Since 1921, The Nederlander Theater in New York City has housed many heralded Broadway productions — from Julius Caesar to King Lear to Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf to Rent. But on June 25, when Amazing Grace opens in its 1,232-seat auditorium, The Nederlander may become known as the place where religion was revived on Broadway.

Amazing Grace tells the story behind “Amazing Grace,” the world’s most recorded and most popular song. “Amazing Grace” was published by John Newton in 1779 after he barely survived a violent storm at sea — a survival he attributed to his crying out to God for mercy.

Amazing grace! How sweet the sound

That saved a wretch like me!

I once was lost, but now am found;

Was blind, but now I see.

You know it, of course. From funerals to Easter vigils, this hymn telling of God’s unending offer of forgiveness is a staple in churches around the world. Historical biographer Jonathan Aitken estimates that it is sung approximately 10 million times annually.

The song is religious. And the Broadway show seeks to capture audiences with both a religious message and a religious mission. Christopher Smith, the show’s creator (and a former police officer and volunteer youth minister), is very clear about this: “My desire was that God would be an unseen character in Amazing Grace, moving behind and in every scene and song,” he said.

Amazing Grace isn’t the only faith-based show to play on The Great White Way, of course. Decades ago, faith flourished on Broadway. There’s the enduring success of the deeply moving and faithfully Jewish Fiddler on the Roof. Andrew Lloyd Weber and Tim Rice’s rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar garnered five Tony nominations after opening in 1971. Godspell, a musical based on parables from the gospel of Matthew, reached #13 on the Billboard pop chart before opening on Broadway in 1976. Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat is literally a Bible story.

CONTINUE READING…

A few decades ago, there were basically two options for people who wanted to follow Jesus but were attracted to the same gender: They could either throw off religion and embrace their sexuality, or they could remain in the faith and hide their sexual orientations. Today, there are other options. Some–like Matthew Vines and David Gushee–are attempting to make a biblical case for same-sex relationships. Others–such as Julie Rodgers and Wesley Hill–are leading a movement of celibate gay Christians.

Among the second group, Eve Tushnet has risen to prominence. She has a popular blog hosted by the Patheos Catholic Channel and has created a stir with her book “Gay and Catholic: Accepting My Sexuality, Finding Community, Living My Faith.” Here we discuss why it is important to her to self-identify as a lesbian and whether she’s missing something about the uniqueness and importance of erotic intimacy.

RNS: You self-identify as a lesbian but some Christians say that defining yourself by your sexual orientation isn’t helpful. Why does this label matter to you?

ET: My deepest identity will always be “child of God.” But identifying as a lesbian is a succinct way to honor my experiences in gay communities. In these places, I learned a lot, confronted my own privileges, and met some amazing people. I don’t want to reject those people or experiences. I also always think of the teenager just starting to acknowledge his or her feelings. Almost everybody in that position is going to think in terms like, “Wait–when people say ‘gay’ I think they mean me….” I want those people to know that there’s a life and a future for you within Christianity.

RNS: Your book’s subtitle proclaims that you’ve “accepted” your sexuality. But you’ve decided to live a celibate life based on your faith. What do you say to people who might counter that this isn’t acceptance at all?

ET: Self-acceptance, to me, means being honest with God and (where possible) with those around you about who you are. It means honoring and serving God through your sexuality, rather than trying to repress it, deny that it exists, or “switch” to heterosexuality. Some people mostly serve God through sacrifice of their sexual desires, pouring those desires out like oil over the feet of the Crucified, uniting their sacrifice to Christ’s. Others mostly sublimate, “acting on” our sexual desires by translating them into other forms of devotion ranging from mystical relationship to God, to friendship with others, to artistic creation. I mostly sublimate, I think, but everybody has to sacrifice their sexual desires at some point–regardless of your orientation.

CONTINUE READING…

“Bless you for playing Jesus, peace be upon him.”

This was the reaction of Lebanese-born actor Haaz Sleiman’s mother upon learning that her son had been cast as Jesus in National Geographic Channel’s “Killing Jesus.” The three Abrahamic religions will collide on March 29 when the television special premieres, and the 24-year-old Muslim actor stars as Jesus, the Jewish rabbi that Christians believe was God in the flesh.

