Evangelist produces ‘Real Housewives of the Bible’ DVD
July 5th, 2011
10:16 AM ET

Evangelist produces ‘Real Housewives of the Bible’ DVD

By Liane Membis, CNN

There’s a new set of housewives on the block.

These women aren’t whining about fashion faux pas and socialite misgivings. Their stories are cast somewhere between the books of Genesis and Revelation.

Ty Adams, a web-based evangelist and author, is producing “The Real Housewives of the Bible,” a two-part DVD series that tracks six women dealing with the ups and downs of marriage as they strive to be good wives.

Adams said that “outrageous reality shows” like Bravo’s “The Real Housewives” series and VH1’s “Basketball Wives” inspired her to create a more wholesome version of the franchise.

“I was frustrated with what I was seeing,” she said. “A lot of society is looking towards programming to educate them on relationships and these shows haven’t effectively done that.”

“They have ruined and tainted our ability to secure good relationships and to make women into good wives,” said Adams, who is based in Detroit.

Adams has provided Christian relationship advice for nearly ten years, since she founded a production company called Heaven Enterprises in 2002. She’s the author of Single, Saved and Having Sex, has produced religious DVDs and plays and offers sex and relationship advice through a web-based column called “Ask Ty.”

Adams says the goal of her “Real Housewives” DVD, due out later this month, is helping women juxtapose real-life issues with Christian teaching. She says that teaching includes women’s obligation to attempt to sustain relationships that have endured extra-marital affairs and other hardships.

“Because we live in a media-driven society, telling these age-old stories of adultery, loneliness and longing through entertainment helps women relate,” Adams said.

Each character on the show represents a different woman from the Bible. A character based on the biblical Sarah struggles with infertility. (The biblical Sarah was barren until she reached old age).

Gold-digging women are likened to Delilah from the Book of Judges, who seduced and deceived Samson - who'd fallen in love with her - through repetitious requests.

And the show features plenty of Jezebels.

“Many single women can get a man but they can’t keep a man,” Adams said. “So many singles have been in girlfriend status for so long that they only understand that mentality. They don’t know what it takes to be a good wife in order to sustain a relationship and some parts of society promotes that.”

- Liane Membis

Filed under: Bible • Culture & Science • Entertainment

soundoff (781 Responses)
  1. Chuck U Farley


    July 5, 2011 at 5:58 pm |
  2. CJones

    Wow! Some of these comments are off the wall and foolish.....You have my support, I can't wait to purchase the DVD and see the different issues that the women go through in their marriage, but more importantly, see how GOD brings them out. Please let me know when its released and where I can purchase it. This will be great for the marriage ministry at my church. Thanks!

    July 5, 2011 at 5:49 pm |
    • Nathan

      It is a scripted show. The women are actresses and they are pretending to be these relationships. The situations are loosely based on biblical stories. If you are expecting to see the trials and triumphs of real women then what you find here is no more valid than Jersey Shore.

      July 5, 2011 at 7:32 pm |
  3. radam

    AHHHH Christianity; The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie with split personalities will grant you everlasting life if you telepathically pledge your allegiance to and ritualistically eat his flesh and drink his blood.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
    • Ryan

      That's GREAT!!!!!

      July 5, 2011 at 5:52 pm |
    • fred

      They mocked him "hail king of the Jews ",they spit on him an struck him.
      And just how did Jesus reply to this: Father forgive them for they know not what they do.

      July 5, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
  4. libertarian mike

    I assume they were all virgins on their wedding day, since none of them were stoned to death.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:35 pm |
  5. JaniceB

    and last one...to Civiloutside:
    And your last point blends with your first. I suggest you Google the odds of life in the universe and see what you get. It would be much more difficult than trying to find one grain of blue sand on a 10 mile beach covered with sand. This is why most astro-physicists are now coming back to the idea of intelligent design. (See Hugh Ross's writings; a former NASA rocket scientist who shows created universe models and they have not been disputed). Also there are 11 known dimensions now; something that is demonstrated as impossible to be random.

    If not random, then WHAT? (or should I say WHO)?

    July 5, 2011 at 5:33 pm |
    • Stevie7

      "Also there are 11 known dimensions now; something that is demonstrated as impossible to be random."
      Known? String Theory is just in its beginning states, and different flavors of string theory postulate different dimensions. So who discovered irrefutable proof that 11 is the magic number. And who then proved this impossible to be random?

