By Janice Six

As one who still enjoys seeing movies on the big screen, appreciates contemporary art, supports freedom of expression, and applauds Broadway musicals, why wouldn’t I consider giving “Journey to Bethlehem” a standing ovation?  Here’s the main reason:  It’s the statement at the end of the movie—the statement in all caps and boldface type that reads: “WHILE TAKING SOME CREATIVE LICENSE, THE FILMMAKERS STRIVED TO REMAIN TRUE TO THE MESSAGE OF THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD.”  

Prior to seeing the movie, I assumed the filmmakers were referring to the story of Jesus’s birth as recorded in the Bible; however, the discrepancies between the gospel accounts and the movie script call this into question. I am not questioning the faith of those who wrote and produced the movie, but I can’t help but wonder what prompted them to edit the birth narrative in the manner that they did while “striving to remain true to the message.” 

I wonder why parts of the greatest story were cut, and why in the end they elected to make Herod’s son the hero, who ordered the guards to grant the holy family safe passage to Egypt, which isn’t at all true to the message. Besides, it isn’t nearly as dramatic as the truth: Mary and Joseph, refugees on the run, fleeing in the night, fearing for their infant son’s life. 

The only way to exercise this degree of creative license is if they chose to work from Mark’s account of Jesus’s birth —since the gospel according to Mark does not include the story of Jesus’s birth!

If only the final claim had read something like, “WHILE THERE MAY BE SIMILARITIES TO THE STORY OF JESUS’S BIRTH, THE FILMMAKERS HAVE TAKEN EXCESSIVE CREATIVE LICENSE IN ORDER TO ENTERTAIN RATHER THAN PORTRAY THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD.” This statement would at least be defensible. It might explain why the filmmakers deemed it necessary to turn the sacred story into a comedy starring the three stooges rather than the three wise men. It might also justify turning to a box office hit from 1986, “Big Trouble in Little China,” for inspiration. If you’re familiar with the martial arts movie starring Kurt Russell, you will recognize the set design for Herod’s throne, and catch the resemblance of Mary, dressed in red with her face veiled, to the levitating women with intense eyes—especially once Mary’s veil is lifted!  

For the sake of entertainment, what better musical score to mimic than Mamma Mia when making a movie of Mother Mary?  Of course, Herod’s opening number demands a forceful beat and message of domination. The filmmakers couldn’t have found a more suitable song than “Uprising” by Muse, which you can watch on YouTube. I could offer more examples but if you haven’t seen the movie, I don’t want to spoil it for you. 

Again, I would not be airing my views had the filmmakers not implied by their final claim, that their depiction of the story is true to Scripture. Granted, I would still consider it distasteful to take the sacred story and treat it so lightly, but I would have accepted their right to free expression. However, because of my convictions, my conscience would not allow me to turn a blind eye, nor risk having my silence on the subject be misconstrued as a nod of approval.  

If you plan to see it, I hope you’ll think twice before taking children with you. My genuine concern is that the overall comedic and light-hearted tone of this Bollywood version of God’s Word may cause the young and impressionable among us to think of it as a fairy tale rather than a true story. It may be difficult to reclaim the sacredness of the story once images from this movie have already been imposed on their developing belief system. For the same reason, I would not take or recommend this movie to people who are still grappling with their faith. 

In this post-Christian era, it isn’t wise to play loose with Scripture, assuming everyone already knows the story, or that the Bible is considered by many Christians to be the inspired and authoritative Word of God. Now, more than ever, we, the church, must not be culpable of presenting an image of Christ or his story that is blatantly inaccurate. We must certainly not be guilty of taking the Lord’s name in vain by using it in a way that can be construed as irreverent or willingly jeopardizes the holiness of God’s name for the sake of entertainment. In other words, to be taken seriously, we, Christ’s representatives in this present age, must take seriously our calling to share the Good News of Jesus Christ with a degree of decorum and reverence. Afterall, it is the greatest story ever told.  

Janice Six is retired associate pastor at First Central Presbyterian Church