The Last Temptation of Christ --why was it ever controversial?

[pldennison]

*Originally posted by rjung *
**

Please, rjung, if you would, describe for us all the long history Judaism has of discouraging thinking and attempting to bilk money from its adherents. For followup, please do the same for the Jesuits.

I don’t know of any church/temple/synagogue/whatever that encourages active discussion of the nonexistence of God, do you?**

What does that have to do with what you said, which was, and I quote, “And if there’s one thing that religion teaches people, it’s that thinking is bad.” You didn’t say, “Contemplating the nonexistence of God is bad,” now did you? Or is that the only kind of thinking there is?

I’d actually appreciate an answer rather than a dodge, if you don’t mind. Do you really believe that Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism, in the general sense, actively discourage thought among believers?

** Or, if you want to tie it in to the OP, tell me why most of the folks who were condemning The Last Temptation of Christ didn’t bother to see the movie for themselves and formed their own opinions – as opposed to being told, “We must protest this blasphemous film!” and showing up bright-and-early the next morning without question… **

I would bet two things here: A) Most theaters that did see any protests probably saw a very small number of protestors, and II) The number of people protesting constituted such a small part of the entire community of religious believers as to be statistically insignificant.

[Mr.Billy]

This is my first post ever. I hope it’s of interest to someone other than me.

A few thoughts about the outrage concerning The Last Temptation of Christ.

1. Not everyone who had qualms about LToC is “a fundamentalist”. Kazantzakis himself was aware that he was walking the edge of irreverence, by speculating about the humanness of Jesus the Christ in explicit terms.

B. I think the outrage may have had a good deal to do with the perceived motivations of the movie makers, and the sometimes combative nature of sincerely held belief. The church has been hashing out the implications of Christ’s dual nature for about 2000 years now, with mixed results on the civility front, even among believers.

So, perhaps LToC was not exactly the best way to turn a big summer movie profit without engendering a PR bloodbath. In the end, both the medium and the messenger were grossly inappropriate for the subject matter. It should not require too keen an insight into human nature to understand that.

iii. I wish folks would quit using the word “fundamentalist” around here. It seems to be little more than a name people call others when they don’t really want to talk to them anymore. Its only purpose is to place certain people and their ideas beyond the intellectual pale. This – I think – is a terrible shame.

I hope that sheds some light. Thanks for reading. Soli deo gloria.

–B

[Drastic]

1. Not everyone who had qualms about LToC is “a fundamentalist”. Kazantzakis himself was aware that he was walking the edge of irreverence, by speculating about the humanness of Jesus the Christ in explicit terms.

Ah, but I’m not after qualms. I can understand qualms aplenty for the film–discomfort with painting Judas as downright noble, that (as Ahunter3 noted) Jesus did seem a trifle dim (to be fair, that is an all-too-human quality), and so on. I’m trying to understand the outrage. Different thing entirely, in my way of seeing things.

B. I think the outrage may have had a good deal to do with the perceived motivations of the movie makers, and the sometimes combative nature of sincerely held belief. The church has been hashing out the implications of Christ’s dual nature for about 2000 years now, with mixed results on the civility front, even among believers.

Clause the second is a valid answer, I suppose–outrage happens because belief leads to outrage. I think there’s a kernel of another GD in that–why does belief lead so often to combative anger?

Clause the first is…interesting. Which perceived motivations would those be?

In the end, both the medium and the messenger were grossly inappropriate for the subject matter. It should not require too keen an insight into human nature to understand that.

Why is a motion picture a grossly inappropriate medium for religious subject matter? Is it in general, or simply for the duality of Christ in specific? Was the novel the film was based on likewise grossly inappropriate, and again if so, why?

And likewise for the messenger–but before that, which messenger? The actors? Scorsese? Whichever studio produced it? Or is this a more amorphous “Godless Hollywood!” kind of thing?

[Pepper_Mill]

TLToC was roundly condemned for showing a Jesus having sex with Mary Magdalene and being far too human. Never mind that the Joys of Family Life was one of the Temptations… some people can’t see past the surface (Jesus! Having sex! Blasphemy!!) Catholics were among those condemning this film, and of course most of them hadn’t seen it.

