There's been a bit of uproar over a black, anorexic, lesbian, woman playing Jesus in a production of Jesus Christ Superstar recently. I'm not totally sure why it's such a big deal.
Let's start with the obvious JCS is a sacrilegious take on the story of Jesus to begin with, adding to that sacrilege by the choice of who plays Jesus doesn't seem problematic. It's not like anyone playing Jesus in JCS is expected or required to pass some sort of test to see if they're acceptable. Further, it's not like the guy who plays Jesus in The Chosen is some sort of strong Christian either. This is one where we as Christians should probably shut up and not waste time or energy with this.
However, let's see what happens when someone writes Mohammed the Prophet Superstar and debuts that on Broadway. They can do a snappy wedding number celebrating Mo's marriage to a 9 year old girl, do exquisite choreography of the slaughtering of the infidel, and use some amazing special effects to make the flying horsie thing looks realistic. We all know that there'd be a Fatwa against the authors and producers immediately with death threats soon after. The theater would likely be burned to the ground and all copies of the script burned as well. Beyond that I challenge anyone ever to cast a black, lesbian, woman as Mo and see how that works out for them.
The simple fact is that Jesus of Nazareth, the second person of the Godhead, doesn't need His followers to burn and kill any who make fun of Him. Strangely enough, Mo definitely needs his followers to kill anyone who says anything negative about him. One of these is not like the other.
30 comments:
Yes. The contrast is stark. Anything goes where Christianity is concerned. But don't you dare where islam is concerned.
I've never seen JCS. Only a few performances of some of the songs. From what little I know of it, it seems an attempt to be hip rather than reverent for the subject matter. This current iteration takes that to a truly evil level in my opinion.
I saw it years ago, and it's pretty sacrilegious in an attempt to be hip and trendy with the hippies. Sticking with the text was never a priority.
I guess once you cross the line into sacrilege, that I don't see where degrees are an issue.
Craig...
Let's start with the obvious JCS is a sacrilegious take on the story of Jesus to begin with, adding to that sacrilege by the choice of who plays Jesus doesn't seem problematic.
I'll say upfront that I'm not a huge fan of JCS, but I am curious why you consider it "sacrilegious..."? Showing a lack of respect for a sacred person?
Do you understand the context and intent of the story?
I'm not generally a fan of 70s Rock-operas (or really, most rock operas) but that's more of a personal taste thing. I was not a fan of it as a young conservative in the 1970s when it came out, but I was still a child raised in a conservative church that told me not to like it.
Speaking of sacrilege, I'm watching the conservative blogs and am left wondering: Does the fact that Trump seems to be hiding information about a convicted pedophile, that he wishes said pedophile's accomplice well, that he's considering pardoning her..!!??? Does NONE of that raise a huge red flag for y'all?
We can yammer about an old musical, but not speak of actual sacrilege and just general disgusting behavior of the man y'all elected?
There was another which came out about the time of JCS, called "Godspell". I remember seeing that...I seem to recall being made to, perhaps in school or something...which just as a movie event made me want to puke...never mind whether or not it was in any way Biblical. Both I would say qualify greatly for "extremely pretentious", which is never a positive for me.
I've never seen Godspell, so I have no opinion on it.
Yes, I consider it sacrilegious, call me crazy but the whole love affair between Jesus and Mary Magdalene seems to adequately cross that line, as does the making Jesus into something akin to a "rock star".
Who cares about the context and intent? Is sacrilege somehow mitigated by context and intent?
I wasn't told whether to like it or not. I saw a production of it and made my own decision.
Well, I know it's hard for you to accommodate more in your little brain than your monomaniacal obsession with Trump and the rumors and gossip about him, but some of us are able to compartmentalize and engage on multiple levels.
I'll simply note that you've chosen to ignore both the 3 or 4 resources I gave you about the "rape culture" in Europe as well an an entire post with additional information about this crisis.
You're more worked up about Trump gossip than you are about the fact that a MN court let a CHILD RAPIST off with the lightest possible sentence because after 19 YEARS in the US he didn't know that RAPING CHILDREN was wrong. On top of that a mosque wrote a letter in his defense praising his virtues.
