :(
8. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 5:23 PM on Mar 24:
Shows such as these bring Romans 1:18-20 to mind:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who *suppress the truth in unrighteousness,* (my emphasis)
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Now, the verses above do not say, in and of themselves, that people such as the ones making these TV shows already know the *specific stories* of God's work, as told in 1 Samuel and in other places in the Bible. However, according to God's word, these people *do know* the true God, and they are *suppressing* what they know of Him in unrighteousness.
Moreover, as others have pointed out here, for these television writers, directors, and producers, the specific information of the Biblical stories *is* readily available (the Bible being easily available in the Western world). They apparently just don't want to know it and make it known to a wider audience which might not ever pick up a Bible. Again, we see a suppression of the truth in unrighteousness.
9. B.T.Carolus said the following at 7:12 PM on Mar 24:
"It's far greater forces at work like fate, kismet, Sanskrit, karma, whatever you want, whatever language, whatever religion or whatever you can refer to."
Does Chris Egan realize that Sanskrit actually is a language and that kismet and fate are both essentially synonyms for destiny?
10. brx said the following at 8:20 PM on Mar 24:
Christopher [#8] and others...
This thread is starting to sound much like those who were ranting about "The Shack". Can we get the 'Christians' to step off the witch-hunt bus for a while and notice the opportunities being presented?
Because there is something in popular media with some Biblical references, that opens up a set of doors to enlightening conversations - doors that were not so open prior.
Of course, we'll also have to learn how to tell the Truth out of love instead of pride...
Give grace, invite peace, and take someone on an adventure with Christ.
11. beatrice81 said the following at 10:04 PM on Mar 24:
I'd be careful about trying so hard to make the conspiracy-persecution theories fit. Hollywood's not out to get you -- they're only interested in getting the revenue generated by ratings. If they thought they'd get good ratings by creating a mini-series where Chuck Norris reads through the entire Bible in a Korean accent, that's exactly what they'd do.
Any time a production comes out that is based on another work (whether novel, real account, religious story, legend, comic book, play, or previous movie even), there's always a deluge of complainers. Some people are still upset that they did a remake of 'The Parent Trap.' Believe me when I say it's not about you.
Frankly, I'm very happy to live in a free country where artists and TV programmers don't have to pass their content through the Orthodoxy Police to make sure it's the "correct" interpretation.
12. Bethany W. said the following at 10:22 PM on Mar 24:
I've watched both the premiere and this week's episode and really enjoyed both of them. (And this coming from someone who doesn't usually like television.) The modern re-telling of David helped me to think about the story of David again in a new way. I know the story so well that sometimes I need to see it from a slightly different angle in order to jump-start my pondering of the truths contained in the story again.
13. DannieA said the following at 10:54 PM on Mar 24:
what? I totally missed the fact from the commercials that this was supposed to be a modern day DAvid/Goliath thing...hmmmm shows how much I really pay attention to what's coming out...and no I haven't watched it.
14. Jorden said the following at 8:28 AM on Mar 25:
I haven't watched Kings, but I boycott the History channel because of their "theology." The last time I watched it, the program claimed that UFO's parted the Red Sea. So it doesn't look as if they've changed their perspective any...
You would think with the David story they would at least consult the Bible considering that's where they got the story. Apparently you thought so too.
15. Jordan C from Canada said the following at 10:45 AM on Mar 25:
Man, I am really missing out on the History Channel nonsense. Is American History Channel different than the Canadian, or am I not watching the right programs?
16. Heather Koerner said the following at 11:55 AM on Mar 25:
beatrice81 (#11):
If they thought they'd get good ratings by creating a mini-series where Chuck Norris reads through the entire Bible in a Korean accent, that's exactly what they'd do.
I'm not so confident. See this quote from Plugged In:
I agree with you that money is a driving factor, but not the only driving factor.
Frankly, I'm very happy to live in a free country...
Me too!
17. Sarah P. said the following at 12:05 PM on Mar 25:
brx (#10): I would be quite upset as well if they told a story that completely rewrote the account of WWI or WWII and tried to pass it off as history. Grace and love walk hand-in-hand with truth.
beatrice (#11): Hollywood's not out to get you -- they're only interested in getting the revenue generated by ratings.
Yes, and no. They want the money, sure. But there are plenty of people out there with particular agendas who are willing to sacrifice for them. We're willing to inject Christian themes, no? And we think they're good. Well, there are plenty of "true believers" for other themes as well.
