So...is Book of Daniel an "ad campaign" for "progressive" Episcopalianism?

Best,
Benjamin

Those Episkopals! “They” seem to think we’re at it again.

• “It” this time happens to be the new NBC show, “The Book of Daniel,” which debuts – perhaps appropriately – on Epiphany, January 6th. Its star is an eccentric Episcopal priest with a drug habit, a gay son, and a martini-tipping spouse.

• “They” in this case are the American Family Association, headquartered in Tupelo, MS (a place I know well not just because Elvis was born there but because my parents retired there years later). As I understand them, AFA is trying to organize a boycott of the show because

o It is written by “a practicing homosexual who describes himself as being ‘in Catholic recovery’.”
o It “demeans Christians.”
o And it features an Episcopal priest who “regularly sees and talks with a very unconventional white-robed, bearded Jesus.”

AFA regularly gets exercised by a number of people and issues that usually don’t ruffle my feathers, so I wasn’t surprised to hear that its chairman, Donald Wildmon, was again on the warpath against “the homosexual agenda” that he thinks is far greater a threat to western civilization than state-sponsored torture, U.S. congressmen selling legislation for bribes from lobbyists, or tens of thousands of Katrina victims that people have simply forgotten about by now.

I was rather struck, though, that one of AFA’s main complaints -- besides the very existence of Episcopalians and homosexuals -- was a portrayal of “a very unconventional Jesus.” Epiphany, after all, is the remembrance precisely of the unconventionality of Jesus, who was not at all what any religious or secular leaders expected – God appearing on earth, human in every way that we are, who preached of the kingship of servants, and lauded the richness of poverty. Herod thought he was too unconventional and tried to kill Jesus as an infant; the Sages from the East didn’t know what to make of him and went home; and John the Baptist (who ate bugs and dressed in animal skins) thought that Jesus was way, way less “conventional” than even he was.

“The Book of Daniel” may be a lousy show; I’m no expert on it because I wasn’t privileged to see a preview performance. But this I know – getting rid of Episcopalians or homosexuals won’t make Jesus any more conventional. When God shows up in our midst God almost always turns things on their head. As the redneck ‘misfit’ in Flannery O’Connor’s A Good Man Is Hard to Find put it:

He thrown everything off balance. If He did what He said, then its nothing for you to do but throw away everything and follow Him, and if He didn't, then it's nothing for you to do but enjoy the few minutes you got left the best way you can…

Epiphany is the celebration of God’s utter unconventionality in Jesus. And it’s up to us Episkopals to refuse to let anyone forget it.


Dr. Wayne Whitson Floyd's "CROSSINGS of Grace and Daily Life" originated as a ministry of St. Thomas’ Parish at Dupont Circle, Washington, DC – www.stthomasdc.org

I used to work for one of the all-time most popular TV shows for Christians, Touched by an Angel. Very few of the fans knew it, but the writing/producing staff consisted largely of agnostics, Jews, and gay people. Kenny's sexuality should not be an issue - his writing ability is all that matters.
I'm very much looking forward to the show!!

anastasia, we are not complaining about 'who' makes the show, but 'what' the show is about.

Of course, it doesn't matter who is making this show. Not at all:

"The writer for the series is a practicing homosexual."

The link is to a Google-cached version of the petition from the AFA website. Strangely, the main website seems to be down - it's probably getting a lot of traffic.

Now, why do you think the writer of the AFA petition against this little television though thinks a detail like Jack Kenny's sexuality is important?

Sorry, Larisa, the complaints and the petitions and the comments hitting blogs and news sites everywhere all indicate one thing: somebody has an agenda, and it's not the "practicing homosexuals."

Now, if this series doesn't show Christians in general and Episcopalians in particular in a reasonably good light, I'll stop watching, but I'd rather decide for myself, thanks. However, a reviewer I know liked it a lot, so hang on to your birettas, chums. ;)

Drat - the links are as follows:

AFA cache - http://tinyurl.com/ddcq3

Maureen Ryan's heads-up -
http://tinyurl.com/c4elg

"Now, why do you think the writer of the AFA petition against this little television though thinks a detail like Jack Kenny's sexuality is important?"

