THE VERY BLASPHEMOUS JERRY SPRINGER OPERA

[CENTRO ANTI-BLASFEMIA]

CHRISTIAN VOICE
JERRY SPRINGER
What's the background?

The story started when BBC2 decided to screen the West End 'musical'
"Jerry Springer the Opera" on Saturday 8th January 2005. It is
blasphemous (I'll say how below) and it insults Almighty God, the Lord
Jesus Christ and the Christian faith. It also (neat point for human
rights aficionados) insults us Christians in our religious beliefs,
contrary to Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The
Lord God brought 1,500 Christians out to protest outside BBC venues
all over the United Kingdom on the evening of 8th January in an
unprecedented street vigil of prayer. The 400-500 of us at White City
alone prayed for God to have mercy and stop the transmission. By
letting it go ahead, it was clear God's heart was for judgment
instead. And also, although He could send a York-Minster-style
thunderbolt, He is generous enough to involve His people in His
triumph, which will come.The story broke just a week after four
hundred Sikhs felt strongly enough about the play Behzti (Dishonour),
which depicted sex abuse and murder in a Sikh temple, to protest
outside (and inside) the Birmingham Repertory Theatre, and to close
the show. God sent a challenge to Christians to look at the
willingness of Sikhs to stand up for their religion. We all know
about David and Goliath, but in contrast to the Sikhs, God was telling
us to start polishing and aiming up a few round spiritual stones! We
know well-directed prayer made with the mind of God is very
effective. However, we were painfully aware that because we are a
peaceful people who do not resort to violence (sadly some Christians
are peaceful to the point of pious apathy), the establishment have
felt able to ridicule Jesus and Christianity in a way that political
correctness and fear would make unthinkable for Islam or Hinduism. Or
Sikhism, now.The BBC recorded Springer at London ' s Cambridge Theatre
in December 2004. Since 8th January the focus has shifted to the
Theatre itself. 'Jerry Springer the Opera' is to close there on 19th
February and there are plans to take it on tour, which we shall
oppose. We are also maintaining an evangelistic presence outside the
Cambridge Theatre, which is in Earlham Street, Covent Garden, every
Friday and Saturday night and Saturday afternoon. The purpose of that
is to explain to theatre-goers why the show is offensive to us and to
reach them with the true Gospel. The outreach is also in protest
against the show. We know from scripture that for us to bear insults
against ourselves is fortitude. To allow insults against our Redeemer
is cowardice. Rev 3:16 and 21:8 make clear that the apathetic and the
fearful have no part in the Lord's purpose. He will bring to the '
Cambridge ' those Christians prepared to stand up for their Lord.

So what's all the fuss about?
A lot of people are saying, "Hey this has been on at the Cambridge for
months, and it was on at the National before that. Why have you
waited till now to make a fuss?" Well, the critics said it was
"blasphemous, vulgar and salacious" and I don't know that many
Christians prepared to fork out fifty quid to be offended. But
reading the critics hardly prepared me for the enormity of it. I saw
a preview on the afternoon of 8th January courtesy of a Sunday
newspaper. It was more disgusting, more blasphemous, more crass and
more offensive than I could ever have imagined. I was, and still am,
angry that such a gratuitously nasty, hateful, spiteful and
blasphemous piece of work is being performed in our land, let alone
that it was national television. It being on in a London Theatre
offends me, just as much as a murder or rape happening being closed
doors offends me. And more to the point, those crimes offend Almighty
God.The idea, of course, is that a Jerry Springer chat show could be
translated into Opera, and that instead of people screaming at each
other in speech, they could do so in song. Then make it daring and
'adult' (that means puerile) by adding in all the swearing deleted
from the real 'Springer' - and more. So, in Act 1, various
emotionally-challenged participants turn up to sing obscenities at
each other and parade their sexual deviancy. There is one so sick he
gets sexual pleasure from dressing in an oversized baby's nappy and
defecating in his pants.

How is 'Springer' blasphemous?
In Act 2, the character of Jerry Springer descends into hell, where
the weirdos from Act 1 now become Biblical characters and take part in
another Jerry Springer show. There is a shouting (singing) match
between Jesus and Satan, Jesus says He is 'a little bit gay' and Mary
rants at Jesus for abandoning her by dying on the cross. The Saviour
of the world is told in his duet with Satan to "F*** off", while He
sings "Talk to the stigmata". So even His wounds are ridiculed. God
the Father emerges as an old fool who needs therapy, and Jerry
Springer becomes an alternative saviour. Which makes David Soul's
character the Antichrist, of course.What I could not fail to notice
that every character gets a change of clothes from Act 1 to Act 2, so
as to distance themselves in part from whom they played before, except
Jerry Springer and, you'll never guess, Jesus. Jesus, King of kings
and Lord of lords, God incarnate who lived a perfect life and suffered
on the cross for the sins of the world, is the perv in a nappy.
People connected with the show are saying it was a nappy in Act 1, now
it's a loincloth. It still looks like a nappy to me and the guy who
plays Jesus hardly resembles Tarzan. In any case, finally Springer
tells my Saviour, "Jesus, grow up and put some clothes on". With
blasphemies and expletives, of course. It's an 'adult' show.God
Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, is portrayed as an inadequate
who is called upon to answer Satan's grievances. He needs a shoulder
to cry on and it's Jerry Springer's. "Jerry eleison" means "Jerry have
mercy" and is a mockery of "Kyrie Eleison, Christe Eleison" (Lord,
Christ have mercy). Any of this would make the show blasphemous and
offensive to God and to Christians. And by the way, to all of those
liberal wiseacres who have said there is a deeply 'moral message' in
'Springer', get real. Yes, trash-TV is pretty crass, but this show
hardly offers some wonderful, uplifting alternative. Jerry's "Yin,
Yang, no wrong, no right" is not a moral, let alone a Christian
message. It's amoral. Jesus Christ said "Keep the Commandments" and
first of all, "Love the Lord thy God". That's where morality starts.

