Now in wide release. I'm pleased. It's not a perfect movie, but for my 12-year-old-niece, a lot more fun and much less objectionable than American Wedding or most of the other teen dreck.

Hmmm, since we don't seem to have had a thread on this film on this board yet, here's the link to the thread on the earlier board:

http://www.novogate.com/board/3322/155903-1.html

Thanks for bringing this up again, Peter. You give me another chance to try to get the last word over J Robert, for when he writes...

Clearly, you guys are bothered by the fact that a movie can present a child as more enlightened than a parent, and that colored the rest of the film.

..I always meant to get back to him and reply that, no, in fact it was not that the child was more enlightened than the parent that bothered me, but that the child's superior enlightenment was taken to justify lying, disobedience, and sneaking around. I would not be similiarly bothered by a depiction of a child of superior enlightenment who sucked it up and honored her parents, or who lied and disobeyed and sneaked around but whose behavior was not justified by the movie.

Just for interest, how should she have gone about making the most of her God given gift given that her parents had flat out refused to let her?

Matt

MattPage asked:

Just for interest, how should she have gone about making the most of her God given gift given that her parents had flat out refused to let her?

Other than the movie's answer to this question, i.e., "Do whatever you have to / want to / feel like, by any means necessary, including sneaking around and lying if that's what it takes, because you have to Live Your Own Life, and your parent's Aren't Always Right," there are at least two other possible answers to this question.

One answer would be to say that God is more concerned that one honor one's parents than that one make the most of one's God-given gifts. In childhood, this means obeying one's parents (with certain caveats, such as that one's parents cannot obligate one to do something actually wrong). Jess is still living as a child under her parent's roof, and therefore her duty of obedience to her parents trumps her general right / responsibility to make the most of her God given gift. She should suck it up and do what they say, and God will reward her for it.


• Alternatively, another answer would be to say that Jess has reached the threshold of adulthood, and her duty to honor her parents no longer obligates her to obey them in all things. In that case, as a semi-emancipated adult, she could choose not to honor her parents' wishes in regard to playing soccer. But if so, then she should face up to the full implications of her emancipated status, and be willing to openly and honorably acknowledge what she is doing.
  
  Perhaps this means actually confronting her parents with her decision not to honor their wishes in this regard. Or perhaps it means only doing as she has chosen and simply being honest about it when asked. (I would argue for the former, since clearly Jess's parents think they are able to presume obedience unless given reason to think otherwise, so Jess would be deceiving them unless she told them what she planned to do.)
  
  But under no circumstances is she justified in lying to her parents about where she's going or what she's doing. That is the act, not of a free and emancipated adult, but of a sneaking, disobedient child.

no time so here's some brief thoughts

2 - Is this though appropriate in all cultures. We have a very nuclear idea of family, where leaving hme is an easy thing to do. But is this necessarily transferable to the culture in question?

Also - generally, what about Jesus' relationship with his family? Obviously he didn't lie and cheat, but it seems he had to make a stand similar to what you were saying above. (although I haven't got time to find the verse so will probably find that its different from what I think)

Matt

MattPage wrote:

2 - Is this though appropriate in all cultures. We have a very nuclear idea of family, where leaving hme is an easy thing to do. But is this necessarily transferable to the culture in question?

Not sure it matters. I'm just assaying the possible answers to your question. My point is simply that the movie's answer to the question is wrong, and that's what I object to.

Also - generally, what about Jesus' relationship with his family? Obviously he didn't lie and cheat, but it seems he had to make a stand similar to what you were saying above. (although I haven't got time to find the verse so will probably find that its different from what I think)

You're presumably thinking of the incident often referred to as the finding in the temple (Luke 2:41-52).

I don't see Jesus at all "taking a stand" contrary to his parents' wishes here. Instead we read that "he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them" (v. 51). Certainly they had previously expected him to be in the caravan, but there's no indication of them having instructed him to do so, or forbidding him to be in the temple. And when they find him, he's obviously not sorry, but neither is he defiant. There's no parent/child authority conflict here; the picture is rather one of cross-purposes and differing expectations.

Now, if, for the sake of discussion, we were to posit an imaginary scenario in which the adult Jesus were for some reason instructed by one of his parents not to embark on his ministry (a scenario that would minimally require us to suppose either that Joseph lived to this point, or else that Mary would be capable of making such a misguided demand), we might imagine that he would have to refuse. Even if we were to imagine the child Jesus being instructed by his dying earthly father never to leave home while his mother was alive but to stay home and take care of her all her life, we might imagine that the child Jesus would have to decline this instruction.

But in neither case could we imagine Jesus giving assurances that he would indeed do what was asked of him without intending to honor these assurances -- still less lying about his actions after the fact ("No, I haven't been healing the sick and raising the dead, I've just been spending a lot of time in the wilderness lately, is all").

Of course Jess, unlike Jesus, isn't perfect. So my real problem with the film is not simply that she does something wrong (certainly in my own youth I violated the fourth commandment just as Jess did, and I've no objection to a movie showing flawed characters doing wrong things). Rather, it is that the movie is on her side, and expects the audience to support her decisions.

SDG wrote:
: MattPage wrote:

: : Also - generally, what about Jesus' relationship with his family?
: : Obviously he didn't lie and cheat, but it seems he had to make a stand
: : similar to what you were saying above. (although I haven't got time to
: : find the verse so will probably find that its different from what I think)
:
: You're presumably thinking of the incident often referred to as the finding
: in the temple (Luke 2:41-52).

Huh. I assumed MattPage was referring to the episode in Mark 3 where Jesus dissed his mother and brothers after they came to fetch him and put a stop to his ministry because they thought he was nuts.

: Now, if, for the sake of discussion, we were to posit an imaginary
: scenario in which the adult Jesus were for some reason instructed by one
: of his parents not to embark on his ministry (a scenario that would
: minimally require us to suppose either that Joseph lived to this point, or
: else that Mary would be capable of making such a misguided demand) . . .

The incident recounted in Mark 3 is "an imaginary scenario"?

Even though Matt spoke in general terms of "Jesus' relationship with his family," I assumed that he meant specifically Jesus' parents (parents being the objects of the duty of filial honor); and regarding the two pericopes you cite in Mark 3 it's always seemed obvious to me that, while Mary may or may not have been in the company of family members who thought Jesus mad, she certainly didn't share their opinion.

Mary knew how Jesus had been conceived; she had heard with her own ears the declarations of the archangel concerning his nature and destiny; she had heard from the shepherds of the angels on the night of the Nativity; she knew how angels had repeatedly appeared to her husband in dreams concerning her and her son. Nor was the significance of these events lost on Mary; rather, she pondered and treasured them in her heart.

Decades later, at the Cana wedding, she had faith enough to bring the problem to Jesus' attention, and to have confidence, despite what some read as a rebuff, that he would resolve the issue, telling the servants, "Do whatever he tells you." She saw the miracle that day with her own eyes, she drank the wine her son called into being, and she knew of and believed in, I doubt not, the signs Jesus had worked in Mark 1 and Mark 2.

So I don't for a moment give any credence to the notion that Mary agreed with those who thought Jesus mad, or sought to prevent him from carrying out his ministry. Nor do I think she understood his comment about "my mother and my brethren" as a "diss," any more than she understood "Woman, what to you to me? For my hour has not yet come" to mean "I'm not going to do anything about this problem."

SDG wrote:
: Even though Matt spoke in general terms of "Jesus' relationship with his
: family," I assumed that he meant specifically Jesus' parents (parents
: being the objects of the duty of filial honor) . . .