Why? Uh..Two words: Gene Robinson.

Do you really think DANIEL isn't going to deal with the near-schism over the proper role of homosexuals? Do you think, with a convenient gay son character as a sounding board for Kenny, who left the Catholic church over its stance on homosexuality, that they'll be any attempt to render the discussion fairly? Puh-leeze.

It's important, because when you're about to be hit over the head with the typical, trite Hollywood-ized understanding of serious moral concerns, its good to know who has a personal interest in the issue.

I hate to disappoint you, John, but I don't recall Bishop Robinson figuring heavily in the scripts for the eight episodes that I read. He's mentioned at least once, and the issue of gay Christians and their place in the Church certainly arises. But I think you miss the mark if you assume that there are enough people interested in the current controversey in the Anglican Communion to make it a touchstone in a network television program.

Jim,

Could you clarify your role in advising this series. I'm concerned that funds I contribute to my local Episcopal church support this kind of activity.

My best regards, -Thomas

Hi Thomas,
At one point not too long ago, someone who was interested in producing a study guide thought I might be a likely candidate to write it and sent me the scripts. I didn't have time to write the study guide, but I did read the scripts. I don't advise the show. Haven't even seen the pilot.

You know what is surprising is how these groups who are opposed to the show fail to address the realities of society.This show presents a Realistic view of what society has come to,yet the leaders of these organsitions sit in there Ivory towers and tend to pass judgement without dealing publicly with these issues.This show brings to life the harsh realities of society and one man's view of how he as an individual is asking a higher power who he believes in to provide answers too him based on his questions and his answers.That is all this programmes does...The Critics of this programmes will do nothing but critise the programme because of its Homosexual and Promiscous Content and that is all you will ever hear or see them doing ...now why is that ..it is because they are afraid of fickle minded individuals being influenced by these issues.The question is this...if they are so fraid that many of there flock will be influenced by this ..why dont they embark on a nation wide media campaign against Homosexuality & Promiscity..that is put their money where there mouth is ..because the only time we hear them or see them is when there is some issue like this....once this dies down they will once again go back into the shadows and await on another opportunity to show how morally upstanding they are....the shows a man view on his God and what Answers he wants to hear ...which may be removed from reality...If these so called Morally Upstanding citizens are opposed to this programme and its contents ..then why do they conveniently come out the wood works when it is brought into the spot light.WHERE ARE THEY THE REST OF THE TIME!
The facts a show is released showing issues then you hear them....show is stopped they disappear...Reality CHECK:HOMOSEXUALITY,PROMISCITY,DRUGS& Views of Jesus like that Continues to grow independent to these programmes.

As my column said, I have no idea whether I'll actually like the show, since it hasn't aired yet. In any case, the point isn't whether "The Book of Daniel" is an ad campaign for the Episcopal Church, but whether the Episcopal Church remains faithful to the disquieting figure of Jesus in the Gospels who, whatever other qualities he has, adamantly refused to be self-righteous or demeaning of others.

"Epiphany, after all, is the remembrance precisely of the unconventionality of Jesus, who was not at all what any religious or secular leaders expected – God appearing on earth, human in every way that we are, who preached of the kingship of servants, and lauded the richness of poverty. Herod thought he was too unconventional and tried to kill Jesus as an infant; the Sages from the East didn’t know what to make of him and went home; and John the Baptist (who ate bugs and dressed in animal skins) thought that Jesus was way, way less “conventional” than even he was."

And undoubtedly history will repeat itself, as it always does, and once again the self-appointed Arbiters of Morality and Exclusive Intimates To The Will Of God will, in their blind conviction and rabid dogmatic adherence to the voices in their head, crucify another Jesus for refusing to live down to their notion of what a savior should be.