The television movie is adapted from the New York Times bestselling book by Fox News host and Roman Catholic Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard. Sleiman digested the book among others in preparation for the role. He says he was excited to portray Jesus, a person he describes as “the ultimate teacher” who has “heavily influenced” his life.

Both the book and film retell Jesus’ crucifixion and accounts of his resurrection. Muslims do not believe either of these events occurred, and although Sleiman says he was not aware of these historical discrepancies prior to accepting the role, they were not concerns for him.

“As an actor my number one focus was to be on the same page with the writer, director, and producers,” he said.

Christians believe that Jesus was both divine and human, while Muslims accept only his humanity. The script’s focus on this aspect of Jesus is something that Sleiman said was important to him.

“The idea that we got to focus on the humanity of Jesus was very inspiring and empowering to me,” Sleiman said. “It is what Jesus came to show us, the beauty of humanity and the love we are capable of having towards one another; even to love your own enemy.”

When Sleiman was asked for his reaction to any disapproval from conservative Christians to a Muslim playing Jesus, the actor replied, “I cannot speak for Jesus, but I can quote his teachings and he said, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’… How would he react to me playing Jesus? He wouldn’t judge it. He wouldn’t judge his own enemy … playing this part highlights his teaching in a very nice way.”

CONTINUE READING…

Polls have shown that religious audiences care a lot about whether a Bible film is “biblically accurate.” This is a difficult phrase to use when one is talking about taking a story from one medium (literature) to another (film), but I understand the sentiment. Religious moviegoers want the film to be recognizable or to “feel” like the story as they know it.

“Exodus” has now been in theaters for a week, and many religious bloggers have pointed to the ways in which the film deviates from the text. Now I’m no purist when it comes to Bible films, and I appreciate meaningful artistic flourishes. But I have still compiled a compendium of where the film fails to get the story straight. Readers can judge whether they believe the error is problematic or not.

1. Moses: Orator or Stammerer?
The bible describes Moses as ineloquent and “slow of speech and tongue.” But in the movie, he is a courageous and capable communicator. He even gives a rousing speech as the sea parts reminiscent of Braveheart.

2. Fleeing For The Wrong Reason
In the biblical narrative, Moses murders an Egyptian who is beating a Hebrew slave and hides the corpse in the sand. In the movie, he kills an Egyptian for no reason and leaves the corpse in the street. In the biblical narrative, Moses flees Egypt when his murderous act becomes known. In the film, he flees when Pharaoh suspicions that he may have been born a Hebrew.

3. Boy, Not Bush
In the Bible, Moses sees a burning bush and, when he investigates, God speaks from within the bush. The film opts instead for a scene that depicts God in a somewhat schizophrenic way. Moses wakes from a terrible accident to see a bush mysteriously on fire and next to it is a young boy who speaks as if God. Director Ridley Scott told me that the boy is “Malak” or a “messenger” of God rather than the Almighty. But the boy uses the famous “I Am” line to take on the divine name, so religious audiences will be excused for their confusion.

CONTINUE READING…

Even though Ridley Scott’s ‘Exodus’ won the box office crown this weekend, it only earned an estimated $24.5 million, performing lower than studio executives hoped. While it is difficult to determine why many moviegoers chose to stay home, some have speculated that Scott’s casting decisions had something to do with it.

The film received criticism early on for placing white Westerners in most leading roles and relegating people of color to lesser roles such as “Ramses servant.” Many people called for a boycott of the whitewashed film, inspiring twitter hashtags such as #boycottexodusmovie. Last week, I argued in another column that it was one of three religious hurdles facing the film. It seems likely to me that race was one of many factors that led to the low earning weekend.

In light of the controversy, I discussed the film’s race problem in an interview with CNN:

The release of Hollywood’s next Biblical epic, “Exodus,” has raised questions about the film’s handling of religious themes and historical accuracy. On Monday, I was able to have a conversation with director Ridley Scott and lead actor Christian Bale to discuss some of these questions. Here they discuss some of the questions religious moviegoers will undoubtedly have about some of the film’s more controversial moments.

Q: Why did you use a child for the figure of God?