      The more you speak about physics, the more you highlight your ignorance of the topic. Stick to what you know.

      July 5, 2011 at 5:42 pm |
    • Ryan


      Becareful with "most". Most scientist are DEFIENTLY not leaning towards intelligent design. My father is now a retired professor/scientist of Cornell and the circles of famous scientists that we had at the dinner table through out my years is vast. (carl segan....from my town until his death, was a common guest at our home growing up) Trust me.....Intelligent design has never been on the docket.

      July 5, 2011 at 5:49 pm |
    • labrat

      you do know that the only type of scientist who would really know what they are talking about refuting so called "intelligent design" is a biologist. this idea of intelligent design is a terrible and wilful misunderstanding of biology. Thus a physicist probably can't make any statements on this topic that are more informed than a layman's statement (it's not his field of expertise).
      And most scientists aren't leaning toward "intelligent design". I mean, is it the consensus in the field? that would be a no. Therefore, not even close to most are that gullible

      July 5, 2011 at 7:08 pm |
    • JaniceB

      Carl Sagan may have dined with you, but his theories are shown to be wrong now. And by scientists, I mean those such as at NASA and the like. If you separate out the Professors, that are scientists but mainly teach, (no offense to your father, who I'm sure is very learned), I think you will see a totally different type of thinking.

      July 5, 2011 at 8:05 pm |
    • Bucky Ball

      "This is why most astrophysicists are now coming back to the idea of intelligent design."
      -- Can you give us a citation for that please ? Over here, you need to back up your claims, if you wish to be taken seriously.

      "See Hugh Ross's writings; a former NASA rocket scientist who shows created universe models and they have not been disputed)."
      -- They HAVE been disputed. See :

      "because organized systems do not come together randomly under the laws of Physics and Math..(see books on Sacred Geometry, which show the same mathematical formula exists ,,, "
      -- Ever heard of Chaos Theory ? Ever heard of the Drake Equation ? Which term in the Drake Equation's original estimate do you disagree with, why, and by how much ? With the recent discovery that there are 2/3 more stars than previously thought, the equation results in a MUCH higher solution. What is your estimate ?

      "(The Bible says that God stretches out the heavens in the book of Psalms)."
      -- No one disputes that the Psalms are poetry. So now you pick out one line to take literally ? Very inconsistent. We still need to know how you decide when to take a verse literally, and when you decide to make excuses for it.

      July 6, 2011 at 12:02 am |
    • Civiloutside

      I'll try to respond to the several posts here for the sake of keeping the discussion together.

      Firstly, I'm going to have to ask for a citation that demonstrates that the worldwide consensus of astrophysicists is that a universe arising from natural processes is conclusively impossible. I've never seen that anywhere, I'd think it would be considered pretty big news – you make the claim, please support it. And just a point... NASA doesn't do much original research into basic science. That is largely the realm of universities, where most professors are required to perform and publish research in addition to (and often at a high priority than) their teaching duties. So yes, the opinions of professors matter.

      I did a quick lookup of Hugh Ross, and counter to your claim there are several refutations to his arguments available. It seems that his line is to investigate the history of the development of life on earth, declare every event that happened in that development to be a necessary condition for the development of any life whatsoever, and then say that the spectacular coincidence is too great for life to have developed by natural processes. It's just another variation on the theme I discussed in my initial post to you: insisting that the conditions under which life on earth evolved were designed tonproduce life as we know it rather than accepting that life exists in the form we know it because of the conditions under which it evolved. Even the fine tuning of universal constants to produce life as we know it is just a variation on the theme: the fac is that we have no idea whether 1) it's even possible for those constants to be other than what they are, 2) whether there's a probability distribution that makes certain values more likely than others, or 3) whether life in a different form than we understand it would be possible or likely under a different set of values.

      I'll also point out that his statements about the Bible's perfect conformity with the scientific evidence on the order of the formation of the world an the fossil record is flat-out wrong. The earth did not form before the sun and the stars. Plant life did not develop before the formation of the sun and the stars. Birds did not appear before land animals.

      As someone has already pointed out, your contention about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is also wrong. While *overall* disorder increases, *local* pockets of increasing order are allowed and even mostly inevitable. Which is exactly what you see in the universe – mostly empty space with pockets of ordered energetic systems.