Two problems with this assumption. First, the main character in Bend It Like Beckham is going against the wishes of her sister as well as her two parents, so siblings are on the table. Second, I do not see Jesus "mak[ing] a stand" when his parents find him in the Temple -- instead, now that they have specifically told him to follow them, rather than simply assumed that he would follow them, he follows them. So that Temple incident simply didn't enter my head at ALL.

: . . . and regarding the two pericopes you cite in Mark 3 it's always
: seemed obvious to me that, while Mary may or may not have been in the
: company of family members who thought Jesus mad, she certainly didn't
: share their opinion.

I can't believe you're saying "may or may not" to this. It's right there in the text. "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you." What could be plainer? She was definitely in that company. So, given that she was in that company, and given that the passage also tells us that the members of this company thought Jesus was "out of his mind", how do you then leap to the conclusion that it is "obvious" that Mary does not share this opinion?

: Mary knew how Jesus had been conceived; she had heard with her own
: ears the declarations of the archangel concerning his nature and destiny;
: she had heard from the shepherds of the angels on the night of the
: Nativity; she knew how angels had repeatedly appeared to her husband
: in dreams concerning her and her son. Nor was the significance of these
: events lost on Mary; rather, she pondered and treasured them in her heart.

And apparently she may have had a little more pondering to do. *shrug* It was early in Jesus' ministry and she apparently didn't fully grasp what he was supposed to be up to yet. That's not too hard to imagine.

: Decades later, at the Cana wedding . . .

Yep, this is one of the problems we run into when we try to harmonize the gospel accounts. I'm tempted to observe here that there is no Nativity story in Mark's gospel, so he may not have felt the need to cast Mary in as good a light as the other gospels did; John, for example, is more careful to distinguish between the brothers of Jesus, who "did not believe in him," and Mary, who, as you note, expresses a clearer faith in Jesus in that gospel. Perhaps Mark is oversimplifying here and, in doing so, giving us the wrong impression of Mary, like the way Matthew seems to give us the wrong impression of the thieves who were crucified with Christ when he tells us that both of them mocked him, whereas Luke tells us that only one of them did this. (Or is the 'good thief' an invention of Luke's?) And perhaps John is factually incorrect when he tells us that the water-to-wine episode was the first of Jesus' miracles, just as he seems to be incorrect when he places the so-called 'cleansing of the Temple' at the start of Jesus' ministry, rather than at the end. There are a number of possible explanations here.

: So I don't for a moment give any credence to the notion that Mary
: agreed with those who thought Jesus mad, or sought to prevent him from
: carrying out his ministry.

What was she doing with that company, then, and why did Jesus lump her in with the rest of them in his rebuttal to them?

: Nor do I think she understood his comment about "my mother and my
: brethren" as a "diss," . . .

It certainly wasn't the sort of reply that reeked of an intention to honour them; John P. Meier refers to this episode, at least the way it has been recorded for us by Mark, as "Jesus' brusque rejection of his mother and brothers". N.T. Wright also talks of how Jesus, through this "cryptic and deeply subversive" statement, "coolly redefines his 'family'": "He sat loose to family commitments, in a way which must have been felt and perceived by both family and onlookers as puzzling and offensive. This attitude to his own family was reflected in the shocking demands for family disloyalty that he made on his followers."

: . . . any more than she understood "Woman, what to you to me? For my hour
: has not yet come" to mean "I'm not going to do anything about this problem."

Well, obviously, the things that one says to an individual in private conversation are less likely to be a diss than the things one says about that person in front of a public audience.

Peter T Chattaway wrote:

Two problems with this assumption. First, the main character in Bend It Like Beckham is going against the wishes of her sister as well as her two parents, so siblings are on the table.

True, but what led to Matt's question about Jesus' behavior was my criticism of the film, based on the fourth commandment. Jess's conflict with her sister formed no part of my criticism of the film, so I was looking in Matt's comment for something specifically relating to the parent-child relationship.

Note that I am not now saying anything about which passage Matt did or didn't have in mind. I'm sure you're right in thinking he meant Mark 3. I was just explaining why I never thought of Mark 3 in that connection.

Second, I do not see Jesus "mak[ing] a stand" when his parents find him in the Temple

I agree. I made the same point in discussing that passage.

[SDG] : . . . and regarding the two pericopes you cite in Mark 3 it's always
: seemed obvious to me that, while Mary may or may not have been in the
: company of family members who thought Jesus mad, she certainly didn't
: share their opinion.

I can't believe you're saying "may or may not" to this. It's right there in the text. "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you." What could be plainer? She was definitely in that company.

I agree that Mary was obviously with the brethren of Jesus in Mark 3:31-34. She may or may not have been in the company of those who said he was mad in 3:20-21.

And apparently she may have had a little more pondering to do. *shrug* It was early in Jesus' ministry and she apparently didn't fully grasp what he was supposed to be up to yet. That's not too hard to imagine.

You may not find it too hard to imagine, but you aren't going to prove it either on the basis of these verses. You may quarrel with my reasons for thinking that Mary believed in her son, but the mere fact that family members of Jesus thought he was mad and that Mary was among brethren of Jesus doesn't tell us diddly about what Mary herself thought, even if we take for granted that the events in the second pericope continue the events from the first.

: Decades later, at the Cana wedding . . .

Yep, this is one of the problems we run into when we try to harmonize the gospel accounts... There are a number of possible explanations here.

And once you go down that road, you also have the possibility that the "Who are my mother and my brothers" pericope is only literarily juxtaposed with the "His family said 'he is mad'" pericope. But I'm only secondarily concerned with the literary interpretation of Mark. I'm making a more basic, historical sort of statement that I think Mary believed in Jesus and I don't think she believed he was mad.

What was she doing with that company, then

How should I know? Mark doesn't tell me. More to the point, are you honestly saying that, on the assumption that Mary did believe in Jesus, you can't even begin to think of any possible reason why she might have gone with his unbelieving brethren as they sought to take charge of him? Maybe she was just concerned about what would happen? Maybe she was hoping to mediate or intervene somehow? Maybe she was hoping to somehow show support for him?

and why did Jesus lump her in with the rest of them in his rebuttal to them?

The only rebutting I see going on in that passage is directed to the individual who said "Your mother and brethren are here."

: Nor do I think she understood his comment about "my mother and my
: brethren" as a "diss," . . .

It certainly wasn't the sort of reply that reeked of an intention to honour them

Granted, though again how it may have appeared to the hearers and how it was understood by Mary are two different things. Consider again how "rebuffed" Mary felt at Cana when Jesus said "Woman, what to you to me?" She didn't say to the servants, "Well, I tried." She didn't say, "What on earth was I thinking he'd do in the first place -- make wine out of water?" No, but "Do whatever he tells you."

Well, obviously, the things that one says to an individual in private conversation are less likely to be a diss than the things one says about that person in front of a public audience.

That is not in the least "obvious" to me.

SDG wrote:

: : "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you." What could be
: : plainer? She was definitely in that company.
:
: I agree that Mary was obviously with the brethren of Jesus in Mark 3:31-34.
: She may or may not have been in the company of those who said he was
: mad in 3:20-21.

Does Mark make any effort to distinguish between these two groups? No he doesn't. If anything, the way he arranges the pericopes encourages us to identify one with the other.