18. Myr said the following at 12:15 PM on Mar 25:
Since I was a kid, I have always considered these things to be of utmost importance before everything else: God, truth, accuracy, etc. They were all very closely related in my mind, which is why I always go off on changes made to books in their movie or tv versions. I expect changes in entertainment versions, but I should be able to expect more accuracy from shows that are supposed to be educational, at least on some level, like the history channel.
When I was in college I took a class on medieval art history. The professor would show us pictures of old churches, paintings, statues, reliefs, architecture, etc. and discuss what they were depicting or the defining attributes of that type of art or architecture. Well, one day we get to see a painting that supposedly detailed the story of Jonah. The professor told us that Jonah was on his way to do God's bidding and his ship is attacked by pirates, who capture him, and from whom he escapes by jumping into the sea where the fish swallows him to save him. (That's basically what he said, the pirates part is part what really stuck with me.) So, to be kind and give people the benefit of the doubt, I thought, perhaps there is another version of the story somewhere else and that is what he is basing his story on. So, after class I asked him where the story was from, and he answered that he thought it was from Exodus. *large internal SIGH* So, I kindly (or at least I think it was kindly) explained that there was a book in the Bible CALLED Jonah and that it was rather different than how he described it. He said he'd say something in class next time, but he did not. Not the next class or any thereafter. This type of event repeated itself throughout the semester, even to the point where he started asking me in class if I knew what Bible story we were looking at. I never could tell just from looking what story it was supposed to be.
I can only think of two other Bible stories/interpretations that I questioned him about after class. One was a fan with a wheel, wings and fire painted on it, if i remember all items correctly. He said he thought it was the chariot of Israel from when Elijah is taken up into heaven. After class I suggested it was perhaps a reference to Exekiel when he saw the living creatures and there were wheels, wings, and fire...and wind, similar to what a fan creates when you use it. He apparently had no idea this passage actually existed at all. So, because he asked me to, I wrote down all the verses for him and brought them in the next class.
The other one was a depiction of Mary and Joseph bringing Jesus to the temple as a baby. The picture showed them handing him to an old man in white and there was a woman standing off to the side. His interpretation was that they were giving him to the priest to be blessed and that the woman was the metaphysical representation of the church, as if to say that even at that time it existed, or something like that. I suggested that perhaps the old man was Simeon, and the woman was Anna, the prophetess, both mentioned in Luke as having been quite pleased to see the messiah. Again, I don't think he had any idea this story even existed.
By the time the class ended, I had the strong impression that he knew almost nothing about the Bible. Now I know they don't want people preaching Christianity in the class, but if you are teaching a class that deals with representations of parts of the Bible, you should at least research what those stories are so that you can accurately explain these paintings to your students. I know if it were Greek mythology or something, they'd look it up. And, I wasn't asking him to preach Christianity or do anything of the sort, I just wanted ACCURACY. Was that so much to ask for?
(This discussion sounds much more passionate in person than it does in type and is probably considerably longer.)
19. Nancy said the following at 12:58 PM on Mar 25:
I'm thinking maybe only listening to three minutes of that Battles BC episode wasn't quite enough... You say that the show claimed that "David had to prove his loyalty to the Philistines by raiding Israel villages." and that then "David continued on his next mission-- (dark and lowered voice again) the annihilation of Saul's blood line."
Are you sure you're not taking these ideas out of context? I mean, that is what he said he was doing--that is what the king wanted him to do, and he lied, pretending to go along but instead murdering non-Israelites who were living in Isrealite lands. He then went along on the mission to kill Saul and his bloodline, but left because he was told to--we can assume that he wouldn't have killed Saul if given the chance, but he did pretend that was what he was doing. David did "have to prove his loyalty to the Philistines by raiding Israeli villages" and he did have to "continue on his next mission." Maybe if you had listened further, the episode would have clarified that he was actually lying about both of these motivations.
David was making some pretty serious power plays throughout--and I don't think it's fair to skip over that. Kings picks up on the balances of power, which really are intricate and make for a great story, and I actually think it's being pretty faithful to the story so far.
20. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 1:28 PM on Mar 25:
brx (#10),
Three questions for you, based on your comment:
1. Why is it a "witch-hunt" mentality to want television shows which deal with Biblical events to portray those events *accurately*?
2. Why do you put the word "Christians" in quotations, as if such a concern on our part is not Christ-like (seemingly implying that Christ does not care as much as we do about accuracy in relating Biblical events)?
3. Why does the fact that we are concerned about Biblical accuracy mean (to you) that we are telling the truth out of "pride," rather than love (as you implied in your comment)?
21. Nick Coller said the following at 2:39 PM on Mar 25:
Heather (#16):
I don't think that statistic (that G-rated movies make 10 times more money, but 12 times more R-rated movies are made) really says anything at all. Hollywood is still about the money. If they made 12 times the amount of G-rated movies, then they'd be losing money.