None of this is exactly original. Some Gnostics believed that Christ and Mary did have sex. I’ve read books that claimed some apocryphal texts showed Jesus as homosexual. But this movie brough it out in public, which was the big crime (after all, the book had been in print for ages).

For What It’s Worth, I didn’t think the movie at all boring or blasphemus. It was original and not fawning.

[CalMeacham]

Actually, that last post was mine – I hadn’t noticed that Pepper hadn’t logged out.

[gobear]

I’d actually appreciate an answer rather than a dodge, if you don’t mind. Do you really believe that Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism, in the general sense, actively discourage thought among believers?

I’ll take that question. If you define “thought” as being able to question doctrine and teachings, then the answer is “Yes”. All four of the religions, (yes, even Buddhism) have a history of coming down hard on doubters within the ranks.
In Judaism, we have Baruch Spinoza being driven from Amsterdam by the hostility of the local congregation. Today, the extremists of the Mea Shearim neighborhood in Jerusalem throw rocks at cars driving by on the Sabbath. Look at how the different sects of Judaism view each other with suspicion and hostility. The history of Christian intolerance of heresy is stained with blood. As for Islam, well, look at the writers in Egypt who have been muffled by religious courts, the world-wide death threats against Salman Rushdie for writing a novel nobody read, and the Taliban’s behavior. As for Buddhism, well, the Red Hat Lamaist order in Tibet have a standing death threat against the Dalai Lama, and I have seen monks fighting with lead pipes over an abbot’s succession at Chogye Temple in Seoul.

IMHO, the furor over Scorsese’s film arose because Christian fundamentalists have become unconscious heretics. The Bible is quite clear that Jesus was tempted in all things, so he could feel sympathy for our weaknesses.

Our High Priest is not one who cannot feel sympathy for our weaknesses. On the contrary, we have a High Priest who was tempted in every way that we are, but did not sin. (Hebrews 4:15, Today’s English Version)

The fundies deny Jesus’s humanity, just like the Gnostics did back in Paul’s day. To the fundies, Jesus is some happy, smiling deity who blesses the good and curses the wicked. The idea that Jesus could have felt hungry or sleepy is blasphemous (even though he did both in the Bible).
Heaven forfend that Jesus could have identified with the humans he created so much that he could have been tempted by sexual desire for one of them.

[Mr.Billy]

This is kind of fun. I hope it will be a useful response.

ON OUTRAGE: Imagine what would happen if Steven Spielberg decided to film a musical comedy, about a young Martin Luther King, struggling to decide between the life of a civil rights crusader and his life-long desire to become a singing shoe shine boy.

“…STARRING DENZELL WASHINGTON, WITH ORIGINAL MUSIC BY 'NSYNC and ROB ZOMBIE!..”

If the film explicitly disavowed any representation of the events as historical fact, and was careful never to actually show Dr. King in an un-sympathetic light, do you imagine that it would surprise you very much if there were outrage from some elements within the leadership of the NAACP?

Now recall that the people who puzzle you so hold Jesus Christ in infinitely higher regard than even a man as good as Dr. King.

That’s why there’s a tendency to express outrage.

ON THE INAPPROPRIATENESS OF LToC: A summer blockbuster, complete with bare breasts, is not the ideal vehicle for taking on the dual nature of Christ as a Big Idea, and a large group of secular people with little sensitivity to the theological issues involved, are not exactly the ideal folks for doing the deep public thinking, if you are not also looking for a messy PR wrangle with the Rev. Jerry Falwell. A movie like LToC seems to tread pretty disrespectfully on the central focus of a lot of peole’s lives. Therein lies the problem.

I’m not here to argue in favor of acrimony and righteous indignation as evangelical tactics. But neither do I think that it is so very difficult to understand what it is that rankles the fightin’ fundies.

[Mr.Billy]

To my way of thinking, the book is far less troublesome than the movie, in spite of the fact that the latter is – as I recall – almost woodenly faithful to the former.

The trick is that Nikos Kazantzakis goes to pretty great and convincing lengths in his introduction, to explain his intentions amd his reservations about the task of exploring Christ’s humanity. By way of contrast, I do not believe that Martin Scorsese has ever portrayed himself as a follower, or even an admirer, in any serious sense, of Jesus Christ.