If you're going to ignore actual CHILD RAPE to waste time on gossip and rumors, you have precisely zero credibility as a moral arbiter.
Um... I don't recall any "love affair."
So, if there was no "love affair," would you still find it sacrilegious?
Dan,
After a bit of consideration, it seems obvious that you missed the point of the post entirely. So, I'll try to simplify it.
1. The weekend tempest among a few was much ado about nothing.
2. YHWH/Jesus of Nazareth don't need our help to defend themselves.
3. Christians write social media posts when Jesus is mocked, we've seen what Muslims do when Mo is mocked.
So, NO, you have no concern about your president being potentially a pedophile or if he gives a convicted pedophile a pardon?
Speaking of having no moral credibility.
Sigh. You've seen what SOME Muslims do. And indeed, extremist religionists often act in negatively extreme manners.
Those Muslims who would respond violently do not represent all of Islam.
Y'all should watch Godspell. It's a great production. Conservative-friendly, even.
Well, if you don't "recall" one then you must be correct. Yes, yes I would.
Of course, that's my opinion...
Given the fact that y'all have been digging for dirt on Trump since 2016, and the fact that y'all used government resources to manufacture all sorts of bullshit false accusations, I'll wait for more than you and vague, unsubstantiated gossip and rumors.
Of course, as I've done for years, I'll wait for credible evidence and respond when some appears.
So, the freaking Ayatollah was just some random Muslim when he put a fatwa on Salmon Rushdie. The prohibition against ANY depiction of Mo, is a widely held belief throughout Islam.
But thanks for missing the point. Because a few negative Tweets about an anorexic, black, lesbian, playing Jesus and murder for a cartoon are pretty much exactly the same.
I'm sure it's only a coincidence that we see all sorts images or portrayals of Jesus of Nazareth that are less than positive, yet we see virtually no similar types of art depicting Mo. All it takes is one violent attack to prevent images of Mo from being used.
You're right, there is probably a minority of Muslims that stay silent instead of speaking out.
If you approve it so enthusiastically, it's probably not worth my time.
Got it. So, even if there's no affair (there's not) you'd consider it sacrilegious, just because and not for any specific reason. That's rational.
I don't think you understand the concept of Sacrilege. But whatever.
Thanks for not answering.
Maybe this is confusing to you, but see no reason to answer a question I've already answered.
Your determination to win this absurdly minor battle you're fighting seems strange. Unless, it's avoidance.
But even if the love affair is only implied, I still find the entire premise problematic from the perspective of accurately reflecting the story.
Of course, this isn't intended to be textually friendly to the text of the Gospels, and as such it's fine for what it is. It's sacrilege (as noted IMO) yet I don't object to it's existence or performance, and I think that those offended by the sacrilege withing the greater sacrilege are wasting their time.
I found Piss Christ revolting, objectionable, and bad art, but I respect the freedom of non Christians to engage in sacrilege.
Craig...
"even if the love affair is only implied, I still find the entire premise problematic from the perspective of accurately reflecting the story."
If it implies that Jesus was fully human, fully a sexual human being, that some humans around him might find him attractive... is THAT what you call sacrilege?
Does the very notion of Jesus being considered a hottie make you uncomfortable?
I find the notion that Jesus was a fully human man, without all the desires and temptations that involves, to be very biblical, at worst.
Is it possible that perhaps this is a personal hang up moreso than sacrilege?
You're just going to keep beating this dead horse even though your little tangent has virtually nothing to do with the point of the post aren't you?
No.
No,
No.
The things you choose to ignore in pursuit of cramming your narrative the throats of others would save so much time and effort. That you seem to be claiming that JCS is some sort of faithful rendition of the Gospel narratives is bizarre at best.
Your unwillingness to accept the reality that others may disagree with you is disturbing. That you can't acknowledge that having an opinion on a non Biblical fictional musical that doesn't completely agree with yours is an acceptable concept, I can't help you.
But anything to divert, right?
Craig...