Ridley Scott: Not figure of God. “Malak” means messenger. So “Malak,” to begin with, is the messenger of God. If you’re going to represent God in many shapes and forms, which He will appear, the biggest form of all is probably nature. That’s his power, that’s his base, that’s his beauty, that’s his threat. And occasionally when you want to communicate with someone, it’s very easy with His power to chose a messenger. Or some more popular word might be “angel.” But I didn’t like the idea of an angel associated with wings. I wanted everything to be reality based….

If you’re watching very closely you notice that whenever [Moses and Malak] are witnessed from a distance–Joshua does a lot of sneaking up over rocks and looking to see what’s going on–he can’t see anything. [Joshua] just thinks his leader has lost his mind ’cause he can’t see anything. When you’re in close you can see who Moses is talking to. Of course, when you think of it horizontally or vertically, whichever is the best way, [Moses] also could be talking to his conscience. So Malak could also be his conscience.

Christian Bale: How would you have represented God, if you were in Ridley’s position? ‘Cause it is very easy to pick apart someone’s choice for a depiction of God, you know, but if you’re actually in Ridley’s shoes, it’s an immensely difficult thing. How on earth do you do that?

Q: Ridley, you have something in common with many film makers, which is that you yourself don’t identify as a believer…I wonder if you’d be willing to speak to the challenges and the interest of engaging in this subject matter from the perspective of standing outside of it.

CONTINUE READING…

When we began 2014–the “Year of the Bible” as it was called–many wondered whether religious audiences could carry films to financial success. With “Son of God” taking in nearly $60 million, “Noah” earning more than $100 million, and the insane success of “God’s Not Dead”, the answer is a resounding “yes.” But Hollywood will conduct its final experiment on Friday when Ridley Scott’s “Exodus” arrives in theaters.

In some ways, “Exodus” hopes to strike a balance between the two poles of recent Bible films. “Son of God” was a wooden and overly literal adaptation of the Jesus story that captured traditionalist Christians but didn’t penetrate deeply into the general market. “Noah” captured non-religious audiences with an all-star cast, but the fanciful, less literal portrayal put off some religious watchers. With an estimated production budget of $140 million, “Exodus” can’t afford to lose either. But in order to win over believers en masse, the film will have to overcome three hurdles.

DON’T MESS WITH THE TEXT
According to a 2014 poll of 1,200 adults nationwide, 79 percent of Christians say that accuracy is important to their ticket-buying decisions when it comes to movies dealing with questions of religion. In other words, these potential patrons want a biblical film that sticks to the text and gets at least most of the facts right. This can be a massive hurdle for filmmakers who want to make good art, not just regurgitate a well known tale.

I’ve argued elsewhere that “artistic liberties are inevitable whenever a story is transferred from one medium to another…[which] requires that audiences actually think about symbols and forms.” But most Christians sadly don’t think this deeply about films and art. They simply want their Bible movies to look and sound familiar and align with the images they already have in their heads–regardless of how mythologized those pictures may be.

Having screened “Exodus” last week, and not wanting to spoil anything for those who plan to see it, I can report that there are some critical deviations from the text that viewers familiar with the Bible will notice. Whether or not these alterations will generate negative responses remains to be seen, but they are significant and numerous enough to be a possible hurdle for this film.

“I AM” A BOY?
Connected to the last point is the way the voice of God is imagined in this film: as a pre-teen boy. Played by 11-year-old British actor, Isaac Andrews, God turns out to be a temperamental and impatient, if not impetuous, child. While Scott seems to portray the character more as the voice of God or God’s messenger, when Moses asks who he is, the boy answers with the classic God-name: “I Am.” Religious audiences won’t miss this moment.

CONTINUE READING…

Ridley Scott’s Exodus has almost every ingredient necessary to make a holiday blockbuster: a timeless tale, killer cast, massive budget, pre-release media buzz, stunning special effects, and an impressive director. But if moviegoers look deeper, they’ll notice one ingredient is painfully missing: melanin.

Scott’s big-budget film takes place in North Africa thousands of years ago. In real life, everyone would have had dark skin. But the movie is populated by an almost completely Caucasian cast. Welsh-born Christian Bale stars as the Hebrew liberator, Moses. Australian Joel Edgerton plays Pharaoh, and American Sigourney Weaver was almost laughably cast as an African queen.

