Page 3154 – Christianity Today (2024)

Gone are the days when missionaries packed up their things, their families and spent a lifetime in another country. Today’s missionaries are in constant contact with home, due to technology; they are educated in the spiritual battles in which they may have to engage in other cultures; and most often, they aren’t Western. Missions in the 21 century is far different than it was in past centuries. Michael Pocock is co-author of The Changing Face of World Missions and chair and senior professor of world missions and intercultural studies at Dallas Theological Seminary.

Globalization has significantly changed the way people around the world are doing missions. Not only are Christians in the West sending missionaries out, but they’re also receiving them from non-Western countries. Missionaries are going from just about every country to every other country.

That is exactly the way things are happening. There are roughly 97,000 Western missionaries and about 101,000 non-Westerners working cross culturally. So the line between Western and non-Western was crossed a few years ago, probably within the last three or four years.

A lot of two thirds world missionaries are simply moving because of economic conditions or other conditions in their country.

Because many majority world churches don’t have the resources of Western churches or of some of the churches in more prosperous Asian nations—nations like Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, places like that—they have had to think of innovative ways of getting mission work done.

It’s not that the churches in these countries are saying, “Okay, how many people have we got that went overseas to get a job someplace? Okay, we’ll count them all as missionaries.” Because I think that’s one of the problems, churches could be imparting a missionary consciousness and a greater preparation in terms of cultural preparedness and the ability to lead people to Christ, conduct small group Bible study, the basic stuff that evangelism and discipleship really implies. Many churches haven’t intentionally sent their emigrants forth as missionaries.

As the center of gravity for Christianity moves south, there is an increasing concern with spiritual warfare, which could be a corrective of the Western mindset that doesn’t see the spiritual as something to be regularly engaged.

The southern churches are much more ready to, because of their worldview, which Paul Hiebert has written about. You can read about folk religion in his book Understanding Folk Religion. He looks at the world in three tiers and sees God and the transcendent in the top tier. Then the bottom tier is that which is concrete, the created world, and that leaves this big gap in the middle, what he calls the “gap of the excluded middle.”

For us, that realm is relatively empty, but for a non-Western person or a majority world person, that middle world is pretty strongly inhabited, and it’s impacting the concrete world. It’s not that they have a majority world point of view that’s not right, and we are right for having a relatively empty middle. The point is that we’ve neglected the information in the Bible that tells us about that middle part.

If Satan blinds the eyes of those who don’t believe so that they won’t believe, a majority world person says, “Okay, I wonder how he’s doing that? In what sense is Satan doing that?” The Bible says he clearly is doing it. If Satan is like a roaring lion going around seeking whom he may devour, it sounds like he’s a lot more proactive than a lot of Western people think he is. The Bible is clearly telling us that he does that. I’d say that the majority world churches are taking the whole Bible—and particularly the supernatural elements of Scriptures—more seriously than we do.

And that has affected the kind of courses that missionary trainees take in seminary.

Here we instituted a course in spiritual warfare in 1993. I would say it was because graduates would write back and say, “How come you didn’t get me ready for the real world?” We decided we were going to launch this course. I had an interest and a certain amount of experience in it, and so I did. Right now, I’ve got 26 people in a spiritual warfare course. We repeat it every two years. There will always be a nice enrollment for that.

I get asked to teach the course even more overseas. Non-Westerners are caught between having a wildly fanciful view of spiritual warfare that needs to be moderated by biblical teaching, and the need for straight biblical teaching to handle the situation that they actually are facing. I find many people, whether in Russia, Colombia, or Venezuela, a number of places that are deeply concerned about spiritual warfare. They just feel they ought to be routinely better equipped.

Could you comment on how postmodernity has affected how we do missions or our view of missions?

The world of spirits is not traditionally thought of as an area of scientific investigation. In the Western world, that’s part of why it’s de-emphasized—if it can’t be measured, then it must not be happening. Well, postmodernism is really a movement that says there is an element of reality that is not entirely susceptible to modern methods. Modernism is arrogant. Modernity or scientific rationalism is too arrogant in essentially making a case that what’s real is what is explore-able in a lab or by means of scientific investigation. What is not investigate-able or study-able by those means either doesn’t exist or is relatively unimportant, or else you can’t make any decisions about it.

There’s obviously a huge variety of postmodernists, from those who would be willing to say nothing is possible to know, over to people who are just more ambiguous about knowledge, willing to use fuzzy logic. I think that’s where Christians are being affected. Not necessarily negatively by the postmodern spirit that’s in the air. They are more open to that which is mystical, and they accept the fact more readily that the way that God works is somewhat incomprehensible. It’s not as predictable as you think.

Therefore, Western methodologies have been criticized. We mention in the book that people are accusing the West of “managerial missiology.” There have been others who have accused us of having a militaristic strategy because we use militaristic terms—logistics, strategy, tactics. That’s an extension, to me, of our Western, rationalistic approach, because it looks so nice and cut and dried.

Yet I think for a postmodern person, such terms makes them feel uncomfortable when it comes to spiritual issues. I don’t think it’s that cut and dried. I think we’re operating at a different level of dynamics.

Business is a new way of entering countries that don’t accept traditional missionaries.

There has just been a conference in Minneapolis of the Evangelical Missiological Society and the Interdenominational Foreign Missions Association. The theme was business and missions, or how business has become a vehicle for missions. They discussed whether that’s legitimate, like traditional tentmaking. Is it really effective? Does it have integrity? If you’re trying to get access to a country, but you’re not saying, “I’m a missionary,” you’re saying, “I’m a business person” or “I’m starting an NGO or a social service,” is that legitimate? Increasingly, that is the way of getting into a difficult-access country. And some of the efforts are very, very effective.

There’s a book by Patrick Lai entitled Tentmaking. Patrick Lai is not his real name, but is the name on the book. And he has started about 12 or 14 companies that are effective both as instruments of witness and as excellent companies. They produce goods. They make profit. They do what they say they’re there to do.

Steve Rundle and others have worked on the question of Great Commission companies, companies formed with a Great Commission point of view. I’ve also been reading papers on the Nestorian merchant missionaries, when Nestorians in the fourth and fifth centuries were directly considering themselves to be missionaries or merchants who were missionaries, you might say.

Could you give me an example of someone doing that?

This is an actual case. I won’t cite his name or where he worked. He went to the Middle East on a short-term basis with a standard-issue missionary society that was putting a wing on a hospital in a Middle Eastern country. He’s a civil engineer. While he’s doing that, he then is introduced to the entire workforce of that area, whether they be Egyptians, Iranians, Iraqis, Afghans, you name it, using all kinds of people at various levels of the construction.

He finishes his stint. The wing of the hospital is completed, and then he and his wife now feel they want to move more intentionally into longer-term missions but feel that they lack theological and biblical training. One got a Master of Arts in Christian education; the other a master’s degree in cross-cultural ministries. While they’re here, the man works with a civil engineering company.

