Banned from the Bible, really?

I just got done watching a couple of programs on the History Channel. Before I get to my blog post, I want you to know that I'm a big history buff. I really love just about anything historical: WWI, WWII, Civil War, Pilgrims, presidents, technologies, scientists. But really I love reading about earlier Christian history between 100 and 300 AD (not CE). I just love it! Yes, I know that probably sounds a little strange. So I know things that a lot of things that most people just don't know about the early church. Like, did you know that during Constantine's time it was common to be baptized on your death bed because they were afraid of loosing their salvation for sinning after baptism? Or that the books for the NT were pretty well decided by ca 180 AD? Or that until 1945, the only thing we know about Gnosticism came from the apologetic writings of a guy by the name of Irenaeus, who would explain what the Gnostics believed and then refute their beliefs from the OT and accepted NT books, roughly 22 of the 27? Fun little facts like those.

So imagine my surprise when I turn on the History Channel, one of my favorite channels – go figure – and see a presentation of “Banned from the Bible”. Without reading anything about the program, I already knew what it would contain,. As expected, there was one of the main staples, John Domenic Crosslan of the Jesus Seminar and several people with similar beliefs, pointing out all of the teachings and writings that were banned from the Bible by the evil early church fathers.

You do know about the Jesus Seminar, don't you? Those are those “enlightened” theological liberals that get together to vote with their colored marbles on what verses they believe actually occurred. If you didn't know, according to their superior knowledge the nothing in the book of John actually occurred. Its been voted out. It would seem that in their “search for the historical Jesus” they got caught up in the journey and forgot to actually look for Him.

So, the history buff in me is now interested in seeing just how fair they would be. Surprise, surprise! Yet another one sided presentation ripping Christianity as anti-woman, filled with stuffy, self-promoting, orthodox dictators bent of shaping, or should I say reshaping Christianity into their own vision of what it should be. These church leaders seem to have abandoning Jesus' original teachings for what they consider to be a better way. This from a guy that uses colored marbles to tell me what Jesus actually said and didn't say.

I watched a hour and a half of this garbage and got bored of the same old diatribe. It did cause me to get a little inspired and what follows is a email comment I submitted to the History Channel:

Banned from the Bible - Was wondering where the balance was. You left me with the impression that the Bible is missing books by focusing on the likes of John Domenic Crosslan. Where were the conservative scholars that told us these stories were ridiculous speculations? I'm OK with people that disagree, and even question the Bible, I'm just not OK with the lack of balance and the insinuations the programs made by only reporting 1/2 of the story. It doesn't matter that you showed Jesus of Nazareth, what matters is historical integrity and accuracy, and presenting both sides of an issue. Why not point out some of the outright anti-woman aspects of the Gospel of Thomas, instead you just blamed earlier Christian leaders as anti-woman? Why blame Athenaius for the Canon of Scripture, as if he had some evil agenda in doing so, when it was pretty well decided 50-75 yrs earlier? Yes, there were questions about a couple of books, but you purposely confused the books that were written between 50-70 AD with those that were written in ca 150-250 AD. And why is it only the Christian Bible and earlier Christian leaders that you focus on as "corrupt, self motivated egotists bent on shaping the Bible into their own idea of what is orthodox and what isn't"? Where was your interview with real NT scholars, not these pretenders who focus on un-orthodox so-called missing gospel books of the Bible. Why not report about Irenaeus who refuted many of these Gnostic texts in the 3rd century AD (Against Heresies)?

I was also wondering when I will be able to see a special on Mohammad and the Koran, specifically the “satanic verses”? How about a documentary challenging Islam as a so-called religion of peace? That would be quite easy to do, both today and throughout its entire history. What I'll get is a puff piece on how great Islam is, and 10 more “how evil earlier Christian church leaders were.” Again, I'm not against two sides debating issues, but I would really like to see the other side of the story presented for once.

I am a big History Channel fan, but your lack of historical integrity and accuracy, and your unwillingness to present both sides of an issue whenever you present documentaries on Christianity makes me wonder just how much of what you produce is historical in the other areas you present. To put it bluntly, you do present truthful and accurate history, don't you? Or have you degenerated into producing wild speculations as truthful and accurate representations of historical events, like the Discovery Channel recently did? And on Easter, for heavens sake!

I know its popular to “bash” Christianity because we don't kill 150 people world wide because of cartoons about Jesus, and I know its popular to focus on the scandalous leaders in the church, painting all Christians as just like those people, but for once, it sure would be nice to see you present something that is actually historical concerning Christianity, and didn't always focus on the bad things or the controversial (where you only show one side). John Domenic Crosslan speak of a very tiny minority of people, but you focus on him like he's a major spokesman of the universal Christian church. And the really sad part is that you already know that.

If this, and the many other programs that you've produced over the last several years are examples of your scholarship in producing historical material for a TV channel that purports to be historical, I'll have to reconsider my limited viewing time because it causes me to question your ability to be historically accurate in all that you do. My only other alternative is to believe that you have some hidden agenda to misrepresent the Christian faith. I don't really believe that, but I'm still left wondering what your agenda is for misrepresenting the opposing side of your presentations concerning Christianity. Or, are all of your programs misrepresenting the truth? Yes, I really do want to know the answer to that question.

I know that it won't do any good, and I know that they will all privately laugh at me, send me a cute little form email thanking me for my interest in the program and telling me that differing people have differing opinion and how great that is, and that I should be open minded, and thanking me for my suggestions, blah, blah, blah. But that will be that. And that's assuming I even get a response.