Jesus Christ Superstar?

[patrick457]

Undeniably, this rock opera has engendered questions concerning Christ in the minds of old and young alike and inasmuch as it has sparked a degree of genuine interest in Jesus, I would concede that it does have some positive value. However, the crucial questions that must needs be asked are: what sort of an image of Christ does it actually give?; what precise sort of interest in Christ does JCS really represent? Moreover, is this irreverent rock opera a fitting medium through which the critical seeker after truth can make honest investigation of the claims of Christ and the Gospel? Then there is the whole issue of whether or not a rock style of music is even an appropriate medium with which to treat a sacred theme.

As I’ve noted before, JCS is often considered to be a ‘rock’ opera, but in reality it is a mix of various musical genres, of which rock is but one.

Even before we have begun, we must say quite emphatically that, irrespective of the writer’s motives and intentions, the addition of the noun, ‘Superstar’ to the name of the the second Person of the Holy Trinity, is both blasphemous and impious. The linking of our Blessed Saviour with a word that is used in the entertainment industry to describe an extremely famous or renowned actor, film star or musician etc., is surely enough to appal any God-fearing Catholic and make them want to recoil. This alone ought to put us on enquiry respecting this rock opera at the very outset.

Let us be perfectly honest, Jesus Christ Superstar was written to tickle the avant-garde musical palates of spiritually adrift youth and is nothing more than a trendy rendition of the Gospel, according to Judas’ perspective. The testimony of the traitor regarding Christ is set in opposition to the testimony of the other Apostle’s which has come down to us in the fourfold Gospel. In the canonical Gospels even the enemies of Christ testify to the fact of Christ’s miracle-working. Whilst it is true that these miracles did not lead our Lord’s Pharasaic critics to faith in the Gospel - they credit it His miraculous powers to the Devil - according to JCS, however, Judas, an apostolic witness, clearly denies the historic reality of the miraculous works of Christ: “Strip away the myth from the man…Jesus. You’ve started to believe the things things they say of you. He’s a man - He’s just a man”. This sounds very reminisent of the ‘demythologising’ heresy of Rudolph Bultman and his attempt to find the real ‘historical Jesus’ behind the supposed layers of the Gospel narrative.

If the apostolic witness of Judas is true (and as confirmed by the passionate conviction ascribed to Mary Magdalene, “He’s a man - He’s just a man”), then the testimony of all the other Apostle’s can rightly be discounted; the latter falls to the ground as mere myth! My dear friend, can you not see that the pronounced emphasis in JCS upon the testimony of Judas is, effectually, equivalent to an implicit philosophical statement that there is no rational reason for belief in Christ as the Divine Son of God. Moreover, this is corroborated by the fact that everything Christ says and does in this sacrilegious rock opera confirms the accuracy of Judas’ judgement which, incidently, happens to be the verdict of the writer’s of JCS, who have reduced our Blessed Saviour to the level of some dissenting liberal reformer who has run afoul of the establishment.

Sorry, but yours and Patrick’s specious rationalization of this rock opera fails to cut any ice and neither does it have the ring of truth. The fact is that the writer’s of JCS have created a false, mythical Messiah according to their own image and likeness. Today’s youth will never encounter the authentic Christ of the canonical Gospels here, only the apocryphal ‘Superstar’ version of two atheists, Messers. Webber and Rice.

This is actually why I’ve said that JCS is:

This is one of the ultimate ironies of Jesus Christ Superstar: while everything is seen from Judas Iscariot’ viewpoint, it does not really glorify everything that Judas says and does; instead, we gradually learn as the story unfold that Judas is himself a very flawed character no matter how he tries to ride his high horse and judge Jesus and His followers. Judas is thus more of an anti-hero. So we, the listeners/viewers, are somewhat encouraged not to side with Judas as well, since he apparently is no better than the rest. JCS is thus very much about a story about the pot calling the kettle black, or to be more Biblical, someone seeing the specks in people’s eyes while not noticing the log in his own.

JCS’ Judas is basically the archetypal example of the unreliable narrator. If you’re being uncomfortable with Judas then that’s perfectly natural. And I wouldn’t put too much stock in what JCS’ Mary Magdalene (and virtually everyone, except perhaps Jesus) says also, given the running theme of the blindness of the disciples: they do not really get who and what Jesus is. Until then, you’d have to wait for my further ‘rationalizations’ where I pick things apart and ‘rationalize’ them further.

Sure, Rice and Webber may not be believers, but to me (of course this is just my personal opinion) their opera does not really exalt their beliefs by having an unreliable person mouth it; on the contrary, they somewhat ironically cast doubt upon it themselves.