Not that we need to believe that Mary thought Jesus was "mad" in the first place -- that's a red herring, since Mary's beliefs are not at issue here. The REAL issue here, as you stated, was whether or not Mary would ever "instruct" Jesus "not to embark on his ministry", and based on the text and on the fact that Jesus snubbed Mary as surely as he snubbed his brothers, I certainly do not believe that Mary accompanied Jesus' brothers out of a desire to defy them and to thereby ENCOURAGE Jesus' ministry.

: : It was early in Jesus' ministry and she apparently didn't fully grasp
: : what he was supposed to be up to yet. That's not too hard to imagine.
:
: You may not find it too hard to imagine, but you aren't going to prove it
: either on the basis of these verses.

Perhaps not, but the evidence does tilt my way.

: You may quarrel with my reasons for thinking that Mary believed in her
: son . . .

Like I said, whether or not Mary "believed in" Jesus is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not she would tell him what to do with his ministry, including potentially putting a stop to it, or at least changing the course of action along which he had taken it. And it's interesting that you cite John 2, since even THAT passage shows how Mary tended to push Jesus in ways that he felt compelled to resist, even if, on some occasions, he ultimately gave in to her demands.

: : There are a number of possible explanations here.
:
: And once you go down that road, you also have the possibility that the
: "Who are my mother and my brothers" pericope is only literarily
: juxtaposed with the "His family said 'he is mad'" pericope.

Oh, sure -- it is indeed possible that Mark just gave the stories a certain spin that put Mary and the brothers of Jesus in a bad light together. I would be very surprised, though, if you wanted to take the position that this story was all Mark's doing.

: I'm making a more basic, historical sort of statement that I think Mary
: believed in Jesus and I don't think she believed he was mad.

But again, your point is beside the point. She did not have to personally believe that Jesus was mad in order to join his brothers in trying to "take charge" of him and put a stop to his present ministry.

: : What was she doing with that company, then . . .
:
: How should I know? Mark doesn't tell me.

He who hath ears ...

: More to the point, are you honestly saying that, on the assumption that
: Mary did believe in Jesus, you can't even begin to think of any possible
: reason why she might have gone with his unbelieving brethren as they
: sought to take charge of him? Maybe she was just concerned about what
: would happen? Maybe she was hoping to mediate or intervene somehow?
: Maybe she was hoping to somehow show support for him?

'Tis a shame that Jesus snubbed her along with the rest of them, then. In other words, if I lack imagination here, then so did Jesus.

: : . . . and why did Jesus lump her in with the rest of them in his rebuttal
: : to them?
:
: The only rebutting I see going on in that passage is directed to the
: individual who said "Your mother and brethren are here."

That's one for the straining-at-gnats-but-swallowing-camels file, methinks. Do you seriously believe that Mary and the others wouldn't have heard about the remark Jesus made which effectively disowned them? (Given that his remark obviously went public, otherwise we would not have it in our gospels, I should think the obvious answer would have to be "no".)

: Consider again how "rebuffed" Mary felt at Cana when Jesus said
: "Woman, what to you to me?" She didn't say to the servants, "Well, I
: tried." She didn't say, "What on earth was I thinking he'd do in the first
: place -- make wine out of water?" No, but "Do whatever he tells you."

Yup, I hear these Jewish mothers can be fairly obstinate.

: : Well, obviously, the things that one says to an individual in private
: : conversation are less likely to be a diss than the things one says about
: : that person in front of a public audience.
:
: That is not in the least "obvious" to me.

Then you don't know what "dissing" is.

Peter T Chattaway wrote:

Not that we need to believe that Mary thought Jesus was "mad" in the first place -- that's a red herring, since Mary's beliefs are not at issue here. The REAL issue here, as you stated, was whether or not Mary would ever "instruct" Jesus "not to embark on his ministry"

It boggles my mind that you acknowledge that Mary may NOT have shared the belief of those who said, "He is out of his mind," but are willing to go to bat for the proposition that she shared their intention to "take charge of him." Her presence in their midst no more establishes the one than the other, and indeed doubt regarding the first point militates toward doubt regarding the second.

Perhaps not, but the evidence does tilt my way.

The evidence of these few verses in this one chapter, perhaps. The evidence of the whole picture of Mary provided by the NT, no.

And it's interesting that you cite John 2, since even THAT passage shows how Mary tended to push Jesus in ways that he felt compelled to resist, even if, on some occasions, he ultimately gave in to her demands.

I don't think Mary "demanded" anything of him, then or ever. But a full exploration of John 2:1-11 and what Jesus's words meant (especially "For my hour has not yet come") would take more time than I have now, I think.

Oh, sure -- it is indeed possible that Mark just gave the stories a certain spin that put Mary and the brothers of Jesus in a bad light together. I would be very surprised, though, if you wanted to take the position that this story was all Mark's doing.

For the moment, as I said, I'm less interested in Mark's intention regarding the passage in question than in what we can plausibly construe about the events behind the pericopes in question.

'Tis a shame that Jesus snubbed her along with the rest of them, then.

Snubs can be in the eye of the beholder.

That's one for the straining-at-gnats-but-swallowing-camels file, methinks. Do you seriously believe that Mary and the others wouldn't have heard about the remark Jesus made which effectively disowned them?

In light of your strange theory about Jesus "disowning" Mary, I am curious about your interpretation of this passage.

: Consider again how "rebuffed" Mary felt at Cana when Jesus said
: "Woman, what to you to me?" She didn't say to the servants, "Well, I
: tried." She didn't say, "What on earth was I thinking he'd do in the first
: place -- make wine out of water?" No, but "Do whatever he tells you."

Yup, I hear these Jewish mothers can be fairly obstinate.

I think Jesus knew exactly how "obstinate," or whatever you want to call it, his mother was when he said the thing about who his mother and brethren were, and exactly how she would take it.

: : Well, obviously, the things that one says to an individual in private
: : conversation are less likely to be a diss than the things one says about
: : that person in front of a public audience.
:
: That is not in the least "obvious" to me.

Then you don't know what "dissing" is.

Excuse me, I was going to school in Manhattan when the term came into vogue. The etymology is from "disrespect," and if you think that "one says to an individual in private conversation are less likely to be [disrespectful] than the things one says about that person in front of a public audience," I can only repeat, that is not in the least obvious to me.

SDG wrote:
: It boggles my mind that you acknowledge that Mary may NOT have
: shared the belief of those who said, "He is out of his mind," but are
: willing to go to bat for the proposition that she shared their intention to
: "take charge of him." Her presence in their midst no more establishes
: the one than the other, and indeed doubt regarding the first point
: militates toward doubt regarding the second.

Nonsense. That's like saying all people who vote Democrat do so for the same reason. It just ain't so. Mary may or may not have shared the belief, apparently shared by several of Jesus' family members, that Jesus was "out of his mind" at that particular point in his life, but then, she may have had other reasons for wanting to "take charge" of him. Who knows? Who cares? A difference that makes no difference is no difference, and what we are talking about first and foremost here, and what we have ALWAYS been talking about first and foremost here, is Mary's ACTIONS, not her beliefs. And on that score, I think Mark very clearly wants us to think that Mary was part of the group that wanted to "take charge" of Jesus. Perhaps Mark was wrong to give us this impression, just as Matthew was apparently wrong to give us the impression that Jesus was mocked by BOTH thieves and not by just one of them, but I see no reason to make that assumption in this case.

: : Perhaps not, but the evidence does tilt my way.
:
: The evidence of these few verses in this one chapter, perhaps. The
: evidence of the whole picture of Mary provided by the NT, no.

Uh, WHAT "whole picture of Mary provided by the NT"? There is no such thing. The NT gives us just a few glimpses of Mary, and certainly nothing approaching a "whole picture" of her.