The main reasoning for this is because kids movies are family affairs, so you automatically get a whole family seeing the one movie, possibly even for a repeat viewing - but they'll likely only watch one movie per holidays. R-rated movies get less people, but those same people go see several of the movies. So the reason there are 12 times more R-rated movies than G-rated is because, by those odds, they end up making similar amounts of money.
It all comes back to the moolah. Hollywood was surprised by Passion of the Christ, so they tried to make more movies that appealed to Christian audiences - namely The Nativity Story and the new Veggie Tales movie, which both flopped in the box office. So Hollywood can only assume that Christians only go to the movies once a year.
If we want more Christian based movies, then the answer is to spend more money on the ones that already exist!
22. BDB said the following at 3:57 PM on Mar 25:
Jordan C (#15)
There are several different History channels - it depends on if you are on a Canadian cable company or are using "graymarket" U.S. Satellite subscriptions. (Not asking if you are, just saying.) You could be seeing History International instead of U.S. History channel.
It varies a lot by program. Overall, they're one of the most pro-Christian channels, especially around Easter and Christmas. But, they have a lot of time to fill, so they put on the wacky stuff, too.
It's better than all Hitler, all the time, right?
Science Fiction shows like Stargate SG-1 and Babylon 5 also did some interesting things, mixing biblical truth and mythology with alien species. I certainly wouldn't adopt the theology. But I did appreciate the fact that while Babylon 5 was written by an atheist, he typically presented Christians in a positive light. Heck, I was happy that the religious Humans were presented as Christians at all. Star Trek deliberately presented a universe where Christians were absent.
At least Babylon 5's creator candidly admitted that since Christianity had been around for 2000 years, in a show set only 300 years in the future, it would still be around, though it would probably have to adapt its theology to the introduction of races from other worlds. So they ended up with spacefaring monks attempting to study the faiths on other planets and look for similarities. I can totally see that if we discovered advanced races on other planets, people of faith would be keenly interested in figuring out if God was giving the same message to each planet. The same way the book, Eternity in their Hearts chronicles examples in various Earth cultures that are useful to missionaries in explaining Christ's sacrifice to people - the way the Apostle Paul did by talking about "The Unknown God" on Mars' Hill.
23. Melisssa S. said the following at 4:12 PM on Mar 25:
I haven't seen the show but I've read reviews, articles, and your blog post and agree that it is frustrating when people misrepresent God's words.
The thing is though, the people doing the show aren't really Christians, right? They don't believe the Bible is truthful facts but rather collections of myths, fairy tales, or simply some ancient literature. From their perspective, it's just another book of fiction to turn into a movie or TV series. That doesn't make it okay, but it makes perfect sense to unregenerate hearts.
Some day every one will see exactly what the truth is and there will be no more lies and misrepresentations of God's word. Can't wait!
24. BDB said the following at 4:19 PM on Mar 25:
Heather (#16) quoted a G-rated movie statistic. I've seen statistics like that for years, but it was both G and PG-rated movies.
When I worked in cable, people didn't believe me. So I pulled our pay-per-view statistics. We made twice as much money from G and PG-rated movies as R-Rated movies.
25. BDB said the following at 4:22 PM on Mar 25:
In fact, the Cable industry tends to be more sensitive to family values than other broadcast outlets. These are the companies that insisted their cable box vendors create good filtering technology so parents can block specific channels.
Some people point to how HBO can make money and get more viewers by being racy. Well, I can assure you, the eight Discovery channels get higher ratings and make more money.
The company that knows this the best is Scripps - the people who bring you HGTV and Food Network. They were always the nicest to work with, too.
26. Heather Koerner said the following at 7:42 PM on Mar 25:
Nancy (19),
Perhaps I didn't make this clear--I didn't listen for only three minutes. Rather, it only took me three minutes to start hearing factual errors in the program. I listened a great deal longer than that.
You asked: "Are you sure you're not taking these ideas out of context?"
Yep, pretty sure.
"Maybe if you had listened further, the episode would have clarified that he was actually lying about about both of these motivations."
You seem to doubt my summation of the program without ever having seen it yourself. I'm not sure why. Perhaps it's that 3-minute miscommunication? Like you, I kept thinking they would clarify--something along the lines of "David didn't really do that, he just told the Philistines he did" or "David had again and again refused to touch Saul and had the guy killed who brought him Saul's crown and gave Saul's grandson all Saul's land and had repeatedly deceived the Philistine king, so that casts serious doubt on whether he was out for Saul's bloodline annihilation."