That sort of thing does matter. It’s the difference between respectful engagement with the deeply-treasured articles of one’s own faith, and glib condescension to things held in low regard, while in search of another buck.

Mr. Scorsese is free to do as he pleases – and I don’t claim to know the the state of his soul, or the contents of his mind – but I think he’s engaged in a very different enterprise than the on Mr. Kazantzakis was after.

Again, it’s just that folks tend to take it personally, when they think you’re giving the things that matter most to them the short shrift, respect-wise. In and of itself, there’s really nothing so inscrutable about that.

OK. Now you know everything that I think about this one. Lucky you.

–B

[Drastic]

ON OUTRAGE: Imagine what would happen if Steven Spielberg decided to film a musical comedy, about a young Martin Luther King, struggling to decide between the life of a civil rights crusader and his life-long desire to become a singing shoe shine boy.

I’m aware of no part of King’s biography that detail a dream, lifelong or otherwise, of being a singing shoe shine boy–much less any part that treated that dream as a central and important factor in his entire nature. Spielberg’s hypothetical film would be a fictional treatment about a theme that didn’t exist previously.

In the Gospels, Christ’s very human temptation and anguish are detailed, and are a central and important factor in his entire nature. Scorsese’s film, and the novel it was based upon, was a fictional treatment about a theme that did exist previously, right in the source material. In fact, source material that disavowed that theme’s truth was declared heretical fairly early on, as others have noted.

To put it lightly, your analogy is…more than a little flawed.

ON THE INAPPROPRIATENESS OF LToC: A summer blockbuster, complete with bare breasts, is not the ideal vehicle for taking on the dual nature of Christ as a Big Idea,

Yes, you’ve said that already. What you’ve skipped over (an oversight, I’m sure) while repeating it is the answer to “why?”

and a large group of secular people with little sensitivity to the theological issues involved, are not exactly the ideal folks for doing the deep public thinking, if you are not also looking for a messy PR wrangle with the Rev. Jerry Falwell.

So your answer to the “which messenger question” is an amorphous “Godless Hollywood!” thing, then?

Which aspects of the film displayed little sensitivity to the theological issues involved? And which issues, specifically, did they display little sensitivity towards?

A movie like LToC seems to tread pretty disrespectfully on the central focus of a lot of peole’s lives. Therein lies the problem.

Again, how so? Which aspects of the film tread disrespectfully?

But neither do I think that it is so very difficult to understand what it is that rankles the fightin’ fundies.

Then it should be very easy to elucidate it, yes? So far your clearest statement is that people got combative because belief gets combative. That I understand pretty well (history runs red with it; that it was limited in this day and age to harsh words speaks well of this day and age) but I was hoping for something beyond that–something a bit less depressing.

And I thought you wanted to avoid the f-word that you thought was a terrible shame?

[tracer]

Ballybay wrote:

I recall a friend’s sister, who belonged to a family who went to church three times a week, telling me that the movie was supposed to depict Jesus having sex with his mother.

Well, she was partly right. Jesus was depicted as having sex with Mary. It just happened to be the “other” Mary.

[Drastic]

The trick is that Nikos Kazantzakis goes to pretty great and convincing lengths in his introduction, to explain his intentions amd his reservations about the task of exploring Christ’s humanity. By way of contrast, I do not believe that Martin Scorsese has ever portrayed himself as a follower, or even an admirer, in any serious sense, of Jesus Christ.

That sort of thing does matter. It’s the difference between respectful engagement with the deeply-treasured articles of one’s own faith, and glib condescension to things held in low regard, while in search of another buck.

If the only printings available of the novel were without the author’s introduction, would the novel then be seen as glib condescension?

Contrariwise, if the film had included perhaps half an hour of the director delivering a soulful and wholly believable monologue to the audience, touching on similar things to Kazantzakis’ introduction–the film would then have been respectful?

Essentially you’re saying that the meaning of the work itself doesn’t matter, only assumptions about the creator of the work. That right there would be the disconnect, and the source of my apparently inexplicable curiosity.