I can't help but laughing at people who have their panties in a knot about this 'Jesus' being "tolerant of sin," quick-witted and snarky, and refusing to fit social preconceived notions of what He should be. Maybe I'm reading a different version of the New Testament than 'Rev' Wildmon, but that seems like a pretty accurate portrayal of the Jesus *I* read about. You know, the one who'd rather have dinner with a prostitute than a priest?

I wonder where all these bibles that people like Rev Wildmon use - the ones with passages like Matthew 6:5, Ephesians 4:32, Romans 12:19, and Luke 6:37 removed - are manufactured?

The fact that the main characters in this show are abusing drugs, live as a homosexual, and are sexually promiscuous is not the bad part of this show. The writer’s sexual orientation is not what is wrong with this show. What is wrong is that the Priest engages in sinful activities and is unrepentant and remains in his office despite living an unrepentant life. The notion that Jesus was tolerant of sin is misleading and false. Jesus did not shun those who engaged in sinful activity but he welcomed them into the Kingdom of God with open arms and told them to “sin no more”.

Because we are all born into sin, it is understandable for us to slip and sometimes fall. But the life of a believer and follower of Christ is one of Grace and forgiveness. If we fall, we can get up, confess and repent of our sins. The key is to “sin no more”. One must turn away from sin and turn toward Christ.

I will not be signing a petition to remove the show from the airwaves because this is not about me or about the people in my city. Its all about Him! God is concerned with the heart and our adherence to his word. Advocacy of this show exposes the heart of those who support it. And those individuals will have to answer to the Lord for leading souls astray.

The great thing about America is that it is a free country. You can say what every want to say and express yourself how you please. But with such freedom, there are consequences; Natural and Spiritual. The natural consequences of supporting this show are the loss of money due to low ratings and the cancellation in major markets. The spiritual consequences cannot be determined by me or anyone else but by God. I would think that it is safe to say that any advocacy for products, services or activities that draw people from the will of God will be judged harshly.

What sinful activities does the priest engage in? Taking Vicoden, a perscription pain killer? Do we know why he takes it? Do we know how often he takes it? No. From what I have read, he may be taking more of the medication than he should, but the fact that he has a perscription also suggests that he is suffering from some kind of physical pain. Assuming that he is sinning by using a pain killer is a bit of a leap, it seems to me.

How about if we wait to see the show before judging it?

Just like to point out something, first off, yes Jesus did have dinner with a prostitute, and also when the priests were about to stone a woman caught in the act of adultery, Jesus stepped in. However, this does not mean that jesus sort of "winks" at sin, he asked her after the priests had left 'who condems you?'she said 'noone', he replied by saying neither do I, GO AND SIN NO MORE. Doesn't look like winking to the priest to me and saying, (regarding the priests son in sexual sin), "boys have to be boys", does it?

Joe -

a) there are some assumptions here that I don't know to be valid.

b) I would like to think that an aspect of a living, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient Creator would have noticed that several thousand years have passed by since he last audibly spoke.

c) I remember things about the violation of marriage by adultery being sin. I remember that even *wanting* to violate the institution of marriage by engaging in extramarital sex being sin. I don't remember anything about *premarital* sex being sin, nor do I remember anything about sex involving people under the age of 18 being inherently sinful.

I invite you or anyone else here to post a chapter and verse from the New Testament that contains an invocation of Christ condemning *premarital* sex between unrelated, unmarried people. I could be wrong, and if I am I haven't the least problem in admitting it, but I have a sneaking suspicion that you will not find the prohibition you are looking for.

If I'm right, this means that your entire argument re: "winking at sin" is moot, as there is no sin to wink at unless you accept that the words of religious leaders who came decades or centuries after Christ have just as much right to make the rules as He does, and that He should be expected to accede to those rules created after his ascension.

Just a thought...

And just to keep this topical to this resource (for which I thank *it's* Creator!), are we certain that we're actually talking about intercourse, or is this some sub-sexual 'heavy petting' thing? I've not read the script or seen the show, so I honestly don't know.