 

[andrew60]

I think its pretty close to biblical. I didnt see the insinuation that was put into the original posts. You can read lots into things and I dont see it. LSD had nothing to do with the movie or play. I have seen it off broadway as well as the newer version and the two versions on film.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Dear Fone Bone,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well, dear friend. Thankyou for your repsonse above and apologies for the delay in replying.

No problem, Portrait! And I hope all is well with you, too.

Undeniably, this rock opera has engendered questions concerning Christ in the minds of old and young alike and inasmuch as it has sparked a degree of genuine interest in Jesus, I would concede that it does have some positive value. However, the crucial questions that must needs be asked are: what sort of an image of Christ does it actually give?; what precise sort of interest in Christ does JCS really represent?

I completely agree that these are the types of questions we need to be asking.

Here’s a fact to start with: by reimagining/rewriting Judas as a modern everyman, JCS invites its modern viewers to see the story from Judas’ perspective.

What, from that perspective, do they see? I maintain that this is what they see of Jesus from Judas’ eyes:

A great and wise teacher with the potential to really inspire and help people in an earthly sense, but a man who throws all that away and gets himself killed through apparent recklessness. But then, because of Act II, the modern viewer - and Judas - will discover something surprising: that Jesus actually knew what he was doing all along, and that his crucifixion was all part of what he believed to be God’s plan.

Judas never makes it any farther than that, however. The question that remains, then, for a viewer will be, “Who is this man? Why would he just let himself die like that? What was his goal?”

So yes, I do think this is a very fitting place for a secular investigator of the Gospel to begin. It thoroughly undermines the idea of Jesus as just a regular man who had some good moral teachings by showing that Jesus could have gone down that route, and chose to do something else, something far more unusual, instead.

Even before we have begun, we must say quite emphatically that, irrespective of the writer’s motives and intentions, the addition of the noun, ‘Superstar’ to the name of the the second Person of the Holy Trinity, is both blasphemous and impious.

I don’t think so. The comparison to the status of famous entertainers is an ironic one: that’s the shallow modern view, and the view that Judas as a character in JCS never successfully rises above. The unmistakable point is that while Jesus is the most famous human being ever to exist, he could have achieved so much more worldly power and fame than he did. The musical’s very title is the start of the way in which it undermines the credibility of the typical secular perspective on Jesus (i.e. secular teacher of nice fluffy morals we all agree with). A “nice” teacher of fluffy little platitudes will be very bland and forgettable: Jesus Christ is not such a man.

Let us be perfectly honest, Jesus Christ Superstar was written to tickle the avant-garde musical palates of spiritually adrift youth and is nothing more than a trendy rendition of the Gospel.

And yet, for all the reasons we’ve laid out, it somehow becomes so much more. Perhaps the reason is the lyrics’ fidelity to the lyricist’s source material (mostly the Gospel of John, though allusions to other sayings of Jesus from other gospels are present too).

Please believe me, though, Portrait, I see the irony: JCS made its debut in what is my least favorite decade of the twentieth century - least favorite culturally, musically, and morally.

So I don’t know how it happened that such a wonderful adaptation came out of that. God works in mysterious ways.

“Strip away the myth from the man…Jesus. You’ve started to believe the things things they say of you. He’s a man - He’s just a man”. This sounds very reminisent of the ‘demythologising’ heresy of Rudolph Bultman and his attempt to find the real ‘historical Jesus’ behind the supposed layers of the Gospel narrative.

I agree; that’s part of the way JCS reinvents Judas as a modern everyman. But look at what happens to him in the musical: his confidence in this perspective leads him disastrously astray, he unwittingly delivers Jesus to torture and death, and then he kills himself in despair.

Judas, in JCS, ends up wrong, basically about everything: he thinks he’s saving Jesus from death, but really he’s killing him; he thinks Jesus doesn’t know what he’s doing, but he does; he thinks Jesus is just a man, but by the end (“Superstar”) he isn’t sure.

everything Christ says and does in this sacrilegious rock opera confirms the accuracy of Judas’ judgement which, incidently, happens to be the verdict of the writer’s of JCS, who have reduced our Blessed Saviour to the level of some dissenting liberal reformer who has run afoul of the establishment.

Totally false, for the reasons I gave above: Judas ends up wrong about basically everything in JCS.

And Jesus in JCS is not “some dissenting liberal reformer who has run afoul of the establishment.” Everyone in this musical tries to shove him toward worldly objectives, and he consistently rebuffs them all (“Simon Zealottes”; “Poor Jerusalem”; “Heaven on their Minds”, “The Arrest”, etc.).

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

the Christ of JCS is a pathetic, shrieking, howling misfit. He is weak, despairing, confused, self-centred, a sort of hysterical witch-doctor - though actually quite a boring one at that. He is ignorant of his mission and destiny and is going through an identity crisis

Couldn’t disagree more. He’s the only character who sees clearly and accurately where they’re all headed - Judas tries to prevent his death and foolishly sees it as an utter waste, Mary Magdalene tries futilely to comfort him, etc. If Jesus in JCS is a “misfit,” that’s a good thing - He’s not of this world, so of course He doesn’t fit into it.

