Father Stu - Videos, Soundtrack, Clips, Interviews

 

Original Motion Picture Soundtrack from the drama film Father Stu (2022). The score music by Dickon Hinchliffe (The Lost Daughter, At Any Price, Misbehaviour).

Source: Father Stu Movie

Genre: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack

Music by Dickon Hinchliffe & Various Artists

Label: Sony Music

Format: Digital

Release Date: April 13, 2022

Father Stu (also known as simply Stu) is a 2022 American drama film written and directed by Rosalind Ross, produced by Columbia Pictures, distributed by Sony Pictures. The film stars Mark Wahlberg, Jacki Weaver, Mel Gibson, Teresa Ruiz, Niko Nicotera, Cody Fern, Chiquita Fuller, and Carlos Leal.

Father Stu is set to premiere in the US on 13th April 2022.

The soundtrack album will be available for listening/purchasing on Amazon and Apple Music stores.

Father Stu: Montana Priest and Knight of Columbus

Tracklisting

1. Father Stu (2:24)
2. Wildest Dreams (0:53)
3. Remember Me (1:20)
4. Carmen (0:57)
5. Bill’s Truck (1:33)
6. Come and Get It (2:26)
7. Father and Son (1:11)
8. Mary (1:45)
9. Resisting Arrest (1:07)
10. You Ain’t That Lucky (1:39)
11. You’re Wrapped (1:22)
12. I’m Doing This (0:48)
13. The Return (1:47)
14. Roommates (1:27)
15. Bill’s Trailer (0:58)
16. Ordained (1:19)
17. Big Sky (1:31)
18. Ain’t the Hill to Die On (1:45)
19. Leaving (1:21)
20. My Support (1:05)
21. Late Bloomers (3:18)

I never read film reviews or watch trailers before watching a flick. With Father Stu it would have totally destroyed the story and its many surprises. Below is a compilation of Wahlberg's newest role including select interviews. Hence, bookmark this page but go first to see the film before looking at the site.

Secondly, two scenes to pay especial attention to: the bar scene and the dining scene at the apartment. They are central foci to all the before-and-after of Father Stu's life. Enjoy.

- re slater

Father Stu - Official Trailer

Brett Young - Long Way Home (From The Motion Picture “Father Stu” / Lyric Video)

FATHER STU – You Don’t Know Stu | Path to Priesthood

Mark Wahlberg and Bishop Barron Discuss "Father Stu"

Friends remember Father Stu ahead of film release

Mark Wahlberg on Conversation with Cardinal Dolan

* * * * * * * *

Soundtrack Site

https://soundtrack-x.com/father-stu

Dear Readers. I did not have the time to review every video here but if there are any video duplicates please mention them to me so I may strike them out. 

 

Who is Noah and How Does Noah's Story Tell Us of God? Part 1

Noah - Official Trailer (2014) [HD] Russel Crowe, Emma Watson




"In its early stages, religion means certainty about many things.

But... he is most religious who is certain of but one thing,

the world-embracing love of God." 

- Charles Hartshorne

Introduction

There are several things I know. I know that we live in a spiritual world as much as a material world. This is my personal belief and the beginning point of my being. It's an admission within me as a poet-theologian as much as it is a statement of skepticism towards modern day religion and human beings search for meaning on whatever basis it comes. Because of this belief, I believe in miracles. In prophecy. And in the inspiration of the Bible. The balances are tipped in the scales of my heart towards the spiritual over the material.

And yet, the materialist in me would deny this belief and say, (i) "everything can be explained naturally - especially biblical miracles" as science continues forward. That, (ii) "prophecy is fore-telling alone without the forth-telling aspect of the aspectual prophecy." That the prophecy's appearance, or expression, to the mind comes with the accompanying observation of its nature, character, or the quality of the thing being viewed, presented, or interpreted by the prophet, his audience, or consequential events. And that, (iii) "the Bible is merely a collection of human writings and gathered stories from the tongues of religious story tellers to communities who were passionate about their beliefs, or emptied of any beliefs whatsoever and wanting answers however they may come. Who passed those storied traditions along  - with or without embellishment (or loss of it) - warts and all, through local colouring and flavoring. So that the story's legend grew through through time into a modern midrash of human compendium and experience. Insights and wisdoms. Beliefs. Superstitions. Heart felt joy. Songs, prayers, and thanksgiving.