Peace.

I am a christian and would like to say that I hold my Lord and Gods name to be Holy, with true reverence and esteem. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain (The 3rd commandment) is not merely in reference to swearing or cursing but means, His name is Holy and not to be used in any other way. Not to be used for comedy or just entertainment, but to be regarded as God's Holy Name.
I do not pretend to speak for all people of any faith or background but as christians are accused of being " insensitive" or of pushing our beliefs on others. We now seem to have to indure the disrespectful insinuation that our Lord who said "Go and sin no more" would simply shrug his shoulders or wink at sin. This is where it becomes hard to express what a christian must but yes Jesus showed love to everyone that listened and obeyed him, but he also warned of the punishment for those who would not keep his commandments.I dont push my beliefs on anyone and wish that others were respectul enough not to make a mockery of what means so very much to me. God bless you all

here are some chapter and verse but so you know Jesus talking to the woman at the well He said...go and sin no more...what was her sin? and the Lord expects us to keep ourselve clean and holy....can you honestly say that you think it's ok with God for anyone to sleep around...we were created to have one mate for life as Christ explains in Mat 19:4... And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh
Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1Co 6:15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of a harlot? God forbid.
1Co 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh

I'm stepping in not to offer my full response, which runs to several thousand words and which I'm going to try to find a way to offer up without turning this page into a 300 megabyte thesis, but to note that I've read Tom's response. I just want to make a quick couple of notes:

1 - Paul was adamantly opposed to sexual relations of any kind as he firmly believed that the 'pleasures of the flesh' distracted from the pursuit of divine wisdom. He was probably right on that point, bless his little heart, but somewhere along the way he forgot to consider that everyone is not intended to be a priest.

2- Your quotes from Matthew deal with an adulterous woman. Adultery is the violation of marriage, sexual or non-sexual (although in this case, it was sexual). By definition, it *can not* apply to premarital sex.

3 - There are a plethora of issues involved in the passage from 1 Corinthians, and I want to address those, but for now I just want to point out that by the definitions of the time, 'fornication' was not 'sex outside of marriage' but 'sex with a prostitute.' Big difference between that and normal teenage sexual exploration propelled by hormones.

4 - I absolutely disagree with your interpretation of Matt 19:4 as evidence that God intended us to have a single sexual partner for the duration of our lives. The way I read it, it's evidence that God intended us to settle down and get married, certainly, and that marriage should have procreation as one of its purposes, but I don't see anything there that says to my soul "God Says No Ring, No Sex."

Sidebar: As written above, there seems to be nothing in the least that prevents a *woman* from doing pretty much anything she wants to, sexuallly, as long as it's not for pay and not with a married man.

I'll deal with the longer article at a later time; I want very much to share those thoughts with those reading, but I just don't think it's appropriate to dump a theological 'War and Peace' on this forum, especially when it has little to do with 'Book of Daniel.'

Jack, what I don't understand is how you or anyone can possibly think that this is not disrespectful of God!! When the Lord saw things like this He flooded the earth. He also burned certian cities to the ground. I read a report where you called yourself a "recovering Catholic". You are obviously wanting to make a statement. However, there are many other religions, even non-Christian, who feel this is very disrespectful.
If conservatives need to be tolerant and respectful of liberals then shouldn't they get the same treatment in return?!
God Bless You!

I would like to first say that Mr. Henry appears to mean something other than, "God Bless you!" based on the way he wrote that paragraph and I found that incredibly close to being blasphemous.I doubt God appreciates his name being used as a rude rebuke to Mr. Kenny - or anyone.

Mr Kenny and the other people who work on The Book of Daniel are making the show they see fit to make - I don't think they are doing it to be "disrespectful" of conservatives. They cannot, however, be expected to write something other than what they beleive and what they know. God doesn't belong to one group or one faith. Jesus made it clear tha he is there for all of us - so I think people should accept that Mr. Kenny has as much right to portray Christ as kind and warm and witty as they do to beleive that he is wrathful and intolerant.

