The Book of Daniel

As I write this, I’m planning to watch “The Book of Daniel” on NBC tonight. It got a rotten review in the Washington Post this morning, and if it’s really that bad, I might not watch the entire program, but I plan to start watching. I also plan to offer my take on it as a guy whose doctoral study included a strong dose of popular culture. And if I had any doubts about watching it, they dissipated as the outcry against it from religious groups has risen.

A few years ago—maybe more than a few—there was a series of movies in which God took the form of an elderly man. The first one, in which the Creator spoke to John Denver, was such a success that there were two sequels. If George Burns, who played God and was nearly as old as God, were alive and well today, that series could still be turning out sequels. I don’t remember such an uproar over a great comedian portraying God.

A few years after that, there was a charming TV series. God didn’t appear, but His angels did. One of them was pretty hot. They talked a lot about God, but nobody got all that upset. The series ran for years. Hollywood stars hoped (or maybe prayed) to get a guest spot on an episode.

A few years after that, there was another charming TV series. This time, God spoke to a teenaged girl, taking the form of a dogwalker, a punk, a little girl, an old lady, and others. Again, no outcry from the religious groups. I’m not sure why the series didn’t last longer than it did. It was well executed, and the problem may have been scheduling.

So now we have “The Book of Daniel,” and religious groups are upset because Jesus shows up. I grew up in the Protestant Trinitarian tradition, and I was taught that Jesus was God in a form comprehensible to humanity—God the Son. From what I can see in the publicity for the show, it offers a pleasant western European looking Jesus who looks a lot like the one in the paintings in thousands of Protestant churches. And He shows up, as I get it, at key moments to offer guidance to Daniel. Isn’t that what some of the evangelicals claim—direct guidance from God? You can say that the physical portrayal is simply a dramatic convenience—a way of representing what cannot be seen. What’s the fuss? More later.

But in keeping with my skepticism about evangelicals, it occurred to me today that something is really strange about liberal folks like me and our relationship with religion. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson—particularly Pat Robertson—are Protestants. Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker were Protestants. Jimmy Swaggert was a Protestant. To me, at least, these people are far more objectionable than Pope Benedict.