And thus the tone and tempo for our discussion of Noah is set. Is it a spiritual story, or a material story, or some admixture of both? Is Noah himself a man or a myth? If prophet, priest, and judge, than by what moral, ethical, or religious standard? Is the Bible's account to be read as literally true or as a literary genre expressing religious values and self-identity. Values as much about life itself as about ourselves, our needs, and our wants... or something that can tells us about who we are? And if there was no global flood than where is the miracle? If the animals were not collected two-by-two than where is the sense of God's preservation, power, and judgment upon man's wickedness and evil? Of the Creator's displeasure with man? Or His abiding patience and longsuffering for His creation? It's caretake and salvation? If the future of the world is not to be one of annihilation by fire than how can we ever again read the Bible without doubting its pages or doubting the God of its pages?

Eh, verily, these and more questions rapidly come to mind. For in truth, we yearn for a fellowship with our Maker. One that would tell us of ourselves, our creation, our sin, and need for redemption. Not a mortal-filled book spilling with ancient beliefs and superstitions, native customs and conventions, local ignorance and regional fables. But a divine book Spirit-made and Spirit-wrought. One honoring universal truths, wisdoms, beliefs, and eternal promises. If the Bible is to be believed than how do we approach the story of Noah? His ark, the flood, man's judgement, and ultimate renewal?

And there is the cusp of the problem when coming to the biblical narrative of Noah. His story sets the tempo in our hearts to challenge all that we think we know of God. Of the world. And of mankind. It challenges our pet beliefs. Our dogmas. And the very fabric of our faith. It tests us by asking us about this "other Noah" that we have made whether by legend or by fact. If whether we have made Noah in our own image (and imaginations) even as we may have crafted the image of God after our own needs and necessities. A God whom we must test to believe in order to live out a God-faith in a sin-filled world racked by human greed and pride. Pain and suffering. Made more of fate than destiny. It is this "other Noah" whom we come to in order to re-discover the God of our lives lest all falls apart within our fragile worlds of faith and belief.

For myself, I realized a profound necessity for my belief in God. That it is this belief that has defined me. That makes me who I am. That marks me. That drives me forward. For without it I would be the poorer. The more wasted. The more ruined. But with it everything I am remade as if by divine hands of love which I see everywhere about. Or everywhere rejected. Or everywhere renewing and redeeming even as it is feared, doubted, spurned, and denied. Even so, by this divine love I must also have a realistic God and not a fanciful one. A realistic faith and not the one of my childhood's youth found upon a Sunday School's faith made of fantasy, fiction, and whim by erstwhile teachers.

If it is to be a mature faith than it will have to look at the stories of the Bible and see them for what they are, as much as for what they are not. And to not think that the God I know of in the Bible can be lost. Or in need of my defense for His existence. Or denial. But through their collective narratives I must come to see the God who spoke in-and-through the ancients of His will and power, grace and love, mercy and forgiveness. Who gave hope even as He forewarned and judged. A God who rules today EVEN as He did so many long eons ago through the many lives - and life's events - that surrounds and moves us within its heavenly streams.

That the only difference between my faith and the ancients' faith of yesteryear will be one of material knowledge based upon science and research, time and event, reason and discourse. But it can also be a journey of faith within all the material discovery and theological arguments made in a grown-up world based upon a grown-up faith that hasn't outgrown its youthful images of God's certainty and guidance. Even in its adult years of skepticism and agnosticism.

This then must be the beginning of our discussion if we are to have a discussion. One that doubts and questions, believes and yearns for the spiritual in a material world. Without this beginning point we can only reinforce our own beliefs about the story of Noah and what it has come to mean to so many today both up-and-down the religious or non-religious aisles. And so, by way of an extended introduction I leave an earlier article written not long ago that might continue this discussion in the weeks ahead as we look into the story of Noah for today's postmodern times. Its academic disbeliefs, its Christian fantasies, its fairytales, its time honored traditions, and amassing lores. Peace.