      There are not 11 *known* dimensions. There are 11 *theorized* dimensions in String Theory – which, while providing many elegant mathematical solutions to some of the questions raised by quantum physics and relativity theory, has ye to be proven by testable, unique predictions about the real world. But even if it proves out, how exactly is it impossible for 11 dimensions to have arisen naturally? I'll need to see an actual proof rather than simply taking your word for it.

      I have Googled the odds of life evolving naturally. Several times. What I've found is that nobody really agrees on what those odds are. Every set of calculations is based on a set of assumptions, many if which can reasonably be argued with. My favorite was the creationist who set out to perform one ofthese calculations, ended up demonstrating that evolutionary origins of life were statistically possible, then simply declared it impossible by trying to argue away his own assumptions!

      And while I'm aware that the odds thrown around in these debates are much larger than the 300 million I threw out, that doesn't change the principal I was talking about. I chose a lottery because those are odds on a scale that seems miraculous buy which people can relate to from real-world experience, not because they are actual odds-of-life numbers. I could have said if the odds are ten trillion trillion to one, and you have a hundred trillion trillion "tickets," then the odds of at least one "winning" (by producing life) become practically a guarantee. It's the same idea.

      July 6, 2011 at 8:54 am |
  6. JaniceB

    @ Civil Outside...reposting my prior post IN THREE CHUNKS...hope it gets by the red tape....
    It was "Samson" by the way, not "Sampson".

    Allow me to respond to your argument. First of all a random universed is discredited by astrophycists now, as they can see all the way back to the "Big Bang" with Radio Telescopes. The universe is based on the law of Physics called Thermodynamics, which says that it is breaking down as time goes on and cannot reverse this trend. Each object continues to get farther and farther from each other object. (The Bible says that God stretches out the heavens in the book of Psalms). I ask you how something such as the universe could have a beginning WITHOUT an intelligent trigger, since randomness is one in TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS, not 300 million (as your lottery example, a much smaller microcosm). If you want to go with random, instead of intelligent design, those odds don't even fly, because organized systems do not come together randomly under the laws of Physics and Math..(see books on Sacred Geometry, which show the same mathematical formula exists in many of nature's systems). This is why you never hear about the "premordial soup" anymore as the beginning of life on earth. Science has totally discredited this theory.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
    • Jeff

      JaniceB: Google Sean Carroll and watch an hour long presentation by him. A lot of what you said was thought to be the case two decades ago but is no longer current. Good effort, though.

      July 5, 2011 at 5:35 pm |
    • Stevie7


      Your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics is lacking. Your assuming that entropy (which doesn't precisely equate with order or 'breaking down', but anyways) is uniform – but to have pockets of low entropy among large areas of high entropy in no way violates the second law or thermodynamics. And I HIGHLY doubt your "most astrophysics are coming back to Intelligent Design" argument. I call total BS on that one. Just because you can find ONE scientist who might be, is a far cry from MOST are.

      July 5, 2011 at 5:39 pm |
    • labrat

      well. You see even with a trillions in trillions chance (the caps lock doesn't really help it look bigger) you are almost certain to get life in this universe. The reason is that the universe is very very old and there are very very many planets. So for a specific planet, the chances of some form of life are small, almost minuscule, but in the entire universe the chance of life arising somewhere sometime is almost 1.
      Also physics definitely predicts some form of organization. It isn't just thermo. Other forces create this appearance of design are electric (molecules often prefer to bond because they are more stable like that).
      and small self assembling proteins have been shown possible in conditions that mimic what we believe a primordial earth to be like. That scientists haven't shown that this eventually evolves into DNA based life forms is obviously because the earth had billions of years while scientists have had less than a hundred.

      Also, do you ever go to a doctor? Because if you believe in intelligent design. you shouldn't really trust doctors. Most current medicine only makes sense and was created based on the evolutionary relationship of humans to other animals. To put it more simply: your medicine wouldn't work if you weren't actually related to a rat

      July 5, 2011 at 7:20 pm |
    • tallulah13

      So when was the last time you actually researched any of this? 1974?

      July 6, 2011 at 12:06 am |
    • Ironic Ida

      a. You need to explain your environment to yourself.
      b. You construct a mythological system to do so :
      "The liberal CNN moderators are blocking my posts"
      At least you're consistent.

