to return to your place in the text.To read endnotes, click on the the note number, then click on the
The definitions of theology professors notwithstanding, one
would think that after almost 2,000 years, the question of who or
what is Jesus...the ultimate question...would have been settled,
at least for Christians. But such is apparently not the case,
and that is why we had another miniseries this week on the life
of Jesus. CBS promos said, "See the greatest story ever
told...as it's never been told before."
"His birth changed the way time is measured. His life
changed the destiny of billions. His death changed the course of
history. This May, CBS presents the first great miniseries event
of the new millennium...Experience for yourself who he really
was. JESUS." DRAMA!
There was a fair amount of pre-release press coverage on the
project. TV Guide says, "CBS's Jesus presents the first Messiah-as-surfer-dude. Jeremy Sisto's playful Jesus exhibits a zest
that should make his sacrifice all the more poignant."(1) TIME
magazine said the film "wants to find a middle ground between
irreverence and irrelevance, promising a Savior who laughs and
emotes like the blue-collar rabble rouser he was in the New
Testament. It takes steps toward greater realism, putting the
political ferment of Christ's time in the foreground [and it does
an outstanding job of that], but ends up a traditional, staid
epic that is double-dipped in ham-fisted dramatics."(2) Well,
quibble, quibble.
To be sure, when Hollywood starts to tell the story of
Jesus, we cannot be certain what to expect. The images might be
pious, as in Franco Zeffirelli's Jesus of Nazareth, the first
made-for-tv miniseries in 1977. They might border on the
blasphemous as in Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ
that caused such a furor a dozen years ago. But they all have
this in common -- they are largely fictional and take great
liberties with the Bible.
For example, in this week's presentation, early on we find
Jesus coming to Bethany to the home of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus.
As it turns out, Mary has a crush on Jesus and obviously wants to
marry him, a prospect with which Martha and Lazarus are perfectly
happy. In fact, in an effort to motivate Jesus toward Mary, the
information is offered that another young man in town has already
proposed, so Jesus, if you are interested, you had better get a
move on... Unfortunately, the script writers must not have been
aware that middle eastern marriages in the first century were not
arranged that way - in fact, they were ARRANGED...by the families
of prospective brides and grooms; romance had nothing to do with
them. The reasoning was that a marriage was far too important a
step to leave to emotion and hormones. (And with the modern rate
of divorce, they may just have something there.) Of course, the
Bible never has Mary pining away over Jesus, but Hollywood needs
a love interest in the story somewhere - at least this one did
not have Jesus hanging on the cross and fantasizing about having
sex with Mary Magdalene as The Last Temptation of Christ did, so
thank heaven for small favors.
Speaking of Mary Magdalene, she, as usual, was presented
this week as a prostitute. Just as a matter of information, that
tidbit of biographical data is found NOwhere in the gospels. It
has been speculated in the church for hundreds of years, but is
ONLY speculation. Still, it regularly appears in film as a fact.
There is a certain drama to it, the prostitute as disciple. OK.
Just remember, it is not biblical.
Of course, Hollywood's playing fast and loose with scripture
is the rule rather than the exception. In this depiction, there
is a scene from Jesus' boyhood where he restores a bird that has
accidentally been killed back to life. That story is not in our
Bible. Then there is a scene in which Jesus and Mary and Joseph
discuss the suffering of the Jews - Joseph starts to apply a
little pressure on Jesus, to do something about it. Jesus looks
clueless - it is as if Mary and Joseph know more about his divine
nature and mission than Jesus does. Scripture does not offer any
such picture.
Speaking of Mary and Joseph, the film presents an
exceptionally warm family relationship among them. Jesus holds
them both in the highest regard and lets everyone know it.
Following Joseph's death, Jesus is torn with grief, and he cries
out to God to raise Joseph from the dead: "Give him back to me,"
he wails. "Raise him! Raise him up in my arms!" But then, just
as in the Garden of Gethsemene, Jesus concludes his prayer with
"Your will be done."