R.E. Slater

April 10, 2014

---

Excerpt

from Archaeology and the Bible: Sorting through Fact from Fiction

"Bible bashing is not an activity that can be found here at Relevancy22. The Bible is considered God's Holy Word to mankind that is authoritative and inspired but not inerrant. As such, this site does work at conveying to readers how the Bible may be read without adding the forced doctrine of inerrancy (a doctrinal creed that comes courtesy of the Evangelical Theological Society's Chicago Statement of 1980), without losing its spiritual authority in our lives when reading of God's wondrous story of redemption for creation and mankind. That this spiritual recount is inspired by His Spirit and guided by His hand placed upon the passions and burdens of His people over  a very long period of time. That it began as oral history in the form of story telling, religious poems, hymns, songs, incantations, or recitals; to people who were weary, joyful, hopeful, religious, not religious, fearful,  or superstitious; and conveyed by priests, prophets, community leaders, country folk, Bedouins, villagers, city folk, foreigners; who may have been oppressed, humbled, persecuted, enslaved, and exiled, to name a few circumstances and instances.

"So today's topic will review two kinds of reading of the Bible - one that is not-inerrant as versus one that is inerrant - by using an archaeological discovery which is acting like a fast spreading wildfire of public opinion and news. At the outset it is important to notice that we didn't say an "errant" reading of the Bible because that type of reading can be true of both groups - both for the one not holding to inerrancy as well as for the one holding to it. So what does this mean? Well, for the scientist - or archaeologist in this case - rather than to describe something in "error" the preferred term might be "anachronism," meaning something that is unique, different, or a-typical, of what you are studying. That is, one's findings, or discoveries, or calculations, have turned up a salient, singular, result that requires further investigation. And in the case of archaeology, more than in the case of physics or chemistry, those findings may still be hiding in the dirt. And so you wait. You hypothesize. You reflect on patterns and meaning to what is known and what is not known.

a·nach·ro·nism

  [uh-nak-ruh-niz-uh m] Show IPA

noun

1.

something or someone that is not in its correct historical or chronological time, especially a thing orperson that belongs to an earlier time: The sword is an anachronism in modern warfare.

2.

an error in chronology in which a person, object, event, etc., is assigned a date or period other thanthe correct one: To assign Michelangelo to the 14th century is an anachronism.

"Which in this case is whether camels (both the one-hump variety and the two-hump kind) were domesticated in Abraham's day (that is, from Genesis 11 onwards). And if they weren't then why are they described in Genesis (and the Pentateuch) as being present and being used as beasts of burden? Now this isn't new news for those studying ancient biblical ruins, times, or events... but it is to us non-archaeological types that read the news and react to its discourses when it runs afoul of our thinking, prejudices, biblical systems, conventions, and philosophies. It can dissettle us. And when it does we may have one of three reactions: (i) stay calm by reading onwards while reflecting upon the meaning of the discovery; (ii) say "yeah, I suspected this all along!" and excitedly push on into the story as it reflects our pet beliefs, idiosyncrasies, or skepticisms; (iii) or, react in disgust and anger saying, "Confound it, those liberals are at it again, telling me my Bible is wrong, and I am wrong! Anathema on all science and archaeology!" Which is my poor attempt at being humorous over a very serious subject for many, which may hold very serious implications if preferred readings and traditional interpretations of the Bible are being forthrightly challenged to the degree that it requires personal, if not system-wide change and rethinking.

"Which begs the question, how are we to read the Bible? Especially if what we're reading may not be true but filled with authorial largesse more concerned with great story telling than historical accuracy. Which hits at the nub of the problem as any new discovery may conflict with our own private interpretations of a very complex book we know as the Bible. A book spoken, sung, and much later written, by burdened story tellers wishing to convey how God came to them and spoke to their hearts redemptive truths. Truths that required telling - whether it was wanted or not. Perhaps at story teller's own peril or community standing. And, unlike modern day storytelling, the ancients weren't particularly worried about facts, more probably because of their mindset, and just as likely because there were no resources to verify them as there is today in our digital age of "ready online information." As such, biblical story tellers were not buttoned down by the convention of historical accuracy. Rather, they were more concerned in telling of God's great passion, burden, and heart, by using whatever conventions they could to drive home the point which the Lord had so placed upon their heart.

