On Sunday, April 10, the National Geographic Channel will air the second episode of its six-part series on “The Story of God” with Morgan Freeman. Should you tune in?
Kate O’Hare poses that question at Family Theater Productions’ Faith and Family Media Blog, then answers with a cautious “Yes, but….” Catholic parents, she warns, should watch with their children so that they can clear up any confusion. But then Kate spotlights what I found to be most unsettling about the episodes I’ve previewed: their calm acceptance of all beliefs equally. The series goes to great effort, Kate writes,
“…to give all the faiths discussed (and that includes some ancient pagan ones) equal time and equal weight. While we do respect people of other faiths, we don’t consider their belief systems to be the equal of Christianity, so that may take some explaining.”
Morgan Freeman, as host and executive producer of the series, takes the show’s relativism in stride. He learns that the Hindu faith has millions of gods, each of which plays a different role in the life of the believer, and that the Ganges River once flowed in heaven but was released, according to legend, when Lord Vishnu pierced a hole in the firmament with his lotus feet. Freeman is happy with that explanation, which is deeply troubling to me. “I like the way believers here find a god that best suits their own beliefs,” he says. “Like a spiritual fingerprint, unique to each person.”
Freeman was raised in the Christian faith, worshiping at an African-American church in Greenwood, Mississippi. But he senses a unity among the world’s religions which sometimes evades reason. I wonder, as he smilingly participates in a flower festival in Asia and then a Jewish prayer in the Holy Land, whether he’s at all troubled by cognitive dissonance, recognizing that all of these diverse and disparate truth-claims cannot, in fact, be true. Speaking again of Hinduism, he says, “It is unlike the monotheism of the West; but maybe that’s only on the surface.”
But perhaps the most jaw-dropping proposal in the three episodes I screened came during Freeman’s quest for the origins of monotheism. “Where did the idea of worshiping one god really take root?” he asks. “Perhaps it started here…” And the camera flies over a hill, across a field of green, and comes to rest on…. Stonehenge? The Christian faith had its roots in STONEHENGE?? I don’t think so!
In the fairly short sequence filmed in Vatican City, Morgan Freeman explored the origins of the universe with Msgr. Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Science, and with Vatican astronomer Fr. Giuseppe Koch. The credentials of the Vatican’s high-ranking scientists notwithstanding, it seemed to me that the very cerebral Roman Catholic portion of the series might have benefited from the inclusion of an enthusiastic young nun or a convert rejoicing at his newfound faith.
Freeman concluded, after his conversations with Vatican scientists, that the Catholic Church “no longer believes” that the Genesis account is to be taken literally. In fact, Freeman says, the first scientist to propose the Big Bang Theory was Fr. Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian Catholic priest and a member of the Pontifical Academy of Science. But “The Story of God” failed to acknowledge that Scripture contains both literal and symbolic elements, and that not all of the books have ever been taken literally.
And from a Catholic perspective, I was disappointed that the insights of the Vatican scholars and truth-tellers were not given greater prominence than, say, the ponderings of aboriginal peoples and Mayan legends about the underworld.
There is much to love about “The Story of God.” National Geographic really knows how to tell a story. Its striking visuals, its dramatic camera angles, its big-budget travel through 22 countries to explore different cultures and religions: all of these factors contribute to the sheer weightiness of the project.
And there’s much to learn. I’d never heard of the Navajo deity Changing Woman who, young Navajo girls believe, accompanies them on their entry into womanhood. I heard for the first time the Islamic view that creation began with a massive cloud of smoke.
“The Story of God” offers stark beauty and breathtaking filmography, Sunday evening eye-candy. Morgan Freeman is a gracious and affable host. You won’t agree with everything you hear; but you’ll enjoy the view and you’ll broaden your perspective. I give it a cautious “thumbs up.”
“The Story of God” airs Sunday evenings at 9:00 p.m Eastern Time (8:00 p.m. Central) on the National Geographic Channel.
You say that not all books of the Bible have ever been taken literally. Which books do you speak of and by whom are/were they not taken literally? Obviously, there is a lot of symbolism in Scripture. In the chronology of the Bible, when does it start becoming historical?
Well, the Book of Judith for one, which to make a point about how bad things were in the story, says that the Israelites were fighting Nebuchadnezzar king of the Assyrians, so it is read as an extended parable in a form of historical fiction.
All of the Fathers, including St. Jerome who excluded this book from Canon, have at least accepted the person of the valiant woman in the Book of Judith as historical. She has always been referred to by the Fathers as a TYPE- person, place, or action that actually existed but is meant to prefigure a future person, place, or action- of Our Lady. Any geographical errors or the screwing up of names can be attributed to the translation of the original text or by copyists.
I’m guessing the writer of this article is a convert to the Catholic Church probably from protestantism. I’ve read in the past other articles by her in praise of evangelicals and such. I notice this with a lot of converts. It’s like even though they know (hopefully) they are in the One True Church they still look on their protestant past with some kind of nostalgia and maybe a little longing. That’s the only reason I can think of why a Catholic would give kudos to stuff like this.
If one compares the approach and treatment of Christianity to that of the next segment on Hinduism and reincarnation - there appears too a disparity. Both in the approach and even who he interviews. He discusses Hinduism and reincarnation with Christianity with a Hindu guru? or the like …but for Christianity his main interlocutor is not say a Bishop who produced a whole series that was even shown on PBS (Priest then -but Bishop Barron now) but an archaeologist. The Resurrection of Christ and at the end of the world of Christians — should have been given the treatment of a Bishop Robert Barron.
But why give it kudos? It sounds rather superficial at best and completely relativist at worst.