When he graduated, he went to the company and said, “I’ve worked in the Middle East for 2 and a half years doing a major project. I know what the business climate is. I believe that our company ought to be involved in that. And if our company wants to open up an office in this country, I would like to be the person to do that.”

They said, “Let’s do it.” So he took a team from a secular company and set them up as a company in this Middle Eastern country. In a matter of three or four years, he had them up fully running and functional. Having done that and having total credibility in the country, he simply withdrew from the company and became a consultant. That gave him a lot more time of his own and ability to decide how to spend it. By that time, he knows Arabic. He knows the local culture.

That’s a trajectory into business as a missions involvement. There are any number of others, including schools for computer science or schools for English speaking. In the Middle East, often you have to have local partners, and those local partners may not even be believers.

Toward the end of the 20 century there was a lot of talk about completing the Great Commission, evangelizing all the peoples of the earth. What would your take be on the current status of that effort?

I would say that it changed the mind of missions from about 1980 onward. I think the whole concept of finishing the job was reborn by Ralph Winter. He was looking to duplicate what was a similar movement at the end of the 19 century—the evangelization of the world in our generation. In 1980 at a conference in Edinburgh, Scotland, they re-launched this idea of finishing the job by the year 2000. That really did begin to affect the thinking of the majority of mission boards in North America, Europe, and now also in the majority world.

They are focusing on finishing as opposed to what? As opposed to being faithful as long as it takes. Focusing on finishing meant figuring out exactly what needed to be done. And that meant identifying who the groups are that don’t have a viable Christian church movement in their midst.

You’d find that there are people in every one of these organizations who were influenced directly by Ralph Winter. That’s what I told Ralph Winter about a year ago. I wrote him a letter because he is sick. I said, “Ralph, I know that you would say the world’s greatest missiologist in the 20 century was Donald McGavern, because he was your mentor. But I want to tell you that I think it’s you. It’s you, because your ideas have been some of the most original, and besides being the most original, you have put it on track. You formed the organizations that caused people to focus on finishing. You focused on people groups instead of nations or geographic regions, and set the stage for actually breaking up the job into pieces and getting those people groups adopted by churches around the world.”

I feel that although the job was not finished by the year 2000 the coining of the slogan, “a church for every people and the gospel for every person by the year 2000,” focused people’s attention on the matter in a very productive way and resulted in a lot more being done than would otherwise have been the case.

Also, I think that Ralph Winter and others were looking at the fact even 20 years ago that the people who support missions from a place like, say, North America are 55 years of age and older. And they said to themselves, if the only people interested in missions are people 55 and older, then our movement is going to be through in a short time. They were looking at ways to galvanize the interest of a younger generation, and they were successful.

Copyright © 2005 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere:

The Changing Face of World Mission is available from Christianbook.com and other book retailers.

More about Michael Pocock and co-author Douglas McConnell are available from their seminary websites. More about Gailyn Van Rheenen is available from Mission Alive.

Other CT articles on world missions includes:

The State of Missions | The director of World Inquiry talks about the challenges and priorities of the evangelical missions community. (June 25, 2003)

The Defender of the Good News: Questioning Lamin Sanneh | The Yale historian and missiologist talks about his conversion, Muslim-Christian relations, Anglican troubles, and the future of Christianity. (Oct. 1, 2003)

Reimagining Missions | Two scholars seek to rescue the Great Commission from narrowly evangelistic readings, but their answers may be dangerously wide (2001)

The Future of Missions? | A global gathering affirms new models while developing countries criticize North American approaches. (Nov. 1, 1999)

Beyond the Numbers Game | A veteran missiologist and marketing analyst implores the missions community to tabulate less and pray more (Aug. 11, 2000)

Missions’ New World Order | The twenty-first century calls for us to give up our nineteenth-century models for worldwide ministry. (1994)

Why We Go | Recapturing our motivation for missions. (1994)

• The University of Wisconsin-Superior chapter of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship filed suit in federal court on October 2 against the leadership of the University of Wisconsin system. IVCF wants UW-Superior to reinstate the chapter and to allow the group to choose leaders according to its religious criteria. Earlier this year, the university said IVCF violated antidiscrimination policies by denying leadership roles to practicing homosexuals, and it derecognized the organization.

• The trustees of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary voted 36-1 on October 17 to prohibit professors or administrators from promoting charismatic practices, such as private prayer languages. In August, a new seminary trustee, Dwight McKissic, told students during a chapel service that he prays in tongues. McKissic, a pastor in Arlington, Texas, has criticized the Southern Baptist Convention’s International Mission Board for barring missionaries from using private prayer languages.

• The Senate failed to pass the Child Custody Protection Act before adjourning in September, falling just three votes short of the 60 necessary to send the bill to President Bush. The act would have prohibited taking minors across state lines for an abortion if their home-state law requires parental notification. Eight Democrats who supported the bill in July nevertheless voted against sending the bill to conference with the House.

• A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit filed by five Air Force Academy graduates who argued that cadets and officers imposed their evangelical views on the school. The judge determined the cadets did not provide specific examples of discrimination and lacked standing. Mikey Weinstein, who headed the complaint, said they would refile the lawsuit.

Copyright © 2006 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere:

InterVarsity has posted a news release announcing its decision to sue the University of Wisconsin-Superior.

Documents and other resources on the suit are available at The Alliance Defense Fund’s Center for Academic Freedom, which is suing on behalf of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship.

While the suit is pending, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship can remain on campus.

A 2003 Christianity Today article, Campus Collisions looks at why InterVarsity Christian Fellowship was derecognized at some of America’s leading universities (October 1, 2003).

Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, defined the seminary’s stance on the gift of tongues in a chapel speech.

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary trustees issued another statement in response to Dwight McKissic’s sermon.

The Associated Press has an article on the seminary’s response to McKissic’s sermon.

Other Christianity Today articles about or mentioning the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary include:

Southwestern’s Predicament | Can the biggest Protestant seminary in the world be both Southern Baptist and broadly evangelical? (May 21, 2002)

Young, Restless, Reformed | Calvinism is making a comeback—and shaking up the church. (September 22, 2006)

The Library of Congress’s Thomas site has the text and status of the Child Custody Protection bill.

The lawsuit against The Air Force Academy was dismissed in late October.

In addition to new religious guidelines, the Air Force has a press release and explanatory memo.

Past CT coverage of Air Force controversies include:

New Air Force Religion Guidelines May Restrict Evangelism | Policy allowing chaplains “to instruct and/or evangelize” withdrawn, lawsuit seeks explicit ban on all members (Oct. 28, 2006)

A Wing and Less Prayer | New Air Force religion guidelines get mixed response. (Oct. 6, 2005)

‘No Overt Discrimination’ | Air Force Academy cleared, but some faulted for insensitivity. (July 7, 2005)

Air Force Chaplains Allege Bias | Independent survey finds perceptions of racial, gender, and religious discrimination. (Oct. 18, 2001)

Sounds like … the jazzy touches of Noah Jones, Natalie Cole, and Harry Connick Jr. with the piano pop leanings of Carole King, Sara Groves, and Cindy Morgan

At a glance … the third studio CD from this critically acclaimed singer/songwriter is once again a charmer, showcasing soulfully rich pipes across spiritually-charged lyrics seeking a daily renewal of faith.

