Category: Michael D
Lent Begins . . .
In several settings I’ve asked, “Where will your journey to Jerusalem take you this year?” Yesterday, Christians, those that believe, those that practice the way of Jesus, and those that are practicing believers, began a journey that most have taken many times before. It is a metaphorical journey of sorts as few actually travel to Jerusalem during this time between Ash Wednesday and Palm Sunday, but like reading a good book can take one places never visited, those that follow Jesus of Nazareth mark in the gospels that Jesus sets his path toward Jerusalem. No doubt that some people will make a stop at a movie theater to see “Son of God.” I’ve yet to see the film, but from my reading about it presents as another telling of Christian orthodoxy that finds its roots, and this is an gross oversimplification of history, its roots based in Constantine’s ordering of Pauline Christianity into state sanctioned religion. It is not as bloody as Gibson’s, “The Passion of the Christ,” but reviews place it a close second. Apparently, a story about Jesus that is theologically challenging, interesting and divergent even if it does, in the end, bend toward Christological orthodoxy. . . those days and that kind of intellectual curiosity are not present. At least for now. Films like, “The Last Temptation of Christ,” “Jesus of Montreal,” “Jesus Christ Superstar,” and “Godspell” offer a dialogue that gives the characters depth, human depth, in a way that Gibson’s film did not and could not imagine. In Scorsese’s, “The Last Temptation of Christ” Jesus and Judas share an exchange about Judas betraying Jesus that is haunting. Huddled together Jesus and Judas talk.
JUDAS: There’s got to be something else you can do.
JESUS: I wish there was. At the temple I prayed. I prayed to die. But it’s not God’s will. I have to die on the cross. I prayed out of weakness and I’m weakening even more. You’ve got to give me strength.
JUDAS: I won’t let you die.
JESUS: You’ve got to. There’s no other way. The world around us is Satan’s world. It will be destroyed! The world of God will come! But only by my dying! By my sacrifice on the cross! Forget everything else! Understand that.
JUDAS: No I can’t. I’m not strong enough.
JESUS: You are. You’re the strongest. You’re part of God’s plan too. You once made me a promise. You said if I ever strayed, if I ever shied away from revolution, you would kill me. Remember? (Judas nods.)
JESUS: I’ve strayed, haven’t I?
JUDAS: Yes.
JESUS: Then you have to keep your word. You have to kill me.
JUDAS: If God wants that, then let God do it. I won’t.
JESUS: He will do it. Through you. The Temple Guards want to arrest me where there aren’t any crowds. Tonight we’ll be in Gethsemane. Arrange for them to find me. It will be terrible. But only for three days. Only three days! Then I’ll come back. We’ll all be together in triumph.
JUDAS: No.
JESUS: You’ve got to! Don’t abandon me now. Without you, the world can’t be saved, There’ll be no redemption. Without us together, the sacrifice can’t be made.
JUDAS: Could you betray God? If you were me, could you betray your Master?
JESUS: No. That’s why God gave me the easier job… to be crucified.(1)
There is a Judas you have never met before and are unlikely to meet in films that glamorize the brutality of death on a cross as the sacrificed lamb of God takes away the sins of the world. There is a Jesus that is unsure of his mission. A Jesus who changes through out the film and still provides the orthodox Christology ending, but it humanizes the characters in the words shared between follower and master. “Could you betray your master?” Or, maybe the question is, “When have you betrayed your master?” Those are places to stop on your Lenten journey.
Son of God on Film
by Martin Marty | Sightings | March 3, 2014This weekend was time for movies and for talk about them. The Academy Awards, as readers of Sighting may have heard, were awarded. They may also have noticed that “Son of God,” a film about Jesus, was released in 3,000 theaters. Reviewers are not free merely to view and write about this film. Instead they are obliged to treat it both as another movie and as the occasion for an argument about Jesus and about filming Jesus.
Nicolas Rapold in The New York Times tried to be generous to “Son of God,” but, lucky for him, his paper doesn’t use star ratings. It probably would have rated two stars out of a possible four. The spoken lines, Rapold thought, were marked by “pedagogical predictability” as in “Thomas, stop doubting.” He and other reviewers had difficulty with—dare we call him ‘glamorous’?—Portuguese actor, Diogo Morgado, because critics usually groan when Gentile actors play Jesus or other Jews.
In the Chicago Tribune, Roger Moore gave “Son of God” a mediocre 2 ½ stars and called it, in his headline, “Still a great story, even when tepidly told.” Moore saw “a pleasantly retro ‘hippies will inherit the earth’ take” on this Jesus. He knows that the “film’s main aim is to be inoffensive,” and it managed that. That is not high praise.
The Chicago Sun-Times used the headline: “‘Son of God’: The Good Shepherd in a not-so-good movie,” and the reviewer, Richard Roeper, gave it one star less than it was rated in the Tribune. Roeper came back to reflect on his vocation as a critic: “regardless of your faith (or mine), this space is for me to tell you if a particular film contains a high enough percentage of compelling elements to warrant” readers spending good cash on it. Verdict: “In all good conscience, it’s not even a close call.” He also knows that on opening weekend it may sell well; one relief organization alone bought 225,000 tickets in 40 cities. Roeper’s reflection, after seeing the Resurrection scene: “it isn’t nearly as powerful and moving as reading the Gospel According to Luke.”
