![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Christology and The Semiotics of Theater
Isn't that a wonderfully pretentious title??
My dear friend![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
queenofhalves posted this entry about attending a performance of Jesus Christ Superstar in which a woman had been cast as Jesus. I started to respond in comments, but soon realized it merited an entry of my own.
One of my big unfulfilled ambitions is to direct Godspell, and cast Jesus as a woman, and play with the gender dynamic, especially with John/Judas, the woman caught in adultery, and the woman who sings "Turn Back O Man." It wouldn't be a male Jesus played by a woman (as women sometimes play Hamlet, or other male roles), it would be Jesus as as female, with feminine costuming and a feminine sensibility. Which I think Godspell can handle better as a text/show than Superstar.
Why? Most importantly, I believe that the Divine is without gender, and that The Good News, the message of the life and words, and death and resurrection, of the Christ remains the same, irregardless of the gender of the avatar. In a world where women are denied full participation in many churches because they are not male (something I think violates the example of Christ), this is a real, crucial issue. And I have a big issue with the Catholic Church denying ordination to women in part because they can not project "the image of Christ" when they preside at the Eucharist. How does one project the "image" of Christ? Is it about gonads, or about living in the presence of God and radiating God's love?
Second, I believe that while Godspell is a very good piece of theater, tweaking the gender dynamics can revitalize a text that has become so familiar it is verging on cliched.
After all the uproar over Gibson's The Passion I hesitate to write this, but it's also true that I think that showing a woman being crucified will up the emotional impact. Godspell isn't about blood and guts, so I'm not talking about adding gore. The crucifixion scene in any show is a set-piece, very familiar, a ritual. Executing an innocent woman rather than an innocent man hits different centers of meaning for most of us, whether we want to make those distinctions or not.
I'd also like to move away from the traditional portrayal of the disciples as all younger people, and have more of a range of ages. I'd like to have a gay couple among them. I'd like to have a moderated discussion after at least a couple of the performances, so the audience and the cast and I can talk to each other about what difference, if any, the changes make.
When I originally conceived this idea, I wanted to have my very talented sister,raptures_shadow play Jesus, but I don't think that's going to happen now that she is living on the other side of the country. But she would have been great.
My parents attend a Baptist church that uses gender-inclusive language, and is "welcoming and affirming," which means that they believe being homosexual should not bar anyone from full participation in the church. They have an active theater group, and a rich musical program. One day, perhaps when The Child is a bit older, I'll go to them with a proposal. . .
My own church would be willing to do it, but it's so small it lacks the resources.
I'm suddenly finding that I'm hesitant to push the "Update Journal" button. I feel pretty sure that some of my LJ Friends may strongly disagree with some of what I've written here, and I deal far better with controversy in the abstract than when it means possibly offending or distressing people I care about.
My dear friend
queenofhalves posted this entry about attending a performance of Jesus Christ Superstar in which a woman had been cast as Jesus. I started to respond in comments, but soon realized it merited an entry of my own.One of my big unfulfilled ambitions is to direct Godspell, and cast Jesus as a woman, and play with the gender dynamic, especially with John/Judas, the woman caught in adultery, and the woman who sings "Turn Back O Man." It wouldn't be a male Jesus played by a woman (as women sometimes play Hamlet, or other male roles), it would be Jesus as as female, with feminine costuming and a feminine sensibility. Which I think Godspell can handle better as a text/show than Superstar.
Why? Most importantly, I believe that the Divine is without gender, and that The Good News, the message of the life and words, and death and resurrection, of the Christ remains the same, irregardless of the gender of the avatar. In a world where women are denied full participation in many churches because they are not male (something I think violates the example of Christ), this is a real, crucial issue. And I have a big issue with the Catholic Church denying ordination to women in part because they can not project "the image of Christ" when they preside at the Eucharist. How does one project the "image" of Christ? Is it about gonads, or about living in the presence of God and radiating God's love?
Second, I believe that while Godspell is a very good piece of theater, tweaking the gender dynamics can revitalize a text that has become so familiar it is verging on cliched.
