Those Eccentric, Gay Renaissance Painters Really Knew Their Bible, Didn't They?
Being that this is a music blog, I hope you'll pardon my amoebic fence-hopping by borrowing from the literary/cinematic mediums to make my point.
In last few years, we were treated to two completely polar-opposite media frenzies regarding upcoming films. Oddly enough, both films were, in their own ways, argumentative pieces regarding the historical trajectory of Jesus Christ: The Passion of the Christ, and The DaVinci Code.
When word leaked to the media that Mel Gibson was going to produce a film about the last twelve hours of Jesus' life, the war was on. Good Morning America ran a seemingly yearlong personal offensive against Gibson, while supplementing it with their own, sudden discovery that violence could have an affect on children who happen to watch that violence when it's happening in a movie. News correspondents camped out in "hot spots"—places where a cinematically-fueled upwelling in anti-Semitism would certainly have moviegoers throwing Jewish babies into furnaces and plowing the Kosher fields with salt within a matter of hours.
Still, Gibson successfully marketed his movie—one that had the audacity to present Jesus' plight with some reasonable accuracy. Surprisingly, 600 million dollars later, not a single moviegoer decided to challenge the Palestinians' for their heavyweight, Jew-killing title.
And the media gnawed their tongues for pain.
Then, Ron Howard decides to cinematically distill Dan Brown's, The DaVinci Code-a movie that, when stripped of all it's historical pretence and embroidered artistic historical hooey, basically say Jesus was a fraud, who married Mary Magdalene, faked his own death and resurrection, and went on to become French somehow.
Yet, Good Morning America began a daily, modular countdown, broadcasting from the Louvre, the Vatican, and the Rennes-le-Château in France. Diane Sawyer could barely contain her excitement for the advent of a movie whose central theme literally bulldozes the faith of millions as a “myth.”
High-profile treatments of my Lord like these give me pause about our central themes here.
Gibson and Howard are both inarguably gifted actors and directors. Both have at their fingertips, access to the crème-de-la-crème of creative nerve centers. Both have nearly limitless personal budgets. Both have otherworldly production values that drive their creations worlds away from anything remotely associated with “hokey.”
Yet, the industry did its dead-level best to take out Gibson, as well as his message. Had he not financed the film almost entirely out of his own pocket, it would have never seen the light of day. All Gibson had to do was insert something into that film that challenged either the notions of Jesus’ deity, or his purity, and the fiery darts would have ceased. Instantly.
All of my breathy setup to make this little point: We can lay the blame for Apostolic music’s “lack of legs” on anything, whether it is production values, genre, sub-genre, voice, class, genus, species, kingdom, sub-kingdom—or whatever. But if we, as Apostolics, are to remain true to our message, then we must come to grips with the fact that Jesus-as-God is a problem in the world’s eyes.
No matter how you wrap Him.
In last few years, we were treated to two completely polar-opposite media frenzies regarding upcoming films. Oddly enough, both films were, in their own ways, argumentative pieces regarding the historical trajectory of Jesus Christ: The Passion of the Christ, and The DaVinci Code.
When word leaked to the media that Mel Gibson was going to produce a film about the last twelve hours of Jesus' life, the war was on. Good Morning America ran a seemingly yearlong personal offensive against Gibson, while supplementing it with their own, sudden discovery that violence could have an affect on children who happen to watch that violence when it's happening in a movie. News correspondents camped out in "hot spots"—places where a cinematically-fueled upwelling in anti-Semitism would certainly have moviegoers throwing Jewish babies into furnaces and plowing the Kosher fields with salt within a matter of hours.
Still, Gibson successfully marketed his movie—one that had the audacity to present Jesus' plight with some reasonable accuracy. Surprisingly, 600 million dollars later, not a single moviegoer decided to challenge the Palestinians' for their heavyweight, Jew-killing title.
And the media gnawed their tongues for pain.
Then, Ron Howard decides to cinematically distill Dan Brown's, The DaVinci Code-a movie that, when stripped of all it's historical pretence and embroidered artistic historical hooey, basically say Jesus was a fraud, who married Mary Magdalene, faked his own death and resurrection, and went on to become French somehow.
Yet, Good Morning America began a daily, modular countdown, broadcasting from the Louvre, the Vatican, and the Rennes-le-Château in France. Diane Sawyer could barely contain her excitement for the advent of a movie whose central theme literally bulldozes the faith of millions as a “myth.”