[sjc]

Originally posted by Mr. Billy *
ON THE INAPPROPRIATENESS OF LToC: A summer blockbuster, complete with bare breasts, is not the ideal vehicle for taking on the dual nature of Christ as a Big Idea, and a large group of secular people with little sensitivity to the theological issues involved, are not exactly the ideal folks for doing the deep public thinking, if you are not also looking for a messy PR wrangle with the Rev. Jerry Falwell.*

I disagree wholeheartedly! Hollywood can do just as good a job at taking on the dual nature of Christ as anyone.

[Mr.Billy]

Thanks for your interaction. It would have been a bummer to post my first post and be met with deafening silence.

Ne’ertheless, I’m going to stop after this one, because it’s starting to feel as though there’s no explanation that’s going to satisfy you. That’s fine, I guess, but after a while, discussions like this can start to feel like a long, boring ping-pong match.

Anyhow…

You’re right that I’m repeating myself, but that’s only because I don’t seem to be making my very small point terribly clear. All that I have been trying to point out is that people’s religious beliefs are a very touchy matter, and it isn’t actually a deep mystery of the universe when people take offense at what they perceive to be a disrespectful treatment of them. That’s all. You don’t have to like that. I don’t always like that. But surely it’s not surprising to you that that’s how people are.

I don’t know that the analogy of a bad MLK movie is entirely inappropriate on this matter, but we can differ on that one. I was only trying to create a secular parallel, in the hope that it would make it easier for you to empathize with the folks who were upset about LToC. If it doesn’t clarify things, then by all means, ignore it.

I’m not expressing ill-will toward “godless Hollywood” (a phrase that only you have used thus far). I read the book and I saw the movie (twice) and they served as an open door to a number of questions about Christ’s dual nature that – frankly – most Christians don’t spend enough time thinking through. Nevertheless, it is true that Hollywood has not exactly distinguished itself as a great friend of organized religion, historically speaking. Accordingly, lots of Christians were suspicious of Scorsese’s motives. Is it a little bit small and a lot misguided to jump from mere suspicion to the conclusion that we are therefore confronted by diabolical forces in the marketing of LToC? It sure is. But people are just people, as I keep saying.

The fact that Kazantzakis DID include an explanation of his motives as a part of his novel and Scorsese DIDN’T do any such thing as a part of his movie is precisely the point, I think. Authorial intent is a major component of meaning, particularly where it is explicitly stated. If Scorsese had intended to avoid stirring up so much resentment, he could easily have done so. But prayerful reflection and civil debate weren’t what he was driving at. Controversy puts fannies in the seats and works wonders for an artist’s reputation as a transgressive thinker. In large part, Scorsese got what he was looking for.

From a Christian perspective, there is something theologically iffy – and therefore, I have chosen to use the word ‘inappropriate’ – about the suggestion that Jesus spent a couple of hours hanging on the cross in wistful rumination about the wife and family that he never had. Like the notion of MLK as shoeshine boy, the gospels don’t indicate that any such episode ever took place, and insofar as Christ’s confrontations with temptation are concerned, the gospels never invite us to believe that His responses were anything other than an immediate and emphatic ‘no’. Kazantzakis has merely interpolated it as a possibility, based upon certain elements of eastern orthodox Christology. You may not accept that there’s anything questionable about that, but you didn’t ask, ‘Why do I have to be outraged about LToC?’ You asked, ‘Why were those people outraged about LToC?’ You don’t have to be outraged abotu anything at all, if you don’t want. Those people were outraged because they thought the treatment of the question was focused too strongly on prurient and entirely speculative material, for no purpose other than the pursuit of the Almighty Dollar.

Really and truly, I hope that makes some sense of the controversy for you. Thanks again for your responses.

[Drastic]

Ne’ertheless, I’m going to stop after this one, because it’s starting to feel as though there’s no explanation that’s going to satisfy you.

Well, I would suggest that that is because there hasn’t been explanation, merely a wide-eyed repetition of “but it’s so simple!” Ambrose Bierce’s definition of “self-evident” (“evident to one’s self, and to no one else”) comes to mind here.

You’re right that I’m repeating myself, but that’s only because I don’t seem to be making my very small point terribly clear.

I don’t think the point is as small as you believe it to be. It’s something that can be expanded on, dug into, clarified.

All that I have been trying to point out is that people’s religious beliefs are a very touchy matter, and it isn’t actually a deep mystery of the universe when people take offense at what they perceive to be a disrespectful treatment of them. That’s all. You don’t have to like that. I don’t always like that. But surely it’s not surprising to you that that’s how people are.