: For the moment, as I said, I'm less interested in Mark's intention
: regarding the passage in question than in what we can plausibly construe
: about the events behind the pericopes in question.

Granted, but once you go down that road, there's no end to the things you can plausibly construe.

: : 'Tis a shame that Jesus snubbed her along with the rest of them, then.
:
: Snubs can be in the eye of the beholder.

Yes, ALL inter-subjective interactions are in the eyes of the various beholders. On this point, I think it makes more sense to follow N.T. Wright's line of thought, whereby Jesus snubbed his own family as part of a ministry in which he called on others to snub their families too, than to follow any other line of thought. We are not dealing with an isolated incident, but with a pattern in Jesus' teachings and actions.

: : Do you seriously believe that Mary and the others wouldn't have heard
: : about the remark Jesus made which effectively disowned them?
:
: In light of your strange theory about Jesus "disowning" Mary, I am
: curious about your interpretation of this passage.

Gosh, whaddayaknow, a man expresses concern for his mother's welfare when he's dying, even though his relationship with her had been a bit tense a couple years before. Have you ever heard of such a thing?

: : Yup, I hear these Jewish mothers can be fairly obstinate.
:
: I think Jesus knew exactly how "obstinate," or whatever you want to call
: it, his mother was when he said the thing about who his mother and
: brethren were, and exactly how she would take it.

Yes, I think he knew exactly how she would take it, too.

: : Then you don't know what "dissing" is.
:
: Excuse me, I was going to school in Manhattan when the term came into
: vogue. The etymology is from "disrespect," and if you think that "one
: says to an individual in private conversation are less likely to be
: [disrespectful] than the things one says about that person in front of a
: public audience," I can only repeat, that is not in the least obvious to me.

The very NATURE of respect tends to be more public than private -- a parent will tolerate many things in private conversation with a child that they would never tolerate if the child said those things to them in public. Thus, respect is more of a social thing than a personal thing. Jesus privately telling his mother she may be a little impatient is not disrespectful; Jesus publicly spurning an audience with his mother and declaring that it is not she but his followers who are his "mother", however, would certainly be disrespectful by the standards of just about any first-century Palestinian peasant. Within their social matrix, neither Jesus nor Mary was exactly free to define "respect" in any way they saw fit -- his words had, if not an objective meaning, then at least an inter-subjective meaning.

(Again, to quote Wright's comments on this passage, "this would be remarkable enough in almost any culture. In a peasant society, where familial relations provided one's basic identity, it was shocking in the extreme. In first-century Jewish culture, for which the sense of familial and racial loyalty was a basic symbol of the prevailing worldview, it cannot but have been devastating. Jesus was proposing to treat his followers as a surrogate family. . . . This was not just extraordinarily challenging at a personal level; it was deeply subversive at a social, cultural, religious and political level".)

Hmm well I didn't mean to kick this off in quite this way...

Just to clarify I was talking about the Mark 3 verses, but I was in a rush.

I guess I can see SDG's original point that the film sides with her lying to her parents, but I'm still not sure what he expectws her to do. Her culture is one where she will only leave her fathers house at marriage. In other words she will pass from the "care" of one who is physically stronger than her to another". Going to play football, for her, may never become an option. What then should she do with her God given gifts?

And from there I wondered, in true WWJD, style well how would He have handled it, if his parents had forbidden him to. And I reckon he would have still gone and done it.

The mark 3 ref was slightly off point but I think it is interesting here that his family think he's mad, and I don't really see any reason why just because she witnessed a miracle 30 years ago she's expecting Jesus to act as he is doing.

FWIW I don't particularly associate the two verses. I mean they occured at the same time obviously, but there's not necessarily anything to say he heard them say that, so I don't think he's seeking to "diss" them in a malicious come back, even if he is being disrespectful in that culture.

I guess for me I reognise there's a tension between honouring God and honouring one's parents, and while I don't fully endose Jess's actions I don't see a problem with a film that seeks to explore that tension - even if it projects a very western mindest onto one of its least conforming sub-cultures.

Matt

PS as for the theives on the cross, I would go with it being Luke's theological imposition. Both Matt and Mark say both thieves diss him, so only Luke has one defending him, which seems a bit like a "there are two responses to Jesus which will you take " type example / sermon point.

Peter T Chattaway wrote:

On this point, I think it makes more sense to follow N.T. Wright's line of thought, whereby Jesus snubbed his own family as part of a ministry in which he called on others to snub their families too, than to follow any other line of thought.

We disagree. I think that Jesus meant to declare his fundamental allegiance to his spiritual family over his biological family, which, indeed, is certainly a shock to natural sensibilities and would certainly have been taken as a snub by most of his hearers, but which was in fact no more a snub than the "hatred" Jesus called on his followers to have for father and mother and husband and wife was really hatred.

In another place, a woman calls out to Jesus, "Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!" But Jesus answers, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!" (Luke 11:27-28).

Does Luke mean to depict Jesus saying that Mary was not blessed? No, Luke is quite clear that Mary is blessed among women, is blessed for believing, and will be called blessed by all generations (1:42-48). Jesus' declaration in 11:28 is not a repudiation of Mary's blessedness, but a clarification of the meaning of true blessedness -- which, in fact, Mary possesses in abundance. Mary herself is among those who "hear the word of God and keep it" -- or, in the words of our original passage, "whoever does the will of God."

Mary belonged to Jesus' spiritual family as well as his biological family. Jesus' words were a challenge to the speaker who wrongly assumed that biological ties were paramount, not a diss to the woman who shared both biological and spiritual ties to him.

That's like saying all people who vote Democrat do so for the same reason.

I might equally reply that your position is like saying that because someone arrives at the polls in the company of a bunch of Democrat-voting family members, therefore she is voting Democratic too.

I think Mark very clearly wants us to think that Mary was part of the group that wanted to "take charge" of Jesus.

We disagree.

Uh, WHAT "whole picture of Mary provided by the NT"? There is no such thing. The NT gives us just a few glimpses of Mary, and certainly nothing approaching a "whole picture."

It's a matter of words. Whatever glimpses of Mary we get in the NT are the "whole picture" the NT gives of her.

Gosh, whaddayaknow, a man expresses concern for his mother's welfare when he's dying, even though his relationship with her had been a bit tense a couple years before.

Before, you said he "effectively disowned her"; now you say their relationship "had been a bit tense a couple of years before." Which is it?

The fact is, what we see in John 19 is, among other things, a formal transferral of filial responsibility -- responsibility that would not have been Jesus' to worry about had he actually "disowned" her. The fact is, Jesus here demonstrates filial responsibility for his mother's well-being -- the very filial duty over which he so vigorously upbraided the Pharisees in Mark 7, accusing them of "rejecting the commandment of God to keep your tradition." So even then, Jesus took seriously his filial duty to honor his mother.

The very NATURE of respect tends to be more public than private -- a parent will tolerate many things in private conversation with a child that they would never tolerate if the child said those things to them in public. Thus, respect is more of a social thing than a personal thing.

The middle statement is true, but not the first or the third. The standard of what counts as respect or disrepresent may be more sensitive and formal in social settings than in private, and the duty to show respect may be heightened in social settings, and the gravity of offenses against respect increased; but it is not at all true that the nature of respect itself in any sense pertains to the public sphere rather than the private. A parent may tolerate certain things in private that he or she wouldn't in public, but not anything. A child who lacks respect for a parent can demonstrate that lack of respect in private just as well as in public, though obviously the offense is compounded when done in public.