The lines you quoted show his suffering and the limitations of his humanity. Don’t forget that our Lord is as human as he is divine. Are those lines really more troubling than things our Lord actually said, like “Why do you call me good? God alone is good,” “The Father is greater than I,” or when He states that even He doesn’t know the hour of His return?

In fact, he basicly despises the crowd.

He despises a crowd for whom he prays, “Father, forgive them, they don’t know what they’re doing”?

Clearly he pities the crowd in the musical. I have no idea where you get this “despising” from.

Before the queries of Pilate and Caiphas concerning his messianic dignity and divine claims, the Christ of JCS strikingly eschews any such perogatives, lamely replying, “That’s what you say”.

Um, that’s a paraphrase of a direct Biblical quote: “You have said so.”

Having earlier been the romantic interest of a prostitute who feels genuine human love for the very first time and does not know how to cope with it. the Christ of JCS here refused the attributes of the Divine Lover.

"Yet, if he said he loved me, I’d be lost; I’d be frightened. I couldn’t cope, just couldn’t cope. I’d turn my head; I’d back away. I wouldn’t want to know; he scares me so." (“I Don’t Know How to Love Him”)

Though some unfortunate productions make the awful choice to sensualize their relationship, the above lyric flatly contradicts the notion that they were ever romantically or sexually involved.

How far removed is all this nonsense from the Gospel narratives that we know and love so much?

As Patrick has repeatedly and thoroughly begun to document, most lines of the dialogue are from the gospels, most often the Gospel of John.

 

[curlycool89]

Even before we have begun, we must say quite emphatically that, irrespective of the writer’s motives and intentions, the addition of the noun, ‘Superstar’ to the name of the the second Person of the Holy Trinity, is both blasphemous and impious. The linking of our Blessed Saviour with a word that is used in the entertainment industry to describe an extremely famous or renowned actor, film star or musician etc., is surely enough to appal any God-fearing Catholic and make them want to recoil. This alone ought to put us on enquiry respecting this rock opera at the very outset.

Jesus Christ, Prince of Piece. Wonderful Councillor. King. Pure awesomeness.

Seriously, now you’re reaching. The title? Jesus is a superstar, no, he is THE superstar.

If Rock music is debased sensory material, then clearly it is hardly appropriate or even possible for a sacred theme.

Oh, now we found Portrait’s issue. He’s one of those “rock music is from the devil” people. I’m sorry, but what a bunch of BS. If you want an example of pious Christian rock (rock-ish. It’s harder than pop), listen to Starfield or Casting Crowns. And that’s examples that are tamer.

Seriously, the idea that rock music is “evil” is Protestant Puritanism; it’s idea that need to die a preferably painful death. And then the idea needs to be exorcised. And then dunked in holy water, and then burned. And then put on trial for stupidity in the first degree.

 

[patrick457]

By the way, in the original draft there was supposed to be another scene at this point, set outside Jerusalem. Jesus and the disciples have run out of food; Judas is quick to blame Jesus ― adding that he would sell his soul for a piece of camel pie! ― at which Jesus counters that He and the other disciples have noticed that he is not much on self-sacrifice. The scene then ends in a sort of reversal of the cursing of the fig tree (Mark 11:12-14, 20-25; Matthew 21:18-22), where a fig tree bears fruit ― in effect providing food for all. The scene all in all would have made Judas appear more self-serving, and would have been the only on-stage depiction of a miracle, had it been included.

Pilate’s Dream



One of the unique things about the Matthean Passion narrative is the slight narrative aside Matthew devotes to Pontius Pilate’s wife (about whom we know nothing else):

Besides, while he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent word to him, “Have nothing to do with that righteous man, for I have suffered much because of him today in a dream.”

• Matthew 27:19

For narrative convenience, Rice transfers the dream to Pilate himself and puts it between Poor Jerusalem and The Temple. Pilate, in a short, almost poignant ballad, has brief glimpses of his trial of Jesus and its later ramifications.

I dreamed I met a Galilean;
A most amazing man.
He had that look you very rarely find:
The haunting, hunted kind.

I asked him to say what had happened,
How it all began.
I asked again, he never said a word,
As if he hadn’t heard.

And next, the room was full of wild and angry men;
They seemed to hate this man -
They fell on him, and then
They disappeared again.

Then I saw thousands of millions
Crying for this man;
And then I heard them mentioning my name,
And leaving me the blame.

Need I mention the reference made here?