The film does an excellent job of portraying Jesus as very
human with a good sense of humor and appreciation of fun,
something I have long insisted is true. I do not know if he
actually started any water fights with the disciples, but I would
not rule it out either. Call that scene artistic licence.
That certainly came into play with the depiction of Satan.
The Evil One is portrayed alternately by a man in a twentieth
century designer suit with slicked back hair, looking for all the
world like a wizard of Wall Street, and a beautiful woman dressed
in a bright red gossamer gown that blows wildly in the wind. We
encounter him/her/it as Jesus is tempted in the wilderness at the
beginning of his ministry and again in the Garden of Gethsemane
as he wrestles with his impending torture and murder. In an
interview, producer Lorenzo Minoli explained his reasoning: "We
wanted to emphasize the fact that Jesus is still with us. So we
included some contemporary elements. We have flashes of the
Crusades, the burning of witches, World War 1, and Kosovo. For
Kosovo we did a reenactment. You see, we also wanted to point
out that Satan is still with us, too."(3) Good point. And very
interesting artistry.
So saying, sometimes theological problems arise when
artistic licence goes too far. For example, all the gospels
report the story of Jesus' baptism by his cousin John. The only
thing we hear John say to Jesus in scripture leading up to the
ceremony is a reluctance to do it - John felt unworthy. In this
week's film, however, when Jesus asks John to baptize him, John
responds, "If you confess your sins and dedicate your life to
God, OF COURSE!" But traditional Christian understanding is that
Jesus had no sins to confess - he was the spotless "Lamb of God
who takes away the sin of the world." That got lost in the
artistic license.
Obviously, any cinematic rendition of the gospel record will
be a mixture of fact and fiction, and most producers will stress
that. Sadly, that will make no difference to those who choose to
object. To them it is not fiction so much as blasphemy. After
all, the subject of the story is not some minor historical
figure, but the founder of our faith, the one whom a third of the
world worships as Lord. This is the one to whom Peter said, "You
are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Some years ago, in the midst of all the controversy about
Scorcese's The Last Temptation of Christ, as the congregation I
served was filing out after the 11:00 o'clock service, a well-dressed young man came to the church door obviously looking to
speak with me. In his hand he held a petition and a plan of
action for me to use to help prevent the distribution or showing
of The Last Temptation of Christ. I said, "Thanks, but no
thanks." I had not seen the film at that point and would not
condemn it on the basis of hearsay evidence. I would want to
make my OWN decision after seeing it before saying it was worth
or not worth viewing. He asked, "Do you want to SEE it?" I
said, "Of course." He found that difficult to believe, but with
sadness, he left. He probably felt that this was one more
heretical mainline minister who, as in days of old, should
probably be burned at the stake! Sad, again.
Well, I am NOT a heretic! I believe that Jesus is "the
Christ, the Son of the living God." And if movies, whether the
one this week, or even The Last Temptation..., flawed as it was
(and even silly as it was), get people to look again at Jesus,
then I say God bless 'em, because looking at Jesus is something
Christians do not do enough.
Why do we not? Several reasons, I suspect. First, our
theological formulations about the person and work of Jesus
Christ were fairly well settled for us by the church fathers in
the early centuries of the faith. We repeat the words of the
creed: "one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God...God
of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God; Begotten, not
made...one substance with the Father...incarnate by the Holy
Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man..." We remember the
words of our confessional statements: "God and man, in two
distinct natures, and one Person forever."(4) We believe all that
even if we do not understand it any more than the "proleptic,
salvific, hidden appearance of the eschatological kingdom of
God." The theology is settled for us! "You are the Christ, the
son of the living God."