Jesus privately telling his mother she may be a little impatient is not disrespectful

I don't think "impatience" has anything to do with the import of Jesus' words to Mary in John 2. Nor, for that matter, is there any reason to think that just because he was addressing her directly they were speaking "privately."

Jesus publicly spurning an audience with his mother and declaring that it is not she but his followers who are his "mother", however, would certainly be disrespectful by the standards of just about any first-century Palestinian peasant.

I agree that that's how most people there would have interpreted it. But it is not correct to say that Jesus said "not she but his followers" (or rather, "whoever does the will of God") -- any more than he declared in Luke 11:28 that Mary was not among those who "hear the word of God and keep it" and thus have true blessedness.

Heh. I'm listening to David Palmer's symphonic Sgt. Pepper album right now, and 'She's Leaving Home' just came on. Fits the Beckham thread, does it not?

MattPage wrote:
: Hmm well I didn't mean to kick this off in quite this way...

Sorry, Matt!

: FWIW I don't particularly associate the two verses. I mean they occured
: at the same time obviously, but there's not necessarily anything to say
: he heard them say that, so I don't think he's seeking to "diss" them in a
: malicious come back, even if he is being disrespectful in that culture.

Good point. Though maybe, when one's entire family shows up unannounced outside the house that you just happen to be preaching in, one can easily figure out what they are there for.

: PS as for the theives on the cross, I would go with it being Luke's
: theological imposition. Both Matt and Mark say both thieves diss him, so
: only Luke has one defending him, which seems a bit like a "there are two
: responses to Jesus which will you take" type example / sermon point.

Oh, right, Mark does say that too, doesn't he. Hmmm.

SDG wrote:

: : On this point, I think it makes more sense to follow N.T. Wright's line of
: : thought, whereby Jesus snubbed his own family as part of a ministry in
: : which he called on others to snub their families too, than to follow any
: : other line of thought.
:
: We disagree. I think that Jesus meant to declare his fundamental
: allegiance to his spiritual family over his biological family, which, indeed,
: is certainly a shock to natural sensibilities and would certainly have been
: taken as a snub by most of his hearers, but which was in fact no more a
: snub than the "hatred" Jesus called on his followers to have for father
: and mother and husband and wife was really hatred.

Yup, the bit about "hating" mother and father -- and yourself! -- figures into Wright's analysis too, and clearly there's an element of hyperbole there.

But you know, arguing over the meanings of Jesus' teachings could become just another red herring -- once again, this debate is primarily about Mary's actions and what she was willing to do, and not about her private motivations or even necessarily the effect that her actions had on Jesus' teachings.

: Mary belonged to Jesus' spiritual family as well as his biological family.

Certainly. So did Peter. (Belong to Jesus' spiritual family, that is.) And just as the "all-laudable apostle" Peter was capable of throwing roadblocks in the path of Jesus' ministry, so too I have no trouble imagining Mary doing the same. (I haven't discussed this particular issue with the local Orthodox priest, but my mind is going back to a remark he made once that, for Catholics, Mary is "the great exception" whereas, for Orthodox, she is "the great example" -- for Orthodox, Mary is clearly on we believers' side of the equation, whereas for Catholics, she seems to be more on Jesus' side of the equation.)

: : That's like saying all people who vote Democrat do so for the same
: : reason.
:
: I might equally reply that your position is like saying that because
: someone arrives at the polls in the company of a bunch of Democrat-
: voting family members, therefore she is voting Democratic too.

Ah, well, when the narrator tells us, "This group of people went to vote Democrat," then I think I'm justified in interpreting their actions collectively like that.

: Before, you said he "effectively disowned her"; now you say their
: relationship "had been a bit tense a couple of years before." Which is it?

This, too, falls in the straining-at-gnats category.

: : The very NATURE of respect tends to be more public than private -- a
: : parent will tolerate many things in private conversation with a child that
: : they would never tolerate if the child said those things to them in
: : public. Thus, respect is more of a social thing than a personal thing.
:
: The middle statement is true, but not the first or the third.

Whatever. I just can't imagine someone privately telling his mother, "Lay off me for a bit," and her replying, "Hey, you dissing me?" Whenever I have heard this term, it has always been in a broader social context than that -- a girl's friends interpreting her boyfriend's actions, etc. But I freely admit I may lack imagination and/or experience here.

[quote]Heh. I'm listening to David Palmer's symphonic Sgt. Pepper album right now....[/quote]

Er, um, WHAT? Tell me more! (Since this thread isn't really about BECKHAM anymore, anyway...)


Ron

P.S. Recently found a real nice cover of "Dear Prudence" by Brad Mehldau, whose "Blackbird" was sublime.

Peter T Chattaway wrote:

Yup, the bit about "hating" mother and father -- and yourself! -- figures into Wright's analysis too, and clearly there's an element of hyperbole there.

But you know, arguing over the meanings of Jesus' teachings could become just another red herring -- once again, this debate is primarily about Mary's actions and what she was willing to do, and not about her private motivations or even necessarily the effect that her actions had on Jesus' teachings.

Well, Jesus' words did seem to play some evidential role in your interpretation of Mary's actions and intentions.

: Mary belonged to Jesus' spiritual family as well as his biological family.

Certainly. So did Peter. (Belong to Jesus' spiritual family, that is.) And just as the "all-laudable apostle" Peter was capable of throwing roadblocks in the path of Jesus' ministry, so too I have no trouble imagining Mary doing the same.

But the issue is not what you can imagine, but what we can safely conclude about what Mary was doing and what Jesus meant.

I haven't discussed this particular issue with the local Orthodox priest

Please let me know when you do.

but my mind is going back to a remark he made once that, for Catholics, Mary is "the great exception" whereas, for Orthodox, she is "the great example" -- for Orthodox, Mary is clearly on we believers' side of the equation, whereas for Catholics, she seems to be more on Jesus' side of the equation.

Pure polemics. In Catholic spirituality, Mary is both the model disciple and the exemplar of redemption.

Ah, well, when the narrator tells us, "This group of people went to vote Democrat," then I think I'm justified in interpreting their actions collectively like that.

Unless, of course, the narrator tells us, "They went to vote Democratic, for they said, 'The Republicans are out of their minds,'" but we aren't necessarily ready to impute this view of the Republicans to the individual in question.

: Before, you said he "effectively disowned her"; now you say their
: relationship "had been a bit tense a couple of years before." Which is it?

This, too, falls in the straining-at-gnats category.

You must have some damn big gnats up there in Canada.

Ron wrote:

: : I'm listening to David Palmer's symphonic Sgt. Pepper album right now . . .
:
: Er, um, WHAT? Tell me more!

A friend of mine got a copy of this CD at the public library. Basically it's just Sgt. Pepper as done by an orchestra. Quite beautiful, really.

: P.S. Recently found a real nice cover of "Dear Prudence" by Brad
: Mehldau, whose "Blackbird" was sublime.

Ohmigosh, two of my favorite Beatles tunes ... I know not this Brad Mehldau, but I would love to hear these covers ...

SDG wrote:
: Well, Jesus' words did seem to play some evidential role in your
: interpretation of Mary's actions and intentions.

True, they were one of the converging lines of evidence.

: : I haven't discussed this particular issue with the local Orthodox priest . . .
:
: Please let me know when you do.

If you like.

: : . . . but my mind is going back to a remark he made once that, for
: : Catholics, Mary is "the great exception" whereas, for Orthodox, she is
: : "the great example" -- for Orthodox, Mary is clearly on we believers'
: : side of the equation, whereas for Catholics, she seems to be more on
: : Jesus' side of the equation.
:
: Pure polemics.

