President Bartlet of West Wing Knows His Bible!
Thanks, Daneen, for pointing us to this clip. Believe it or not…I just saw the post you put up on April 27 on the forum!
10 Responses to “President Bartlet of West Wing Knows His Bible!”
Leave a Reply
-
Pages
-
Recent Posts
-
Recent Comments
Archives
May 15th, 2007 at 9:22 am
This clip is actually also in the For the Bible Tells Me So documentary that prompted the essay I wrote on Biblical literalism that got so much discussion going a few months ago. I also wonder which came first–this episode or that “Why Can’t I Own a Canadian” open letter to Dr. Laura (who is also an English Ph.d). I have a feeling in real life Dr. Laura wouldn’t be so easily tamed, but it is a great clip to drive home the point that we have always cherry-picked what parts of the Bible we apply literally and what we consider relics of an ancient civilization.
May 16th, 2007 at 9:51 am
To me this show sets up a straw man (for Christians at least) by dealing with only the Old Testament texts. Let’s work it the other way. Look up 1 Timothy 1:8-11. Now would this president if I perjured myself? (Well he is a Bill Clinton analogue.) What about killing my father and mother?
It may not be popular, but homosexuality as a sin runs throughout the moral teaching of the New Testament.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Hi David–there’s a very long conversation about this very topic here:
http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/02/05/for-the-bible-tells-me-so-biblical-literalism-and-homosexuality/
Many folks weigh in about the NT texts and several interesting points are discussed. It generated a lot of discussion, but if you’re interested, it’s fascinating reading.
May 31st, 2007 at 7:41 pm
And not only does “President” Bartlett know his bible, Martin Sheen does as well. As a long time personal friend of his I have had many discussions about spiritual matters with him including one on the set of The West Wing. Some years ago he spoke to the students of Union College from the pulpit of the College View SDA church. I arranged for the visit by him as a return favor for some legal work I had performed for one of his friends who had been arrested for a protest at SAC headquarters in Omaha. He talked to the students about how his religous beliefs influence him in the roles he choses to play.
I don’t think I have ever met anybody whose spiritual life more affects his everyday life and work than Martin. He continues to be a positive inluence in my spiritual life even though he is Catholic and I am an SDA.
June 2nd, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Martin, of course, does not know his Bible. Otherwise, he might be a little less anxious to make fun of God’s word.
Perhaps he would allow me to cross-examine him on his education. His education, ahem, is a little short of impressive. A high school graduate, he flunked the entrance examine for the University of Dayton. Perhaps we can agree that if you cannot get into a school named for a small town in Ohio, you are unlikely to be among the intellectual elite. Guess that is enough of an ad hominen response to that same type of attack which the show makes on the Bible-believing Ph.D.
Let’s go through his charges and see whether any of them justify ignoring God’s consistent rebuke of homosexual practice.
The comment about “selling his daughter into slavery†is to Exodus 21:7-11. The answer to Martin’s question, would be “no,†it would not be considered appropriate to sell his youngest daughter into slavery because it was very poor families which would sell their daughters into slavery. The Bible does not prohibit slavery, but rather creates regulations to make it humane. In this particular chapter of Exodus, God limits the term of slavery to 6 years – something akin to an agreement for an indentured servant. The specific reference to selling the daughter is an agreement for a type of marital relationship. Looking at the specifics of the text, the daughter would become the concubine of the purchaser or the wife of the purchaser’s son. In either case, she was to be well-provided for and not resold as a slave. The end economic result would be that she would live better than if she continued as the daughter of a very poor family.
What, precisely, is the logic of Martin’s point: that God was too permissive when it came to slavery and too strict when it came to homosexuality? Is Martin looking for a little adjustment in the rules? Or, is his point that God’s rules are not to be trusted? If it is the latter, that particular challenge is not original, having first been voiced in Genesis 3:1-5. The result then, as now, is particularly dire.
Stoning his chief of staff for working on Sabbath, Martin says, is justified by reference to Leviticus 35:2. Of course, Martin has the text wrong: it is Exodus 35:2. God’s law is important. Jesus died for it so we would not have to die eternally because we transgress it. However, the Sabbath-breaker’s fate will the same as everyone else who treats God’s law as Martin does – they will die.
Of course, what does this have to do with homosexuality? The answer is “nothing.†Whether the sin is Sabbath-breaking, homosexuality, or my favorite sin, the penalty is all the same: death. The problem is that Martin doesn’t like the penalty for any of these sins. Making fun of God’s word is not the correct response – as the numerous non-swimmers discovered when they did not take Noah’s word seriously.
Should the Redskins wear gloves? Apparently Martin is not watching closely enough: many of them do – especially the receivers.
Martin’s reference to two kinds of seeds being planted together and two kinds of threads being woven together is a reference to (among other similar texts) Leviticus 19:19. This text likely refers to pagan magical practices with seeds and pagan weaving designs in the priest’s clothing. God wanted His people to stand apart from pagan practices.
Which, of course, brings us back to Martin. Pagans may make fun of God’s laws. The fact that they disagree with them hardly invalidates them. Whether the topic is homosexuality or Sabbath-breaking, the wise person accepts God’s law and determines to follow it. The rest are, well, non-swimmers and the flammable.