Don't you support free speech?
Be sure we Christians support free speech. That's why we oppose the
Governments' plans for a law against 'stirring up religious hatred.'
That is the real attack on free speech. And they accuse us of wanting
censorship. We should all be free to criticise one another's religion
in decent, respectful, moderate tones. If we are for good, then
presumably we are against evil. And no law will ever stop Christians
preaching the Gospel. We have to do it. We are commanded to by our
Saviour. If the Government enact their wretched 'religious hatred'
clause, I know of a few Christian leaders who will be preaching
against sin, Islam, Hinduism, or whatever, the day the Government's
'Serious Crime and Disorder Act' comes into force. We shall have to
ensure that we are the first martyrs in court, because a certain Mr
Nicholas Griffin will be trying to get there before us. So the
production company and those going to the Cambridge Theatre, and those
who put 'Springer' on TV, and those who watched it, aren't striking a
blow for free speech. Free speech is not an unqualified human right,
it is limited. It brings responsibilities, and the causing of
gratuitous offence is hardly the hallmark of a civilised society. No
civilised person would deliberately insult a stranger in the street.
So why would someone want to insult God, Jesus Christ, and Christian
believers? The only reason I can come up with is that they actually
hate God, Jesus Christ, and Christian believers. Otherwise, they
would stop, from normal human decency. Consider: "I'm sorry, but your
constant talking about 'blacks' offends me." "I don't understand
why." "Just take it from me, it does, OK?" Here's one response:
"Oh, well I don't understand why, but in deference to you, I'll
stop." And here's another: "Well, I don't understand why, so I'll
keep doing it." Which is the more civilised response?

So what now?
You can still protest through the official channels: Email
in...@bbc.co.uk or phone the BBC on 08700 100222. However, post-
broadcast it is better to email con...@ofcom.org.uk or phone Ofcom on
0845 456 3000. You could also Email the Director General:
mark.t...@bbc.co.uk (please send a copy of any complaints to
ste...@christianvoice.org.uk .) Although your protest will be
counted, the BBC will send you a load of platitudes back and Ofcom
will go away and think about it. Neither the BBC nor Ofcom care what
you think anyway. Normal protests are channelled in such a way as to
be ignored. That's why we wrote direct to Roly Keating, Controller of
BBC, Jana Bennett, head of BBC TV. These execs were so grossed off by
ordinary people having the brass neck to write to them at home that
they let the Mail on Sunday put out an untrue story that Keating had
received death threats and had gone into hiding. That story was, as
Jana Bennett said on Radio 4's Today Programme on 11th December,
'overstated' and Roly Keating said on Premier Radio on Sunday 23rd
January that it was 'exaggerated'. Thanks to the BBC, we now have
video evidence of the entire Jerry Springer the Opera. I and
Christian Voice intend to bring charges of blasphemy against those
most responsible, from the Chairman of Governors of the BBC down to
those involved with producing and staging it at the Cambridge Theatre
where it was recorded. The last time the blasphemy law was used in
England and Wales was in 1977, when Gay News and its owners were
convicted in the case of a poem centring on homosexual fantasies about
Jesus on the cross. Lord Scarman, speaking in the House of Lords
judgment in the 'Gay News case', endorsed the definition of blasphemy
found in Stephen's Digest of the Criminal Law, which defines blasphemy
as "any contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous or ludicrous matter
relating to God, Jesus Christ or the Bible, or the formularies of the
Church of England as by law established." His Lordship went on: "It
is not blasphemous to speak or publish opinions hostile to the
Christian faith or to deny the existence of God if the publication is
couched in decent or temperate language." It's that freedom of
speech vs gratuitous offence point again. By the way, the cases of
Otto Preminger Institut vs Austria and Wingrove vs UK established that
blasphemy law is not just in tune with, but necessary under the
European Convention on Human Rights.Please pray that Almighty God will
go before and glorify His name through our humble efforts. Sure, God
does not us to stand up for Him, or for anything He does. But for His
great purpose He chose to become one of us, and even today He calls us
to fellowship with Him and to be His witnesses on earth. To let His
holy and wonderful name be blasphemed and slandered brings judgment on
our land and we care about that. If we raise not a squeak of protest,
we become complicit in that crime. Thank God that He brought hundreds
of faithful Christians out on the streets to defend their Saviour's
name on 8th January. May that just be a beginning. May Almighty God
put some backbone into Christian men. May He confound the stereotype
of Christians as a lily-livered bunch of wimps, stuck in their holy
clubs on Sunday, letting the world go to hell without a whimper. May
God bless our street vigils and our blasphemy action. Lord, be
glorified!
http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/springer.html