On NBC's Kings, Rev. Samuels is a false prophet

I've gotten rather addicted to Kings, the NBC series about a nation remarkably like the modern United States, but ruled by an absolute monarch.

The series is actually a modern-day retelling (more or less) of the Old Testament story of King Saul (called "King Silas" in the series) and David ("David Shepherd"). David- who saved the life of the king's son, "Jack" (read "Jonathan") by slaying a tank called the Goliath with a bazooka- is now very popular and famous, too much so for Silas and Queen Rose (the royal family, btw is the House of Benjamin- the tribe from which Saul came). He commands much more of a price than does the king himself for the privilege of sitting next to him at a charity event; as Silas's queen observed Sunday, "Silas has raised his tens of thousands, and David his hundreds of thousands."

David is in love with the king's daughter, Michelle (read "Michal"). King Silas has made a number of unrighteous decisions, and his spiritual adviser, Rev. Samuels (get it?) has told him that God has rejected him as a result. A miraculous sign reveals to the king that God has chosen David in his place:

Sunday King Silas's illegitimate son- the child of his mistress and true love- lay at death's door. His infrequent moments with them are the only true happiness Silas knows. Desperate to save the boy's life, Silas arranged a meeting with Rev. Samuels to attempt to make peace with God. I am still angry about that sequence, which goes beyond bad theology: Samuels blasphemously tells the king,"We make amends, Silas; the pure, the unblemished for our sins." As it happens, the one "pure, unblemished" thing in Silas's life is his love (presumably not his lust, though in today's popular culture you can never tell) for his mistress, and his devotion to their child. Now, Samuels does not simply tell Silas to stop committing adultery. In fact, he doesn't tell Silas to do anything in particular, other than to atone for his sin by giving something up that he loves- something "pure (and) unblemished." He says that "only you can name the sacrifice." Silas gives up his mistress and abandons his son. Saving the boy's life seems to be part of his motivation- perhaps most of it, in fact. But saving his crown is also a factor. I doubt that God would approve of a father abandoning his child- even if he sees that he is well cared for- regardless of the propriety of breaking off an adulterous affair even with his one true love. It remains to be seen how the god of Kings reacts to Silas's "sacrifice." But the entire idea that we have to atone for our sins by afflicting ourselves- the graver the sin, the more painful the necessary affliction- is utterly pagan. Even in the Old Testament, specific sacrifices- and yes, they had to be flawless and unblemished, as befits the Recipient- were prescribed for specific sins; the sinner didn't get to name the price, William Shatner style. But the most offensive thing about Sunday's episode is that the idea of self-redemption through self-torture is utterly alien to Scripture. In fact, Christians believe that the true significance of even those Old Testament sacrifices was to point forward to the only sacrifice that truly avails for sin, God's own sacrifice of His Son on behalf of the very sinners who daily offend Him. Yet it is apparently the nature of the god of Kings to delight, not in broken and contrite hearts, but in sacrifices and (metaphorical) burnt offerings. Such is most emphatically not the nature of the God of the Bible. In fact, the appearance of this episode just before Holy Week seems especially ironic. We live in an age in which the popular culture seems to have turned decisively against the Faith, perhaps having time for New Age nonsense or other world religions (notably Islam), but not for either Christianity or Judaism. Last night I was re-reading Michael Medved's Hollywood Versus America, written at a time when the outrageous bias of the media against traditional religion seemed reversible. I fear that now it's too late. I was actually encouraged- briefly- by the decision of NBC to make a major new series out of a story from the Bible. Now, that encouragement has yielded to frustration, and the fear that the biblical and theological cluelessness of our cultural elites has made even Holy Scripture itself a template for the telling of tales which simply cannot be relied upon to reflect the convictions of the original. As I said, we'll see in coming weeks how the god of Kings takes Silas's gesture, one which would be blasphemous if offered to the real God. One thing, though, is certain: the Rev. Samuels deserves to be stoned as a false prophet.

At least I found this episode useful as a foil for last night's sermon.