Vanity Fair notes that most of the actors of color who have been cast were relegated to nameless roles. (Exceptions may include smaller roles for Ben Kingsley, a Brit with an Indian father, and John Turturro, an Italian-American.) The Independent adds that black and ethnic minorities do appear in the cast as “Ramses servant,” “Egyptian thief,” and “Egyptian Lower Class Civilian.”

We can’t claim that Scott’s casting decisions were pernicious. They are, however, historically inaccurate and, frankly, inexcusable for a film in 2014.

Sadly, Ridley Scott is hardly alone. Whitewashing Bible films is something of a Hollywood tradition spanning decades, and it won’t change until audiences demand better.

The last time a live-action Moses appeared on the silver screen was in Cecil B. DeMille’s The Ten Commandments.” It starred a fake-baked Charlton Heston. But okay, that was 1956. Surely Hollywood’s sensitivity to ethnicity has changed in the last half-century, right?

Wrong.

CONTINUE READING…

Conversing with Jennifer Knapp is like listening to NPR. Her tone is lush, almost comforting, and her words are measured. You can almost hear her smiling. Even when I ask difficult questions or push back, she remains unflappable. An uninformed eavesdropper would never guess from Knapp’s demeanor that the one-time Christian superstar has been embroiled in controversy for more than four years after revealing she was gay.

Knapp’s storied career as a Christian singer and songwriter culminated in a gold album, Grammy nomination, and an appearance at Lilith Fair music festival, but her announcement shocked many fans and drew the ire of some conservative Christians who believe that the “homosexual lifestyle” is sinful.

This month, Knapp walks back into the furnace with the release of a mainstream folk album, “Set Me Free,” and a tell-all memoir, “Facing the Music: My Story.” Here, we discuss her sexuality, the scrutiny she’s been under, and which lyric she wishes she could change.

RNS: You talk a lot about your past—family drama, depression, alcohol, sexual encounters. Some conservative Christians might say that your past has shaped who you are today in terms of your sexuality. Has it?

JK: I don’t know that I would say that my past has made me into the lesbian that I am today as if A plus B equals lesbian. I don’t really subscribe to that kind of way of thinking. And after all the soul searching I’ve done in my life, I wouldn’t come to that conclusion. Having said that, I’m a real proponent of the idea that the history of our experiences creates the person we are in the present.

RNS: You tell a story in the book about not allowing one of your songs to be used in a “True Love Waits” abstinence campaign. Why? 

JK: I hope the fallout isn’t that I think abstinence is a lost cause. That was about the way we approach this issue and what I think is a better understanding of the value of what abstinence means. This is largely based on my own experience. Listen, yes, I’ve had sex with people. Is there really value in shaming me into abstinence? Or rather should you give me an idea of the value of my body and person the value of the people opposite me that I might have a sexual encounter with?

Abstinence is a very noble virtue. I spent a decade abstinent and in that time, I absolutely got a sense of why that was important and why giving my body away was less than ideal. But if you just told me not to have sex and then shamed me if I did, it would be different. Christians often end up creating ideals rather than establishing schools of thought that are deliberate about why purity is important for health and well being and compassion to each other.

CONTINUE READING…

The same month that U2 released their 13th studio album, “Songs of Innocence,” the spotlight has turned to the iconic rock band’s faith. In an article for The New Yorker titled “The Church of U2,”Joshua Rothman explored “confusion” around U2’s faith and claimed that they are a “semi-secretly Christian rock band.”

But applying such a label to U2 generally and their sunglasses-clad singer, Bono, seems difficult to defend. Even a cursory look at the band’s beliefs and song lyrics show that they are very much out of the Christian closet.

If you carefully attune your ears to U2’s lyrics, you’ll find there are 50 or more references to Bible verses in their songs. In “Bullet the Blue Sky,” for example, they sing about Jacob wrestling with the Angel of the Lord (Genesis 32) and there is a reference to speaking with “the tongues of angels” (1 Corinthians 13) in “I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For.” Bono even belts “see the thorn twist in your side”—an obvious reference to the Apostle Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 12:7—in the song “With or Without You.”

Lead singer Bono is so comfortable talking about his Christian faith that he even agreed to be interviewed by “Focus on the Family.” In it, he spoke to Focus’ president Jim Daly about how much he liked King David and said he believes that “Jesus was, you know, the Son of God.”

CONTINUE READING…