"So when we, as modern day readers, come to this very ancient process of oral tradition that was much, much later written down and then imperfectly preserved through the long centuries of personal and national disruption created by ethos wars, cultural exiles, and civil disobedience, we should not expect a "Star Trek type of Bible" dropped out of the sky into our lap to read unmarred by the many disjointed personalities, events, past traditions, and interpretations of the ancient story tellers. To read the Bible is to try to read, and interpret, its narrative while holding in abeyance its many anachronisms, which are no threat to God or His Word. Though they may be to us and our biblical systems and doctrines which we have built upon select readings of the Bible's "airs and atmospheres." For the scholar, as for the biblical reader in general, the trick is to read its center, and there find God's message of redemption. Of personal sacrifice and love for a creation and for mankind gone off track because of sin and desire. Its spiritual message is deep, and wide, and pregnant with meaning for the empty lives we would live without the presence of our kind Lord and almighty Saviour....."

R.E. Slater

February 21, 2014

More Reference Material -

Michael Graves: The Early Church Father's Many Methods of Interpretation of the Bible

Hermeneutics and Interpretation

The Land of the Dead, Noah by Director/Writer Darren Aronofsky

Anthony Hopkins, Noah by Director/Writer Darren Aronofsky

Jennifer Connelly, Russell Crowe, Noah by Director/Writer Darren Aronofsky

Good v. Evil, Noah by Director/Writer Darren Aronofsky

And so it begins, Noah by Director/Writer Darren Aronofsky

Emma Watson, Noah by Director/Writer Darren Aronofsky

Movie Review: Evangelical Movies - Stereotypes and Bugaboos

 



"A movie by Christians and for Christians can only be useful if they start intelligent

conversations and not serve as rah-rah movies for insiders and gate keepers."
- RE Slater

This spring's upcoming box office films present the idea of a Christianity that is under fire. A faith that is badgered, beaten, and bloodied, by a supposedly unbelieving society turned off to the message of the church. But I have a different idea when watching these Christian presentations, an idea that what really is at stake is the way the church is presenting itself and refusing any adjustment or re-education to its doctrines. A stubborn faith centered on Jesus is one thing. But a stubborn faith centered upon dogmatic belief about a particular kind of God or Bible is another. Especially when that faith is in tatters when held in the hands of a gender-biased, discriminatory, uncompassionate gospel of conservative politics indifferent to the cold, starving masses of society. One that is full of rage towards anyone that differs with its dictums and certitudes. It then becomes a self-promotion of one's beliefs and values through fear of "the other" and the "pride of belief." Devising impregnable fortresses, writing defensive apologetics, or shouting down public opinion was not what Jesus had in mind when He said, "Go out to all the world and make disciples." He was about getting out into the moiling masses of mankind and mixing it up with all whom He met - dirtying His hands and feet and serving those neglected or forgotten by society. And more curiously, His biggest foe and crucifier became the church crowd angred by His teachings of the good news of God's grace and forgiveness.

So I get the idea behind the upcoming raft of films - and heartily support it - that our Lord Jesus must be the life-giving center to any Christian faith. But I don't think it is Jesus (or God) who is under attack by society, by science, or by atheists beating the air to all who would listen. What is actually under attack - and keenly felt by the evangelical church in particular - is a Christian faith stubbornly clinging to its dogmatic certitudes refusing to become more informed, more adaptive, more doubtful of its policies, and less certain of its ideologies. I touched upon this recurring idea last week when posting the changing disposition of Christian politics since the 1960's (The Loudest Christian Voices are the Humble, the Peacemakers, the Hopeful, and Grace-Givers... ). It is the church itself  that has come under fire... that is, its institutions and religious attitudes. And at a certain point it must repent and seek God's face. We all know the difference between an institutionalized church and a spiritual church. One is without faith and man-made. The other is full of faith and God-made. One is dogmatic and full of hate and judgment. The other holds ameliorating doctrines that are full of grace, truth, and forgiveness. The first would see the "Jesus" on the street and walk by without so much as a second thought to his or her's personage, bearing, or deportment in life. But the second would see that same "Jesus" and fall down repentant and full of conviction re the untruths of their lives and their desperate need for a Savior crying "Send me, dear Lord, send me."