They didn't. But you're free to watch the program for yourself to verify.
"David was making some pretty serious power plays throughout--and I don't think it's fair to skip over that."
Hmmm...I would agree and disagree. There is some really tough stuff in the account of David. Stuff to wrestle with. But I don't see "power plays." I see David running and running and running, and refusing to touch "the Lord's annointed" again and again.
Even his "murdering" of non-Isrealites in the raids seemed to me, at first read, just incomprehensible. But learning more about the Amalekites (the Lord's sworn enemy ever since Exodus 17) and the Geshurites (listed along with the Philistines as people to be conquered in Joshua 13) sheds more light on David's actions to me.
But, like I said, if you feel I've misrepresented the program after watching it, feel free to challenge.
27. Kelly said the following at 11:51 PM on Mar 25:
Ah... "Babylon 5"... I do miss that show. I love watching science fiction and I find that, in general, SF is either MORE respectful of Christianity, or it's absent altogether.
I always get scared when I'm watching something and God gets mentioned. I'm worried that they're going to say awful things and always pray that the writers are at least respectful even if they aren't believers themselves.
28. brx said the following at 11:54 PM on Mar 25:
Re: Christopher from Albuquerque [#20]
1. Why is it a "witch-hunt" mentality to want television shows which deal with Biblical events to portray those events *accurately*?
It is not. However, NBC's Kings does not portray Biblical events; it's a fictional story that uses some allegorical references to Biblical history, AND allegories from other works of liturature. It _IS_ a witch-hunt to seek and make out a witch where there is none. A witch-hunt obscures things, creates controversy, and makes it difficult to share God's love and truth.
2. Why do you put the word "Christians" in quotations, as if such a concern on our part is not Christ-like (seemingly implying that Christ does not care as much as we do about accuracy in relating Biblical events)?
I mean to imply that a witch-hunt mentality is indeed, "not Christ-like". I do think Jesus is concerned with teaching Biblical events accurately. Regarding NBC's Kings, I think it plainly obvious to even the most casual viewer, that it's not trying to teach Biblical history. The show's writers are tasked with taking some themes and telling an engaging story in an audio-visual medium. <- period
3. Why does the fact that we are concerned about Biblical accuracy mean (to you) that we are telling the truth out of "pride," rather than love (as you implied in your comment?
Being concerned about accuracy does not necessarily equate to that. However, scrutinizing my own life, I must admit that I have often used my concern for accuracy as a mask to assert my pride - puffing myself up as the one who was correct, knowing more - and others as incorrect, lesser-than, or inferior because of perceived ignorance. Basically, instead of a loving Christian, my words to those who didn't know the Bible as well made me more like a jerk. Sadly, that's the attitude many non-Christians feel from many people who claim to follow Christ.
Anywho, the point is that shows like "Kings" and "Joan of Arcadia" are not intended to be Biblical history lessons; so, let's not make them out to be. Instead use them as an opportunity to share the Biblical history as interesting and insightful commentary. Maybe even people to read it for themselves.
Grace, peace & invite someone into adventure with Jesus.
29. Brendan said the following at 7:07 AM on Mar 26:
I caught the premiere on Hulu, and there were a lot of things that I really liked. I though that Silas' character was brilliant - I don't really know the actor (Ian McShane, right?), but I think he's doing a fantastic job. I really like how David is portrayed as well - humble, boyish, wondrous.
Jonathan is Interesting. First off all, that he hates David...when are they gonna become best friends? Second, his portrayal. It's like the execs said, "Okay, so a lot of people suggest that Jonathan had a homosexual relationship with David, so we're going to make him gay. But we can't have him be gay with David because there'd be too much controversy, so we'll make him hate David and be a total wuss."
Is the show close to Scripture? No! Does this show get a bit preachy things I might have disagreed with? Yes! The homosexuality and evolution comments were apparent.
But the difference between this and something like "The Shack" is that this show never promises to be orthodox. It might not even have been written by Christians. The story of David was just a jumping off point. As long as Christians realize this and don't take this stuff as dogma, then we can just sit back and enjoy a series that seems to have a lot of promise.
30. Heather Koerner said the following at 10:07 AM on Mar 26:
brx (#28):
It seems you are saying that Christians shouldn't complain about the Biblical inaccuracy of a show like Kings because the show's aim is to entertain, not teach Biblical history.
I disagree. I don't see anything "allegorical" about this show at all. An allegory uses symbolic characters or plot lines to point to a higher truth. Like Pilgrim's Progress--the character's actual journey represents the higher truth of a spiritual journey.