Mostly, it’s surprising to me that people find it seemingly impossible to actually discuss why that is.

Look, I’ll break this down very simply, as to why this is looking increasingly bizarre to me:

D: So, I just saw LToC. I know some people got very offended. Why?
MB: You have to understand that people get offended!
D: Er…I do. I’d like to know why.
MB: They do! What’s so difficult to understand about that?
D: <resists temptation of his own>

Why is “why?” such an inexplicable question?

I’m not expressing ill-will toward “godless Hollywood” (a phrase that only you have used thus far). I read the book and I saw the movie (twice) and they served as an open door to a number of questions about Christ’s dual nature that – frankly – most Christians don’t spend enough time thinking through.

Not ill-will as such–what you have repeated (and not explained) is that the movie industry, and movies in general, are “grossly inappropriate” vehicles for such a theme. What got passed over, again, is the why. And it’s a position that seems oddly out-of-step with your statement just above. It’s grossly inappropriate, but was a door to a number of questions Christians should spend more time on?

Is it a little bit small and a lot misguided to jump from mere suspicion to the conclusion that we are therefore confronted by diabolical forces in the marketing of LToC? It sure is. But people are just people, as I keep saying.

See, that’s the thing. What I was after was to see if there were any reasons that weren’t small and misguided, and if there were to discuss them. I’m not convinced that there definitively aren’t, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, well.

The fact that Kazantzakis DID include an explanation of his motives as a part of his novel and Scorsese DIDN’T do any such thing as a part of his movie is precisely the point, I think. Authorial intent is a major component of meaning, particularly where it is explicitly stated.

So again, the meaning of a work itself is irrelevant? If all extant copies of the novel were rounded up (a miracle was performed, either divine or diabolical, to accomplish this), and then replaced with copies exactly the same, with the omission of the explicit statement of intent…the nature of the novel would then change?

Also, how do you know he wasn’t lying? Setting down an introduction “in character” so to speak?

If Scorsese had intended to avoid stirring up so much resentment, he could easily have done so. But prayerful reflection and civil debate weren’t what he was driving at. Controversy puts fannies in the seats and works wonders for an artist’s reputation as a transgressive thinker. In large part, Scorsese got what he was looking for.

All that may well be–I don’t know the man. Where does your knowledge of his exact intent come from, by the by? I suspect that it comes from the same place that your knowledge of the author’s intent does–am I wrong?

From a Christian perspective, there is something theologically iffy – and therefore, I have chosen to use the word ‘inappropriate’ – about the suggestion that Jesus spent a couple of hours hanging on the cross in wistful rumination about the wife and family that he never had. Like the notion of MLK as shoeshine boy, the gospels don’t indicate that any such episode ever took place, and insofar as Christ’s confrontations with temptation are concerned, the gospels never invite us to believe that His responses were anything other than an immediate and emphatic ‘no’.

Before the next volley of hunchbacks, thank you for the above. I don’t understand why it arrived so late in the game, though. Was this arguable theological disconnect expressed at all, and the media simply never (or rarely) gave time to it? Why is the thoughtfulness of it absent from the bulk of the scattered livid “reviews” of the film I’ve run across? There’s a core of discussion in the above–why the theological interpretation of anguish-without-temptation is more valid than the interpretation of anguish-with, or vice versa. I would think that Christians should be in favor of such discussions–isn’t working towards a knowledge and understanding of the nature of the Christ pretty much important to the whole thing? So why wasn’t the controversy used as an opportunity to witness effectively, instead of merely flail about in outrage?

Those people were outraged because they thought the treatment of the question was focused too strongly on prurient and entirely speculative material, for no purpose other than the pursuit of the Almighty Dollar.

Really and truly, I hope that makes some sense of the controversy for you. Thanks again for your responses.

It really has. It’s tended to reinforce my original theories, which I honestly were hoping weren’t the case. Still, thank you, this was far closer to what I was hoping for than a chorus of “ha ha, those silly Christians!” ever was.

[rjung]

*Originally posted by pldennison *
I’d actually appreciate an answer rather than a dodge, if you don’t mind. Do you really believe that Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism, in the general sense, actively discourage thought among believers?