Bruce N. Cameron, J.D.
June 3rd, 2007 at 6:34 am
We Christians have not yet come up with a satisfactory exposition of the Torah in light of Matthew 5:18, 19. It should be obvious that selling my daughter to be a concubine is no longer a moral way to better both of our economic positions. We need to begin a serious investigation into the principled application of these laws to our time in light of the New Testament revelation, aided by the Holy Spirit. I would include the gifts of the Spirit, including prophecy, in that category of aid.
June 3rd, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Bruce:
I’m afraid you’ll probably think I’m one of the “flammable” ones or a “non-swimmer,†but I feel a need to respond to the tone of your post. I’m afraid the tendency for those of us who have had a lot of education is to assume that those who didn’t succeed in school or didn’t find it fulfilling must be terribly deficient. I’ll admit to having those knee-jerk reactions myself. Martin Sheen’s lack of a college degree hardly makes him an idiot or a pagan (which your later overtones seemed to allude to; he’s actually a Christian).
I also think the more you are comfortable with a faith, a creed, or a religious community, the more leeway you feel to criticize and cajole—but you do it not our of a lack of respect or out of ignorance, but because you care about it, care about it profoundly. That’s why I find myself here on websites like this one.
Naturally I can’t speak for Martin Sheen or the West Wing writers, but I would posit that their thesis is simply that the Bible’s prescriptives might need to be examined in light of culture (as you are also trying to do with your explanation of the seeds/fabric prohibition). Is it possible that God’s word is both spirit and letter of the law; does one sometimes have to break one to keep the other? These are tricky questions which lead to the slippery slope question, but just because they are tricky doesn’t mean we should avoid them.
June 8th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Daneen complains about my imperious tone because she missed a vital connection. The Sheen video clip attacks the Christian based on her “lack†of education – the Christian’s Ph.D. was not in an “appropriate†field. My point is that if lack of education is a weapon to be used in the controversy, let’s see how Sheen fares when the weapon is pointed at him. The answer? Not well!
Just so my attitude is more clear: God died for pagans – the non-swimmers and the flammable. How I respond to pagans depends on the situation. Pagan advocates get a sharp stick in the eye. Sheen and his West Wing writers are pagan advocates. They start with the old chestnut that Christians are ignorant, uneducated people who do not know what they are talking about. (Why else would they serve God?) Due to my parents - their genes and their money allowed me to secure a doctorate from one of the best universities in the country - I am able to say to these pagans “Let’s compare and see who is ignorant and uneducated.†I don’t think that arises from my comfort in my religious community, it arises from simple logic. I let the pagans choose the weapon and then see how well they do with the weapon they have chosen.
Unlike Daneen, I do not think West Wing was looking for a nuanced discussion of God’s will. The goal was simple: to make fun of those who take God’s word seriously. Jesus had a term for those whose professional efforts are intended to mislead the faithful: vipers.
Lest the reader be horrified by my “tone,†this particular chord is reserved for “public figure†pagan advocates. It is not appropriate for those struggling in the controversy between good and evil.
P.S. The fact that Sheen adopted a stage name for a Catholic prelate does not mean his is a Christian any more than the fact my wife named our dog for a university made our dog a genius.
June 9th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
I don’t know anything about Sheen the person beyond what was expressed here, so I’ll pass that one. For all I know, he - as POTUS - may be expressing a sentiment that he disagrees with vehemently. I’m sure there are differences between him and his character (even if he were playing himself there would be).
Anyhow, in this clip, I do think there’s a problem with Sheen taking issue with the woman’s training being in English. Those with training in other areas than Theology should be able to make public statements of conviction. And if one’s training was indeed in English, that person would be particularly capable (as Daneen is =) ) of reading Scripture analytically.
But I don’t think Sheen’s character is making fun of the Bible. What he’s putting down is the way certain people read the Bible. True, the way he does it is quite simplistic and understandably Hollywood-esque. I do agree that had Dr. Laura been there, she would’ve had some sharp comebacks - especially if it was Bill Clinton putting her down. But Sheen’s character does make some valid points about how we read Scripture - particularly certain OT passages - and transfer them over time.
For someone like me, I have no problem with the Bible being God’s word and containing some blatant racist, misogynistic, ignorant concepts that must not be followed today. I have no need to find some way to explain or excuse problematic passages in either OT or NT. That, to me, is a violation of the text baed on modern sensibilities. I also think it’s a violation of the spirit of the text to apply the particulars directly without making some significant cultural adjustments. Adjustments to ancient teachings were made throughout the OT era and in the OT to NT shift and within the NT era. These adjustments were part of being a living, thinking, worshiping people of God. The same is expected of us 2000 years after the NT. And … we’ll disagree and fight over what’s right and godly (and sometimes ridicule one another like Sheen’s character does). But God won’t necessarily be on one side - or God may be on all sides in spite of ourselves.
June 9th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Oh, one additional note about English scholars. Brian McLaren, the widely acknowledged guru of the Emergent movement, has never had any formal theological training. He was an English professor until he began “dabbling” in theology =)