“…suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried…”

“Who was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate;
He suffered and was buried…”

Day after day, millions all over the world recite the name of an obscure Roman prefect who became famous simply because of his association with the death of one Man whom many people hail as the Son of God. Indeed, we can say that if Pontius Pilate did not have any involvement with Jesus at all, he would only be yet another of those minor footnotes in the history of the Roman Empire.

Dorothy L. Sayers once wrote:

If Christ is not true God equally with the Father, there is no essential difference between Christianity and pagan polytheism. For Jesus Christ is unique – unique among gods and men. There have been incarnate gods a-plenty, and slain-and-resurrected gods not a few; but He is the only God who has a date in history. And plenty of founders of religions have had dates, and some of them have been prophets or avatars of the Divine; but only this one of them was personally God. There is no more astonishing collocation of phrases than that which, in the Nicene Creed, sets these two statements flatly side by side: ‘Very God of Very God … He suffered under Pontius Pilate.’ All over the world, thousands of times a day, Christians recite the name of a rather undistinguished Roman Proconsul, not in denunciation, but merely because that name fixes within a few years the date of the death of God.

The 1973 film adds an ethereal chorus calling out Pilate’s name at the end of the song, as he is given his golden wreath, all the while visibly troubled.

 

[Portrait]

As I’ve noted before, JCS is often considered to be a ‘rock’ opera, but in reality it is a mix of various musical genres, of which rock is but one.

This is actually why I’ve said that JCS is:

This is one of the ultimate ironies of Jesus Christ Superstar: while everything is seen from Judas Iscariot’ viewpoint, it does not really glorify everything that Judas says and does; instead, we gradually learn as the story unfold that Judas is himself a very flawed character no matter how he tries to ride his high horse and judge Jesus and His followers. Judas is thus more of an anti-hero. So we, the listeners/viewers, are somewhat encouraged not to side with Judas as well, since he apparently is no better than the rest. JCS is thus very much about a story about the pot calling the kettle black, or to be more Biblical, someone seeing the specks in people’s eyes while not noticing the log in his own.

Sure, Rice and Webber may not be believers, but to me (of course this is just my personal opinion) their opera does not really exalt their beliefs by having an unreliable person mouth it; on the contrary, they somewhat ironically cast doubt upon it themselves.

Dear patrick,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for *all *of your responses, dear friend.

What I think we can say without fear of contradiction is that the musical does have a distinctive rock flavour and so the term ‘rock opera’ is not a misnomer.

JCS is no more theologically and historically sound than those apocryphal gospels that circulated in the early days of Christianity. Indeed, it is quite interesting to realize that in the 2nd. century an apocryphal gospel, The ‘Gospel According to Judas Iscariot’, seduced a small number of dupes who went on to form a heretical sect (not sugesting anyone here in on the verge of doing that) called the Caininites, who rapidly became extinct. Hyppolytus, in one of his writings makes a brief allusion to this bizzare sect whose antinomian cultists venerated and admired all the reprobates of the Old and New Testaments. These, form Cain to Judas, and especially Judas, were deemed to be the anti-heroes of the day, the hapless victims of the “the cruel God of the Jews”.

It is my contention that JCS is basicly contemporary apocrypha with a beat, written by a couple of 20th century myth-makers whose writings engage in similar blasphemy. It is counterfiet, as with all conterfiets, inasmuch as it presuposes and reflects something true and real. A thing is acknowledged and judged to be counterfiet if it:

1. Distorts something
2. Adds something which is of alien origin, or
3. Omitts something which clearly belongs.

The apocryphal JCS is no exception. While it undeniably does reflect many truths and events of the genuine Gospel concerning Christ, such as the weakness of His followers and the attacks of His critics, JCS also over empasizes that one moment of utter desolation that our dear Lord certainly experienced in a mysterious way upon the Cross. In this rock opera it is made the all pervading theme of His life.

Moreover, something is considered counterfeit if it lacks that which is supposed to give it value. A counterfeit £5 note is worthless because it has nothing of value with which to support it. Likewise, an apocryphal or counterfeit gospel which rejects the Divinty of Christ is devoid of that which gives the authentic Gospels their value.

My fundamental problem with this irreverent rock opera is not so much the issue of rock style music being utilised for a sacred theme ( problematic as that is), but the fact that it miserebly fails in presenting the authentic historical Christ of the authentic fourfold Gospel. It is not merely a counterfiet, but a jolly poor counterfeit. It is counterfeit because, as with the Rationalists and Liberal Protestants of the past, the rock opera attempts to separate, in line with the heretical beliefs of its atheist authors, Christ’s humanity from His Divinity. Contrary to some superficially plausible argument on this current thread, JCS does present Christ as a mere man - “just a man” - who at one point made fantastic claims and indulged in fantastic thoughts, a hapless religious utopian who was seriously misunderstood by both His credulous, deluded followers and his scornful critics whose scorn is presented as warranted, if not a little unkind. Such a figure is not the product of science, but rather skepticism, prejudice and over-fertile imaginations. Moreover, it is also an inferior counterfeit because it presents not only an impious, but a truly grotesque caricature of our Lord’s Humanity. Indeed, some may go even further and say that JCS is a ludicrous effort on the part of rationalistic critics to sever the Jesus of 1st. century Palestine from the Christ of Christian Faith. Perhaps that is not so very far removed from the actual truth as it might at first seem, especially when you have Mr. Rice saying, “Although the Gospels seem largely accurate in their telling of the events of the crucifixtion, one can see great flaws in their portrayals of both Christ and Judas” (Seventeen, March 1970, p. 170) - spoken like a true liberal. This is nothing more than a repudiation of the Christ of inspired Sacred Scripture.

