The Nativity Story

Last night about 30 or so people from our church went together to see The Nativity Story. This seems to me to be one of those movies where how you experience it depends in a very large measure on your own context and expectations. This review of the movie, therefore, is probably mostly about my own reflections on what I observed.

Scripture gives us very little about Joseph — Matthew says simply that he was a righteous man. Interpreting just what a righteous man looks like is a significant part of the impact of this movie. There can be no doubt that this Joseph, played by Oscar Isaac, is really, truly a good man. In very many ways, Joseph reflects the person that Jesus will be known to be, and there are numerous "flash-forwards" to Jesus' story — Joseph's response to the commercialized temple court is but one example. Even more telling is what Mary says to her unborn son as she tends to a thoroughly exhausted Joseph — you will have a good man for a father, one who gives to others even at the cost of himself.

One reviewer I read was disappointed at the angels — he was looking forward to some real heavy duty special effects, particularly of the angel choir, and got far less than he'd wanted. There can be no doubt that the angel visitations were significantly understated. But to me, the fact that the angelic presence never totally overwhelmed any of those to whom he was sent simply emphasized that each one had to respond, to choose what he/she would do with this message. Far from eliminating the need for faith, these angelic messages were calls to walk very much in faith. In this way, our calls are no different than theirs, which makes their examples that much more relevant to our lives.

In many ways, there was a lot that was understated about this movie — enough to make me wonder whether that isn't part of the point. We did hear, after all, that in Elijah's meeting with God, God was not in the fire or the earthquake or the devastating wind, but rather God was in the still small voice — indeed, we heard it twice.

Our culture, even the evangelical christian subculture, is more fond of impressive actions, big noises, and gross overstatements. We are, I suspect, far more comfortable with Herod's way of making a point — build two pools with a waterfall in between in the midst of a desert, and back it with gold tiles to reflect the light even if it means starving more and more of his people. In the context, Herod's behaviour is truly obscene. But then, what of the advertisements that preceded the movie? Surely the message that the appropriate way to bring peace and harmony to a world of increasing hostilities between the affluent self-indulgent village of "wants" and the subsistence survival of the village of "needs" is to buy yourself a Toyota Camry is just as over-the-top, just as obscene. And yet, I admit, my own initial reaction to that ad was that it was just silly (as in amusing) and mostly harmless.

The disparity between Herod's power and wealth, and the poverty and powerlessness of the people was clear enough that we understand the great attraction that "the prophecy" of a messiah held. But we also see considerable disparity between the sort of messiah that Herod fears and that the people long for, and the one that God seems to be bringing. We see it in Mary's question to Elizabeth about why would God choose someone of such little importance as her for this great event, and we see it Gaspar's wondering observation that this Bethlehem stable is an unusually humble place for the birth of the greatest of all kings — of God Himself wrapped in flesh. God is not in the fire or the earthquake — God is in the still small voice.

A number of reviewers were less than enthused with Keisha Castle-Hughes portrayal of Mary. Frederica Matthewes-Greene thinks she is totally disengaged from the astounding and terrifying things that are going on around her. Scot McKnight finds her far too much in the "pious, pensive, and passive" mood of Catholic tradition to reflect his understanding of the much more aggressive, "bring it on" Mary he sees in the Magnificat, and expounds in his just released book, The Real Mary. I, however, did not see a docile Mary, disengaged from the events around her. Rather, I saw a woman who made a conscious decision to return to Nazareth, knowing full well the dangers that would await her there, even against the advice of her cousin Elizabeth and the retrojected wish of her mother, simply because she had made a promise. Her observation to her parents, warning her of the potential for death by stoning, that the destiny of the one she carries outweighs her fear of whatever "they" may do to her reflected to me the deep calm faith of the later martyrs. She is not unaware of the terrifying events swirling around her, nor disengaged from them — rather she has made her faith override her fear, just as Joseph does.

Scot McKnight may well be right about the "real" historical Mary, but in this movie, where understatement is everything, I think the decision to leave the Magnificat to the end fits. The way that God will fill the hungry and turn away the rich empty is going to be much different than what any fiercely nationalistic first century Jewish peasant girl could ever imagine. And in the flight into Egypt, this Mary is already starting to come to grips with that reality — a reality we all must eventually come to grips with.

Following this Messiah is going to involve more than giving up our dates, wine and pillows. Following this Messiah is going involve us not just in Gold and Frankincense, but also in Myrrh. Because this God doesn't play by our rules.

« Continue »

Name-calling in the Church

Scot McKnight has a thoughtful post entitled Name-calling in the Church concerning the ways in which we use "labels" for people — sometimes in appropriate and useful ways, but regretably often as weapons.

I long ago noticed that the web is a place where negative labels tend to get throw around quite a lot — by persons of all persuasions. It's one of the reasons I lurked for so long, and still am somewhat hesitant to engage too often on other's sites.

The very nature of blog comments and forum posts, with their "keep things short and to the point" credo, makes the use of shorthand expressions (i.e. labels) invaluable — if everyone understands the shorthand in the same way, that is. But the great diversity present in the blogosphere almost guarantees that at least some — if not many — of the readers and engagers will not understand these shorthand terms in anything like the same way. Indeed, even saying that a particular label is "negative" probably is true only in specific contexts with specific groups of "speakers".

Regretably, it seems to me that more and more of the world is becoming like the blogosphere, with more and more avenues of life involving people from vastly different contexts engaging each other quickly and tersely, using the same words and phrases, but rarely realizing that they do not mean anything like the same thing to the other. And the more important a subject, the more likely we are to be discussing it in just such a highly diverse, rapid-fire environment.

It's no wonder that our "civil society" seems to be becoming so much less "civil". Maybe we all just need to slow down a bit, and spend a lot more time listening.

« Continue »