After all the uproar over Gibson's The Passion I hesitate to write this, but it's also true that I think that showing a woman being crucified will up the emotional impact. Godspell isn't about blood and guts, so I'm not talking about adding gore. The crucifixion scene in any show is a set-piece, very familiar, a ritual. Executing an innocent woman rather than an innocent man hits different centers of meaning for most of us, whether we want to make those distinctions or not.
I'd also like to move away from the traditional portrayal of the disciples as all younger people, and have more of a range of ages. I'd like to have a gay couple among them. I'd like to have a moderated discussion after at least a couple of the performances, so the audience and the cast and I can talk to each other about what difference, if any, the changes make.
When I originally conceived this idea, I wanted to have my very talented sister,
raptures_shadow play Jesus, but I don't think that's going to happen now that she is living on the other side of the country. But she would have been great. My parents attend a Baptist church that uses gender-inclusive language, and is "welcoming and affirming," which means that they believe being homosexual should not bar anyone from full participation in the church. They have an active theater group, and a rich musical program. One day, perhaps when The Child is a bit older, I'll go to them with a proposal. . .
My own church would be willing to do it, but it's so small it lacks the resources.
I'm suddenly finding that I'm hesitant to push the "Update Journal" button. I feel pretty sure that some of my LJ Friends may strongly disagree with some of what I've written here, and I deal far better with controversy in the abstract than when it means possibly offending or distressing people I care about.
no subject
I tend to believe that the Divine has no gender, as well, though I refer to God as 'he' because it sounds better than referring to God as 'it.' God is love, after all, and I never heard that love had gender (except in French). *grin*
Chantal
no subject
no subject
My friend Karina and I have discussed in the past the idea that the Holy Spirit is female.
Chantal
no subject
Characterizing the Holy Spirit as female is one of the more popular ways of expressing the feminine aspect of the Divine in Christian tradition. (The fact that the dove is also a symbol of the Goddess makes this a particularly apt choice.)
The problem I have with this choice (although "problem" might not be the best word) is that "spirit" is so without gender, it doesn't really challenge the overall tendency to characterize the Godhead as exclusively masculine. Father and Son remain the strongest images.
At least this is true in the communities I've been in. Perhaps in more evangelical communities the Spirit has a more vivid presence and the feminine Presence has more impact?
no subject
Hm, good question. I don't know, and I'm trying not to make the mistake of considering 'evangelical' to be synonymous with 'fundamentalist.' Unfortunately, most of the people I know who describe themselves as evangelical christians are also fundamentalists, so things get cloudy.
I have not noticed much consideration in typical churches of the Holy Spirit as female, even though I like the idea a lot, as it provides a needed balance in Christianity. but you are right--the Father and the Son are far more common, concrete images, while the flame of the Holy Spirit can be taken as male, female, or neuter. It may be that any admission of femininity in the Divine might be seen by some Christians as pagan and therefore not to be considered.
I still like it, though.
Chantal
Female Jesus
I agree that God has no gender. God is a spirit. John 4:24 For the record, I don't think Jesus is God. I think he's God's son.
That being said, I think where a person stands on the gender issue among humans depends a lot on how much they rely on the Bible as being inspired by God and directive in their life choices. Among believers, it seems to run the gamut from direct inspiration of the Almighty God to the general impressions of how some ancient people have experienced the divine.
It's been pretty clear since I first started reading your journal that we stand on different spots on that continuum. :) Interesting thoughts even though I don't agree with them.
Re: Female Jesus
What does that mean to you?
Does it have any specific implications for your faith?
It's been pretty clear since I first started reading your journal that we stand on different spots on that continuum. :)
It's one of the reasons I appreciate having you as a friend. I like the way that we can relate and empathize in some ways and respect each other's differences where we find them.
Re: Female Jesus
What does that mean to you?
Does it have any specific implications for your faith?
Yes, many. Any flaw in the equation can obscure the final product. The identity of the person you're worshiping is paramount.
For one thing, if you believe Jesus is God, the ransom sacrifice (what it means and how it works) is obscured. Although God is infinitely higher than humans and we will never be able to comprehend the totality of God, he is not a mystery to us. He has very clearly set out for us in the Bible, through his creation, and by his Son how we are to understand him. Equating him with Jesus and the holy spirit can only confuse matters.
Our eternal life depends on knowing God and Jesus - John 17:3. If I thought Jesus was God, then I couldn't really know either one of them.