Alas, JCS manifestly does “exalt” the liberal and atheistic beliefs of its authors, Messrs. Rice and Lloyd Webber, because their ‘christ’ is a mere mixed up man viewed through the distorted reflection of an Age of Aquarius Amusement Park mirror.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

PS Will respond to other posters on Friday, God willing. Thankyou for your time and patience, dear friends.

 

[The_Professor]

Need I mention the reference made here?

"...suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried..."

"Who was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate;
He suffered and was buried..."

Day after day, millions all over the world recite the name of an obscure Roman prefect who became famous simply because of his association with the death of one Man whom many people hail as the Son of God. Indeed, we can say that if Pontius Pilate did not have any involvement with Jesus at all, he would only be yet another of those minor footnotes in the history of the Roman Empire.

This is my favorite aspect of that song. It makes the dream seem very haunting.

 

[curlycool89]

This is my favorite aspect of that song. It makes the dream seem very haunting.

I really like JCS’s portrayal of Pilate. There’s never anything in the Gospels to suggest that Pilate really wants to condemn Jesus, and it shows in JCS.

 

[proudcatholic33]

Though the show and record themselves might be considered to be “unofficial” or even a bit blasphemous, how harmful is it to attend showings and/or listen to the record? Does this do damage to the soul, even as a strict devout Catholic?

 

[Portrait]

No problem, Portrait! And I hope all is well with you, too.

Here’s a fact to start with: by reimagining/rewriting Judas as a modern everyman, JCS invites its modern viewers to see the story from Judas’ perspective.

What, from that perspective, do they see? I maintain that this is what they see of Jesus from Judas’ eyes:

A great and wise teacher with the potential to really inspire and help people in an earthly sense, but a man who throws all that away and gets himself killed through apparent recklessness. But then, because of Act II, the modern viewer - and Judas - will discover something surprising: that Jesus actually knew what he was doing all along, and that his crucifixion was all part of what he believed to be God’s plan.

Judas never makes it any farther than that, however. The question that remains, then, for a viewer will be, “Who is this man? Why would he just let himself die like that? What was his goal?”

I don’t think so. The comparison to the status of famous entertainers is an ironic one: that’s the shallow modern view, and the view that Judas as a character in JCS never successfully rises above. The unmistakable point is that while Jesus is the most famous human being ever to exist, he could have achieved so much more worldly power and fame than he did. The musical’s very title is the start of the way in which it undermines the credibility of the typical secular perspective on Jesus (i.e. secular teacher of nice fluffy morals we all agree with). A “nice” teacher of fluffy little platitudes will be very bland and forgettable: Jesus Christ is not such a man.

And yet, for all the reasons we’ve laid out, it somehow becomes so much more. Perhaps the reason is the lyrics’ fidelity to the lyricist’s source material (mostly the Gospel of John, though allusions to other sayings of Jesus from other gospels are present too).

Please believe me, though, Portrait, I see the irony: JCS made its debut in what is my least favorite decade of the twentieth century - least favorite culturally, musically, and morally.

And Jesus in JCS is not “some dissenting liberal reformer who has run afoul of the establishment.” Everyone in this musical tries to shove him toward worldly objectives, and he consistently rebuffs them all (“Simon Zealottes”; “Poor Jerusalem”; “Heaven on their Minds”, “The Arrest”, etc.).

Dear Fone Bone,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your courteous responses, which I always enjoy reading, even if I must vehemently disagree with them.

Your valliant attempt to whitewash the blasphemy and irreverence of this despicable modern musical, simply does not pass muster. In JCS you basicly have a popular cultural representation of a very human christ, clearly influenced by the San Francisco movement (the ‘hippies’) that emerged in late 1960’s California. Thus it is no great marvel that it gives a most wholly inadequate and superficial treatment of the authentic Christ of the Gospel.

