I got the following chain letter a couple of days ago:
Translated from Spanish: A movie in bad taste is coming out soon in North America. This film, titled "Corpus Christi" (Body of Christ), shows Jesus in homosexual relationships with his disciples. It is a repugnant parody of Jesus. Nevertheless, action from our part could probably change things. Would you accept adding your name at the end of the following list? If so, we could avoid the distribution of this mocking, untruthful film which doesn't contribute anything positive. WE NEED LOTS OF SIGNATURES.
"Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father." (Mt. 10:32)
Unfortunately, I have to admit that I needed to correct some grammar mistakes, but the idea is there. The e-mail address of the person which will receive it after 500 signatures have been gathered is given afterwards.
First off: no such movie ... that talks about this topic ... has ever been in production. I don't want to seem to be anti-religious: I have a lot of religious friends and love them dearly. This rant is about the prejudgement some people (being religious or not) have over something that apparently they have no clue about, and this cannot be a better example of it. They are asking people to sign a petition over a movie that doesn't exist, only because it might probably deal with Jesus in a homosexual manner.
Apparently this rumor was started almost a decade ago, which relates to a play of the same name that talks about the life of a gay man called Joshua who is beaten up in Corpus Christi, Texas. He eventually flees the town and comes back with 12 friends/lovers just to be betrayed by one of them: Judas.
It didn't surprise me when I also found that they were also a group of a people that protested for that play too. Many of which didn't even see the play... what if Jesus would have been portrayed as an attentive and generous lover? I think that it is reasonable to believe that, given that he'd be homosexual and non-celibate (which is debatable, but not the point right now). But oh no:
Jesus was perfect. Jesus was always right. Jesus never had intercourse: how could he?
No, don't touch my Jesus!
Jesus was not human!
Is that the point? How disappointing: I would've thought that Jesus would've wanted for us to converse, to find a common ground through him about what it is to be human, to be flawed. Isn't that part of the Bible's teachings: find ourselves through him? Then why stop the conversation about what one particular person thinks about him?
What do you think about Jesus? I think that he was great! Good! Next? Good deeds all over. Ok. How about you? Interesting ideas, but I think he's a little over-hyped. How dare you not like Jesus? Get out now!
Mmm... maybe that's how all the religious confrontations started then: not listening the other side. And if that weren't enough, I found the following review about the play written by somebody that actually saw it:
Jesus and his apostles open the proceedings by explaining their roles. They are all presented as ordinary people in professions ranging from hairdresser and hustler to the usual doctor-lawyer-indian chief professions. The "real" story is all there -- Nativity, the Sermon on the Mount, the Last Supper -- but with substitutions to add the right degree of up-to-date relevancy. True to the title, Joshua is born in a motel room and grows up in the playwright's own home town of Corpus Christi, Tex. Sex while suggested is never graphic and the four-letter words should offer few surprises to today's theater goers. How original did the critics find it? Corpus Christi's originality came under universal attack. Ben Brantley of The New York Times launched into his review with "The excitement stops right after the metal detectors." After summing up the security procedures he went on to say "That's pretty much it for pulse-quickening drama. The play that brought an outraged chorus of protest even before it went into rehearsal is about as threatening, and stimulating, as a glass of chocolate milk."
I wonder, though: what if the play would have been about a black man in the apartheid era? Or a woman during the Civil Rights movement? The protests would have been very interesting, don't you think?
I'm sorry but i don't agree with you at all!!! If only you knew what you are talking about..good luck!
You mention Civil Rights era. Think of it this way then: Some one decides to make a stirring Civil Rights tale about Martin Luthor King jr but, in this version he is a white guy. It would make his message a bit pointless coming from a character so unlike him wouldn't it. That is why people have a problem without having seen this.
I don't think your analogy sticks: we KNOW Dr. King was not white, and even if he was, his message was so powerful that I don't think it would matter the COLOR of the person who says it.
On the other hand, we don't KNOW that Jesus was gay or not, but his message still is powerful, regardless of that.
And frankly, I would like for people to have seen the play before they judged it and condemned it the way the did.
Post a Comment