‘The Faithful: Women of the Bible’ More True To Modern Ideals Than Biblical Texts
(REVIEW) The Bible is often accused nowadays of being a patriarchal text. And there’s a sense in which it is: the stories tend to focus mainly (though not exclusively) on the stories of men.
Because of this, and the fact that women make up the majority of Christians in America and around the world, there’s always been a desire to retell or re-examine the Bible from a female perspective. Today, you have Christian fiction such as the “Women of the Bible” novels by Ann Burton, and books of Biblical scholarship like “Redeeming Eden.”
READ: Faith And The Oscars: What Happened To Hollywood’s Great Religious Films?
“The Faithful: Women of the Bible” is a good example of this. The Fox miniseries dramatizes the stories of the early Christian matriarchs in Genesis. American television producer Carol Mendelson described her passion for the project in precisely these terms:
“[The series] is a passion project for me and my partners, Julie Weitz and Rene Echevarria. We were inspired to tell our stories through the lens of the extraordinary women at their center — women whose names are known, but whose inner lives have rarely been explored. Each of us brought a unique perspective: Christian insight, Jewish foundation, and a secular voice. That creative convergence shaped the storytelling and led me personally on a profound journey of discovery.”
While focusing on women’s perspectives is laudable, “The Faithful” often comes off less as a “women’s point of view” and more often as “a point of view that we decided to make up.”
The production company gave me two episodes to review. Both focused on Sarah, one of the Bible’s first matriarchs who played a key role in building the nation of Israel. The episodes are strong when they dramatize the Biblical narrative, but they are weak when they dramatize events out of thin air that are nowhere to be found in the Bible.
In “The Woman Who Bowed to No One” and “The Woman Who Spoke to God,” Sarah feels incomplete without the child God promised to her and her husband, Abraham. After braving isolation, famine, the ire of Pharaoh, and several more years of barrenness, she resorts to her own plan to bring a child into the world involving her maidservant Hagar and Abraham.
There are definitely things I enjoyed about these episodes. The depiction of Abraham and Sarah’s story as primarily a love story is a rare focus that’s very welcome. We see them meet, we see them love each other and show affection. We see them argue, and when they make bad choices, we watch them showcase the worst of themselves. When Sarah dies, we watch how Abraham grieves.
The story works best when it trusts the original text and is content to dramatize it. The drama of Sarah and Haagar is one of the most tragically messed-up yet deeply human stories in all of scripture and literature. Sarah convinces Abraham to have a child with her slave girl, Hagar, to have his heir. This creates bitterness and resentment that only gets worse when Sarah has a child herself.
The characters here are very human in a way modern viewers will resonate with. They justify their bad decisions and engage in petty behavior — and when conflict breaks out between Sarah and Hagar, Abraham cowardly decides to stay out of it, as far too many of us would.
These moments are so striking because these parts of the story haven’t been so focused on in a film before, and the film is willing to let the moments happen honestly, as an unapologetic portrayal of human flaws and brokenness.
One of my favorite aspects of the film was Sarah’s perspective on Abraham’s relationship with God. If there’s narrative potential in focusing on the matriarchs of the Bible rather than the patriarchs, it’s this angle. What’s it like to follow someone who claims they’re following God and they keep doing crazy and unbelievable things?
The way the show portrays it, Sarah’s intense loyalty to her husband kept her following, but her doubts led her to find more “reasonable” ways for his promises to come true.
But the film also seems embarrassed that Sarah doesn’t have enough Hollywood heroic things to do. So they make a bunch of stuff up. Sarah and Abraham meet because Sarah refuses a marriage to a rich man because she refuses to “bow to any man.”
And he promises that he will always treat her like an equal. The filmmakers then change the original story so Sarah is captured by Pharaoh because she refuses “to bow before any man” (hence the title) and is the one who lies to Pharaoh that she’s Abraham’s sister (Instead of Abraham lying as he does in the Bible).
They make this where Sarah met Hagar as well, who praises her for this choice because it saved Abraham. Hagar also decides to stay with Sarah as her slave by choice, as part of what she thinks is God’s will. Throughout the story, they make every effort to minimize Sarah’s flaws. They end the story explaining to us that it was her faithfulness that led to our “happy ending.”
I get why the filmmakers made these changes. You want your protagonist to be active. You want a story that will inspire people to love and admire the matriarchs of the Bible. And many people would be simply unable to empathize with or admire a couple that didn’t parrot modern egalitarian Western interpretations of what a marriage should look like.
But there are a couple of problems with these changes. First of all, they come off as cringeworthy and melodramatic Hollywood cliches and talking points. They don’t fit with the rest of the nuanced and thoughtful elements of the story that reflect the Bible. They feel forced. More pandering than inspiring.
What does it say about the Biblical women you’re depicting if the only way you can make them admirable is by making stuff up? When you name your premiere “The Woman Who Bowed to No One” about a woman … who probably did bow to lots of people. Was it because the filmmakers couldn’t see a way to make Sarah admirable if she didn’t meet a very narrow modern model of admirability?
If you have to make stuff up that wasn’t in the Bible in order to affirm women, you’re saying that the Bible really is sexist and doesn’t affirm women. So you imply that your audience has to pick between a sexist faith and a made-up revisionist faith. You’re also telling women whose lives don’t fit a very narrow model of Hollywood heroism that they aren’t worthy of admiration.
But the Bible isn’t interested in airbrushing its heroes — men or women. Abraham is praised by the Bible for his faith. And yet, Biblical authors record how he pawned off Sarah to Pharaoh to save his own skin. Ironically, “The Faithful” airbrushes Abraham as well as Sarah by pretending he didn’t give Sarah over to Pharaoh. It also airbrushes both of their complicity in slavery by making Hagar choose to be their slave. Something that should challenge us with what we’re complicit in today.
The Bible doesn’t airbrush its heroes' brokenness; it teaches us to confront our own brokenness and have empathy for the brokenness of others. Even while still holding ourselves and them to high standards. The Bible’s praise for its flawed heroes can give us courage that our flaws don’t bar us from admiration as well.
When “The Faithful: Women of the Bible” trusts the Bible’s voice, it does a great job of giving voice to the women that it portrays. Unfortunately, far too often, the filmmakers shout their own voices too loud for you to hear the real women they claim to be elevating.
“The Faithful: Women of the Bible” airs Sundays on Fox and the next day on Hulu.
Joseph Holmes is an award-nominated filmmaker and culture critic living in New York. He is co-host of the podcast “The Overthinkers” and its companion website theoverthinkersjournal.world, where he discusses art, culture and faith with his fellow overthinkers. His other work and contact info can be found at josephholmesstudios.com.