Indiana-bred troubadour Sarah Scharbrough first found fame on the local circuit when splitting her studies at Anderson University with independent artistry at the tip of the 2000s. She released the debut disc So Many Reasons in 2001, balancing the worlds of introspective insight with worshipful leanings, both bathed in an accessible coffeehouse pop dichotomy. She developed a jazzy side and a vertical/ horizontal songwriting equilibrium throughout 2005’s The Least of These, also releasing Live In Concert on DVD in support of that tour with her longtime drummer/percussionist (and husband) Jeff McLaughlin.

Aside from her own projects, Scharbrough is also credited for collaborating with everyone from Christian superstars Bill & Gloria Gaither and Sandi Patti to country singers Dierks Bentley and Deana Carter, not to mention fellow piano-pop singer/songwriter Jon McLaughlin (who just so happens to be her brother-in-law). Her voice has also been heard in several commercials with clients as diverse as Ford, Dodge, New Balance, Cedar Point Theme Park, and Indiana Pacers basketball.

All that experience translates to an even tighter and generally cohesive collection of eleven tracks that find Scharbrough’s voice maturing to an even richer, jazzy direction and her pen adapting additional insight into various aspects of the Christian walk. “We Are the Same” could easily join the accomplished company of Sara Groves or Cindy Morgan, addressing how believers and non-believers share a desire to be whole, but look to different sources for completion. “No Words” is a much peppier piano pop selection that could find authentic footing in a jazz club, even with the praise-tipped lyrics: “No words could ever say/No one could take your place/No steps could ever take me too far from your love.”

Additional variety comes in the ballad “Any More Tears,” mirroring Norah Jones’ smoldering vocals with a classy mixture of folk and jazz. “Grass Is Always Greener” boasts the soulful and elegant appeal of Natalie Cole or Harry Connick Jr., while “Journey” evokes the classic pop of Carole King with a modern context. “Inconveniently Beautiful” is particularly pretty with its delicate piano progressions and subtle string section, but the lyrics are even more engaging as they speak of rekindling the faith of a child. The only minor detour is “Nothin’ But You,” due to its marginally annoying programmed loops. Otherwise, Scharbrough’s third project is loaded with sonic and thematic strengths that find her more than worthy of a major label deal should she ever decide to dive in that direction.

For more information on Sarah Scharbrough, visit www.sarahscharbrough.com or www.myspace.com/sarahscharbrough.

If you are an independent artist who would like to be considered for reviewon our site, please send your CD(s) and any related press materials to editor of independent artist coverage:

Christa BanisterAttn: Independent Christian Artists300 E. 4th St. Suite 406St. Paul, MN 55101

Due to the number of projects we receive, we are unable to cover or correspond with every artist that contributes. But we do give all submissions a fair listen for coverage consideration.

Copyright © 2008 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Sounds like … a film score that relies primarily on 12th-14th century European instrumentation and medieval chant, with occasional Middle Eastern flourishes to root the movie’s setting

At a glance … the score lacks strong, memorable themes to sustain all 70 minutes of it, but it’s a beautiful soundtrack nonetheless, offering a reverent blend of Middle Eastern sounds, European instrumentation, and traditional Christmas carols

To some extent, we’re meant to look at The Nativity Story as an extension (or prequel) to The Passion of The Christ—the titles on the films are even rendered in the same font. Yet the movies are considerably different in almost every way. As good and reverent as the movie about the birth of Jesus is, it lacks the visual punch of Mel Gibson’s blockbuster about his death. But it’s also a far less graphic and violent film, suitable for the whole family. Even the soundtracks are strikingly dissimilar, and that’s generally a good thing.

John Debney’s score for The Passion more or less rehashed Peter Gabriel’s music for The Last Temptation of Christ, but for The Nativity Story, Canadian composer Mychael Danna (Little Miss Sunshine, Capote) generally eschews the heavy Middle Eastern instrumentation often used to generate authenticity and drama. It’s still present as would be expected, such as “The Magi” or the sad wail of “Words of the Prophet,” which underscores Jeremiah’s prophecy and Herod’s slaughter of first-born sons.

However, most of the soundtrack juxtaposes the Middle Eastern sounds against European instrumentation that draws upon the medieval church. Lutes and woodwinds accompany the strings, and there’s plenty of Gregorian chant and Latin texts sung by choirs and boy sopranos. Emphasizing the importance of Christ’s birth on traditional church music, Danna’s score includes snippets of “O Come, O Come Emmanuel,” “Of the Father’s Love Begotten,” “Sing We Now of Christmas (Noel Nouvelet),” and a gorgeous arrangement of “Silent Night” that serves as a moving finale during the film’s epilogue.

The score suffers from a lack of strong, memorable themes and seems a little repetitive by the end. But this is also one of the more complete soundtracks available, representing nearly 70 of the movie’s 100 minutes in sequential order. Thus, The Nativity Story offers a beautiful soundtrack that recreates the experience of the film reasonably well with gentleness and reverence.

Copyright © Christian Music Today. Click for reprint information.

Sounds like … the pop/rock styled modern worship of Chris Tomlin, Matt Redman, David Crowder Band, Charlie Hall, and others, joined by an enthusiastic and sizable college-aged audience of worshipers.

At a glance … Passion has been long regarded as a touchstone in the growth of modern worship music, and this generously packaged two-disc collection does a great job in compiling the last ten years of highlights.

Passion might be the biggest thing in Christian music these days; in ten years, the college-oriented worship ministry has yielded nine albums that have sold more than 1.5 million total copies. And that doesn’t include the individual successes of participating worship artists like Chris Tomlin, David Crowder Band, Charlie Hall, and Matt Redman, all of whose songs have been a driving force in the rapid rise of modern worship music over the last decade.

Thus it’s only fitting to offer a compilation like The Best of Passion [So Far]—22 of its 30 songs are among the CCLI‘s Top 500 used in churches today. The two-disc collection spans the history of the Passion albums with more than 150 minutes worth of music, bookended with two unreleased recordings. It doesn’t skimp on the packaging either, including a booklet with memories for each track from Passion founder Louie Giglio, as well as some photos.

Particularly striking are the earlier tracks, which shows Passion responsible for bringing other worship leaders’ songs to light with definitive covers like “Better Is One Day” (from Redman’s pre-Passion days), “You’re Worthy of My Praise,” and “You Are My King (Amazing Love).” In time, Tomlin, Crowder, and Hall would develop enough to rely more on their songwriting, and it’s worth noting that the Passion conferences were often the place where new worship standards like “How Great Is Our God,” “Enough,” and “O Praise Him (All This for a King)” debuted or gained popularity.