I think not. FWIW, the priest was careful to acknowledge that that might be an oversimplification (as just about any argument that can be spelled out in a few words is), but I do remember how he shook his head the moment I mentioned the word "co-redemptrix".

: : Ah, well, when the narrator tells us, "This group of people went to vote
: : Democrat," then I think I'm justified in interpreting their actions
: : collectively like that.
:
: Unless, of course, the narrator tells us, "They went to vote Democratic,
: for they said, 'The Republicans are out of their minds,'" but we aren't
: necessarily ready to impute this view of the Republicans to the individual
: in question.

Non sequitur. I was talking actions, you are still talking beliefs. The fact remains, they went to vote Democrat.

: : : Before, you said he "effectively disowned her"; now you say their
: : : relationship "had been a bit tense a couple of years before." Which is it?
: :
: : This, too, falls in the straining-at-gnats category.
:
: You must have some damn big gnats up there in Canada.

Hey, gnat-straining nit-picking over language and rhetoric aside, at a minimum, that which is disowned can easily be re-owned, so it still looks to me like you're arguing against a false dichotomy.

This[quote]'The Republicans are out of their minds[/quote]we can all agree on

Matt

Peter T Chattaway

: [SDG] Pure polemics.

I think not.

Then you're wrong. At least, no student of Catholic theology and spirituality would endorse the notion that Catholic Marian belief and spirituality makes Mary the "Great Exception" as opposed to the "Great Example," or that it puts her "more on Jesus' side of the equation" than on ours. I repeat, Mary is the model disciple and the exemplar of redemption.

FWIW, the priest was careful to acknowledge that that might be an oversimplification

Partial credit for that, then; the charge of "pure polemics" wasn't directed against him personally, anyway.

but I do remember how he shook his head the moment I mentioned the word "co-redemptrix"

Which, once again, is not a title endorsed by the magisterium, and which if used at all would have to be understood in light of the basic principles of Marian theology we've discussed before.

: : Ah, well, when the narrator tells us, "This group of people went to vote
: : Democrat," then I think I'm justified in interpreting their actions
: : collectively like that.
:
: Unless, of course, the narrator tells us, "They went to vote Democratic,
: for they said, 'The Republicans are out of their minds,'" but we aren't
: necessarily ready to impute this view of the Republicans to the individual
: in question.

Non sequitur. I was talking actions, you are still talking beliefs. The fact remains, they went to vote Democrat.

The main point isn't belief, but motive. Look. Say you're Mary. Say your son is going around doing and saying startling things, and attracting a lot of positive and negative attention; and say that certain family members have come to the conclusion that he's unbalanced and have decided to go and try to take charge of him.

Now, don't you think this situation just might possibly be of some concern and interest to you, regardless what you think either of their assessment of your son or of their proposed course of action? Wouldn't you have a personal stake in this confrontation and its outcome either way? How likely do you think you'd be to feel like going about your daily routine, with this family conflict brewing?

Logically, there are at least three possible views we might attribute to Mary regarding the attempted family abduction of her son. We may suppose her to have either (a) supported it, ( opposed it, or © been conflicted about it. In any of these three cases, she would surely have been very concerned about the whole affair, which would be more than sufficient motive for her to be there at the time. The only attitude that would not have motivated her to be there would be if she had no particular feelings one way or the other and was apathetic, which is hardly a reasonable supposition in any case.

Thus, neither Mary's mere presence at the occasion of the attempted abduction (assuming that's what's going on in the second pericope), nor Jesus' rebuttal of the bystander who assumed that Jesus' domestic ties would take priority over his ministry work, is in my view reason to believe that Mary opposed Jesus' ministry.

Hey, gnat-straining nit-picking over language and rhetoric aside, at a minimum, that which is disowned can easily be re-owned, so it still looks to me like you're arguing against a false dichotomy.

Getting back to Bend It Like Beckham...

MattPage wrote:

I guess I can see SDG's original point that the film sides with her lying to her parents, but I'm still not sure what he expectws her to do. Her culture is one where she will only leave her fathers house at marriage. In other words she will pass from the "care" of one who is physically stronger than her to another". Going to play football, for her, may never become an option. What then should she do with her God given gifts?

I tried to answer that in my earlier post. What would you like me to clarify?

I guess for me I reognise there's a tension between honouring God and honouring one's parents, and while I don't fully endose Jess's actions I don't see a problem with a film that seeks to explore that tension

But does this film seek to explore any tension? Because I don't think it does. You may not "fully endorse" Jess's actions, but the movie does.

SDG wrote:

: : I was talking actions, you are still talking beliefs. The fact remains,
: : they went to vote Democrat.
:
: The main point isn't belief, but motive.

No, the main point is OBJECTIVE. Not what made them do what they did, whether it was a belief or a motive, but what they were trying to do.

: Logically, there are at least three possible views we might attribute to
: Mary regarding the attempted family abduction of her son.

True. But Mark gives us no reason to believe that she was about to break ranks or anything. As far as he's concerned, she's one of the would-be abductees. She's part of the "family".

: Thus, neither Mary's mere presence at the occasion of the attempted
: abduction (assuming that's what's going on in the second pericope) . . .

I can't imagine how anyone could read that chapter and conclude otherwise, short of deconstructing the text and breaking it down into a bunch of anecdotes that might or might not be related to each other in the manner that Mark indicates.

: . . . nor Jesus' rebuttal of the bystander who assumed that Jesus'
: domestic ties would take priority over his ministry work . . .

Jesus was not rebutting some mere "bystander". He was rebutting the messenger for his family and, thus, his family itself. (How many times have we heard people say that the discrepancy in the gospels over whether the centurion with the sick servant met Jesus himself or sent his messengers to meet Jesus can be easily resolved by following the ancient custom of erasing the distinction between the one who sends the message and the one who delivers it?)

: 1. The dichotomy between disowning your mother and having a bit of a
: tense relationship with her is real, not false. Nor did I argue against this
: dichotomy; I simply noted it and asked you which it was.

Either way, for the purposes of this discussion, it's a difference that makes no difference.

: 2. Partly in light of Jesus' strong words on the subject in Mark 7 . . .

Jesus certainly speaks against the way the Pharisees have made their traditions superior to God's commands, but I don't see anything at all in that passage that rules out putting a parent in his or her place, as Jesus seems to have done (and seems to have required his followers to do).

Peter T Chattaway wrote:

No, the main point is OBJECTIVE. Not what made them do what they did, whether it was a belief or a motive, but what they were trying to do.

Call it what you will, since Mark tells us only what Mary DID (i.e., showed up at the house where he was preaching), not what she was TRYING TO DO (i.e., regarding the abduction effort), all you've got is an inference based on her presence with his brethren and a typically startling and uncomfortable dictum from Jesus, neither of which requires us to attribute to Mary one view of the abduction effort over another.

True. But Mark gives us no reason to believe that she was about to break ranks or anything. As far as he's concerned, she's one of the would-be abductees. She's part of the "family".

Surely there were no "would-be abductees" involved -- only would-be abductors. As for "breaking ranks," ranks were ALREADY broken; the question is not WHETHER Mary broke ranks, but WITH WHOM she broke. I agree that Mark gives us no indication that she supported Jesus, but he doesn't tell us that she opposed him either.

: [SDG] Thus, neither Mary's mere presence at the occasion of the attempted
: abduction (assuming that's what's going on in the second pericope) . . .