To avoid hijacking this thread further, I’ll give the short answer of “yes”. All religions, at their core, require followers to take things up on faith – acceptance of things without evidence or reasoning or support – which is anathema to (critical) thinking.

(Props to gobear for providing some examples)

I would bet two things here: A) Most theaters that did see any protests probably saw a very small number of protestors, and II) The number of people protesting constituted such a small part of the entire community of religious believers as to be statistically insignificant.

Really? Kinda odd that Drastic even remembers the protesters in his/her OP, then, if they were so “statistically insignificant”. As I recall from the local Los Angeles news reports, theaters had anywhere from 20 to 100+ people protesting, to the point where owners had to get police to prevent them from blocking access to the box office.

[pldennison]

*Originally posted by rjung *
To avoid hijacking this thread further, I’ll give the short answer of “yes”. All religions, at their core, require followers to take things up on faith – acceptance of things without evidence or reasoning or support – which is anathema to (critical) thinking.

I will simply offer the Jesuits as a counterexample, as well as centuries of Christian and Jewish theologians applying critical thinking to their own faith.

Really? Kinda odd that Drastic even remembers the protesters in his/her OP, then, if they were so “statistically insignificant”.

Not really. For one thing, Drastic has “vague memories of there being a great hue and outcry and gnashing of teeth and rending of garments when it was theatrically released.” Vague memories are not, by definition, concrete remembrances. It’s entirely possible that Drastic’s exposure to later popular conception of the “hue and outcry” causes him to misremember exactly how vocal and prominent they were.

For another, a protest in front of a movie theater, in most cities, is sufficiently unusual that one would probably remember it whether it was 10 protestors or 100.

For another . . .

As I recall from the local Los Angeles news reports, theaters had anywhere from 20 to 100+ people protesting, to the point where owners had to get police to prevent them from blocking access to the box office.

There are 2 billion Christians in the world. There are about 150 million in the United States. Let’s be generous and say that 5% would constitute a statistically significant number of protestors. Do you really think there were 7.5 million people protesting in front of theaters? Gimme a break.

[Tominator2]

All religions, at their core, require followers to take things up on faith – acceptance of things without evidence or reasoning or support – which is anathema to (critical) thinking.

You wrote “religions” when you meant “systems of thought”.

[Drastic]

Not really. For one thing, Drastic has “vague memories of there being a great hue and outcry and gnashing of teeth and rending of garments when it was theatrically released.” Vague memories are not, by definition, concrete remembrances.

Just so. Pretty much I vaguely remember some newspaper articles, and various talking heads on the news down to daytime talk shows that I’d either channel flip past, or not really be paying much attention to as my nose was deep in some book as my sister watched Donahue or whatever. (Ah, the days before talk shows consisted of people throwing chairs at one another.) I have zero recall of mention of any protests in my area.

Likewise, in all lists of user reviews that I’ve run across, there are simply a small handful of livid negative ones, mixed into a bunch of mostly positive ones. A great many of the positive ones start with the reviewers identifying themselves as Christian, usually with some verbiage about how it’s a shame that others reacted so negatively, yadda etc. Now, user reviews on movie sites are hardly any more representative than media coverage of protests, but it does suggest that mainly people saw the outcry as being more extensive than it was more because it was narrated as such, than because of actual size of it.

I suspect the hue and outcry and whatnot was over-played and -emphasized by the media, simply because that made for more colorful stories.

However, I do think that there is an unfortunate tendency in religious people to avoid discussing whys and wherefores of both beliefs and to avoid honest attempts to explain actions in relation to them. I don’t blame religion for this–I think it’s simply a human tendency that people use religion as an excuse to reinforce, just as secular types do with political axes to grind and so forth.

[Mr.Billy]

Can’t stay away.

>Before the next volley of hunchbacks, thank you for the >above.

What’s a hunchback?

>I don’t understand why it arrived so late in the game, >though.

It arrived late in the game because I think you are glossing over an important point when you brush aside the fact that people get defensive about their most deeply held beliefs. Some people are going to fight you, if you express something that sounds to them like dissent. In a lot of ways, that’s as deep as this controversy ever went. I hate to confirm your suspicions, but it’s true (especially in the case of the very small minority of Christians who did all of the protesting).