And it just makes so much more sense. You don't have to keep asking those ever-present questions: Who was Jesus praying to when on Earth? Himself? When Jesus was dead for three days, was God dead? Was part of God dead? Was the human part of the Son part of God dead? How could Jesus be God if John said that no one had ever seen God? - 1 John 4:12 And so on and so forth.
no subject
http://www.edwinasandys.com/sculpture/scultureChrista.html
no subject
It's so close to the traditional 'look' that it doesn't have much impact for me -- but I can imagine it would have a big impact in a public display, especially a church.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
It's on video and DVD, and there are several versions of the soundtrack available too: Off-Off Broadway, the movie, revivals. . .
Have you heard "Day by Day"? That's the most famous song from the show.
Take look here: http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Lobby/4209/
and here: http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/6003/gdsplHOME.html
(this one has music)
no subject
Wonderful idea and some thoughts
Just being able to ask the question of what "projects the image of Christ"? Facinates me, I believe that a piece on the subject would hopefully help people asess where they get the perceptions that they maintain. I do not argue with the Scriptures words, but in the modern time, the values derived from the scripture should be questioned.
I think this project would put people more in touch with thier connection and perceptions of Jesus. Protraying Jesus as the daughter of God as opposed to the Son calls into question serious issues we have with gender roles today. Because what father (God) would sacrifice his daughter? The very idea of it would ring evil in most peoples minds. Yet sons (and now more often daughters) are sacrificed readily in our culture on the altar of war.
One of the ideas that this brings to mind is the pervasive question, "What would Jesus do?" What do they think Jesus would do if he saw himself protrayed on screen and stage as a woman?
Re: Wonderful idea and some thoughts
That is one way in which I think casting a female Jesus, playing him as a female would be difficult, because she would be far more shocking to her society than Jesus as a male was. I don't think she would make it to the cross; I think a woman like that might well be stoned to death in the streets, in that culture. Associating with prostitutes, lepers, and the unclean? Living with a lot of men who weren't her husband? *shakes head* I think it would be very difficult to portray that realistically without changing the story in a lot of ways. But it would still be interesting.
Chantal
Re: Wonderful idea and some thoughts
This is an excellent point. I think that one of the most important reasons that Christ was male was that, as you observe, that society would simply not have listened to a woman. That's one reason why Godspell works for the gender-bending. It is set in a modern, urban environment. You don't have to worry about not being true to the historical-cultural details.
Associating with prostitutes, lepers, and the unclean? Living with a lot of men who weren't her husband? *shakes head*
Look what happened to Mary Magdalene's reputation. Tradition associates her with the woman caught in adultery and the "sinful" woman who annointed Jesus' feet -- but there is nothing in the gospels to support that. You hear much more about her as a "repentant prostitute" than as the woman to whom was given the first vision of the risen Christ and then given the task of announcing it to the other disciples.
Of course, in recent years there have been a whole new series of stories about Magdalene, connecting her with the Grail and the sacred marriage, and etc. But the "penitent whore" has been a powerful image for centuries.
Re: Wonderful idea and some thoughts
Sadly, the example of war aside, the fathers of this world have often been more likely to sacrifice daughters than sons, believing sons to be of more worth than daughters.
My question is "what kind of father would sacrifice any of his children, regardless of gender?" There is a powerful stream of christology that rejects the idea that God demanded the death of Jesus as a sacrificial atonement, that it is contrary to the loving and just nature of God to demand the death of one who is blameless.
This gets off into the fascinating field of discussing the meaning of Jesus' death (a question that has more orthodox answers than I had realized before one of my seminary classes last year!), but that's getting a bit beyond this discussion.
To be honest, I had never stopped to wonder what Jesus would think of a production such as I describe. My sense is that he would care most about whether his message was communicated, not worry overmuch about the gender of the player. I'm certain that there have been thousand of representations of him that have given him pause over the centuries.
no subject
One of the reasons I got out of Christianity (there were many) was because of the way it privileged masculinity. I think Godspell's Jesus as clown would transgender very easily. You must do it.
no subject
I've just friended you, and am looking forward to getting to know you better. The last half-dozen or so entries in your journal made for fascinating reading.
no subject
I think we probably have quite a lot in common.