So let us not confuse God's spiritual church with our own institutionalized church of our own making - regardless of denomination, pulpit, lectern, creed, charter, liturgy, or mass. And though it is invaluable to understand and discuss biblical doctrine v. church dogma, let us not get lost in our own rhetoric by so scrutinizing God's laws, heart, mind, and spirit, as to lose the very Creator Himself. Films espousing a particular kind of belief system are only helpful to those within its creedal system looking to defend its mindsets and policies. Which, in this case, is a purposeful misunderstanding of evolutionary creation (Noah); a misrepresentation of the death of God experience in society (God is Dead) bearing extreme secularism, genocidal war, ecological rape, and civil injustice to the masses; and a refusal to recognize the desperate human conditions of many through the evangelization of conservative tea-party politics; the active resistance to, and discrimination of, homosexuals regarding marriage privacy laws (The Bible Series of 2013); and on and on and on the list could go. There is no Spirit-filled Kingdom life here. Only man-inspired kingdom politics set on the doorstep of a church blinded, prideful, and unbowed.

At least that is my first impression  when viewing the evangelical films that have come out since Burnett's five-part "Bible series" in 2013. Mostly I'm reacting to both an indiscriminate, literalistic reading of the Bible, coupled with a Christian subculture that is intolerant of those different from itself and more absorbed in preserving its belief structures and Christian religions. I would rather see a church more open to enfolding a lost, sinful world, into the redemptive love of God. Sharing His forgiveness and serving with eyes wide open to those neglected and ignored by society. My greater concern is to update the church into doctrines that are porous, ameliorating, and full of grace. Forgiving and full of compassion. Inspiring and full of faith, doubt, and less certain than they have been (more mystical without the lost of good doctrine behind them). To let die all the false ideas and misrepresentations of what we think the church is when that same heavenly fellowship must reach beyond the corruptibility of our own human hearts full of sin and pride and submit to the Kingdom tensions of this age.

In Hollywood jargon, the evangelical machine is cranking out great sound bytes for black-and-white faiths clinging to past paradigms and useless religious folklore. But the issue isn't about God being dead, but about ourselves being dead and whether we're willing to unlearn what we think we know, and to relearn a renewed Christian orthodoxy that is God-filled, redeemable, and relevant. Russell Crowe and Kevin Sobo movies aren't going to be the fix that some Christian faiths are hoping for... and I think are actually mis-directional in framing the content they wish to expose. How? By holding to a literal retelling of Noah against the science of an evolutionary earth. Or by denouncing the "death of God" movement by illiterately misunderstanding its basis (Kant, Nietzsche, genocide and cultural suicide in WWI and II, the rise of modern secularism, ecological rape, and on and on). This is to ignore the legitimate concerns experienced so devastatingly by so many at the hands of godless, greedy, nationalistic, even religious, if not humanistic, regimes of despotism and tyranny.

The Christian faith isn't a faith that needs to defend God. I think God is big enough to do that all by Himself. What the Christian faith is in need of is a humble, serving church willing to irenically discuss relevant issues in a post-postmodernistic age full of wonder and mystery. An age moving towards global pluralism as driven by sociological movements of intermixing multi-ethnic cultures and global turmoil. An age of necessary ecological reform demanding mindful sustainability business practices lest we exterminate the human race through careless misuse and provision for clean water, clean air, a preservation of natural resources, and food supplies for the hungry generations destined to come after us. Into these arenas must the Christian faith learn to adapt and grow with the times. Cultic evangelical movies will not help propel indoctrinated church programs into societal mainstreams requiring compassionate politics and selfless governance against the hot issues of injustice and reform, political intolerance and tension, civil unrest and epistemological emptiness. I think we can do better than that, don't you? What do you think?

God's Not Dead | Official Full Movie Trailer





Noah - Official Trailer (2014) [HD] Russel Crowe, Emma Watson





Son Of God | Official Trailer [HD] | 20th Century FOX





Related Articles

 The Knowledge of the Holy, by A.W. Tozer [.pdf]





Index to past articles on "An Open Faith and Open Theology"





Index to past articles on "Postmodernism"

Russell Crowe as Noah

'Noah' Film Receives Praise From Christian Evangelicals Unfazed By 'Creative Interpretation'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/22/noah-film-evangelicals_n_5009259.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000051

Posted: 03/22/2014 7:59 am EDT Updated: 03/22/2014 8:59 am EDT

Darren Aronofsky's upcoming Biblical drama "Noah" may be “the least biblical biblical film ever made,” as the director said, but it turns out quite a few Christian leaders enjoy the film in spite of that.