But, in this case, the story of David is the actual truth. And they are (or, to qualify, seemed to be intending to from the quotes in the article) planning to distort the truth.
I'd feel similar if someone did a show about George W. Bush or Barack Obama and said, "Well, I know we're using their names and the general storyline of their lives, but, hey, it's just a jumping off point. We can't be faulted for completely making things up and 'taking the story where it leads us' because we are entertainers. And if people want to learn about them, they should go read a biography."
Weak. When you use real people as characters, you must hold yourself to a much higher standard of truth.
It seems you hope that people can be reached for Christ through this. We agree here. Maybe we can all point our friends to the Word when they mention the show.
But I don't think there's anything wrong with being frustrated by it. And I don't think it's a witch hunt to challenge the creator's own words.
31. brx said the following at 1:26 PM on Mar 26:
Re: Heather [#30]
Maybe "allegorical" isn't the best word for me to use. Though an allegory doesn't have to point to a higher truth, it could simply be symbolic). Perhaps allusion, similitude, analogy, or likeness might be better words to describe the show's relationships to the Bible and other previously written works.
Having seen a number of films and having read almost as many books, I now understand that when a film is said to be "based" on a book, there will likely be some if not many divergences.
I don't think Biblical accuracy in the fictional tv show is an issue because I think by watching the program, it's plainly obvious even to people who don't know the history of the first kings of Israel, that this show is more fiction than history.
The "witch-hunt" idea was brought up because I think we Christians tend to miss more great opportunities for the Kingdom of God when we get too wrapped up in trying to prevent what some of us perceive as false teaching. I think non-Christian observers tend to notice the complaining more than the truth seasoned with love.
Grace & adventure in seeing new facets of God's Kingdom!
32. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 2:22 PM on Mar 26:
brx (#10),
You wrote:
"A witch-hunt obscures things, creates controversy, and makes it difficult to share God's love and truth."
This is exactly what I see as the problem with shows such as "Kings." Yes, they may well create some opportunities to talk with people about the real God and the true historical events of the Bible. However, isn't it also very possible that these shows *create* as many (if not more) problems than opportunities, by portraying Biblical events inaccurately?
In talking about these shows, Christians would have to be correcting and clarifying, because the shows deal with real, historical events in an inaccurate way-- and not just *any* historical events but those of the word of God. Doesn't this stir up a hornet's nest of problems, when it comes to talking with non-Christians-- especially in an increasingly Biblically illiterate Western world? I ask that not out of pride, as someone who "knows the Bible," but out of concern for those who *don't* know it.
You also wrote:
"However, scrutinizing my own life, I must admit that I have often used my concern for accuracy as a mask to assert my pride - puffing myself up as the one who was correct, knowing more - and others as incorrect, lesser-than, or inferior because of perceived ignorance. Basically, instead of a loving Christian, my words to those who didn't know the Bible as well made me more like a jerk. Sadly, that's the attitude many non-Christians feel from many people who claim to follow Christ."
My reply would be that we, as Christians, must be careful to battle *any* pride in our hearts by remembering, and by telling non-Christians, that we have been saved by *grace,* which we did not deserve. We are no better than any non-Christians. God simply showed us mercy, and in speaking to non-Christians about Christ, we are holding out the hope of that same mercy to them.
33. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 2:24 PM on Mar 26:
Sorry, brx, I was actually replying to your #28 comment there, not #10! :-)
34. brx said the following at 6:27 PM on Mar 26:
Re: Christopher from Albuquerque [#32]
"...obscures things, creates controversy, and makes it difficult to share God's love and truth."
This is exactly what I see as the problem with shows such as "Kings."
Have you and are you actually seeing that be a significant problem resulting from NBC's "Kings" or even "Joan of Arcadia"? Or, are you being very speculative about problems you think might possibly occur under certain circumstances?
I don't think Biblical accuracy in the fictional tv show is an issue because I think by watching the program, it's plainly obvious even to people who do not know the history of the first kings of Israel, that this show is more fiction than history. I've actually watched the program and that is my opinion.
Just in case it's not obvious to some readers here, I think the case with "Kings" is very different than the case with something like "The DaVinci Code" where the author took real names, locations, events, and re-imagined them to deliberately create an alternate history that seems like it could actually be the true history (and then encouraged controversy because it led to more usable publicity). I know that causes problems - because I have repeatedly experienced people coming up to me and saying things like 'did you know such-and-such happened at the Council of Nicea?' *sigh*
...I'm also an advocate that any basic four-year degree should require a full year of critical thinking, covering the aspects and application of analyzing arguments in logic, english writing, philosophy, and law.
Grace, peace & adventure...