The only drawback here is whether the collection is truly necessary. The songs are already featured on numerous other worship albums, and when the inevitable best-of compilations from Tomlin, Crowder, and Hall arrive in a few years, they’re going to look and sound almost identical to this. Nevertheless, as Passion prepares to take its ministry worldwide, this collection offers a wealth of music that reflects the modern worship movement better than most.

Copyright © Christian Music Today. Click for reprint information.

The Passion of The Christ was an independent movie, paid for entirely out of Mel Gibson’s pocket. The Prince of Egypt was an animated film that emphasized the common ground between Jews, Christians and Muslims. The Last Temptation of Christ was a low-budget art-house flick based on a heretical novel.

You would have to go back at least as far as King David, the mid-1980s box-office flop starring Richard Gere, to find another live-action movie produced by a major Hollywood studio and based directly on the Bible. And you would have to go back even further—to the bathrobe epics of the 1960s, at least—to find a mainstream biblical movie that was as blatantly Christian as The Nativity Story.

The film begins by quoting a prophecy, from the Book of Jeremiah, that is said to be troubling King Herod the Great (Ciarán Hinds). We then see Herod and his son Antipas (Alessandro Giuggioli) as they preside over the slaughter of the innocents in Bethlehem. By this point, Mychael Danna’s score has invoked the medieval hymn “O Come, O Come, Emmanuel,” and scenes like these lay out the messianic hope by reminding us that Israel was indeed a “captive” in need of “ransoming.”

The movie then jumps back a year and then some to the beginning of the story, as the angel Gabriel (Alexander Siddig) appears to the priest Zechariah (Stanley Townsend) to tell him that his wife Elizabeth (Shohreh Aghdashloo) will have a son despite being well past the age of childbearing. Actually, Gabriel does not “appear” to Zechariah, as such; in one of the film’s several minor deviations from the Bible, Gabriel reveals only his voice to Zechariah—although, in a nifty special effect, the angel’s breath does seem to part the smoke that rises from the altar.

After this, we meet Mary (Keisha Castle-Hughes), a young girl who likes to play and laugh with her friends, but, like the teens of today, she has to cope with oh-so-serious parents—Joaquim (Shaun Toub) and Anna (Hiam Abbass, who really was born in Nazareth!)—who interrupt her fun to remind her to do her chores. (The film imagines that the ancestors of Christ made and sold cheese, which kind of gives a new spin to that old Monty Python line, “Blessed are the cheesemakers!”)

Here is where the tension between the film’s ancient and modern sensibilities is at its most obvious. Director Catherine Hardwicke spent years as a production designer before she got behind the camera, and her quest for authenticity is all over The Nativity Story‘s set design, especially when she throws in brief educational cutaway shots of peasants treading grapes or milking goats. But the film also gives Mary and her parents a taste of the intergenerational friction that was a major theme in Hardwicke’s previous directorial efforts, Thirteen and Lords of Dogtown—and at times, the interactions within Mary’s family feel a tad anachronistic.

There is also a tension of sorts in Mike Rich’s screenplay, which oscillates between the need to be faithful to the biblical text, on the one hand, and the freedom to create dramatically compelling characters and scenes, on the other. While Rich trims out some of the dialogue that appears in the Bible, the parts that he keeps are presented almost exactly as written, yet these sections of the film—especially the Annunciation and the restoration of speech to Zechariah—feel rushed and anticlimactic, and are never quite woven into the rest of the drama. Compare the first scene between Mary and Elizabeth, which is straight out of the Gospel of Luke (minus the Magnificat), with their later conversations; it’s a little like watching Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead, in which the heroes use modern English until they wander into a scene from Hamlet and start talking all Shakespearean.

Of course, there isn’t all that much information about the Nativity in the Bible to begin with, so the filmmakers have plenty of room in which to create a thematic and dramatic arc for their story—and many of their ideas are quite interesting.

As Mary, Castle-Hughes is a bit of a blank, but there is still something compelling about her portrait of a child who finds herself thrust into a supremely adult role, first when her parents push her into an arranged marriage with Joseph (Oscar Isaac), and then when Gabriel tells her that she will bear the Son of God. The film even brings certain aspects of Terrence Malick’s The New World to mind, as Mary expresses her thoughts in voice-over and comes to appreciate her husband’s love for her.

But the real hero of this movie is Joseph, who, as played by Isaac, may be the most attractive embodiment of goodness and self-giving devotion that we have seen in a movie since Sean Astin played Sam in The Lord of the Rings. The trick to Isaac’s performance is that he lets us see Joseph’s darker side, even as he shows Joseph bravely keeping it under control. When a total stranger meets Joseph and the pregnant Mary, and remarks that there is nothing like seeing your own face in the face of your child, the pained look on Joseph’s face speaks volumes: he knows that with this child, at least, this is one aspect of fatherhood that he will never enjoy.

The depth and roundedness of Joseph’s character is also evident in the way he handles the crisis that emerges when Mary’s pregnancy becomes obvious to their neighbors, who shun Mary and her family as a result. Joseph sheds tears and wrestles with his own feelings of betrayal, but he also uses humor to buoy Mary’s spirits, particularly when the two of them leave Nazareth for Bethlehem.

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us …

The film also makes some interesting allusions to people and events from the future ministry of Jesus. As Mary and Joseph make the arduous journey to Bethlehem for the census, they buy one of their meals from a Galilean fisherman—might his name be Jonah (father of Peter and Andrew) or Zebedee (father of James and John)?—and as they pass by the Temple in Jerusalem, Joseph expresses his disgust with the hucksters there, the same hucksters that Jesus will chase out one day. Even better, when Herod’s troops attack the babies in Bethlehem, one soldier looks inside the cave where Jesus was born, and finds an empty manger—an image that brings to mind the empty clothes that Jesus’ disciples will one day find in his tomb.

For all the talk of “realism” and “authenticity” that has surrounded this film, it is still very much a family-friendly Christmas pageant, a Christmas crèche brought to theatrical life. While Mary does experience labor pains, the birth of Jesus is remarkably clean, with no placenta or umbilical cord in sight. The Magi, who trek for months, are the comic relief—more like the Three Amigos than the Three Wise Men—and they show up at the cave on the night of Jesus’ birth, instead of months or even years later, as many interpreters would insist. (For one thing, if they arrived on the night of the birth itself, with Herod’s soldiers only a few days behind them, it wouldn’t leave much time for Joseph and Mary to dedicate Jesus or to meet Simeon and Anna at the Temple in Jerusalem—an episode that is missing from this film.)