Cooke Pictures, a company that produces media programming for nonprofit and religious organizations, released a video on Friday showing Christian leaders reacting to "Noah." Despite objections from some in the religious community saying the film took unwarranted creative license with the Bible story, not everyone is so critical.

Leaders from organizations like American Bible Society, National Catholic Register, The King's College, Q Ideas, Hollywood Prayer Network, and Focus on the Family offer their opinions in the video -- and, for the most part, they are glowing.

Here are some of the Christian leaders' reactions:

"Darren Aronofsky is not a theologian, nor does he claim to be. He is a filmmaker and a storyteller, and in 'Noah', he has told a compelling story. It is a creative interpretation of the scriptural account that allows us to imagine the deep struggles Noah may have wrestled with as he answered God's call on his life." -- Jim Daly, President, Focus on the Family

"'Noah' is big and bold and entertaining, and without a doubt pro-faith and pro-God." -- Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, President, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference

"While 'Noah' makes no claims to be an inerrant retelling of the Scripture, it is a great tool to draw genuine intrigue in what the Bible does say. The film draws forward the themes of obedience and its consequences, sin and judgment, and mercy and justice, all in the context of the early interaction between God and man." -- Andrew Palau, Luis Palau Association

"'Noah' tells a wonderful story and still points us to major truths of God: the consequences of sin, a fallen mankind, divine justice and divine mercy. God will definitely use this film in our culture and it's our choice as Christians to decide if we want to join in the conversation or not." -- Karen Covell, Founding Direction, Hollywood Prayer Network

"'Noah' is nothing short of astonishing. I am confident that it will be remembered as a film that helped re-enchant a new generation with the biblical narrative. Honestly, it is path-breaking." -- Greg Thornbury, President, The King's College

Among those who will not be watching 'Noah', however, are Pope Francis and Glenn Beck. In a recent video Beck called the film "dangerous disinformation", saying that, if allowed to watch it, children will believe the film's Noah story over the Bible's.

History Channel's Promotion of Fundamentalist Christian Stereotypes in the Mini-Series "The Bible"

Black Samson and White Women on the History Channel
http://www.urbanfaith.com/2013/03/black-samson-and-white-women-on-the-history-channel.html/

By Rev. Wil Gafney, Ph.D
March 14, 2013
Comments

In portraying the biblical story of Samson, the History Channel offers viewers a modern day Mandingo fairy tale that reinforces racial stereotypes.

 

The History Channel’s miniseries on the Bible is a ratings blockbuster. The Bible is an incredibly important text in the history and culture of the United States, Western world and has its roots in the Eastern world. One would think that a media outlet which entitles itself the “History Channel” would be concerned about those roots. One might even think that the History Channel would endeavor to expose and explore those roots. But last night on episode two, the ill-named History Channel offered us a modern day Mandingo fairy tale.

 

The choice to cast Nonso Anozie (a black man in a bad dreadlock wig) as Samson as is in no way an attempt to demonstrate the visual and ethnic diversity of the ancient Near East in which this story is set, specifically the West Asian, East and North African context of the scriptures. The absence of characters of African descent up to this point makes that clear. (Just as the use of Black and Asian actors for angels makes them wholly “other” in the cast and not legitimate human bodies.)

 

Nonso Anozie portrays Samson
in the History Channel miniseries,
The Bible

That Samson is a big black man with brutish strength and a predilection for white women is no accident in this casting or production. One of the hallmarks of Rona Downey’s and Mark Burnett’s vision of the Bible is the erasure of Afro-Asiatic Israelite ethnic identity and its replacement with a white, American fundamentalist Christian identity. They do this in several ways.

 

1) Casting: they cast an abundance of white American and European actors and occasionally paint some dirt on their faces to make them look a little brown. Consider the creation of humanity, told in a flashback. Humanity was created from the humus, an earthling from the earth, in Hebrew an adam from the adamah. Instead of the rich brown-red soil native to Israel, Palestine, and the Great Rift Valley which descends from the Holy Land down into Kenya and Tanzania, the producers use sandy white soil from which springs a sandy white man. However, Satan is played by a Middle Eastern man, Mohamen Mehdi Ouazanni. While widely advertising a “Hispanic” Jesus, the producers actually cast a Portugese actor, Diogo Morgado, with white skin as Jesus. His skin has to be white since Roma Downey (of Touched By An Angel fame, part of the powerhouse team along with Mark Burnett behind this anachronistic whitewash of the bible) cast herself as the Blessed Virgin Mary – shades of Mel Gibson casting a white Jesus so he could insert his own feet into certain shots.