I think Mr. Wayne Whitson Floyd did us a favor by pointing out that the much beloved "Touched By an Angel" had people working on it who were of other faiths and who were gay. Mr. Kenny's orientation is no one's business. I like the way he portrays Jesus - the way I have always imagined him. Loving and clever and patient and definitely a little unconventional. Because if people actually read the bible they would see that Jesus was incredibly unconventional. He loved everyone and he listened to anyone who needed him and that was NOT conventional behavior at the time that he first lived. He wandered, he preached, he held spontaneous gatherings of huge numbers of poeple and he accepted and forgave sinners - including prostitutes. If he walked down the street today, people would call him a hippie liberal. I LIKE the way Mr. Kenny portrays Jesus. I have the right to believe my God is like that and Conservatives have the right to believe he isn't. If you believe differently then just go watch something else. I think the conservatives will find many people feel the way I do - and continue to tune in to The Book of Daniel every week!

"I would like to first say that Mr. Henry appears to mean something other than, "God Bless you!" based on the way he wrote that paragraph and I found that incredibly close to being blasphemous.I doubt God appreciates his name being used as a rude rebuke to Mr. Kenny - or anyone."

I would respectfully suggest that you learn to properly determine who wrote what; I'm not sure if I've ever in my life written the words "God Bless You," for various reasons not the least of which my belief that, stipulating that such a being exists, He does not need my orders to go around blessing people; an Omniscient, Omnibenevolent Creator Of All That Is certainly doesn't need a hippie with too much time on his hands instructing him on who does and does not need His blessings. But that's just my POV, and I understand and respect the right of others to believe differently.

Ironically, you and I seem to be much on the same page here, save for that you appear to consider yourself a 'Christian' and I choose not to adopt that label.

As for what God does or does not appreciate, I will leave that for Him to decide; it's not my place to make such speculations. Frankly, I think if I were God I'd be a little worn out by now of people telling Me what I think rather than asking. Then again, He's probably more tolerant of His creatures than I am, in general.

Author attributions appear on this blog *beneath* the article they have written, not above. Please keep this in mind as you choose what to criticize. Thanks.

I am very sorry, Mr. Henry! I intended to critize AMY's use of that phrase. I did not mean to offend you, I unfortunately misunderstood the positioning of the names in relation to the comments! Please accept my apology.

Incedentally, I appreciated your previous comment - putting some bible quotes others had used into context. I think so many people abuse the Bible as a resource to back up hateful views by quoting scripture out of context or ignoring things Jesus said in the New Testament that contradict views that were originally put forth in the Old Testament. I very much appreciated you taking the time to set those things straight.

In theory this is a forum to discuss an interesting and thought provoking new television show (and there are few enough of those!) but I have seen a lot of people on here hurling about their personal views on the Bible and religion - and all of our beliefs will inevitably vary! I guss I just wanted to post something in hopes that the creators of the show realize they have not only a lot of controversy but also a lot of support. I was very touched and entertained by the first two episodes of the program.

... incedentally this means that I misattributed the comments about Touched By an Angel as well - which were actually made by Anastasia McAteer! Again, my apologies!

No harm done. I appreciate your kind words. Regrettably, advocates on all sides of 'the God issue' tend to bend and stretch Scripture to fit what they want to hear. I find, perhaps, a *small* bit of redemption in knowing that folks such as myself who claim no allegiance to any particular sect (or indeed, any particular definition of 'God') are, at least, not attempting to strongarm others into supporting our positions by invoking Scripture and trying to let that be the final word in the absence of a rational argument.

Regrettably, I missed 'Daniel' as I was unavoidably detained, but to be honest, my involvement in this discussion stems much less from an interest in that television show than from an interest in finding opportunities to do a little proseltyzing of my own when they present themselves ;-)

Nice blog, good info. KaylaX