But it’s perfectly okay to take those kinds of liberties with a story like this, especially if it allows the filmmakers to express spiritual truths that go beyond mere historical facts. As Gaspar (Stefan Kalipha), one of the Magi, says when he sees the Christ child, the baby in Mary’s arms is “God made into flesh.” It is unlikely that a pagan astrologer would have thought in such clearly incarnational terms, so many years before any actual Christians did, but it is still kind of neat to hear him express that belief. I mean, when was the last time you heard that in a mainstream movie?

Talk About It

Discussion starters

1. A recurring theme in this film is the story of Elijah hearing God’s “still small voice” (1 Kings 19). Why does the film refer to this story? In what way is Mary, or Joseph, or Jesus, a “still small voice”? What “still small voices” have you heard in your own spiritual walk
2. What does this film reveal about love? What kind of love does Joseph have for Mary? Is it romantic, or something else? What about Elizabeth’s love for Zechariah, or for Mary? What examples of fatherly love does the film show? Does Mary come to love Joseph, and if so, what sort of love does she have for him
3. Consider how the people of Nazareth treat Mary, her parents, and Joseph after they learn that she is pregnant. When have you judged people without knowing their story? When have you stood by people who were being judged by others
4. The film underscores the political oppression suffered by the Jews under King Herod, and it ends with Mary reciting the Magnificat in a voiceover (“He has brought down rulers from their thronesbut has lifted up the humble,” etc.). How is the birth of Jesus an answer to this oppression? Does the film make this point clear?

The Family Corner

For parents to consider

The Nativity Story is rated PG for some violent content (Herod’s soldiers kill the babies in Bethlehem, though most of the violence is kept out of frame and no blood is shown; Jewish rebels are pursued by soldiers and later seen crucified, though the act of crucifixion itself is kept offscreen). There are also two scenes of childbirth and one scene in which a baby boy is circumcised, and parents may need to explain to very young children why the people of Nazareth ostracize Mary and her family for her pregnancy. The film is probably too mature for preschoolers and young elementary age, but should be suitable for ages 8 or 9 and up.

Photos © Copyright New Line Cinema

Copyright © 2006 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

What Other Critics Are Saying

compiled by Jeffrey Overstreet

from Film Forum, 12/07/06For Christians, Christmas is a time to think about Chapter One of the Greatest Story Ever Told. But at the movies, the holiday is usually celebrated with forgettable, frivolous features like the latest episode in the Santa Clause series and heavy-hitting, Oscar-contending dramas like Babel and the upcoming Dreamgirls.

This year, however, thanks to New Line Cinema, director Catherine Hardwicke, and screenwriter Mike Rich, The Nativity Story is surprising holiday moviegoers with a substantial Christmas message. The film takes its subject seriously, adhering closely to the details of the scriptural text and with a remarkable attention to period detail. The film feels authentic in its dusty, simple design, and in the complexion of its cast.

And the biggest surprise of all? This version of The Nativity Story brings the character of Joseph to life. Through a nuanced performance by Oscar Isaac, we’re blessed with a detailed portrait of a virtuous man stepping up to accept enormous responsibility. We see his pride shaken as his fiancée becomes pregnant by a mystery. We see him fearful and dismayed as the community becomes suspicious. We feel his angst as he wonders if he can teach the Son of God anything. And then we sense his fears as he travels with Mary back to his crowded hometown where nobody is willing to help them, and they end up in a stable.

But The Nativity Story is also surprising some Christian critics by just how far short it falls from what it might have been.

I was excited to see a chapter of Christ’s story shared without apology or dismaying distortions, and yet I’ve rarely encountered a version of the story that failed to inspire wonder, excitement, and awe the way this one fails. It all seems so dutiful and responsible and safe that the film never really came to life, never lit up with passion. Despite the attention to detail, almost every scene in The Nativity Story feels rushed. We might have had scenes, but instead we have hurried exchanges. Hardwicke seems to have forgotten that the big screen can be a canvas for visual poetry, for inspiring awe with light and color. She seems to merely document what the actors are doing, without any interest in metaphor or beauty.

When Mike Rich’s screenplay shifts from the Bible’s language to his own embellishments are abrupt and distracting. Events that should feel momentous and thought-provoking—like the restoration of Zechariah’s speech, Elizabeth’s rejoicing with Mary, Gabriel’s announcement, and the central nativity event in the stable—all arrive and pass so quickly, we hardly have a chance to apprehend the gravity of what is happening.

Perhaps the biggest disappointment is Keisha Castle-Hughes as Mary. The actress, so alive and engaging in Whale Rider, seems trapped in two or three facial expressions here, and her line readings are flat and automatic. When Gabriel arrives, her face fails to communicate anything like fear or fascination. Only Oscar Isaac, as Joseph, manages to communicate more than the screenplay gives him to say. Only he gains a powerful hold on our sympathies. Why these three wise men are called “wise” is anybody’s guess. And when we arrive at the nativity itself, it looks far too much like a Hallmark Christmas card; the stable seems to be missing a roof, allowing the Christmas star to spotlight the Christ child.

My full review is at Looking Closer.

Here’s what other Christian press film critics are saying:

Steven D. Greydanus (Decent Films) is impressed with scenes that develop “the human dimension of what the terse biblical narratives merely imply … . The tender relationship between young Mary and the older Elizabeth … is touchingly drawn, and the public shame and scandal faced by Mary returning to Nazareth, and by Joseph if he stands by her, is vividly portrayed. … Further enhancing the realism is doubtless the most non-Caucasian cast in Hollywood Bible movie history.”

Greydanus is especially impressed with Oscar Isaac’s performance as Joseph, saying his “sensitive, compelling performance gives depth and humanity to the relatively obscure figure St. Matthew describes simply as ‘a righteous man.'” He says the film’s faults “tend to be of omission rather than commission,” but predicts it will be a family favorite for years to come.

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) says “Hollywood finally gets it right with The Nativity Story. It’s an] artful, reverent and deeply affecting retelling. … The film’s hopeful message should resonate beyond Christian audiences to a world still groaning for peace and good will.”

Frederica Matthewes-Green (Frederica.com, originally at Beliefnet), says, “If you thought Hollywood was incapable of approaching Christians without a cattle prod, you’ll be shocked at how circumspect this movie is. … There is nothing in this film to offend devout Christians (parents note, however, a PG rating for some glimpses of crucifixion)—but solemnity rolls through it all like molasses.”

Matthewes-Green is especially disappointed in Keisha Castle-Hughes as Mary. “[S]he just seems disengaged. Some astounding and even terrifying things are happening to Mary, but Castle-Hughes looks like her mind is somewhere else.” But she has higher praise for Oscar Isaac as Joseph and Terry Russof as an insightful shepherd.

Steven Isaac (Plugged In) says, “Straightforward. That’s perhaps the best word to describe The Nativity Story. Sweet and respectful work, too. But never grand or ambitious, as fans of biblical epics might wish for. A few too many British-leaning accents, a few too few visual effects and a script that serves its purpose well but doesn’t burst into color onscreen all conspire to push the film into that ‘just another Bible movie’ category. … They almost succeed. But not quite.”