At any rate, we can drop this side of the discussion if you want. (the combativeness of human nature, movies as suitable medium for serious theology, importance and knowability of authorial intent, etc.) Clearly, it’s going nowhere anyway.

Here – I gather – is the good stuff:

>Was this arguable theological disconnect expressed at all, >and the media simply never (or rarely) gave time to it?

Sure, it was expressed. But not by the people who were doing all of the protesting. It was expressed by a lot of pastors and college professors who were interested in getting their audiences to grapple with some difficult questions. In fact, the majority of the Church. But that sort of thing never got into the newspapers – and understandably so – because, really, who cares? In fairness to The Media, would you buy a newspaper with a big, 5 column headline that says: “PASTORS, THEOLOGIANS ENCOURAGE PRAYERFUL CONSIDERATION OF CHRIST’S INCARNATION”? Me neither.

We’re not really talking about a difficulty with LToC that’s merely arguable, though. It is a fact that we’re on thin ice, as far as Christian orthodoxy is concerned, when we begin to suggest that Jesus Christ may have fantasized – fondly and at length – about turning his back on the fulfillment of salvation history itself, in favor of a wife and a couple of kids. There is a fine line between being tempted and giving in to temptation, but that suggestion puts Jesus on the wrong side of the line. That’s why Kazantzakis was so careful to lay out his intentions when he published the novel.

>Why is the thoughtfulness of it absent from the bulk of >the scattered livid “reviews” of the film I’ve run across?

I never read any livid reviews of LToC. More commonly, they were mildly positive, with a great deal of bemused speculation about what’s got so far under Jerry Falwell’s saddle that he’s out there marching around in front of the General Cinemas, morning, noon and night.

>There’s a core of discussion in the above–why the >theological interpretation of anguish-without-temptation >is more valid than the interpretation of anguish-with, or >vice versa.

I’m not sure I understand this question yet. Help me out.

>I would think that Christians should be in favor of such >discussions–isn’t working towards a knowledge and >understanding of the nature of the Christ pretty much >important to the whole thing?

The vast majority of Christians ARE in favor of this kind of discussion. What very few of us are terribly enthusiastic about is being told by Willem Defoe and Roger Ebert how we ought to go about engaging in it. But even at that, the protestors only represented a very small minority of the Church.

>So why wasn’t the controversy used as an opportunity to >witness effectively, instead of merely flail about in >outrage?

To be honest, because a lot of the folks who were NOT out protesting didn’t really get the impression that anybody wanted to know what they thought about it. I will confess that that was my assumption about your attitude, coming into this discussion. I’ll quit trying to speak for the outragers.

If that gets us onto a track that gives you more useful information, then I’m glad.

–B

[Drastic]

Can’t stay away.

That last temptation is always the hardest.

What’s a hunchback?

The small symbol that ends your very own sentence. To wit, “?”–from the shape, you see. Its brother and constant adversary is the soldier, “!” from its ramrod spine.

It arrived late in the game because I think you are glossing over an important point when you brush aside the fact that people get defensive about their most deeply held beliefs. Some people are going to fight you, if you express something that sounds to them like dissent. In a lot of ways, that’s as deep as this controversy ever went. I hate to confirm your suspicions, but it’s true (especially in the case of the very small minority of Christians who did all of the protesting).

At any rate, we can drop this side of the discussion if you want. (the combativeness of human nature, movies as suitable medium for serious theology, importance and knowability of authorial intent, etc.) Clearly, it’s going nowhere anyway.

I am doing my level best to be patient here, so I will attempt this another time: I am not brushing it aside. I acknowledge that they do. What I am getting at, and am having annoying inner whispers about the thickness of skulls about that I were rather wrong, is why that is. “…that’s as deep as this controversy ever went.” Fine and well–but I maintain that that is rather deeper than the shallowness you appear to maintain. From my viewpoint, you’re the one brushing it aside as “just the way it is.” No. There are whys, and the whys run deep, and I daresay they might even intersect with aspects of the Messiah narrative in interesting ways regardless of one’s
personal belief in it or lack of it. I am intrigued by the combativeness of human nature–I do not think it’s something that should be viewed as utterly inexplicable. I remain curious as to why movies aren’t a suitable medium–that you keep avoiding tackling the why of that makes me suspect you’re not all that sure yourself. Likewise the questions of authorial intent.

