Okay, I can hear the cards and letters (or posts) comin,’ because Idol Chatter is usually a generous and congenial part of the Beliefnet blog network, and we usually take a pretty open position in embracing our culture and the arts relative to our faith journeys.
But every once in a while, art doesn’t transcend truth as much as it distorts it, and that’s where I draw the line. Hence my opposition to the upcoming “Princess Diana Bible.”
Now, when you hear that term, what do you think of? A bible that the princess gathered scholars together to discern and produce, prior to her death, a la Kings James of 1611? Or perhaps a bible which features commentary focused on the needs of the poor and the oppressed, which she spent the latter years of her life focusing on? Or perhaps even a Bible written in the current Queen’s English?
Nope, the upcoming “Princess Diana Bible” will be a pro-gay translation bible from authors who claim “there is solid evidence that Adam and Eve were both women” and whose current movie has been banned by at least one movie theater chain.
The name of the group says it all: “Revision Studios” will be the publisher of the new book that will say that “gay is better than straight” according to a press release drawing attention to Director Max Mitchell, the writer and producer of “Horror in the Wind.” There will also be a new part mini-series: “The Gay Old Testament” and “The Gay New Testament.”
“There are many different versions of the Bible,” Mitchell is quoted as saying, “I don’t see why we can’t have one.”
There. That is the point at which art that opens a window to faith becomes art that’s destructive to faith. The whole idea of “The Holy Bible” is that “all scripture is inspired by God and profitable…” This book is inspired by a political agenda and one person’s desire to contort not only the text but the very context of it to suit his own perspective. That, you may say, is what commentators do–and perhaps even translators–but this guy is making himself an “author,” which makes it a book, not a Bible.
For his part, Mitchell “claims the gay Bible is divinely inspired,” according to his company’s press release. Further: “In Biblical times homosexual relationships were so commonplace that no one gave it a second thought. It was heterosexuality that was considered sinful.” This is the kind of stuff that can only come from a “Revision” studios, given the Bible’s teaching on marriage (see Paul’s words to the educated Ephesians.)
The problem here is that our culture is growing more and more confused about the difference between text and context, between story and standard, between art and history. If this work gains any momentum at all, perhaps one strong result will be that more of us take care to notice and detect the difference between art and neo-truth. One sheds light on life. The other creates a new story which–whether light or dark–certainly isn’t drawn from the original.
posted November 29, 2008 at 9:24 pm
I agree substantially with what you say. In addition, I wonder how the family and fans of Princess Diana will feel about this; are there any copyright issues here as far as the royal family goes? More importantly, how will committed followers of the various religions feel, who see the Bible as containing their sacred texts? From mere discomfort at distortion to blazing indignation at tampering with the essential meaning of sacred texts, the reactions may not be entirely helpful to the clarification and strengthening of gay civil rights in North America. I wonder if this revision away from historic texts and meanings is even “religious” in nature, meaning that devout religious people (who practice at least weekly the rites, services, and spirituality of this new religious vision) are the ones propeling and managing this “Princess Diana” enterprise? Or, are they persons who, being offended by their experience of religion, are propelled by the opportunity to reshape political and cultural agendas, much like biblical texts and beliefs shaped North American cultures in the past? I.e. is it transformational in its potential, with deep spiritual roots and commitment, or is it an external use of religious language to “revise” the beliefs of other people committed the the biblical texts, gay rights vs. the American right? If it is the latter, it stands a strong chance to be another curious footnote in the history of the Bible’s use. My observation is that the majority of people who support gay rights from within the historic religions take the historic texts seriously and respect them. They are not moved by the call to start another religion.
posted November 30, 2008 at 5:19 pm
I have to agree, it looks to me that it is actually a spoof. After all the joke would wear pretty thin after you have to plough through all the genealogies in the book of Numbers.
There may be a place for some new psalms of lamentation, they could even be quite meaningful for the couples that can’t marry, after the prop 8 result.
The bible just gets it in the neck far too much. All those self-help & computer books with Bible tacked on to them e.g. Powerpoint 2007 bible, The Garden design bible …
However some slightly less irreverent ideas spring to mind: the Barbara Striesand hymnbook, the Liza Minelli Book of hours.
posted December 1, 2008 at 8:20 pm
I think it’s a wonderful idea. Anything that exposes the homophobia of the bible should be applauded.
posted December 2, 2008 at 9:01 am
You’re getting all upset over something that, a month from now, will be consigned to the dustbin of history.
Surely there are more pressing issues to worry about than this? The sort of things Jesus talked about? Poverty? Divorce? Abandoned children in Nebraska? Certainly these are *slightly* higher on the priority list than worrying about some terribly lame PR stunt?
If your faith is so fragile that it’s threatened by something this silly… well, maybe you need to work on that a bit, eh?
posted December 2, 2008 at 3:01 pm
This article has been featured as Best Opinion at THEWEEK.com – Great post!
posted December 3, 2008 at 8:56 pm
I’ll have a ball reviewing Mitchell’s version of Genesis! Cain is fathered by the serpent and has 2 moms. Woo. This is too deep for words.
posted January 12, 2009 at 3:07 pm
i am totally disqusted at this abomination of the holy bible. i am a dedicated christian, saved by grace, and believe the word of god as written in the king james version of the bible. it plainly states in the bible that god made woman from a rib of man, adam, ond eve was the temptress. it doesnt say anything about adam and steve, but on the contrary, it mentions adam and eve. more people need to read their bibles.
posted February 26, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Sorry, My view lies somewhere between all the comments. I don’t think Princess Diana ever said “Homosexuality to OK” – she sympathsized with both the ignorance of people that chose to be hateful to homosexuals, as well as the diseases associated with AIDS. But she never voiced it was “Christian” or “OK”. Is it? I don’t have the answer and neither does anyone else. I think this is a topic left between those practicing homosexuality and their maker. It’s nor for politicians, public figures, hate groups, no one. Let’s just treat everyone equal, no matter what their sexual preference, and know that God loves everyone who asks for forgiveness. And let’s not put words in deceased people’s mouths.
posted August 17, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Is this for real? If so, who thought this would be a good idea? I can’t imagine this will do well, assuming it makes it to print.
posted December 26, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Princess Diana was heterosexual. The woman had two handsome boys, the heir and spare. She divorced a man for another man. Hello!!! Not in any way to justify divorce. But where is our good sense of judgment?
And why, in the beautiful name of my Savior, does it always have to be about the Bible? I think it speaks volume about the sacredness and sanctity of the most Holy Book, which by the way, has been a # 1 seller for over 2000 years. I pray the blessings of the Lord on everyone.