Friday, February 8, 2008

I am mad.

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?

14 comments:

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JOHN BARBOUR said...

i'M GLAD YOU SAID SOMTHING because I have felt the same way. To me it is art. And in addition it has not only a good positive message but the very words of Jesus. This is something more than 99% of Broadway and Hollywood have. I can see it from both sides, so I know how some might take it but I choose to see the good and know that God has used it for good. Thanks

Mike Holmes said...

I have done piano and Hammond organ plus sound design for 10 productions of this show since 1973. The people who wrote the aritcle, which I've read myself and wrote to them (no reply, of course) simply shows that they are locked into a certain mindeset and that anything outside that mindset is confusing and frightening to them.

The best example of this is their complaint of Jesus portrayed as a clown. They do not know that it is not the slapstick clown of vaudeville or the circus portrayed in the show but the true clown, which is a most tragic figure. Once one understands the humanity of this show one understands why many people have come to have faith directly because of this musical.

Unfortunately, the folks who wrote the 'Ultimate Blasphemy' article have God in a box. They think He doesn't recognize communication with Him unless it's couched in music written in the middle 1800's, performed in a setting that hasn't changed much since then, and I'll be dollars to donuts that they think every Bible out there save the KJV is also blasphemy, because I've heard such people say so.

Pay no attention to them. They are scared to pieces of thinking outside their own.

Hope your show went well! Mike

Autumn Lion said...

Just out of curiosity, what school do you attend? I'm thinking about directing a production of Godspell at my school but I am researching absolutely everything first. I love Godspell, but I want everything to be good for my school.

Mike Holmes said...

Autumn Lion, with all due modesty (not, ha) I am a semi-authority on every aspect of the show and can be of service to you, if you'd like to contact me. Email me at gkeller1984@hotmail.com. Thanks!
Mike

loretta said...

According to composer Stephen Schwartz, "Godspell is about the formation of a community which carries on JESUS’ teachings after he has gone. In other words, it is the effect JESUS has on the OTHERS which is the story of the show, not whether or not he himself is resurrected." Is this the gospel of Jesus Christ? Was the historical Jesus just a moral man or was he the Son of God? If you read the gospels you will see that the apostles were reduced to cringing cowards after the crucifixion. It was the resurrection of Jesus that changed them into bold witness willing to lay down their lives for the truth about the divinity of Jesus which was established by the resurrection. I appreciate your passion for theater and your zeal to stage Godspell, but keep in mind that the Gospels are not for entertainment, but for salvation. If you are confident about this, then go ahead, but make sure that you know the truth first.

Unknown said...

It also states there is no blood however it is supposed to be a slap - stick play and the mood is supposed to be light so they used RED RIBBONS TO SYMBOLIZE BLOOD! The play makes plenty sense and the link is just smut

lajmh said...

I happen to like the movie, and it seems everyone is still doing it live.

Whether you're Catholic or Protestant it is heartbreaking to see the scene on top of the World Trade Center (not quite completed).

YourDailyInspiration said...

"spiritually sane" is that a euphemism for Christians who think exactly the same as you do? The fact is Godspell strips Christ of His divinity by presenting him as a clown bereft of miracles, the indwelling of God or His blessed resurrection. I won't even get into John the Baptist and Judas Iscariot being one and the same in the play. I suggest you read the Bible a little more and ask the Holy Spirit for discernment.

Unknown said...

I was a Jesus freak back in the 70s and loved it. I however was not a Christian at the time... just a hippy who wanted some meaning in his life. In the late 60s with all the social upheaval we all wanted to see Jesus as an antiestablishment hippy. I actually embraced historical Christianity in the 80s and then I did find it to be blasphemous. I still think that Jesus was pretty anti establishment....but I have a problem with him being portrayed as a clown in a slapstick musical. I now find it an insult to his holiness and his position within the Trinity. But I am not going to be doing any picketing...considering evangelical Christianity has turned the Christ into a shill for jingoistic americanism since then I find more distressing.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Fred Miller: The Godspell: The Ultimate Blasphemy website that this blog is challenging is the one that used the term "spiritually sane". They said "no 'spiritually sane' Christian would take Godspell seriously." The blogger says in response to that "I have to disagree. I know many 'spiritually sane' Christians who love Godspell for its music, story, and its message."

As for me, I personally love Godspell. It tells all the major stories from the Gospel of Matthew and some stories from the other Gospels. Most of the lyrics to the songs are derived from prayers, the Bible, and the Episcopal Hymnal. The lyrics from Day By Day come from a prayer by Richard of Wyche, Bishop of Chichester who lived in the 13 century. I find the play to be a joyful and uplifting experience that points to the One who inspired it.

Unknown said...

I saw Godspell in the seventies, 1971 to be exact. Saw it at Ford's Theatre with my parents. I was a brand new Christian. I enjoyed the music and the theme. I read the Gospel of Matthew after the play. Reaffirmed my faith.

Unknown said...

I saw it for the 1st time, a high school near me did it. Actually, it was like the Bible stories being told by abunch of hippies on an acid trip!