The impious secular nature of the ‘messiah’ in JCS chimed with the general thrust of his presentation in the musical - primarily, and most irreverently, as the ‘superstar’ of the title. Indeed, he is not actually a religious figure at all, but is rather cast in the mould of the popular cultural heroes of the early 1970’s. Moreover, in portraying a very human christ, struggling with noteriety rather than divinity, the focus of JCS was upon the pain and suffering caused to the man by the dehumanizing effect of fame. At times, the christ of JCS comes across more like some jaded celebrity, thus, for example, when he is overwhelmed by the sick seeking healing, he exclaims, “There’s too many of you…there’s too little of me”. This sounds like an expression of the claustrophobia associated with fame; it is the utterance of some beleagured pop or film star rather than the Saviour of mankind.

Both messers. Rice and Lloyd Webber actively denied any religious motive in writing this rock opera and it is was theologically neutral - what else would one expect from a musical written by avowed atheists. It has quite correctly and understandably elicited criticism from devout Christian men across the denominational divides for emphasizing the humanity of Christ almost to the exclusion of His Divinity. By showing the whole thing from the standpoint of Judas they have given us an unbiblical and distorted version of the canonical gospel - an apocryphal and heretical gospel in which Christ is ‘just a man’.

Even Lloyd Webber, apparently considers the christ of the musical to be a ‘liberal reformer’ type of character, for he states: 'I, personally, don’t think that Jesus is God. We tried to put over what we think might of happened. Pilate tries to keep it cooler for the bosses in Rome, for instance. And I think that Christ as a liberal reformer was a huge success. Slowly the thing got out of control. People began to worship christ and not the cause. (Hi-Time-Awake, 3.12.71, p. 7). This is the blasphemous and fallacious utterance of an atheist and his revisionist interpretation of the Gospel, which makes very sad reading - “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks”. However, what is even more sadder is that professing Catholics, who ought to know better, will actually expend effort defending a fundamentally flawed work written by an unbeliever who denies the Divinity of Christ, the cardinal verity of our most holy Faith. This just beggars belief! Such a thing would have been unthinkable in the pre-Vatican II Church, where there would have been outright censure of such blasphemy and impiety.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

Though the show and record themselves might be considered to be “unofficial” or even a bit blasphemous, how harmful is it to attend showings and/or listen to the record? Does this do damage to the soul, even as a strict devout Catholic?

Dear friend,

Cordial geetings and a very good day. A very warm welcome to the world of CAF.

All Catholics, without exception, must be engaged in a perpetual striving after holiness and this will necessarily entail the avoidance of all the distracting and demoralizing influences of the godless world with which they are daily surrounded. In the words of St. James we are bidden to keep ourselves “unstained from the world” (James 1: 27), so as to be a holy and living sacrifice acceptable to God. As I have remarked previously, too many of the faithful nowadays have adopted a hand in hand with the world type of discipleship that refuses to live up to the arduous requirements of our religion, but that is both un-Catholic and unbiblical, as well as downright worldly. Alas, neo-Catholic orthodoxy equates the pursuit of holiness and separation from the world with Puritanism, not that anything Puritan is necessarily bad or negative. Indeed, many Catholics believe that we have much to learn from the Protestant Puritan saints respecting holiness of life.

Attending a culturally unhealthy and blasphemous rock opera performance (or listening to the album) of Jesus Christ Superstar or Godspell will clearly not be conducive to one’s spiritual well-being. It is a ‘distracting and demoralizing influence of the godless world’, as well as being an affront to our Blessed Saviour, Who’s Divinity it denies by portraying a purely human christ who is “just a man” and a very mixed-up man at that.

Apart from being dishonouring to Christ, attending a showing of such a blashemous and irreverent musical could have a corrupting influence upon your soul by desensitizing you to that which is impious and sacrilegious.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

Dearly beloved friends,

Cordial greetings. This will be my final posting this side of weekend.

Messers Webber and Rice are essentially engaged in the same process that has occupied more scholarly rationalists, namely conjuring up ways and means of selecting through ‘Form Study’ and Higher Criticism some ‘socological meaningful’ portrait of Christ’s humanity. Thus Jesus was transformed into being a pacifist, a capitalist, a socialist, an anarchist, a Marxist, a utopian visionary, a madman, an eccentric etc., depending on the philosophical, cultural, and political predelictions of the particular critic. Webber and Rice irreverently call our Lord a ‘Superstar’, but it is still, nevertheless, he is a christ made in their image after their likeness.

Such a perverse Christoloogy is not embedded in true history. Neither is it ‘new’ or ‘modern’ in terms of its philosophical and theological content. It is nothing more than the warmed- over theological hash of previous centuries of rationalism served piping hot - the musty old errors of the Modernists spiced up. An honest inquirer will scarcely become better acqainted with the God-Man through the distorted portrait of Him presented in JCS, but he can certainly gain an appreciable insight into the mentality of both those who produced this blasphemous and impious rock opera and those, young and old, who passionately defend it and present superficially plausible arguments to gloss over its manifestly obvious flaws.