I can't imagine how anyone could read that chapter and conclude otherwise, short of deconstructing the text and breaking it down into a bunch of anecdotes that might or might not be related to each other in the manner that Mark indicates.

I agree that, as recorded by Mark, the two pericopes should be understood literarily in relation to one another. That's a separate question from whether they originally represented a single episode and whether common events underlie them both.

: [SDG] . . . nor Jesus' rebuttal of the bystander who assumed that Jesus'
: domestic ties would take priority over his ministry work . . .

Jesus was not rebutting some mere "bystander". He was rebutting the messenger for his family and, thus, his family itself. (How many times have we heard people say that the discrepancy in the gospels over whether the centurion with the sick servant met Jesus himself or sent his messengers to meet Jesus can be easily resolved by following the ancient custom of erasing the distinction between the one who sends the message and the one who delivers it?)

A messenger?! Man, are you grasping at straws. Here is what Mark says: "And his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside they sent to him and called him. And a crowd was sitting about him; and they said to him, "Your mother and your brethren are outside, asking for you." So, okay, people sitting and listening to Jesus heard his mother and brethren calling for him, and they called it to his attention. That's not a "messenger." A messenger is one dispatched by and authorized to speak on behalf of someone else. If that's your idea of a difference that makes no difference, stop worrying about my gnat-straining and look to your own camel-swallowing.

: 1. The dichotomy between disowning your mother and having a bit of a
: tense relationship with her is real, not false. Nor did I argue against this
: dichotomy; I simply noted it and asked you which it was.

Either way, for the purposes of this discussion, it's a difference that makes no difference.

If Jesus had disowned his mother, that would presumably imply some serious fault on her part. If they merely had a bit of a tense relationship, no such fault is implied. And, partly in light of the similar saying in Luke 11:27-28, it seems clear to me that Jesus' issuance of a startling correction / rebuke to those who mistakenly value natural affinities over supernatural affinities doesn't in the least imply any rebuke to, much less repudiation of, those who have natural affinities.

Considering your characterization of Jesus' words as "one of the converging lines of evidence," you seem awfully indifferent to the real import of your "evidence." Especially when the only other "converging line," apparently, is Mary's presence with Jesus' brethren, which I've already shown is equally compatible with any hypothesis regarding Mary's opinion of the abduction effort.

I don't see anything at all in that passage that rules out putting a parent in his or her place

Neither do I, but once again, there's a meaningful difference between "putting a parent in his or her place" and disowning him or her.

as Jesus seems to have done

Perhaps, though again not all of Jesus' strange and uncomfortable sayings are really as much rebuke as they seem, and concerning Mary in particular I think such seeming rebukes often contain hints of a larger intention to honor on a grander scale. For example, I think that Jesus' response to his mother at the Cana wedding is often misunderstood due to inattention to the meaning of his declaration, "For my hour has not yet come."

I would also observe in passing that "putting a parent in his or her place" could also bear positive applications as well as negative. For example, Solomon could be said to have "put his mother in her place" when he enthroned her at his side; and there's a longstanding Christian belief that Jesus likewise "put Mary in her place" in a similar and parallel way.

and seems to have required his followers to do

I would say rather that he required his followers to be willing to do so, when and where necessary (at least, in the negative sense of "putting one's parents in their place"). But I will not debate exegesis on this point; this is what I say he meant, and if you disagree then you disagree.

SDG wrote:
: At least, no student of Catholic theology and spirituality would endorse
: the notion that Catholic Marian belief and spirituality makes Mary the
: "Great Exception" as opposed to the "Great Example," or that it puts her
: "more on Jesus' side of the equation" than on ours. I repeat, Mary is the
: model disciple and the exemplar of redemption.

FWIW, I imagine the Catholic (and non-Orthodox) doctrine of the immaculate conception figures into this somewhere.

: Call it what you will, since Mark tells us only what Mary DID (i.e., showed
: up at the house where he was preaching), not what she was TRYING TO
: DO (i.e., regarding the abduction effort), all you've got is an inference
: based on her presence with his brethren and a typically startling and
: uncomfortable dictum from Jesus, neither of which requires us to
: attribute to Mary one view of the abduction effort over another.

Mark tells us the family acted collectively, and he tells us Mary was part of the family, and he tells us Jesus snubbed the family, including his mother -- there is simply no basis in the text for making Mary an exception to the rest of the family. I may be inferring something from the text, but you are imposing something on the text.

: Surely there were no "would-be abductees" involved -- only would-be
: abductors.

Yup, thanks for correcting my faux pas.

: As for "breaking ranks," ranks were ALREADY broken; the question is not
: WHETHER Mary broke ranks, but WITH WHOM she broke.

Clever, but an unconvincing turn of rhetoric.

: I agree that Mark gives us no indication that she supported Jesus, but he
: doesn't tell us that she opposed him either.

He may not "tell" us, but he does, however, "give us an indication".

: I agree that, as recorded by Mark, the two pericopes should be
: understood literarily in relation to one another. That's a separate
: question from whether they originally represented a single episode and
: whether common events underlie them both.

Ah, so it would seem that, like I suggested several posts ago, you believe that Mark has given us an "imaginary scenario", perhaps by putting two unrelated events side-by-side, Michael Moore-style.

: : Jesus was not rebutting some mere "bystander". He was rebutting the
: : messenger for his family and, thus, his family itself. (How many times
: : have we heard people say that the discrepancy in the gospels over
: : whether the centurion with the sick servant met Jesus himself or sent his
: : messengers to meet Jesus can be easily resolved by following the
: : ancient custom of erasing the distinction between the one who sends
: : the message and the one who delivers it?)
:
: A messenger?! Man, are you grasping at straws. Here is what Mark says:
: "And his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside they sent
: to him and called him.

Well golly, lookie there, a messenger! Some straw!

: And a crowd was sitting about him; and they said to him, "Your mother
: and your brethren are outside, asking for you." So, okay, people sitting
: and listening to Jesus heard his mother and brethren calling for him, and
: they called it to his attention. That's not a "messenger."

So who or what were they "sending" to him, then?

I am fully prepared to admit that the NIV ("Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him") may have misled me on this, but since your Bible and mine agree that the family "sent" something or someone as part of their "call" to Jesus, who or what, pray, did they send?

: Considering your characterization of Jesus' words as "one of the
: converging lines of evidence," you seem awfully indifferent to the real
: import of your "evidence."

No, I think you're just overly nit-picky about any interpretation that doesn't match your own preconceived idea. When you have two or three weak lines of evidence that all point in the same direction, the fact that they all point in the same direction becomes, itself, a kind of evidence -- especially when there is no good line of evidence pointing the other way.

Peter T Chattaway wrote:

When you have two or three weak lines of evidence that all point in the same direction, the fact that they all point in the same direction becomes, itself, a kind of evidence -- especially when there is no good line of evidence pointing the other way.

I'll concede this much: Going by this one chapter, in view of the fact that Mark says that "his family" (not "his brethren") "went out to seize him," and that Mary is subsequently seen in the company of his brethren while they are presumably on this mission, and that Mark doesn't specifically tell us that Mary opposed the effort to seize him, the simplest supposition is that she supported it, and Mark gives us no reason not to make this supposition.

But it's weak evidence, and I DON'T think you get any additional support from Jesus' words, which I don't think can be regarded as having any evidential value concerning Mary's intentions. So, really, there's only one line of evidence, and not a strong one. But it's true that Mark gives us no countervailing evidence.

