Dec 29, 2005

There has been a bit of controversy going on about new NBC show “The Book of Daniel” that chronicles the life of an Episcopalian Priest and his less than traditional family.

In an interview with the AP, Star Aidan Quinn (Rev. Daniel Webster) says the show is a “wholesome show. … It just has the courage to deal with some of the real issues that go on in people’s lives.”

My response, is “Really? Hmm – go on…”

Quinn continues, “I’m an Episcopalian priest who struggles with a little self-medication problem, and I have a 23-year-old son who’s gay, and a 16-year-old daughter who’s caught dealing pot, and another son who’s jumping on every high school girl he sees, and a wife who’s very loving but also likes her martinis.”

Many folks embroiled in the controversy, such as the American Family Association are trying to petition NBC to remove the show. Others believe that the show is a positive influence and that the AFA is over-reacting. ” ‘This is an offbeat, inclusive series — inclusive of people of faith and inclusive of gay and bisexual people,’ Damon Romine, GLAAD’s entertainment media director, told the PlanetOut Network. ‘It doesn’t surprise me that the AFA would be afraid of this series — it shows a family that’s both deeply religious and loving and accepting of their gay son.’ ”

OK, time out! Lets take a minute and look at this. What’s wrong with this picture?

Now, I haven’t seen this show, and I haven’t made up my mind if I will watch an episode or two. In general I don’t like to monetarily support items that I don’t agree with, but then I already pay for cable every month and with a DVR I don’t watch commercials anyway – so I’m up in the air on it.

This aside though, I’d like to attempt to put forth a reasonable argument for why many Christians are upset and worried about this type of show – hopefully an argument that non-Christians will understand. I know that to many non-believers, Christians can look like an odd bunch, getting our panties in a wad about the slightest little thing. I’d like to at least explain the anger that “The Book of Daniel” has fanned, and why we don’t necessarily even need to see it to know what we are up against.

On the one hand, self-medication, homosexuality, drugs, fornication and alcoholism are topics that many people deal with on a daily basis. On the other hand, I’m sorry but who the hell can say that this is “wholesome”?

Merriam-Webster defines “wholesome” as “promoting health or well-being of mind or spirit”. Now, which of those show twists, exactly, were the wholesome ones? Oh, being the Episcopalian priest maybe?

As C.S. Lewis so eloquently describes in his book Mere Christianity it is very important to guard the meaning of words, for otherwise they end up having no use at all. He describes the slide of the word “Gentleman” from meaning a man who had a coat of arms and some landed property into a term of praise targeting his behavior. Originally, there was no conflict with being a Gentleman and a liar, but with today’s meaning that would be impossible – maybe. See, the problem is that not everyone agrees on what the behavior of a gentleman should be, so the word is now useless for the task of accurate description. It is a nebulous idea whose meaning though likely similar, can differ for each person in profound ways. While there were plenty of words to praise or chastise behavior already, we now have nothing save full explanations to refer to the original Gentleman.

We see this same issue with Quinn’s reference to “wholesome” – the etymology of it is from the old English “whole”, in the healthy sense and is circa 1200. Originally this meant in a moral sense, with the physical sense being first attested to circa 1374. For an English word at those times in history, saying morality would mean talking about a Christian morality and then the flow of this morality into the body in a physical sense. So, this was a distinct word – if something was “wholesome” it displayed the distinct characteristics of a physically and spiritually sound Christian foundation. I have severe doubt that “The Book of Daniel” will stand up to this definition, regardless of what Quinn says.

How can I say that without even seeing the show? Because of the creators and their world view. Forgive me if I’d rather not take my direction of what is wholesome from the mainstream media and Jack Kenny. The AFA says this of Kenny: “a practicing homosexual who describes himself as being ‘in Catholic recovery,’ and is interested in Buddhist teachings about reincarnation and isn’t sure exactly how he defines God and/or Jesus. ‘I don’t necessarily know that all the myth surrounding him (Jesus) is true,’ he said.”

Its OK to be questioning things – God gave us a free will for a purpose – but don’t take your questions and put our label on them. This is the crux of the issue. Being a Christian means a SPECIFIC thing, and we object to those who are not Christians telling the nation what it means to be one of us.

It would be like me putting a show on NBC entitled “The Lesbian” – just because I like women, doesn’t make me a lesbian. Right now, it means something pretty specific and I just don’t qualify. Portraying a Christian priest who acts in very unchristian manner is the same thing. They just don’t qualify to showcase the subject. How do I know he acts in a very unchristian manner? Because doing otherwise would never make it on NBC.

Romine says that its OK for a “deeply religious” family to be “loving and accepting of their gay son” – I would agree, but I doubt it is in the manner that Romine is talking about. In general, I believe that with only a few exceptions (Exodus International and Love Won Out for example) the Christian community at large has lost a huge opportunity to minister to homosexuals. As a Church, we seem to be OK helping adulterers and drunks overcome their sin, but gays have to have completely healed themselves before they can be among us? That’s not right. I say hate the sin, love the sinner.

The real issue is that I don’t think Romine, OR “The Book of Daniel” will sign up to the gay son being in sin. I don’t mean to focus only on the homosexual aspect – I’m sure that most of these other unwholesome things will be portrayed simply as foibles that make for drama in the life of Daniel. I would wager a large sum that “The Book of Daniel” is all about how the family despite its problems, despite its differences and despite the challenges of life are able to overcome through love and togetherness. Well, that is very sweet, and a nice message, but it isn’t Christian. Its secular humanism, and as a Christian, I object to it wearing a Christian cloak.

If my guess is correct, then the fact that Daniel talks directly to Jesus only makes matters worse. With this type of direct give and take relationship, Daniel’s actions will implicitly carry Jesus’ approval. I find it hard to believe that NBC, Quinn or Kenny have gone through the Biblical scholarship necessary to answer these questions, especially when their goal is ratings not sound theology. If the response to these culture-defining issues isn’t based on solid Christian teaching, then what is it based on? Given the source, I’d again say secular humanism. So, what about this is Christian?

Non-Christians say we are over-reacting. Christians say this type of show chips away at what it means to be a follower of Christ, and that’s something we will ALWAYS be upset about.