      July 6, 2011 at 3:49 am |
  7. jcg


    July 5, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
    • Dave

      I'm guessing there won't be a march for gay marriage equality on this show, like they did on the Real Housewives of New York.

      July 5, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
    • Elaine

      The Real and Obedient Housewives.

      July 5, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
    • Randy

      This is one DVD that the Chinese and Mexicans are not going to want to pirate.

      July 5, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
  8. Pete

    There's money to be made off bible thumpers too. Producers don't care what words the people on the DVDs say.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:12 pm |
  9. Kat

    didn't HBO already cover this with "Big Love"

    July 5, 2011 at 5:11 pm |
    • Free

      Well, there sure was a lot of polygamy going on in the Bible, and then there were all those concubines added to the mix.

      July 5, 2011 at 5:51 pm |
  10. Bucky Ball

    If you haven't seen it already, go to page two, and look at my note to you about "awaiting moderation".
    If you still can't get it to post, email it/them to me at cnnbeliefblog@hotmail.com. I will find the problem, and send it back to you.
    Cheers !
    It's about vigorous civil debate, even though some get carried away, and/or have their humorous sarcasm misinterpreted.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
    • JaniceB

      Will do, yes some do get overzealous here.

      July 5, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
    • Frogist

      @JaniceB: After reading your posts on liberals, you might want to change the "some" to "I".

      July 6, 2011 at 11:52 am |
  11. suzie

    I'm sorry this is not right and we have gone too far this time.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:06 pm |
  12. Stevie7

    1 Corithians: Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

    The woman is created for the man. How much more explicit do you want it. Also in this chapter – if a woman does not cover her head when praying, she should shave her head. yay feminism!

    July 5, 2011 at 5:01 pm |
  13. JimInTX

    Might as well also do Real Housewives of Lord Of The Rings as both books are works of fiction. Oh great Invisible Man-Friend who lives in the Sky, smite the disbelievers!

    July 5, 2011 at 5:01 pm |
    • libertarian mike

      If they look hot like Liv Tyler with elf ears, I'd be glued to my TV.

      July 5, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
  14. iminim

    The Biblical Esther basically "auditioned" for the role of Queen, to put it politiely. The Biblical Eve sold out her husband by poisoning his soul with the proverbial apple. The Biblical Sarah "offered" her maidservant Hagar to her husband so that he might father a child. The Biblical Rebekah plotted with her son to decieve her functionally blind & elderly husband. I'm not sure why Ty Adams thinks Biblical women are examples of wifely virtues to follow in our modern times. These women's stories were products of the culture in which they were written. What was deemed acceptable & even moral then appears shockingly abusive and servile now. Our moral values would have produced the same reaction in Biblical times. While I agree that today's media is filled with inane and irrelevant programming, I don't see how adding more inane & irrelevant programming with a supposed Biblical slant will improve the quality at all.

    July 5, 2011 at 5:01 pm |
    • W247

      Hold just a tick –

      The biblical Adam also sat by watching as the snake deceived his wife, and didn't step in to stop it. Way to go Adam!

      July 5, 2011 at 5:34 pm |
    • Frogist

      @iminim: I fear that might be the purpose of the show. To return women to the "moral" position of being more servile. But I can't really judge it without having seen it first.

      July 6, 2011 at 11:58 am |
  15. W.Jeffs

    If any of you women want to know what it takes to be a good wife, then come out to west Texas and we will gladly show you. Eldorado is nice this time of year.

    July 5, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
    • Stevie7

      Or you can wait for the Sister Wives spin off. Although the casting for King Solomon's 700 wives will probably be a little tricky. A show covering how to be a good concubine will probably have to be limited to HBO or some other premier channel.

      July 5, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
  16. Cat MacLeod

    Great so instead of "reality shows" about emotional children, we'll have a reality show about intellectual children. It's starting to feel like TV exists to make you loose faith in humanity.

    July 5, 2011 at 4:52 pm |
    • cheefsfury


      July 5, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  17. my own point of view

    "They have ruined and tainted our ability to secure good relationships and to make women into good wives,” said Adams, who is based in Detroit.

    I think reality based shows can show the worst in folks, but a show on how to be a good wife from a religious perspective? YIKES!

