Call me Fishmeal

Beyond the poor writing, cheap sensationalism and moral emptiness, there is STILL a further problem. “The Book of Daniel” presents Christianity as something that is only the business of the clergy. I say that because, on reflection, I did not observe any other character beyond Daniel interacting with her or his faith. In fact, were any of the characters in church at any time, except Daniel? Anyone who knows anything about Christianity knows that it is supposed to be a total life commitment. Also, you simply can’t be a Christian without going to church.

The Founder of our faith certainly did not intend to put it into the hands of a priestly caste (not after the conflicts He had with the priestly caste of His day!). The issue keeps surfacing: wasn’t this a central issue of the Protestant Reformation? Can you say “Priesthood of All Believers”? Wasn’t an emphasis on lay participation one of the few good things (the ordination of women was the other) that happened in the Episcopal Church in the 1970s? The writers and producers of this program are completely clueless about Christianity. They ought to have their dramatic license revoked!

I wasted two hours of my life watching the pilot episode of “The Book of Daniel” last night. At the end, my comment was “I missed Tred Barta for this?”. I quit watching anything but news, sports and movies on television when “Seinfeld” ended its run. “The Book of Daniel” illustrates why. The fact that this pilot ever saw the light of day demonstrates the poverty of the dramatic imagination in those who write and produce commercial American television programming. If it does not die a sudden and well-deserved death, its survival wll prove the truth of the aphorism “Nobody ever lost money by underestimating the taste of the American public”.
See Kendall Harmon’s comments on his Titus 1:9 blog for a well-written critique of the program. Let me add only a few notes:

• The characters struck me as one-dimensional.
• The only one who was at all interesting, I felt, was Jesus. However, it was an extremely non-judgemental Jesus we saw. Not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not even “Jesu meine Freude” (”Jesus my joy”, from the Bach cantata), but “Jesus my best bud”. I had trouble imagining this Jesus making anyone angry enough to crucify Him. Can you see this Character throwing money-changers out of a temple?
• I had some hopes for the character of Daniel Webster’s father, the elder bishop. However, his portrayal, considered as a whole, was flat, lifeless and uninteresting. How could a character that lacks sufficient insight to see that his eldest grandson is gay manage to hold our interest?
• The editing and props were the work of amateurs. The Epiphany pageant I saw at my own church last night was better produced. One example: Did anyone else notice that the name of the church in this production, glimpsed on the church’s signboard in one of the early scenes, was spelled “St. Barnabus”?
• The plot wandered along for two hours with no clear end in sight. The program couldn’t seem to decide whether it was a soap-opera, a drama about a disfunctional family, or a comedy. Nobody seemed to learn anything about life. The conflicts between the characters weren’t developed by the plot. Finally, the “plot”made little sense.
• Why did the daughter (whom I found to be the most interesting character) have to concoct this drug-selling scheme to raise $4,000? The money was, I think, needed for hardware and software for her comic book, but did she ever obtain what she needed? Why didn’t she do the obvious thing, and ask her parents for the money to help her develop her obvious talents? These people, after all, have a fancy house, a maid, and belong to a country club. Certainly a lousy four grand can’t be that big a deal.
• Why do we see the sister-in-law chasing down the “other woman” in the funeral scene, screaming “Bitch!!”, when the next day we learn that she is involved with, and in cahoots with, the same woman? What triggered the acting-out at the funeral? Was it an act to cover-up the real nature of the relationship? I suppose that’s the cause, but it really wasn’t clear.
• Once the relationship between the sister-in-law and the other woman was out in the open, why didn’t someone apply some heat to the women to locate the money that they must have stolen? Why go through the Roman Catholic priest, and (by implication) the Mafia? Why not go to the police? Why try to keep the “scandal” quiet since everyone in town seems to know about it?
• There aren’t consequences for the characters’ actions. Daniel, the female bishop, Daniel’s wife — all have some serious substance-abuse issues. Yet all that abuse never leads to any dilemmas — the worst that happens is some mild chiding by the 2nd Person of the Trinity. So why include it, if there’s no dramatic point?
• My initial reaction was that the program was highly insulting to Episcopalians. My wife pointed out that it was even more insulting to Roman Catholics, and I believe she is right. The Roman Catholic priest acted more like a Mafia capo than a man of the cloth.

I will grant that others may not have been offended, as I was, by the program’s portrayal of Episcopalians as upper-class, pill-popping, alcoholic hypocrites. Maybe that is the way we seem to others, and maybe there is enough truth in the portrayal to make us uncomfortable.

I also understand that a creative work must take a point of view, some interesting characters, and use them to work out a dramatic problem. But “The Book of Daniel” fails on all these counts: the point of view is not clear, after 60 minutes the characters have not been developed, and the plot is neither dramatic nor coherent. Finally, there is a massive piece of hypocrisy here. “The Book of Daniel” is a rather nasty portrayal of Episcopalians. Would this program have ever been aired if it were about Jews, Muslims or Hindus? I think we all know the answer to that!