He and other critics gladly announced that this film lacked the anti-Semitism and utter brutality of Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of Christ” of a few years ago. Still, Moore writes, “no Jesus film these days is worth its salt without an unflinching treatment” of Jesus’ torture and Crucifixion, which is “avert-your-eyes awful.” And here it is again.
My purpose in Sightings is not to review movies or review reviews so much as to ponder the public place of such films as this. Roeper admits that one feels almost good ripping exploitative, cynical, porn, or brainless films, but “Son of God” is none of these. He knows those who produced it, Roma Downey and Mark Burnett, as “two of the loveliest and most spiritual people.” Their work is reverent and faithful to the text.” Still, by film critics’ standards, they fail. Those who are proclaiming that there is a war on Christians will say that the critics are mere secularists who deride and heap on people of faith, including when they produce or watch films like “Son of God.”
Roeper says, “we know this story, as well as we know any story ever told.” Surveys suggest that this is a chancy observation. Biblical illiteracy is measurably and grossly high. While the main audiences will be the already-convinced people of faith, those surveys make clear that the story is not well known, certainly by the general public.
Envy Jews and Muslims, who are not allowed to depict the deity. Christians have to deal with the one they portray as divine and human—pity those who have to review film-makers’ efforts. And perhaps follow Roeper’s implicit advice: read the Gospel of Luke.
References and Additional Resources:
Roeper, Richard. “‘Son of God’: The Good Shepherd in a not-so-good movie.” Review of “Son of God.” Chicago Sun-Times.com, February 27, 2014, Movies.http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/movies/25829003-421/son-of-god-the-good-shepherd-in-a-not-so-good-movie.html.
Moore, Roger. “Still a great story, even when tepidly told.” Review of “Son of God.”Chicago Tribune, February 27, 2014, A&E. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-02-27/entertainment/ct-son-of-god-movie-review-20140227_1_aramaic-jesus-king-james-bible.
Rapold, Nicolas. “The Greatest Story, Retold.” Review of “Son of God.” The New York Times, February 27, 2014, Movie Review.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/movies/son-of-god-recounts-the-crucifixion.html?_r=0.
Hornaday, Ann. “‘Son of God’ movie review: Undoubtedly sincere, but also simplistic.”The Washington Post, February 27, 2014, Movies.http://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/movies/son-of-god-movie-review-undoubtedly-sincere-but-also-simplistic/2014/02/26/45191ca2-9eeb-11e3-9ba6-800d1192d08b_story.html.
O’Malley, Sheila. Review of “Son of God.” rogerebert.com, February 28, 2014.http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/son-of-god-2014.
_________
1. Paul Schrader, Script from, The Last Temptation of Christ, 1988. Based on a novel by Nikos Kazantzakis.
Freedom: Religious and Other
As I listen to the music from “Dances with Wolves” and imagine the visual of looking out at the plains from atop a horse post Civil War. This morning I’ve read many news reports and blogs about the bills in several legislatures dubbed, “religious freedom act.” I’ve not spent a lot of time reading the bills themselves, but the “think tanks” behind these bills, as best as I can tell, care little about religion or freedom for anyone that does not identify with their brand of Christian witness. Two perspectives seem competing, yet, broadly settle on the indefensible nature of the latest Arizona bill that has drawn national media attention, scrutiny and shown light on others like it moving through state legislatures around our Nation.
Rachel Held Evans claims the identity “evangelical Christian.” I’m not sure why except that her theology, that I’ve gleaned from her writings, embraces the approved dominant Christology and soteriology. She is an “evangelical” that, like Jim Wallis, is balancing a practice of the ways of Jesus alongside a belief in Jesus Christ. Crudely stated, what one does after being saved is as important as being saved itself. It is this kind of evangelical that I feel a kinship with, appreciate, and with whom I think mainline Protestants and Catholics must unite to reform Christendom from a Colonial/kingdom worldview and a prosperity Gospel. Here are a few of Rachel’s words on this topic.
Waling the Second Mile: Jesus, Discrimination, and Religious Freedom
And I think that refusing to serve gay and lesbian people, and advancing legislation that denies others their civil liberties in response to perceived threats to our own, does irreparable damage to our witness as Christians and leaves a whole group of people feeling like second-class citizens, not only in our country, but also in the Kingdom. There may be second-class citizens in the U.S. and in Uganda and in Russia, but there should be no second-class citizens in the Kingdom. Click here to read more.
And, a second perspective from John Stewart at The Daily Show. Caution, if you are a youth that reads my blog this content could be inappropriate; and now that I’ve said that I’m sure you are going to follow the link. I would have when I was your age, but I’m not encouraging the language that John uses. What I like about John Stewart is that he is in the satire business and quality satire makes one think even as it offends with language and ideas. It is why I’m a fan of George Carlin and Lewis Black. John and his staff take satirizing culture, politics, and day to day life seriously without taking themselves too seriously. After all, it is “the fake news.” Often his “making fun” of culture, of news outlets, of us as a Nation, of our legislative Reps, and of himself are what I think serious news shows (the so called “hard news”) wish they would do: point out the obvious contradictions, point a path to the connections, and actually shine light on what is deemed “news worthy” that day, but the corporations that own the news cannot afford to let that happen. Today, our news choices can be as gated as some of our communities and schools. Last night John Stewart’s opening block addressed the Arizona “religious freedom” bill. Click here to watch the second half of that opening block which I think compliments Rachel’s words and also begs the question, “What is morally repugnant?” That would be a good Top 10 List for a future blog. It would, of course, require some definition of terms.