 

2) The second way the production replaces authentic Israelite identity with a white American fundamentalist and evangelical construction is in the use of quintessentially American race motifs like that of the big black buck or Mandingo, the brutishly strong, bestial black man and his preferential taste for white women. By transforming all of the Afro-Asiatic Israelites into white people, “simply” casting an Afro-British actor as Samson stages a lynching propaganda piece that the Klan would be proud of under the cover of the bible and “diversity.”

 

3) The third re-writing strategy of the team involves gender. The Bible is an androcentric and patriarchal text. It is also a text that has many women’s narratives, including those of strong women wielding power and authority in spite of their patriarchal and androcentric context. There is no room in the Burnett-Downey recreation of the Bible in their own image – right down to their own skin tones – for strong biblical women so they simply exclude them. A partial list of the women who have been cut from the narrative include: Yocheved, Moses’ mother and the Hebrew midwives Shiphrah and Puah, Zipporah, Moses’ wife and her sisters so that Moses is not the product of a strong community of women all of whom save his life in different episodes, but a lone ranger, a man who became a hero on his own. Hoglah, Milcah, Maacah, Noah and Tirtzah, the daughters of Zelophehad who are mentioned in more biblical books than there are Gospels, for whom God changed inheritance laws in the Torah that women might receive an inheritance – not worthy of attention. The great woman-warrior, Prophet and Judge (sharing those titles with Moses and Samuel and no one else, not even Joshua) Deborah, who ruled the nation – excised. Hannah, the theological revolutionary who taught the priesthood how to pray – unnecessary.

 

There is a final whitewashing, silencing strategy employed by the producers. That is sanitizing genocide, slavery – when the Israelites are the slavers, sexual violence, and heterodox theologies. The Bible is a wonderfully rich, complicated, challenging, illuminating, revelatory text. It is also horrifically violent and does not say what we want the way we want it to. We must take it in its entirety seriously as a cultural and historical artifact and as scripture – if that is our confession. But this series erases the texts in which Joshua and the Israelites slaughter babies, kill their mothers, fathers and brothers and take their sisters as war-brides as long as they haven’t had sex – prepubescent girl-children – on the orders of Moses and God. They ignore the texts in which God calls for the enslavement of non-Israelites and their children in perpetuity – the scriptural and theological basis for the Atlantic slave-trade and American slavocracy. They ignore the texts in which entire ethnic groups are exterminated by divine command. And they even ignore the horrific sexual violence perpetrated against women and girls within Israel: Lot’s offer of his daughters to be raped by a mob, Israelite fathers selling their daughters into sexual slavery with the permission of God and Moses, a Judge of Israel sacrificing his daughter like an animal and celebrated as a hero of faith in the New Testament, abduction, rape, forced pregnancy used repeatedly as tools of war. Bathsheba’s abduction and rape recast as consensual adultery.

 

In the American context when rape is being redefined while male bible-thumping legislatures require physicians to forcibly insert instruments into women’s vaginas one day and deny them access to legal medical procedures the next, it matters that and how the Bible is being distorted in primetime. Whereas evangelical leaders like Jim Wallis watched with “great delight,” I watched with horror.

 

In the American context the Israelite identity has been claimed by Christians and particularly by Western, European Christians who were also constructing the categories of white into which they placed themselves and the Afro-Asiatic Israelites. And, the United States was viewed, claimed and seized as a new Canaan for the new Israelites to conquer and subdue, hosting the reincarnation and reenactment of biblical slavery painted in black and white. This is why the whitewash of the bible on the History Channel is so pernicious. It is a continuation of slave-holding racist exegesis. And they ought to be ashamed.

 

 

About the author, Rev. Wil Gafney, Ph.D.

 

Wil Gafney, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament at The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, and is an Episcopal Priest canonically resident in the Diocese of Pennsylvania. She is also a member of the Dorshei Derekh Reconstructionist Minyan of the Germantown Jewish Center in Philadelphia, PA. She has co-taught courses with and for the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Seminary in Wyncote, PA. For more information, visit WilGafney.com or follow her on Twitter: @wilgafney.