This post responds to two articles: one is by Bill Moyers, “Battlefield Earth“, and the other by Bill Scherer, “The Road to Environmental Apocalypse“. I respond to both articles because they illustrate a basic problem with the Left: they need to get a sense of proportion (and a bit of humility). Has Bill Moyers ever forgiven a sinner or winked at homely girl?

I agree with both writers that the environment is being ruined. My opinion is that the causes are greedy corporations, incompetent and corrupt government (local, state and federal) and lazy consumers. Glenn Scherer, in Grist, thinks the blame needs to rest on the religious right:

“Many Christian fundamentalists feel that concern for the future of our planet is irrelevant, because it has no future. They believe we are living in the End Time, when the son of God will return, the righteous will enter heaven, and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire. They may also believe, along with millions of other Christian fundamentalists, that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed — even hastened — as a sign of the coming Apocalypse.”

The problem is that the validity of his thesis requires that a) fundamentalists run the government and b) their environmental policy be driven by a common escatological indifference (or embrace) of environmental destruction. In other words, fundamentalists must have more power than they think they do, and their behavior must be driven by blind adherence to an ideology/eschatology that is contrary to a normal, human, concern for the welfare of their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. They’ve got to be in control of the government, on the one hand, while, on the other hand, they are not in control of their own emotions.

Speaking of fundamentalist control of government, Scherer has some pretty good evidence about DeLay and James Inhofe. Sounds like they are interested in squeezing every last dollar out of the ground, and damn posterity! The question is “why”? Are they doing it because they are greedy, short-sighted and/or hoping to cultivate friends in the energy industries (one is from Texas and the other from Oklahoma)? Or are they doing it because they are fundamentalists?

I’m not convinced by Scherer that there is any significant connection between a belief in the end of time and environmental exploitation. His argument fails to convince me for two reasons. First, it’s hard to believe that some fanatical theology is driving the people who have power. As far as Delay is concerned, Scherer asserts:

• “With those words — broadcast to 225 Christian TV and radio stations — DeLay placed himself squarely inside the End-Time camp, a faction willing to force the Apocalypse upon the rest of the world. In part, DeLay may embrace Hagee and others like him in a calculated attempt to win fundamentalist votes — but he was also raised a Southern Baptist, steeped in a literal interpretation of the Bible and End-Time dogma. Biographer Dubose says that the majority leader probably doesn’t grasp the complexities of dispensationalist and reconstructionist theology, but “I am convinced that he believes [in] it.” For DeLay, Dubose told me, “If John Hagee says it, then it is true.” “

“Force the Apocalypse upon the rest of the world”? As both DeLay (and I) understand the Apocalypse, it is beyond human control! This is an unfair charge to make. DeLay may well be a bad, misguided person, but he surely doesn’t believe he can do this. If he did believe it, he needs to be taken on a short trip to a padded cell!

Was Tom DeLay raised … “steeped in a literal interpretation of the Bible and End-Time dogma”? If you assume that being raised as a Southern Baptist implies belief in an “End-Time dogma” you don’t know much about Southern Baptists! The assertion may, or may not, be true. His biographer thinks it is true…but that does not mean it is so, or that the belief directs his actions. I believe procrastination is bad — but I’m doing it all the same!

The real issue is that Scherer’s argument ignores “Occam’s razor”: Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler [from the Wikipedia]. Greed is sufficent to cause all the behavior we see in Tom DeLay and in the Bush administration’s environmental policies. Why not write about that — unless you really have an agenda against Christianity?

Scherer’s piece has some logical problems and suffers, I suspect, from a hidden agenda. Moyers’ piece was just confusing. Let me summarize my issues.

With Scherer, Moyers asserts that “ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington”. He also asserts (quoting Scherer) that “millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed – even hastened – as a sign of the coming apocalypse.” Can he prove either statement? Can he prove a connection between the two?

Concerning “ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington”:

• He advances this evidence:
• They are the people who believe the bible is literally true – one-third of the American electorate, if a recent Gallup poll is accurate. In this past election several million good and decent citizens went to the polls believing in the rapture index. That’s right – the rapture index. “

He asserts that one-third of the American electorate believe the bible is literally true. But, in the words of P. Pilate, what is truth? Does the figure of 1/3 of the electorate mean that 1/3 of the eligible voters believe in Scriptural inerrancy? Does the figure include those who believe that God’s truth in the Bible, but who do not believe in inerrant Scripture? Since Moyers is an ordained minister, he certainly understands the huge differences even among those who profess a belief in Scriptural inerrancy, and he is, at best, deliberately oversimplifying a complex question.
Next, he goes on to assert that “In this past election several million good and decent citizens went to the polls believing in the rapture index.” How does Bill
Moyers know that there are millions of voters who believe this stuff? He either wants us to believe that all those who believe the “bible is literally true — one-third of the American electorate, if a recent Gallup poll is accurate” ALSO believe in the “rapture index”, or he has some statistic to back up the assertion. Is this his evidence?:

• “Google it and you will find that the best-selling books in America today are the 12 volumes of the left-behind series written by the Christian fundamentalist and religious right warrior, Timothy LaHaye. These true believers subscribe to a fantastical theology concocted in the 19th century by a couple of immigrant preachers who took disparate passages from the Bible and wove them into a narrative that has captivated the imagination of millions of Americans.”