Dear friends, why should we waste our time and pollute our souls with a musical work that presents a weak, false any mythical christ through the medium of that debased sensory material called rock music? I rest my case.

Have a jolly splendid weekend, whatever you plan to do. God bless you all.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

Pax

 

[tonild]

Personally I prefer, Godspell to JCS.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Dear Fone Bone,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your courteous responses, which I always enjoy reading, even if I must vehemently disagree with them.

Thank you. You too, Portrait. I appreciate your tenacious patience on threads like this, despite the ad hominems occasionally leveled against you.

In JCS you basicly have a popular cultural representation of a very human christ,

The real Jesus is as human as He is divine. How is emphasizing His humanity problematic?

clearly influenced by the San Francisco movement (the ‘hippies’) that emerged in late 1960’s California

Well, perhaps the original movie. But most productions today aren’t really influenced by the hippie movement, and the lyrics themselves have nothing to do with hippies.

Even Lloyd Webber, apparently considers the christ of the musical to be a ‘liberal reformer’ type of character, for he states: 'I, personally, don’t think that Jesus is God. We tried to put over what we think might of happened. Pilate tries to keep it cooler for the bosses in Rome, for instance. And I think that Christ as a liberal reformer was a huge success. Slowly the thing got out of control. People began to worship christ and not the cause. (Hi-Time-Awake, 3.12.71, p. 7). This is the blasphemous and fallacious utterance of an atheist and his revisionist interpretation of the Gospel, which makes very sad reading - “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks”. However, what is even more sadder is that professing Catholics, who ought to know better, will actually expend effort defending a fundamentally flawed work.

That interpretation - “Jesus is just a man with good ideas; why are you worshiping him and making him the focus?” - is precisely the viewpoint of Judas in the musical.

As I pointed out above, Judas ends up being wrong about basically everything in this musical: he thought he could save Jesus’ life. He could not. He thought Jesus was losing control. He wasn’t. He thought Jesus was barreling blindly toward his death, but He knew it was coming the whole time.

And he thought Jesus was merely a man.

 

[Portrait]

F.A.O. Fone Bone

Dear Fone Bone,

Cordial greetings and a very good day, dear friend. Thankyou for your response above and thankyou also for a charitable discussion, as is your custom on these boards.

There is not a great deal more that I can say respecting JCS, so this will probably be my final posting, at least for the time being at any rate.

What is problematic is not that JCS emphasizes our Lord’ humantity but that it does so to the almost total exclusion of His Divintiy, thus giving us a very human and mythical Jesus made in our likeness after our image. This ‘demythologised’ version of Christ originates in the minds of the rock opera’s two atheistic writers, who do not believe the great mystery of our religion that Jesus Christ was God manifested in the the flesh. In other words they reject the Incarnation and we are distinctly told by St. John that “…that every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist…” (I John 4: 2,3). Therefore it is hardly any wonder that we get a human christ who is ‘just a man’ and no more. Beloved, why would we wish to see a blasphemous and heretical musical written by two chaps who openly deny the fundamental tenet of our religion, the Divinity of our Lord? Messers. Webber and Rice are engaged in the dissemination of error regarding this cardinal truth of Christian orthodoxy and should, accordingly, be denounced in the strongest terms. Indeed, there ought to be a fierce intolerance of this rock opera by all God-fearing men - “If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine (the Incarnation), do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; for he who greets hiim shares his wicked work” (St. John 2: 10,11, added parenthesis mine). Jolly uncompromising stuff that will probably appear unacceptable to many modern day Catholics, who have a morbid fear about being thought judgemental and uncharitable.

That this musical is even seen from the perspective of Judas is deplorable and impious enough, as this gives a warped unbiblical and apocryphal account of our Lord’s Passion. Moreover, this ‘testimony’ concerning Jesus is set in opposition to the testimony of the other Apostles, which has been transmitted to us in the cannonical Gospels and which serve as major motives of credibility for the Christian’s belief.

The pronounced emphasis in JCS upon the testimony of the traitor is, effectively, tantamount to an implicit philosophical statement that there is no rational reason for the Catholic belief in Christ as the Divine Son of God, which, as stated above, chimes with both the writers disbelief in the Incarnation. Yes, Messers, Webber and Rice did indeed try to put over in this musical what they thought “might of happened”. What you get is a serious distortion of Gospel truth by two men who think that the fourfold Gospel contains “great flaws in their portrayal of both Christ and Judas”. So why are we befouling our souls with this blasphemous and irreverent balderdash and expending our efforts defending and rationalizing it? Evidently, there has been a grave loss among the Catholic faithful, in recent decades, of the sensum fidelium, including conservatives, with the result that they cannot see anything unwholesome or heretical in JCS, or even rock or pop music. Alas, some Catholics do not even consider the linking of the noun ‘superstar’ (associated with the entertainment industry) with the holy name of Jesus Christ downright blasphemy! This can only be described as tragic and lamentable, but I venture to say that it would never have happened in the pre-Vatican II Church which, whatever faults it may have had, always expressed uttter disapproval of blasphemy and impiety whenever it was encountered.