High-profile treatments of my Lord like these give me pause about our central themes here.
Gibson and Howard are both inarguably gifted actors and directors. Both have at their fingertips, access to the crème-de-la-crème of creative nerve centers. Both have nearly limitless personal budgets. Both have otherworldly production values that drive their creations worlds away from anything remotely associated with “hokey.”
Yet, the industry did its dead-level best to take out Gibson, as well as his message. Had he not financed the film almost entirely out of his own pocket, it would have never seen the light of day. All Gibson had to do was insert something into that film that challenged either the notions of Jesus’ deity, or his purity, and the fiery darts would have ceased. Instantly.
All of my breathy setup to make this little point: We can lay the blame for Apostolic music’s “lack of legs” on anything, whether it is production values, genre, sub-genre, voice, class, genus, species, kingdom, sub-kingdom—or whatever. But if we, as Apostolics, are to remain true to our message, then we must come to grips with the fact that Jesus-as-God is a problem in the world’s eyes.
No matter how you wrap Him.
posted by Ron Giesecke at
Friday, July 20, 2007
4 Comments:
True, Jesus is God is a problem in the world's eyes in some respects. But let's take your two examples, The Passion of the Christ and The DaVinci Code. One movie went on to make crazy millions and in the end was respected in critics' eyes. The second, though pumped up with a lot of hype, in the end, didn't live up to it. Gibson (like him or not) stayed pretty true to Jesus-as-God and hit a profound chord around the world. The DaVinci Code (the movie version anyway), well . . . didn't.
It's true that Jesus-as-God will be a problem to some no matter how you package Him, but maybe this shows that since the packaging may wither and fade, staying true to Him is the real measure of success, and sometimes, as the success of Gibson's movie shows, even in the world's eyes.
A very good podcast that you need to see if this blog interests you is by Pastor Mark Driscoll in Mars Hill church in Seattle.
The message is from a series called Vintage Jesus. The title is "What difference has Jesus made in history?"
It is excellent and points out with much factual evidence (unlike Dan Brown) that Jesus is no doubt the most important figure in the history of the world. Very moving and inspiring.
You can find it on itunes or at marshillchurch.org.
Ron,
This was so good. I have had a lengthy e-mail discussion (about 2 years!)with a cousin of mine about the question of Jesus, Christianity and what it truth. My cousin claims to be taoist, believes the Old Testament, some Jewish practices. He's quite a hodge-podge. On top of the fact that he doesn't believe Jesus is God, he just plain has a lot of trouble with the whole "servant" mentality and being dependant on God. You are SO right when you say that "Jesus-as-God is a problem in the world's eyes". To me that's it in a nutshell. I think people can't accept that, according to Ravi Zacharias, "truth, by it's very nature, is exclusive." From all the emails with my cousin I've concluded that Jesus just demands too much from the prevailing world-view.
Ann
Ron:
Your post reminded me of something Bro. Beardsley shared in a UGST class. It's from Anne Rice's book "Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt." She is an author best known for her vampire chronicles and was an avowed atheist for most of her adult life. After re-converting to the Catholic faith of her youth she decided to write this book about Jesus' childhood. As with all her books, she prides herself on extensive historical research. In an author's note, she describes the trepidation she felt on beginning her study: "I expected to discover arguments [against the divinity of Jesus Christ] would be frighteningly strong, and that Christianity was, at heart, a kind of fraud." However, she went on to discover "some of the worst and most biased scholarship I'd ever read." She continues with the astonished revelation that "Many of these scholars, scholars who apparently devoted their life to New Testament scholarship, disliked Jesus Christ....I'd never come across this kind of emotion in any other field of research, at least not to this extent. It was puzzling. The people who go into Elizabethan studies don't set out to prove that Queen Elizabeth I was a fool. They don't personally dislike her. They don't make snickering remarks about her, or spend their careers trying to pick apart her historical reputation." Anyway, the author's note goes on and on and is well worth the read. All of which is to say, people fight against something because they can't dismiss it no matter how much they want to. This explains the effect you describe as well as Chantell's observation. People who don't want Jesus to impact their lives feel the need to rail against him and try to explain him away. If Jesus didn't have the power to transform lives no one would feel the need to try to argue against him, but the fact is Jesus radically impacts people's lives and the ones whose lives he's changed appear to be just as vocal in making a box office smash (even though I personally did not like the movie and have fallen asleep twice while trying to watch it). Thanks for the thoughts you provoke.
Post a Comment
<< Home