Matt Page (Bible Films), calling the film “more good than bad,” says, “[D]espite its uniqueness, it can’t quite decide what kind of bible film it wants to be. The title suggests a mythic retelling, perhaps aimed at the family, yet the early scenes have a gritty, realistic feel to them. Later on though the film morphs into a sort of road movie. … Then it changes gear yet again once the holy couple reaches Bethlehem. The last remaining vestiges of realism are swiftly ditched and out comes a touch of the Christmas magic. … It’s not that there is anything particularly wrong with any of these different styles; it just leads to a very uneven film.”

Lisa Rice (Crosswalk) says it’s “a movie with everything:drama, action, romance, history, and miracles—a sure bet to edge out the shallow, same old ‘pretend-Christmas’ offerings.”

Michael Brunk (Past the Popcorn) says, “[I]t’s not actually a bad movie. It’s just not as good as it could have, or perhaps should have, been.”

Sister Rose Pacatte, F.S.P. (St. Anthony Messenger) says Mike Rich’s script “reaches inside the minds and hearts of the characters and makes them real for us. The Magi provide some comic relief. The story of Jesus’ birth is layered with meaning so that the youngest child to the wisest of adults can experience Christmas anew. … This film is certain to be a classic for all Christians, even though the nativity scene … looks as if it was lifted off a Christmas card. A little more subtlety would have been my preference.”

Cliff Vaughn (Ethics Daily) says, “[T]he movie’s best scenes involve [Mary] and Joseph trying to make sense of their circumstances.” He also raves about Isaac’s performance as Joseph: “Isaac owns the movie. Saying very little, the Juilliard graduate brilliantly expresses what must surely have been Joseph’s doubt, anger and fear. [He] provides Christ-like traits before, during and after the film’s manger climax.”

Mainstream critics are turning in mixed reviews. At Rotten Tomatoes, an average of 107 reviews comes up with a “rotten” rating of 41 percent (anything less than 60 percent is deemed rotten). But the “Cream of the Crop” reviews—notable critics from North America’s top media outlets—are at 58 percent, just shy of the “fresh” rating.

A.O. Scott of The New York Times says the film “sticks to the familiar details of the narrative and dramatizes them with sincerity and good taste. There are no flights of actorly or cinematic bravura—though all of the performances are credible, and some better than that—and very few big, showy, epic gestures. Rather than trying to reinterpret or modernize a well-known, cherished story, the filmmakers have rendered it with a quiet, unassuming professionalism.”

But Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly says, “The movie industry is eager to beckon and serve Christian viewers, yet as long as it thinks of those viewers as another market slice, a demo, it may end up pandering to them with cautious and stultifying reverence. The Nativity Story is a film of tame picture-book sincerity, but that’s not the same thing as devotion. The movie is too tepid to feel, or see, the light.”

This morning I attended a prayer breakfast in my town for World AIDS Day. Despite the blizzard conditions, leaders from local churches, schools, and relief organizations gathered for the event. More than a few people remarked about the odd group. My table had three evangelical pastors, a newspaper reporter, and a board member from an organization led by a gay man. Across from us were Roman Catholic nuns in their habits, Wheaton College students, and leaders of the gay community.

The two main speakers represented the polarity of the group. Ruth Bell Olsson is the leader of the HIV/AIDS ministry at Mars Hill Church near Grand Rapids, Michigan. Ruth comes with solidly evangelical credentials, and she also happens to be Pastor Rob Bell’s sister. The second speaker was Dan Pallotta, founder of AIDSRides and Breast Cancer Walks. Pallotta’s passion for AIDS awareness stems from his own experience as a gay man in Los Angeles watching many in his community die from the disease.

In a time when cultural divisions are as distinct as blue and red, the coming together of liberals and conservatives, evangelicals and gays, was refreshing – at least to me. But not everyone is happy about the emerging connection between evangelicals and those outside the conservative camp. Rick Warren, for example, has taken flak for inviting pro-choice Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) to Saddleback to speak at the HIV/AIDS summit today. Saddleback responded to the critics:

“We do not expect all participants in the Summit discussion to agree with all of our Evangelical beliefs. However, the HIV/AIDS pandemic cannot be fought by Evangelicals alone. It will take the cooperation of all ? government, business, NGOs and the church. That is the purpose of this Summit.”

[Read more about Senator Obama’s remarks and Saddleback’s AIDS Summit here]

I applaud Rick Warren, Saddleback, and those in my own town who are defying cultural divisions in order to tackle the issue of AIDS locally and globally. I am amazed when Christians refuse to participate in the fight against the pandemic because others in the trenches don’t agree with them politically or theologically. 8,000 people die everyday from AIDS. Eight thousand! As a friend reminded me this morning, for the church to sit on the sidelines is tantamount to a New York firefighter refusing to enter the burning World Trade Center because another firefighter voted for Hillary.

Anyone who has been to the front lines of the AIDS battle knows it is not simply a political, moral, social, or theological issue. AIDS is a human issue. My first encounter with AIDS was in college. A young man with HIV came to our state university to talk about being a Christian with the disease. He had contracted the virus from a blood transfusion, not through sexual contact. I suppose that made him more acceptable in Christian circles. But he challenged the Christians on campus to reach out to everyone affected by HIV/AIDS, including gays and lesbians.

While in seminary, I served as a hospice chaplain visiting dying patients in the poorer neighborhoods of Chicago. That was the first time I saw the devastating final stages of AIDS mingled with the dehumanizing effects of poverty. I sat with one woman, a mother in her forties, as she cried about her children. She feared they would be lost to gangs after she died. Her emaciated hand clasped mine with meager strength as I prayed for her.

Last year I had a similar experience, but on the other side of the world. In a tiny village outside Phnom Penh, Cambodia, I held another mother’s hand as she wept for her children. Her husband had died of AIDS just weeks earlier, and now she was in the final stages – confined to her dirt and grass hut. Her four-year-old daughter (the same age as my little girl) was being held by my friend. “I know my mommy will be the next to die,” she said.

The tiny village, in which every adult had AIDS, was organized by missionaries. The Christians cared for the suffering, sought desperately to acquire drugs to slow the progression of the disease, and ran an orphanage for the abandoned children. They also held funerals, sometimes multiple services a day, and cremated the bodies of the parents as the children watched.

Whether it’s a neighborhood just minutes from my home or a village half a world away, AIDS is destroying lives and families everywhere. As followers of Jesus Christ, our participation in this battle is a test of our claim to be “pro-life.” To quote Saddleback’s statement again, to truly be pro-life “means far more than opposing abortion. It also means doing everything in our power to keep people alive, so they might respond to the grace of Jesus Christ. Sometimes that means working with people you disagree with. With AIDS killing 8,000 people a day, saving lives is more important to us than political alignment.” Amen.

