|
The Post Chronicle™ Commentary I'm not sure if I'm all that against The Book of Daniel. Not the one in the Bible. The one that NBC has coming up as a real-life real-time grabber for the nasty viewer. After all, it's got an Episcopal priest as central figure. Why not? In years past, I would have had a fit if an Episcopal priest were depicted as a pill addict who's got a frazzle of a family in his rectory. But today with the Episcopal Church in such an immoral frazzle, perchance this priest fits in with the contemporary profile. Surely not all Episcopal priests are apostate today. On the other hand, most of those who are not apostate have moved out of the Episcopal Church as a denomination for a biblical pastorate—that is, if they can find a parish with rectory, health benefits and livable salary. Yet those who have stayed inside the devilment of the denomination, except for the martyrs who are trying to remake in the biblical image the war-torn church, perhaps The Book of Daniel sitcom clergyman is right on. As for his family, perhaps that too is quite realistic, come to think of it. Many parsonage families and rectory families are hung by their ankles today. In years past one could usually find them gathered together for Bible devotions around the evening table. And then on the Lord's Day, they'd be together in the sanctuary supporting the work of the Lord and the ministry of father - husband.
But I know today that some of the clergy wives have left house and town. They have had it with the pastorate, informing the husband that God might have called the husband into the ministry but there was never any sign that she was called into the pastorate. So with parishioners driving her nuts via ad infinitum phone rings, impromptu calls at the front door, and endless meetings she was expected to attend, she's said "Hang it all." Exit. In the sitcom, Daniel Webster's wife does stay home but has an alcohol problem. So what's new in the Episcopal Church—laity and clergy? After all, their child died having suffered with leukemia. And so that left quite a faith dent in the woman's soul. Therefore, what gives when a mother can't find her child again and the rest of the household is hell-bent? As for the 16-year-old daughter arrested for dealing in drugs, pocketing that money to support her comic strip career, that too could be quite believable. There are lots of Episcopal clergy's children who have written off dad's apostasy and the congregation as well. They don't know what to believe any more. If the father Episcopal priest believes that practicing homosexual lifestyles are divinely blessed, where should the moral line be drawn? And so if the daughter wants to deal in drugs in order to make a vocation for herself with her artistic talent, why not? Is not life spun on situation ethics? Isn't that what father Episcopal priest preaches in his homily? So if that's the case, daughter has a situation and from that she draws her own ethics. Then there is the 16-year-old adopted son. So he's having sex with the bishop's daughter. What's so wrong about that when father Episcopal priest says it's okay for a man to lie with a man, a woman to bed down with a woman? Is not sex a God-given gift and is not the mortal the one who defines how that gift is to be used? Sure, in the olden days homosexuality actively lived out was considered an abomination to the Lord. At least that's what the Bible says it is. But now that father Episcopal priest says God smiles upon the recreational sex of the same genders, what in the name of heaven is sinful about doing it with the bishop's daughter? Is not relativity finally where it's at? According to the man behind the pulpit that's the way to gauge one's morals. And he's supposed to be the head of the family and spiritual head of the church. Further, the priest's brother-in-law has left town with his secretary. But lots of lonely people have done that. So what if the brother-in-law stole $3 million from the church funds. I've read of a lot of priests of various church segments who have done far worse than that with their secrets. But when it comes to the part Jesus plays in the sitcom, that's where I want to get rid of my dinner. That just won't play for me. When Jesus is acted out as God, then that's okay. But when he's merely a nice guy next door, off with the flick. Done. Out. Finished. I don't think Jesus will like the telecast of The Book of Daniel because of how they've cast Him. And whatever disturbs Jesus at that point disturbs me. Therefore, without further explanation, I'll leave it at that. In other words, sacrilege is not a right thing for a real Christian. So for that, I won't watch The Book of Daniel. It's simply not worthy of my ethic. Copyright © 2005 by J. Grant Swank, Jr.
Top of Page PostChronicle.com is best viewed with an 800x600 screen resolution |