The only appeal of JCS seems to be that it speaks in exactly the language and idiom that is ‘cool’ and meaningful to modern youth. Moreover, this rock opera reveals a very human christ (actually an almost totally human christ) that is supposed to be far better than the old fashioned, and biblical view, of Jesus as the second Person of the Holy Trinity, because this makes him, allegedly, more accessible and relevant to non-blievers, especially Western youth. Allied to this, is the highly questionable step of utilising debased rock-style music when treating a very sacred theme. Rock music is debased sensory material which is inseparably wedded to certain philosophies which express an undeniably godless outlook. Moreover, rock music is communication without words, regardless of what words are appended to it and thus should never be used in the service of religion, for that is an act of blatant impiety, if not blasphemy.

That is all I have to say upon this subject for the present, dear friends. It just remains for me to thank you Fone Bone and all other contributors to this discussion for taking the time to respond to my postings. Before I take my leave of you, can I ask that you at least ponder prayerfully what I have said respecting this rock opera. Thankyou.

God bless you.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

Pax

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

F.A.O. Fone Bone

Dear Fone Bone,

Cordial greetings and a very good day, dear friend. Thankyou for your response above and thankyou also for a charitable discussion, as is your custom on these boards.

Thank you again, especially for being so consistently charitable yourself, Portrait.

The pronounced emphasis in JCS upon the testimony of the traitor is, effectively, tantamount to an implicit philosophical statement that there is no rational reason for the Catholic belief in Christ as the Divine Son of God

Unless the musical shows how Judas basically got everything wrong. That is precisely what it does in fact do, Portrait. I’ll present my list again:

(a) Judas thinks Jesus doesn’t see His death coming. But He does, as the song “Gethsemane” proves.

(b) Judas thinks Jesus is losing control (“Damned for All Time”). But He is not (“Trial Before Pilate”).

(c) Judas thinks He can save Jesus from death (“Damned for All Time”; “Heaven on Their Minds”). He cannot (“Judas’ Death”).

(d) Judas thinks everything Jesus has worked for will fall apart because of His death (“The Last Supper”). But in the end he admits that Jesus may in fact have known exactly what He was doing and that His death may in fact be part of the plan (“Superstar”).

(e) And finally, Judas thinks - or rather, tries to convince himself - that Jesus is “just a man” (“Judas’ Death”). But ask yourself this: what is his track record thus far?

The great theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar wrote about the secular world’s “necrophobia,” asserting that this aversion to death is the primary stumbling block that prevents modernity from accepting Christ. Jesus Christ Superstar’s greatest spiritual accomplishment is that it undermines the world’s necrophobia by portraying a Christ who, alone among all its strikingly modern characters, and to the utter bewilderment of their necrophobic worldview, sees the efficacy of accepting His death and approaches it with fearless and unshakeable resolve.

This rock opera reveals a very human christ (actually an almost totally human christ)

Remember, the real Christ is “totally human” just as He is “totally divine.” Scripture says that He is “like us in all things but sin,” so unless you portray Jesus as a sinner, you really can’t present Him as “too human.”

That is all I have to say upon this subject for the present, dear friends. It just remains for me to thank you Fone Bone and all other contributors to this discussion for taking the time to respond to my postings. Before I take my leave of you, can I ask that you at least ponder prayerfully what I have said respecting this rock opera. Thankyou.

Thank you as well, and as you take your leave of us, I hope you will prayerfully ponder the implications of the fact that Judas as a character in JCS gets almost everything wrong.

God bless you.

God bless you as well!

 

[Monica4316]

I find that often, when people try to make Christianity “cool and relateable” to modern youth, it ends up losing a lot of its depth… I say this as a modern young person I actually prefer to keep it traditional.

 

[pnewton]

I find that often, when people try to make Christianity “cool and relateable” to modern youth, it ends up losing a lot of its depth…

You are right, Monica. JCS lack theological depth and depends on speculation and questionable wording. I still like it though. Not everything I do in life is deep and theologically profound. Somethings feed my intellect. Other things feed my heart. That is why I love both great traditional hymns and praise; apologetics and the back fence.

 

[patrick457]

You are right, Monica. JCS lack theological depth and depends on speculation and questionable wording. I still like it though. Not everything I do in life is deep and theologically profound. Somethings feed my intellect. Other things feed my heart. That is why I love both great traditional hymns and praise; apologetics and the back fence.

Same with me.