The Son of God Movie--Can't We All Just Get Along?
Since Rodney King uttered those words in the aftermath of the riots that followed his abuse at the hands of LAPD in 1992, two people have used that plaintive cry. One, to ask honestly why we can't put aside petty differences and find peace, and two, those who use the plaintive phrase ironically. In other words, as smart butts.
Which category do I and this post fall into? Well . . . keep reading and decide.
Because I am in the middle of a doctoral program and teaching two new classes this semester, my blogging has been minimal. However, we are coming up on Lent, and I like to post daily during Lent and Advent--odd for a Baptist, I suppose. What I "give up" for Lent (what a joke, as if middle class Americans really give up anything) is media for more time for spiritual pursuits, one of which is blogging reflections about the redemptive season, as I'll call it. I am also on spring break (yes, I know, it's not spring and it was 20 degree wind chill in North Georgia last night), so I have a little time. I just spoke at a conference this morning and it was a load off my back and heart, so I'll indulge.
Perusing Facebook, I came across a post that linked to the following.
http://thelasthiker.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/the-son-of-god-movie-is-not-what-we-think-do-you-know-the-voice-of-your-master/
Now, this writer, whose name I could not find on the blog anywhere (but that might be my oversight, so look for yourself) pulls no punches in his/her critique of the Roma Downey/Mark Burnett film Son of God, which I learned yesterday, did $26 Million this last weekend, just behind the Liam Neeson airplane movie that also stars Michelle Dockery, cashing in on Downton Abbey fame. Clearly, I know way too much about this stuff. I should use all that brainpower and space to learn another foreign language!
The blogger details Roma Downey's New Age connections. I wasn't surprised by that, really. This blogger seems to have done his/her homework and a great deal of research to indict the doctrinal purity of the film's producers. However, the real target of the blogger's rhetoric is the "New Age-friendly' megachurch pastors such as Osteen, Jakes, and Warren and even Focus on the Family, who promote the film to Christian people.
My first response was, "Well, I wasn't going to go to the movie anyway, and I didn't watch that miniseries about the Bible, so I guess I pass this blog's heresy test." Now I'm being snarky. In all seriousness, I agree with his/her arguments pretty much wholeheartedly. What bothered me, though, was that I couldn't get a real sense of what the blogger's positions were other than what he/she is against, not for. We can defend so much that we offend; we can be fighting so many dragons that we don't realize what we are standing on, like the cartoon characters.
Plus, that guy who plays Jesus is goofy-looking. Bring back Jim Caviezel. He's a man's man. He's a "bad a--," as my son says. His portrayal of Jesus did not look like a teenage wimp.
My larger question is "Why do we evangelical Christians need to be affirmed by Hollywood?" Why do we need a movie at the theaters to make us feel accepted? Why do we expect Hollywood to get the Bible right? Why do we rush to the theater to pay money for these things. The Jesus Movie, used all over the world for evangelism, would make more sense. Why are we so gullible? Do we need a screen that much to complete our imaginations? And, how oh how, could the church have survived 2000 years without Roma Downey and Mel Gibson?
Hollywood is first and foremost about money. Jesus had some things to say about that as a substitute god. The Downeys and Gibsons cultivate the gullible evangelicals to make a profit; they are good businesspeople. And I don't doubt they have some respect for Jesus, in some way.
To answer my question in the title, probably not. I won't be going; I also didn't go to The Passion of the Christ, although I think he did some beautiful artistic things with it from the scenes I did view. I will look for Jesus in the pages of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. I will not let him be tamed by Hollywood or my own desires for a God who fits my lifestyle.
Which category do I and this post fall into? Well . . . keep reading and decide.
Because I am in the middle of a doctoral program and teaching two new classes this semester, my blogging has been minimal. However, we are coming up on Lent, and I like to post daily during Lent and Advent--odd for a Baptist, I suppose. What I "give up" for Lent (what a joke, as if middle class Americans really give up anything) is media for more time for spiritual pursuits, one of which is blogging reflections about the redemptive season, as I'll call it. I am also on spring break (yes, I know, it's not spring and it was 20 degree wind chill in North Georgia last night), so I have a little time. I just spoke at a conference this morning and it was a load off my back and heart, so I'll indulge.
Perusing Facebook, I came across a post that linked to the following.
http://thelasthiker.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/the-son-of-god-movie-is-not-what-we-think-do-you-know-the-voice-of-your-master/
Now, this writer, whose name I could not find on the blog anywhere (but that might be my oversight, so look for yourself) pulls no punches in his/her critique of the Roma Downey/Mark Burnett film Son of God, which I learned yesterday, did $26 Million this last weekend, just behind the Liam Neeson airplane movie that also stars Michelle Dockery, cashing in on Downton Abbey fame. Clearly, I know way too much about this stuff. I should use all that brainpower and space to learn another foreign language!
The blogger details Roma Downey's New Age connections. I wasn't surprised by that, really. This blogger seems to have done his/her homework and a great deal of research to indict the doctrinal purity of the film's producers. However, the real target of the blogger's rhetoric is the "New Age-friendly' megachurch pastors such as Osteen, Jakes, and Warren and even Focus on the Family, who promote the film to Christian people.
My first response was, "Well, I wasn't going to go to the movie anyway, and I didn't watch that miniseries about the Bible, so I guess I pass this blog's heresy test." Now I'm being snarky. In all seriousness, I agree with his/her arguments pretty much wholeheartedly. What bothered me, though, was that I couldn't get a real sense of what the blogger's positions were other than what he/she is against, not for. We can defend so much that we offend; we can be fighting so many dragons that we don't realize what we are standing on, like the cartoon characters.
Plus, that guy who plays Jesus is goofy-looking. Bring back Jim Caviezel. He's a man's man. He's a "bad a--," as my son says. His portrayal of Jesus did not look like a teenage wimp.
My larger question is "Why do we evangelical Christians need to be affirmed by Hollywood?" Why do we need a movie at the theaters to make us feel accepted? Why do we expect Hollywood to get the Bible right? Why do we rush to the theater to pay money for these things. The Jesus Movie, used all over the world for evangelism, would make more sense. Why are we so gullible? Do we need a screen that much to complete our imaginations? And, how oh how, could the church have survived 2000 years without Roma Downey and Mel Gibson?
Hollywood is first and foremost about money. Jesus had some things to say about that as a substitute god. The Downeys and Gibsons cultivate the gullible evangelicals to make a profit; they are good businesspeople. And I don't doubt they have some respect for Jesus, in some way.
To answer my question in the title, probably not. I won't be going; I also didn't go to The Passion of the Christ, although I think he did some beautiful artistic things with it from the scenes I did view. I will look for Jesus in the pages of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. I will not let him be tamed by Hollywood or my own desires for a God who fits my lifestyle.
Comments