"That you seem to be claiming that JCS is some sort of faithful rendition of the Gospel narratives is bizarre at best."
Not what I said. This musical is an artistic rendering of the Jesus story through the eyes primarily of Judas, but also, Mary Magdalene.
Where it succeeds, it's a way of helping to understand the real human, Jesus, as an actual man, and the human complexities of two other players in Jesus' story. Now folks may disagree with how well they do, but to call it sacrilegious? That's a bit much. Again, WHAT is sacrilegious?
I bring it up because conservative religious extremists have long used Sacrilege! And, Blasphemy! And, Heresy! ...as a hammer to knock down people who merely disagree or look at things differently.
And so, I asked a reasonable question, What's sacrilegious, specifically. And you've answered: you can't explain anything that's actually sacrilegious.
Thx.
Again, you're going to beat this dead horse no matter how pointless and ridiculous it makes you look.
It's not my fault or problem that you can't differentiate between what I've actually said and the unknown/unidentified/unproven "conservative religious extremists". It's not my fault or problem that you can't comprehend that the fact that someone may have "misused" "sacrilege" at some point in the past doesn't automatically mean that the term can't ever be used again.
That you have to make up some magical backstory about the "real/hidden" purpose behind JCS to try to score points in a competition that you are the only one playing is telling.
You asked a question that I already answered in this thread. Therefore I gave you the credit for the ability to scroll and read. Perhaps that was too much credit.
Again, Dan is engaging in double-standard crap. He's demanding from you what he fails to deliver himself: a legitimate fact-based reason to hold an opinion. What's more, he won't let it go even though you insist you're rendering your opinion. Worse, you're not suggesting your opinion is "gospel" truth which anyone would do well to adopt.
How can Trump be hiding info about a convicted pedophile when I keep seeing stories of him encouraging the release of all info about said pedophile?
How is it wrong to wish anyone well? I've had numerous "progressives" wish me death on social media and Dan seems anxious for true Christians to die off so he can perv with reckless abandon. Well wishing the imprisoned isn't a bad thing at all, for it doesn't approve of that which led to their imprisonment, but encourages repentance and renewal.
What's more, she may have the goods on people with power enough to exact revenge upon her should she sing like a canary. Hard to believe one who claims to be Christian would have a problem with hoping she doesn't succumb to such.
The pardon possibility is likely based one or both of two reasons:
1. Her sentence was unjust.
2. She's ready to spill some beans. This is the one I would suspect is most likely the case if there was any pardon at all. It's quite common to give considerations to a convicted person who is willing to provide information on "bigger fish".
Then of course we must remember why Christ came to us. As Dan insists on his interpretation of Christ's reading of Isaiah in the Temple, then certainly he cannot disparage Trump for granting liberty to this captive.
But then, as we know from so many examples constantly presented to us by the very dregs who posture as "good", Dan doesn't care about Maxwell, Epstein or any victim of them. He only cares about exploiting every opportunity to rationalize his unChristian hatred of Trump and his constant misrepresentation of the man.
You had no concern about Barry Obama being a crack-smoking homosexual enjoying fellatio from a dude. I have no concern about your unChristian hope that Trump is a pedophile.
Dan,
Given you have absolutely no understanding of conservatism, yours is hardly a reliable review.
That is virtually a given with Dan. He seems incapable of operating by the standards he demands of others. Beyond that, he seems incapable of grasping this massive contradiction which he lives out regularly.
Dan just needs to make shit up to divert the conversation back to his monomaniacal obsession with Trump.
If there is even consideration for any sort of pardon for Maxwell, it would have to be conditional on enough evidence for multiple convictions at a minimum.
Good point, I did think that Jesus came to give freedom to the captives. I guess Dan's selective about which captives get that deal.
Dan had no concern about Hillary actively aiding and abetting Bill's sex crimes, nor did he have any concern about Biden's long history of public lies and selling influence. He clearly has no concern that the conspiracy theories he willingly believed (Russiagate, Hunter's laptop, Hunter's influence peddling, etc) have all been demonstrated to have been invented by the very people he lauds as good people.
Post a Comment