Frankly, I’m boggled that my line of questioning even remotely suggests that I want to “drop that”.

Sure, it was expressed. But not by the people who were doing all of the protesting. It was expressed by a lot of pastors and college professors who were interested in getting their audiences to grapple with some difficult questions. In fact, the majority of the Church. But that sort of thing never got into the newspapers – and understandably so – because, really, who cares? In fairness to The Media, would you buy a newspaper with a big, 5 column headline that says: “PASTORS, THEOLOGIANS ENCOURAGE PRAYERFUL CONSIDERATION OF CHRIST’S INCARNATION”? Me neither.

I don’t buy newspapers as they are. Coverage tends to be too shallow, too simplistic. (And besides, with the internet, shallow and simplistic news coverage is free.) A headline like that would make me doubletake, and more likely to read it.

We’re not really talking about a difficulty with LToC that’s merely arguable, though. It is a fact that we’re on thin ice, as far as Christian orthodoxy is concerned, when we begin to suggest that Jesus Christ may have fantasized – fondly and at length – about turning his back on the fulfillment of salvation history itself, in favor of a wife and a couple of kids. There is a fine line between being tempted and giving in to temptation, but that suggestion puts Jesus on the wrong side of the line. That’s why Kazantzakis was so careful to lay out his intentions when he published the novel.

Why does it put him on the wrong side of the line? I’ve never read the novel, so all I have is the film, without that magical explicit authorial statement of intent. So I’m judging the work itself (alien a concept as that seems to be). And in the work itself, he does not give in. It was pretty clear that throughout the final temptation that he was troubled and deep in thought about it–this even though Scorsese did not appear in the corner of the screen and explain it. Matter of “fact”, I didn’t get the impression that he thought all that “fondly” of it–there was a distinct distance in him the entire time.

>There’s a core of discussion in the above–why the
>theological interpretation of anguish-without-temptation
>is more valid than the interpretation of anguish-with, or
>vice versa.

I’m not sure I understand this question yet. Help me out.

See, now, I think this might be part of the problem here. That wasn’t a question–note the lack of hunchbacks. It was a statement of opinion–that the theological disconnect you mentioned contains the possibility of an interesting discussion. From a cursory lookthrough at some key passages in the gospels–Gethsemane, Satan up on the mountain offering up what wasn’t his to give–it’s an understandable argument that they don’t necessarily show temptation per se, even though they do show anguish–let this cup pass from me, if it’s possible…if it be your will, mine doesn’t matter.

It’s an understandable argument, but not airtight. For instance, why make a caveat about his own will not being considered against the Big Guy, if that will wasn’t in conflict? If Jesus’ will was in perfect consonance with God’s, the statement “not by my will but yours” is irrelevant.

Furthermore, it is a human trait, and a very understandable one, that when one faces anguish and suffering because of something you need to do because it’s the right thing–that there is also an undercurrent, and sometimes strong one, of wishing that you could avoid it. It’s problematic to assert that in addition to being wholly divine that Jesus was also wholly human–but not human in this instance.

The vast majority of Christians ARE in favor of this kind of discussion. What very few of us are terribly enthusiastic about is being told by Willem Defoe and Roger Ebert how we ought to go about engaging in it. But even at that, the protestors only represented a very small minority of the Church.

Where did Ebert and Defoe make commandments about how discussion should proceed? Was it the same place that Scorsese said his only goal was the Almighty Dollar? My impression is that that place is inside the narratives inside peoples’ skulls–and not out in the real world. Am I wrong in this?

To be honest, because a lot of the folks who were NOT out protesting didn’t really get the impression that anybody wanted to know what they thought about it. I will confess that that was my assumption about your attitude, coming into this discussion. I’ll quit trying to speak for the outragers.

If that gets us onto a track that gives you more useful information, then I’m glad.

You seem oddly fixated on useful information, and making assumptions about intent. What I’ve always found to be more useful is simply responding to what’s actually said rather than interior hobgoblins, answering questions with as much honest clarity as can be mustered, and asking for clarity in return when needed or bits strike a curious chord.