Incidentally, rereading the chapter in the RSV, I'm reminded that the issue of whether Mary or even his brethren thought him mad may be moot, since the RSV renders v. 21, "And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, 'He is beside himself.'"

I'll also admit that I do bring "preconceived notions" about Mary to the subject, based on the whole picture of Mary and her relationship with Jesus found in the scriptures and also in sacred tradition. At the same time, I don't think that the proposition that Mary at some point in Jesus' ministry misguidedly wanted to "seize" or "take charge of" him out of fear of the crowds who thought he was mad is one that is incompatible with Catholic Marian belief and spirituality. So I acknowledge that it's not an impossibility. But I don't think it's very likely, I don't think it's warranted to posit this view as more than a possibility, and I don't in fact myself think it is the case.

Aaaaaand getting back once again to the points under discussion regarding Bend It Like Beckham, I would observe that there's a difference between, on the one hand, opposing/resisting parental wishes/intentions, and, on the other, defying parental orders and/or deceiving/lying to parents. Not that Jesus wouldn't have been justified even in defying a direct order from Mary to leave off his ministry, if such an order were ever given -- which I don't for a moment believe happened in fact. (He would NOT have been justified in lying to her, or to anyone else.) But even if she wished to see Jesus seized, there's no reason to think that such an intention would have translated even implicitly into a direct command, or even that she would have supposed herself still to have had authority to command, or to try to command, Jesus' obedience.

(But did Jess's parents ever actually forbid her to play soccer? I don't remember any more. Not that it matters: Parental authority can command implicitly as well as explicitly, and if we assume Jess to still be under her parents' authority -- which, considering that she's 15 and living under their roof, I guess I would assume -- it seems pretty clear that she's defying what might as well be their orders. And it seems there's no finessing the direct lying and sneaking around.)

SDG wrote:
: Incidentally, rereading the chapter in the RSV, I'm reminded that the
: issue of whether Mary or even his brethren thought him mad may be
: moot, since the RSV renders v. 21, "And when his family heard it, they
: went out to seize him, for people were saying, 'He is beside himself.'"

Hmmm. FWIW, Strong's Concordance says the underyling Greek word is lego and the KJV translates it "they said". But para, the word translated "family" in the RSV and NIV, is here translated "friends". And, alas, I don't know enough Greek to translate all this for myself.

I usually try to see any movie that merits 2 full pages of responses on this board. But I'm still debating... this has been a rather tangent-heavy thread... hmmm....

I don't have the RSV in front of me but I do have the Nestle-Aland, and it is best to translate 3:21 as: "When his family heard this, they [his family] went to restrain him. For they [his family] said: "He is nuts."

The verb used for "restrain" is one that is also used for the act of soldiers arresting criminals or pacifying crazy people (see 14:1). The subject of the verb is the one implied by oikon in 3:20, his family. The crowd is not the villian here, look down in 3:31-35, there he calls the crowd around him his mother and brothers. Mark distinguishes verbally between the crowd, the family, and the scribes in this pericope.

Jeffrey Overstreet wrote:
: I usually try to see any movie that merits 2 full pages of responses on
: this board. But I'm still debating... this has been a rather tangent-heavy
: thread... hmmm....

Oh, but this isn't the FIRST thread we've had on this film, Jeff!

Jeffrey,

Most of the debate has not been about Bend It. I would not recommend seeing it, certainly not on the basis of this thread.

(M)Leary,

Thanks for the translational check on 3:21. What you say about "they" makes good sense. BUT I checked all the translations for this verse available at Bible Gateway, and there's another potential wrinkle: The term rendered by many translators (including you) as "family," "kinsmen," or "relatives" is also variously rendered "his own," "his friends," "those who belonged to him," etc. (cf. NASB, Young's, Amplified / Amplified Standard, various KJV iterations). This would seem to raise a question whether the two pericopes are really necessary directly related after all, and whether we can safely conclude that Jesus' brethren were necessarily on a mission to restrain him. (Again, I'm not opposed to this conclusion, but I want to be open to all possibilities.)

SDG

QUOTE

and there's another potential wrinkle: The term rendered by many translators (including you) as \"family,\" \"kinsmen,\" or \"relatives\" is also variously rendered \"his own,\" \"his friends,\" \"those who belonged to him,\" etc. (cf. NASB, Young's, Amplified / Amplified Standard, various KJV iterations). This would seem to raise a question whether the two pericopes are really necessary directly related after all, and whether we can safely conclude that Jesus' brethren were necessarily on a mission to restrain him.   SDG

Yeah. I struggled with saying "family" because the Greek literally says "those with him." Mark is tough like that in spots, often we have to make grammatical decisions based on the narrative context (just like here). So I would see a continuity here due just to the context. It certainly is a tough wrinkle to smooth out.

But I haven't even seen "Bend it..." so I probably have no business posting on this thread.

QUOTE

But I haven't even seen \"Bend it...\" so I probably have no business posting on this thread.

Well, I started the fuss, so maybe it's time for me to chime in again. Go see it!

Jess isn't a Christ-figure, really, so most of the tangential translation debate is indeed tangential, though worthwhile in itself. SDG has a point about the importance of honoring one's parents, but in the larger scheme of things, the girl just wants to play soccer--it's not as if she wants to shoot heroin or be a prostitute or even follow the Grateful Dead. And even though she develops a crush on her coach, she keeps her head. Things could be worse, though I realize there's a principle involved.

Perhaps Jess's case is more analogous to the parable of the talents, and to Eric Liddell's sense that although God was calling him to foreign missions, He had also given him a talent for speed, "God made me for a purpose, and He also made me fast, and when I run I feel His pleasure!" Because she's not a Christian, Jess doesn't express or understand it just this way, of course, but she clearly does feel guilty about disobeying and deceiving her parents. Nevertheless, she has a talent she can't bury, and her father finally understands that she's right and gives his permission. Because of his own prejedice and grudge against English sport, it seems unlikely that he would ever have done so until it was much too late for Jess to fulfill her gift.

Gosh, it looks like it’s been more than two years since anyone posted on this film, and that the bulk of posts aren’t really about the FILM anyway, which says something about the movie’s merits.

I was surprised by how tedious--and Westernized--the film is. Funny that Westernization of Jess’ friends is held up for some degree of ridicule (the friends’ hairstyles and clothing look rather silly as the girls lust after the male soccer players), while the child’s ambition to break free of her parents’ restrictions—so common in American movies aimed at teens—is made to look noble. Whether this particular tension between child and parent is indeed universal I can’t say, but it surely smelled of a sellout on the filmmakers’ part.

The movie works OK on a certain level, but it’s a low level, and I kept hoping for something more uniquely Indian—heck, I’d take uniquely British!—to justify my watching it. How disappointing to see a mainstream story, with the worst impulses of mainstream filmmaking (awful soundtrack, doofy montage sequences), dressed up in the guise of an international film.

I can’t say I was entirely surprised by this. I was aware that the film was a small crossover hit, and I suspected it wouldn’t be particularly challenging. But it didn’t rise anywhere near to the level of my already lowered expectations.

I had some of the same struggles with Mira Nair’s “Monsoon Wedding,” a movie that’s well liked in these quarters. In retrospect, I’ll say this for “Wedding”: next to “Bend It Like Beckham,” it looks downright artful.

I just re-read this post, and it’s pretty mean-sprited—more so than the movie probably deserves. I don’t mean any disrespect toward those who admired the film. Maybe I missed something. But I honestly felt condescended to by the movie, and a day after watching it, that feeling is only growing.