It sounds like the left-behind series sells a lot of books! Does it translate into belief in the so-called “rapture”? Who are “These true believers”? If not Timothy LaHaye Moyers must mean the 1/3 of the electorate that believes the Bible is literally true. But does he think that all, or even a large number, of the people who buy these books are “true believers”? Couldn’t they be just casual observers? Are the people who buy these books also voters?

• He asserts that much of Congress is controlled by the religious right:
• “As Grist makes clear, we’re not talking about a handful of fringe lawmakers who hold or are beholden to these beliefs. Nearly half the U.S. Congress before the recent election – 231 legislators in total – more since the election – are backed by the religious right.”

A litany of figures about Congress follows (the figures come from the Scherer piece in Grist).

• Forty-five senators and 186 members of the 108th congress earned 80 to 100 percent approval ratings from the three most influential Christian right advocacy groups.
• They include Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Conference Chair Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Policy Chair Jon Kyl of Arizona, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, and Majority Whip Roy Blunt.
• The only Democrat to score 100 percent with the Christian coalition was Senator Zell Miller of Georgia, who recently quoted from the biblical book of Amos on the senate floor: “the days will come, sayeth the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land.” he seemed to be relishing the thought.

But the problem with this evidence is that control by the religious right doesn’t necessarily equate to control by people who push bad environmental policy. One could be a bad environmentalist and an athiest, or a good environmentalist and a fundamentalist. Moyers claims that it is not “a handful of fringe lawmakers who hold or are beholden to these beliefs.” That’s a pretty broad assertion. But he does not offer any evidence to back it up. In fact, do any of the people he mentions by name accept or endorse the “left behind” books or any particular view about the eschaton? Would they even know that the eschaton was?

Moreover, the evidence Moyers asserts applies only to the public and to congress. What about the folks who work for the various environmental and interior dept agencies in the executive branch? Are their decisions controlled by an eschatogical indifference to the environment? Are they even members of the “religious right”?

Let’s look at “millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed – even hastened – as a sign of the coming apocalypse.” Watt’s views sound pretty scary:

• “Remember James Watt, President Reagan’s first secretary of the Interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever-engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, “after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back.” “

The problem is that Watt has been out of the administration for years. If he had a proven influence on current policy it would be a powerful piece of evidence for Moyers. But he does not. Watt is trotted in as a convenient straw man. And it’s not clear that Watt ever held these views, if you read to the end of the Grist article.

Is there other evidence regarding Christian fundamentalists’ views? Moyers show us their views on the eschatological significance of Israel. But what does that have to do with the environment? Are eschatological views driving environmental policy? Again, the Grist article from which Moyers quotes is much better done.

The real problem with the Moyers piece is that, like Scherer, he cannot prove a connection between the two halves of his thesis. He, indirectly, admits the weakness:

• “So what does this mean for public policy and the environment? Go to Grist to read a remarkable work of reporting by the journalist, Glenn Scherer – “The Road to Environmental Apocalypse.” Read it and you will see how millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed:”

“Remarkable piece of reporting”? The Scherer piece is mildly interesting at best. “May believe”? Is it so, or isn’t it? Like Scherer, it seems to me that Moyers has to prove the following:

• Fundamentalists run the government.
• The environmental policies of Fundamentalists are driven by their belief that the end of the world is near.

I don’t believe he proves either.

Finally, what is his point? Why did these ramblings see the light of day? At the end of the piece Moyers has backed off blaming the religious right and starts asking why we are destroying the environment:

• “I read all this and look up at the pictures on my desk, next to the computer – pictures of my grandchildren: Henry, age 12; of Thomas, age 10; of Nancy, 7; Jassie, 3; Sara Jane, 9 months. I see the future looking back at me from those photographs and I say, “Father, forgive us, for we know not what we do.” And then I am stopped short by the thought: “That’s not right. We do know what we are doing. We are stealing their future. Betraying their trust. Despoiling their world.” And I ask myself: Why? Is it because we don’t care? Because we are greedy? Because we have lost our capacity for outrage, our ability to sustain indignation at injustice?”

OK, I would ask Bill Moyers, WHICH IS IT? He has framed the problem so that there are only two possible causes for it:

• Right-wing nuts with a fanatical religious ideology are despoiling our environment.
• The environment is being destroyed through simple greed, lack of outrage, and complicity with injustice.

Moyers doesn’t come down solidly on one side or the other. The reader is left to wonder WHAT was he talking about? Why did he write this essay? What am I supposed to learn from it? He concludes:

• “What we need to match the science of human health is what the ancient Israelites called “hochma” – the science of the heart … the capacity to see … to feel … and then to act … as if the future depended on you.”

Act in what way?