My school is performing "Godspell", the acclaimed musical by Stephen Schwartz and John-Michael Tebelak. I was searching the Web today when I came across THIS:
Godspell- The Ultimate Blasphemy
I know this link is ancient, but the fact that it's out there on the Internet is what makes me mad. I have decided to break down the article, give my opinion, and put it on this blog. After deliberating over it carefully and reasonably, this is what I have concluded:
1. It falsely accuses the "hippie, counter-culture" of producing Godspell. This is not true. It was produced in 1970 by Stephen Schwartz and John-Michael Tebelak, who to the best of my knowledge had no association with this "counter-culture".
2. In the article, it is stated several times that there is no Resurrection. If they were to examine closer, they would see that the ending finale ends with a reprise of "Prepare Ye The Way Of The Lord", which obviously shows that the Apostles are expecting the Resurrection. Also, Godspell was meant to appeal to many audiences by showing Jesus' message rather than any religious truth.
3. When they say that no "spiritually sane" Christian would take Godspell seriously, I have to disagree. I know many "spiritually sane" Christians who love Godspell for its music, story, and its message. In fact, my school is a CATHOLIC JESUIT school, so it's appropriate to have Godspell be our school musical this year.
4. I have yet to find evidence of anybody in the 70's Christian mainstream avoiding Godspell like a "pit bull dog with AIDS". And as for the article saying "no Christian distributor would dare touch it"...how would that explain how Godspell has become a staple production in Christian communities?
5. Godspell not based on the Gospel? How can that be? They directly quote the Gospels throughout the entire show! I think they say this because they misinterpret the meaning of the word "Gospel". They define it based on St. Paul’s interpretation, NOT on the actual meaning of the word. “Gospel” is derived from the Middle English term “Godspell”, which means “good news”. Furthermore, “Godspell” is derived from the Greek term “Evangelion”, which means “a proclamation of the good news”. If this musical derives from Four Gospels themselves, as well as focusing on Jesus’ message (or “good news”), then it MUST be based upon the Gospel.
6. The article says that there is NOTHING in Godspell about “Christ dying for our sins”. It is expected that the audience already knows this, so why should it be outlined further? Also, the parables in the show consistently show that the sinful are punished and the just are rewarded, so why go to the trouble of having Christ die for our sins? WE ALREADY KNOW WHAT HAPPENS. WE READ THE BOOK.
7. The article asks, “Where is the blood?” Um, *ahem*, the Last Supper. Jesus says “Take this and drink, for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant shed for the forgiveness of sins…” This also answers #6. Besides, blood is rarely used in musical theatre, and it would be too distracting from Jesus’ message.
8. The article states that if there is no blood, there is no Gospel. They also say that because Jesus dies at the end with no Resurrection, there is no Gospel. Once again, you don’t need blood or a Resurrection scene for the true message of Jesus’ teaching to reach the audience. Eliminating any religious truth also makes it more appealing, which is good, because the message of Jesus Christ deserves to be heard by all, whether they realize it or not. If you really want a Resurrection scene, watch “Jesus Christ Superstar”. If you don’t like that, read the Bible, and don’t complain to me or anyone else.
9. On another note, just because there’s no Resurrection at the end of Godspell doesn’t mean that it never happened afterwards. The joyous music at the end of the finale implies the Resurrection to come, so therefore, based on 1 Corinthians 15:17, “your faith is [NOT IN] vain; ye are [NOT] yet in your sins.”
10. The article claims in Galatians 1:6-9, God says Godspell is accursed, because the article compares it to the mention of “another gospel” and “any other gospel” in those verses. Godspell is not “another gospel”. It is simply an interpretation of the original Four Gospels.
11. The article asks the following questions, each of which I have an answer to:
Q: How in the name of sanity does an “afro-haired, superman-shirt, clown-face-painted, harlequin-Jesus” possibly “remind” anyone with a brain—“that Jesus was an historical figure, the son of God, and not just some vaporous MYTH?”
A: The Jesus portrayed in Godspell is not a literal interpretation of Jesus; he is there as a reminder to the message Jesus taught, and to the good news he shared. Jesus is among us all, so why not show him as an “afro-haired, superman-shirt, clown-face-painted, harlequin”? I think it’s entertaining, and it doesn’t come off as blasphemous to me.
Q: How can any Christian that professes to believe that Jesus Christ loved them so much that He died for their sins stomach such vulgarity?
A: Apparently, all of the Christians that sat through Godspell. The article is referring a line in the song “Light of the World”: “We all need help to feel fine/Let’s have some wine!” It’s not like wine hasn’t been mentioned in the Gospels before, right? The Last Supper once again comes to mind. The article also refers to Sonia’s sexual behavior towards Jesus in “Turn Back, O Man”, especially the line: “C’mere Jesus, I got something to show ya!” I believe this is an interpretation of Mary Magdalene, and not any reference to Jesus’ sexual exploits. Jesus never responds to this line, showing that he’s just accepting it and going along with the song. He has nothing to do with it, because all of the vulgarity comes from Sonia. If Jesus were showing any vulgar or sexual connotations at all, then I would object. But since He Himself does nothing “naughty”, he is pure in this musical and pure in my heart.
12. The only reason Godspell portrays Jesus as a clown is because it was originally set on a deserted circus ground.
13. When Joey Elwood, as quoted in the article, refers to experiencing Christ in Godspell “in ways that we never thought we could”, he was referring to the interpretation of the Four Gospels and the good news in the form of a musical, NOT through the burlesque tune “Turn Back, O Man”, as the article claims.
14. Since when is America “Christian”? We are a melting pot of different beliefs and religions. It’s time to start acting religiously tolerant.
15. What WON’T people do for money? If I gave the organization that wrote this article one billion dollar, don’t you think that they would be willing to spend it on personal gain? Plus, even though CCM might be doing it for money, the fact is that Godspell is a great musical, with great music, and a great interpretation of Jesus’ message as well as the Four Gospels. It may not be completely what historically happened in the life of Jesus, it may portray Jesus as a clown, it may not have a Resurrection, and there may be no blood. But, since when has anyone proved undoubtedly that the Gospels are historically accurate? They may be faithfully accurate to Christianity, but are they an objective, unbiased biography of Jesus’ life? No. If the Gospels can’t give an objective portrayal of Jesus of History, who’s to say that Godspell can’t have an interpretation of Christ of Faith?
Godspell is an inspiring, fresh new look at the Four Gospels and Jesus’ message, teachings, and good news. If anyone interprets that in a negative light, then they need to seriously consider their morals, and probably provide a substantial amount of evidence to convince me otherwise. I am a Roman Catholic, and I support Godspell.
Because guess what? I read the Bible, and I know how the story goes, so why should anyone insult my intelligence and character by having to explain it to me again?