    July 5, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
  18. ME

    What about getting away from TV show that are anything but reality and making a sitcom with some humor and a lesson that we can learn something from. Not two women yelling eplisitives at each other and being drunk and falling down. What about the REAL Familys fo America. And actually make shows about real families and they're highs and lows. I might actually wathc this. I will not watch a network show of trash TV, such as the Real House Wifes of........ They are anythign but real. If they are real then they need serious help and I dont need to watch them.

    July 5, 2011 at 4:44 pm |
  19. Void

    Once again the bible reminds us that a woman's highest aspiration should be to become an obedient housewife. What garbage. I'd sooner see a woman lash out, make mistakes, and learn something from them than simply serving her husband out of religious obligation. If you want to be a housewife, that's awesome. It's one of the most difficult jobs in the world. But do so of your own free will, not because a dated and dusty book tells you it's all you're meant for.

    July 5, 2011 at 4:36 pm |
    • SK

      @Void Who told you that the bible tells you that being an housewife is ALL A women is meant for? Please quote a passage from the bible which tells you exactly that. Don't be stuck in your prejudice or believe hearsay.

      July 5, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
    • W247

      Void – there are lots of examples in the bible of women actually being shop owners, crafters IE making an income to help support their family. Go read the bible, gain some knowledge then come back and comment.

      July 5, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
    • Free

      Well, we do know that women in the Bible could be prost.itutes and slaves...

      July 5, 2011 at 5:45 pm |
    • SK


      What is your point? Are you even aware of the fact that when the Bible was written slavery was quite common all through the world? Obviously their stories are mentioned in the Bible. And what is your point with prost.itutes – don't they exist today? You perhaps are looking down on prost.itutes with an air of self-righteousness. They need grace just as we all do. There are some amazing stories of women who were prost.itutes that found grace, acceptance and forgiveness through Jesus and left their life of sin. What is wrong with that? If you are honest to yourself, you will see the need of grace as well. And don't think you are morally any better if you ever watched p0rn or had s ex outside of marriage with multiple partners.

      July 6, 2011 at 4:15 am |
  20. cmc

    Did the author ever stop to realize that many women are self sustaining and don't care if they remain at "girlfriend status" anymore? We don't live in the same era that the Bible was written in. Women can work now and earn a good living. Not being able to financially care for oneself used to be a big reason why women married. As with much of the Bible, these concepts about women are outdated at best.

    July 5, 2011 at 4:35 pm |
    • Sandra

      The books of the bible were outdated the second after they were written.

      July 5, 2011 at 4:45 pm |
    • Butch

      The Real Housewives of Nowhere, Arkansas.

      July 5, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
    • Dave

      At least three of these girls were on the hot and busy corner of Airline and the North 610 feeder road last night here in Houston.

      July 5, 2011 at 4:56 pm |
    • W247

      OK, I am a Christian woman, working a full time job as a project manager, and a college graduate. I could do very well on my own with out my husbands income. My husband loves and respects me – he also has a career of his own. We have raised two children and delight in our grandchildren. Wow, I am really submissive and down trodden aren't I? Actually I have never been more loved and taken care of in my life by my husband. He helps me out when I need help and in turn, I try to help him out as much as I can because I LOVE HIM. People who don't read or understand the bible, love to twist His Words around to make it look like something it was never meant to be.

      The relationship between a husband and wife is a beautiful thing, much like the relationship between the Lord and His son.

      Sorry for the rant, I was just tired of people saying that Christian wives were meek little submissive and downtrodden people. They are the most kind hearted, compassionate, organized and giving people I have ever known!

      July 5, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
    • Frogist

      @W247: You seem to be missing the point. It's not that Christian women are submissive. It is that there are numerous passages in your holy book which ask for women to be submissive. If you are not that, then maybe you are not following those parts of your Bible. Loving your husband or him treating you well or how much money you make or whether you have children says nothing about whether you are submissive to his will. It is only whether you defer to his commands, or whether he has the final say in decisions. This can happen and you can still feel love for him and him for you.

      Also your post ignores cmc's very valid critique that the stated purpose of this DVD and relationship advice show is for women to learn how to get a man. How not to be single or remain in girlfriend status. This implies that there is something wrong with remaining single if you are a woman. And that is inherently se-xist.

      July 6, 2011 at 11:22 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.