Trial lawyers have a saying, “When the law isn’t on your side, argue the facts.” That’s what The New York Times did in early October when it made its case—through five lengthy articles and a capstone editorial—for curbing the rights of religious organizations. Its examples of religious freedom run amok were all perfectly legal, but morally questionable.

One of the newspaper’s examples: A Roman Catholic order in Toledo dismissed Mary Rosati after finding she’d been diagnosed with breast cancer. Rosati claimed the order wanted to avoid the expense of caring for her. The religious order countered that it found Rosati unqualified for its way of life. Since questions of theology and spiritual calling were invoked, a district judge in Ohio dismissed Rosati’s complaint.

The Times‘s not-so-subtle editorial-page conclusion: “The wall between church and state is being replaced by a platform that raises religious organizations to a higher legal plane than their secular counterparts.” In other words, religion is taking over, while “the majority [of Americans] is not aware.”

But Times editors misunderstand the basic notions embedded in the First Amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” our foremost right reads, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The first clause forbids elevating one religious group over another. The second allows such groups free rein over their own affairs.

Congregations receive tax exemptions, not because of the public service they offer—social workers, inner-city teachers, and employees at secular nonprofits all benefit the common good while still paying taxes—but mainly because the power to tax is the power to manipulate, control, or even destroy. It’s not hard to imagine hostile officials using taxation to delimit religious practice or even to force churches out of town. In fact, imagination is unnecessary. Consider the resolution passed earlier this year by Bay Area supervisors, denouncing a gathering of evangelical teens as “obnoxious” and “disgusting.” What would the supervisors have done had civil law been on their side?

Furthermore, a church or religious group that can’t regulate its hiring, at least on the basis of religion, gender, and sexual preference—three identifiers specifically mentioned by the Times—might well lose its essential character. It should be legally acceptable for the Roman Catholic Church to ban women from the priesthood, whether or not the general public approves.

That’s not to say that groups haven’t abused the unique protections afforded them. Churches, mosques, synagogues, and all charitable organizations should be accountable to independent directors, ecclesial and (when appropriate) civil courts, and the public. Faith-based wrongdoing should be granted no safe harbor.

In this respect, the practices of some churches and ministries deserve reexamination. Increasingly, churches and nonprofits are offering services that compete with for-profit businesses: retirement homes, fitness centers, theme parks, and child care, to name a few examples. In such cases, Christian nonprofits should make sure that the services they provide relate to their theology and mission—otherwise they’ll be rightly perceived as exploiting tax law for their own benefit. That’s dishonest, and it tarnishes the name of Christ. For all the breadth of interpretation the First Amendment allows, it wasn’t intended to give First Church Fitness Center a leg up on Bally’s.

The best way to endanger a civil right is to abuse it. We who work for churches and religious organizations ought to be free from government control, but not be freeloaders. We ought to defend our First Amendment rights, but also remember a far older mandate. “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s,” Jesus said, “and to God what is God’s.”

Some of what is done in the name of religious freedom fails to meet even Caesar’s standards of justice and fair play, let alone God’s. Our critics shouldn’t be the first to notice.

Copyright © 2006 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere:

The New York Times series “In God’s Name” includes:

As Exemptions Grow, Religion Outweighs Regulation | From day care centers to nursing homes, rules don’t apply to faith groups. (October 8,2006)

Where Faith Abides, Employees Have Few Rights | For years, U.S. judges have used the separation of church and state to shield religious employers of all faiths from labor laws and most employee lawsuits. (October 9, 2006)

As Religious Programs Expand, Disputes Rise Over Tax Breaks | As religious organizations extend their scope beyond traditional worship, government at all levels is increasingly extending their tax exemptions. (October 10, 2006)

Religion-Based Tax Breaks: Housing to Paychecks to Books | Churches and ordained clergy of all faiths get a series of tax exemptions that secular organizations and workers do not (October 11, 2006)

Sharing the Health Bills | Religious exemptions are being tested as more medical bill-sharing ministries compete with businesses that are not eligible for the same breaks. (October 20, 2006)

Faith-Based Profits | A New York Times editorial (October 16, 2006)

Christianity Today’s article ‘Get Out of San Francisco’ describes Battle Cry’s problems in that city.

69%

White evangelicals who voted for Republicans in this year’s midterm elections.

68%

White evangelicals who voted for Republicans in the last midterm elections.

2 of 3

Evangelical voters who say they approve of Bush’s actions in the Iraq war.

2 of 3

Non-evangelical voters who say they disapprove.

51%

Weekly churchgoers who voted for Republican candidates.

58%

Weekly churchgoers who voted for Bush in 2004.

Sources: ABC News, The New York Times, The New Republic

Copyright © 2006 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere:

Sources for these figures include:

Losing Faith in GOP | Early exit polls: third of white evangelicals voted democratic. (ABC News)

Exit Polls Show Independents, Citing War, Favored Democrats | The economy, corruption, terrorism and Iraq, according to the exit polls, were extremely important factors. (The New York Times)

Crisis of Faith. | How Fundamentalism Is Splitting the GOP. (The New Republic)

Making a movie about Jesus is difficult enough. Anyone who would dramatize the life of Christ must strike a fine balance between his full humanity and his full divinity, and many filmmakers have erred on one side or the other. But at least the Scriptures give us ample data to work with, and at least there is broad agreement across church boundaries that Jesus was, and is, both divine and human.

But making a movie about Mary poses even thornier challenges. The Bible says little about her life, so dramatists who focus on her life—such as the writer and director of The Nativity Story, which opens Friday, Dec. 1—must invent whole aspects of her story from scratch. Even more daunting, for filmmakers who want to reach as broad an audience as possible, is the fact that different churches have strongly different views on Mary.

Was she as fallible as any other human being? Or was she free from the stain of sin? Did she bear any other children? Or did she remain a virgin throughout her life? Should Jesus ever be shown correcting her, possibly even offending her? Or, as the mother of Jesus, should she offer him any guidance and possibly correct him?

The earliest Bible movies didn’t have to wrestle with these questions so much, partly because the silent era relied heavily on traditional religious iconography—which is to say, Catholic iconography—for its visuals.

The Life and Passion of Jesus Christ, a French production released in various versions between 1902 and 1905, was more of a pageant than a drama, each scene a tableau illustrating an episode from the Gospels or from later legends. Much of it concerns the birth of Jesus, and there is little concern for realism; the baby Jesus appears in the manger, seemingly out of thin air, while Joseph and Mary are praying.

Later films brought more dramatic innovation, while piling on the visual symbolism. The silent Ben-Hur (1925) begins with an extensive Nativity sequence, in which Mary smiles beatifically at an angry woman and a stubborn innkeeper and, by the sheer power of her pretty gaze, melts both their hearts. Doves fly around her as Joseph—an old man who seems more guardian than lover—leads her donkey on. When they come to the cave where Jesus will be born, she declares, “This place is sanctified.” And when the shepherds arrive, the film switches from black-and-white to an early form of Technicolor—and Mary’s head is crowned by a full-blown halo.