A second reason for not looking much at Jesus is that, for
the most part, our picture of him is well established. We are
content with the mental images of Christ we have had since
childhood...a beautiful baby in an ethereally-lighted antiseptic
manger; a white-robed teacher gently and lovingly instructing
attentive crowds on lush, green hillsides; a brilliant and
insightful debater who calmly and courteously skewers opponents
with his incontrovertible logic; an unfortunate martyr who died
with supreme dignity. This is our picture. Yes, we want to say
more than the ancient gossip about his being another John the
Baptist or Elijah or Jeremiah or some other prophet. But those
childish images are generally sufficient, even if they end up
giving us a hot-house flower kind of Lord. This is what we most
often mean with "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
A third reason for not looking too closely at Jesus is that
we would simply rather not. Our pat theological answers and our
warm mental images are just fine, thank you. We have enough
challenges in our lives. Our children are a challenge, making
ends meet is a challenge, staying healthy is a challenge, the
environment is a challenge...challenge, challenge, challenge. We
do not need that from our religion TOO! Please, let us have
SOMETHING in this life that is NOT a challenge, something we can
count on, something we do not have to worry about.
To be sure, there are parts of the Biblical picture of
Christ that absolutely challenge us - we would rather not notice
Jesus' evident bias in favor of the poor and marginalized of
society; as wealthy Americans we would rather he not remind us,
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than
for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven";(5) as good church
goers, we would rather not notice that the ones for whom Jesus
had the most contempt were the religious folk of his day; for
people who want comfort rather than challenge from their faith,
we surely do not want to hear, "If any want to become my
followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross..."(6)
Those are all a part of the Biblical picture, but "No, Lord. Let
us simply say, `You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,'
and leave it at that."
I suspect Lorenzo Minoli and his screen writers would agree
with the wisdom of the remark that "The only way to make a good
statue is to throw away good marble."(7) You and I might or might
not agree with what was "chipped away" in this film, but that is
all right. If it challenges people to actually THINK about
Jesus, to see and hear him in a new way, it accomplishes more
than most of the traditional images ever do.
Can we then learn from it, even though some of it might be
questionable? Of course. During my doctoral studies, one of my
professors recounted an experience from his early days in
seminary. He had gone out to a small country church for worship
one Sunday and was mortified to hear some of the worst theology
he had ever encountered coming from a Presbyterian pulpit. As he
sat and listened and heard this wrong, that wrong, and the other
wrong, he began to wonder how in the world God could ever use
this kind of drivel. Then he realized that God had indeed used
it; God had spoken to him that morning by forcing him to reflect
on his faith. The result: he got something out of it. He might
not have gotten what the preacher had intended, but God did
speak.
Millions upon millions of words have been written and spoken
about Jesus. As Emerson once noted, "The name of Jesus is not so
much written as PLOUGHED into the history of the world."(8) But
none of that history has ever been able to tell the whole story.
Surely, the "Jesus" mini-series did not even BEGIN to do that,
nor have any of the other cinematic attempts through the years.
But, as that great preacher of the last century, Horace Bushnell
once said, "Who can satisfy himself with anything he can say
concerning Jesus Christ?"
"Who do you say that I am," asks Jesus. After seeing this
week's portrayal, the press responds, "A vibrant multi-dimensional Messiah: a man haunted by visions of atrocities still
to come (the Crusades, the burning of Joan of Arc, the world
wars), yet one who loves to laugh, eat, drink, and dance in the
streets with wild abandon."(9)
Then the question is asked of you, the ultimate question.
"Who do YOU say that I am?" Proleptic? Salvific? Eschatological?
Or anything like that? I doubt it. No, my prayer is that, with
Simon Peter, you would simply say with every fibre of your being,
"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Amen!
1. TV Guide, 5/6/00, p. 24 2. James Poniewozik, "Human, None Too Human," TIME, 5/15/00, p. 86 3. http://www.hollywoodjesus.com 4. Shorter Catechism, Q.21 5. Matthew 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25 6. Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23 7. G. K. Chesterton 8. Quoted by Charles Jacobs, "Life's Most Important Question," sermon, in 88
Evangelistic Sermons (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), p. 19 9. "The Greatest Story, Retold," TV Guide, 5/6/00, p. 18
click and send us mail