There is no Nativity sequence in The King of Kings (1927), which begins when Jesus is already an adult; but director Cecil B. DeMille gives Mary a heightened role, and uses some of the same symbols, especially the doves. Although he was a Protestant, DeMille’s Mary owes much to Catholic piety; her attire resembles a nun’s habit, her youthfulness (the actress was in her late 20s) hints at her incorruptibility, and she is first seen bringing a blind girl to Jesus and interceding on the girl’s behalf.

A few decades would pass before Hollywood turned to the Gospels again, and when it did, Mary was once again treated with special reverence. The remake of Ben-Hur (1959), starring Charlton Heston, gives a few lines of dialogue to Joseph, during the Nativity and afterwards, but it keeps Mary in the distance, obscured by shadow—just as it will eventually limit its depiction of Jesus to the back of his head.

Authoritative Mary

Two years later, Nicholas Ray’s King of Kings (1961) endowed Mary with some of the authoritative qualities that she had had in the silent era. Characters like John the Baptist visit Mary when they need help trying to understand their recent encounters with her son. Mary Magdalene even asks Mary to “intercede” for her. Finally, Jesus himself visits Mary before going to Jerusalem for that fateful Passover, and she seems to have a deeper awareness of what will happen to him there than he does.

By the time this film came out, audiences had begun to tire of lavish big-studio Bible epics. So when Pier Paolo Pasolini, a gay Italian Marxist, released The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1964)—with its scrappy black-and-white cinematography, its cast of real-life peasants, and a script in which virtually every line of dialogue comes straight from Matthew’s Gospel—it was hailed by many as a culturally and historically realistic rebuttal of the films that had preceded it.

Yet even here, a mystical sensibility prevails. Our first image of the pregnant Mary, seen from the point of view of a distraught Joseph, is startlingly blunt—but note the arch under which she stands, a visual motif that harks back to Renaissance art. Pasolini also heightens Mary’s role beyond what Matthew’s Gospel tells us, by putting her at the Crucifixion (as per John’s Gospel) and the Resurrection (a detail that is included in a number of films, but not in any of the canonical gospels).

The counter-cultural films that followed—Jesus Christ Superstar (1973) and Godspell (1973)—were exclusively concerned with the relationship between Jesus and his hippie-like followers, and never bothered to incorporate Mary into their storylines. But the late 1970s saw, on television, a renewed interest in Mary—as well as, for the first time since the silent era, an intense focus on the Nativity.

Labor pains

Franco Zeffirelli’s mini-series Jesus of Nazareth (1977) runs to well over six hours without commercial breaks, and the birth and childhood of Jesus consume nearly an hour and a half of that running time, forming almost a feature film unto itself.

In some ways, Zeffirelli retains the mystical emphasis of previous films. The Mary of his film speaks very few lines that do not come straight from Scripture, and she seems to sense that something is about to happen, well before the angel actually appears to her; as one of the neighbors tells Joseph, “She’s always been a bit strange.” But Zeffirelli also plays up aspects of Mary’s humanity that previous films had ignored completely; this just might be the first film to show Mary going into labor, and feeling the pain that goes with it, as she gives birth to Jesus.

In Zeffirelli’s film, the marriage between Mary and Joseph is more of a social contract than anything else, but the TV movies that followed—The Nativity (1978) and Mary and Joseph: A Story of Faith (1979)—emphasized the romantic attraction between their protagonists, with awkward if not embarrassing results (though Mary and Joseph does integrate or allude to other biblical passages in interesting ways, most notably by depicting the rebellion of Judas the Galilean mentioned in Acts 5:37).

Scandal and controversy

If prior decades were marked by piety and romance, the 1980s brought scandal and controversy. Jean-Luc Godard’s Je vous salue, Marie (1985) sets the Nativity in modern-day Switzerland, and it was protested at the time by the Pope and others because it frequently depicts Mary in the nude, as she ponders the changes to her body. Ironically, Godard never questions the virginal conception; instead, he explores the idea that God, in becoming human and living within a womb, has affirmed and elevated the human body, and specifically the female body.

Mary also appears briefly in what may be the ultimate scandal film, Martin Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ (1988). When Jesus returns to Nazareth and is rejected by his neighbors, Mary begs him to come back to her home, and Jesus replies, “I don’t have a mother. I don’t have any family. I have a Father, in heaven.” As Mary walks away crying, a friend tells her that there were thousands of angels surrounding Jesus as he spoke. “I’d be happier if there weren’t,” Mary replies.

This may be the only scene in a major film that captures how shocking it might have sounded when Jesus said it was his followers, and not necessarily his relatives, who were his true brothers, sisters, and mothers (Mark 3:20-35). Most films that touch on this episode have tweaked it to eliminate any possible offense. In Campus Crusade’s Jesus (1979), Jesus smiles as he recites this line—to Judas Iscariot!—and then he leaves the room, presumably to greet the family waiting outside. In Zeffirelli’s film, the line is spoken by Mary herself, when the admiring disciple John visits her. And in Mary, Mother of Jesus (1999), a TV movie produced by members of the Catholic Kennedy clan, Mary calmly explains what Jesus meant by this line.

Recent portrayals

The new millennium has seen several new movies based on the life of Jesus, and in all of them, Mary plays at least a small role.

The most powerful of these depictions of Mary, by far, is in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of The Christ (2004), which emphasizes her uniquely mystical qualities. Like Jesus, she can see Satan among the crowds, and in one scene, she can sense her son’s presence in a dungeon beneath the floor. However, Gibson also emphasizes that Mary is a mother like any other mother, by showing how overwhelmed she is by the suffering her son endures.

Most filmic portrayals of Mary have been, in some sense, Catholic by default. Even the most liberal and scandalous of films have taken for granted that Mary and Joseph raised only one child, Jesus, and have thus implicitly affirmed the ancient tradition that the “brethren” of Jesus were his step-siblings or cousins. (A noteworthy exception is the recent film Color of the Cross, in which James, the brother of Jesus, is explicitly identified as Mary’s son—and the entire family is black.)

Almost no major film has followed the Eastern Orthodox tradition that Joseph was a widower before his betrothal to Mary, and considerably older than her. (The silent version of Ben-Hur may be the only Hollywood feature that allows for this.)

And films that reflect a more Protestant sensibility, such as George Stevens’ The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965) or the animated feature The Miracle Maker (2000), have tended not to develop Mary all that much beyond a cameo or two—presumably because her explicit role in the Gospels isn’t much bigger than that.

Fortunately, because it is rooted so firmly in the Bible, the birth of Jesus provides an excellent place for Christians of all stripes to explore the character of Mary. And as far as the movies are concerned, The Nativity Story just may be the boldest attempt yet to flesh out the one from whom God the Son himself took flesh.

Copyright © 2006 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.