The Passion of the Christ: Not Humming the Tunes

[okieinexile]

By Bobby Neal Winters

What do you say about Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of the Christ? This long-awaited, much-hyped movie is much like the man Jesus himself in that we all go to Him with our own expectations, and if we are not careful, we wind up with a Jesus that looks like a slightly nicer version of ourselves. However, the constraints of reality are that we all carry experiences with us, and the storyteller must in some way try to connect to us through our experiences. This is problematic because the storyteller has no way to know our experiences.

I've had first hand experience in this in my avocations as preacher and writer. I have preached sermons and written stories and have had people repeat back to me what I said only for that not to be the case at all. As my listeners and readers are often much more intelligent than I am, they often come up with something better than what I said, so it's not always a problem.
All of this underscores the difficult task that anyone approaching the story of Jesus has, because as I said before, we all have our own Jesus. Our own idea of him, I should say.

When the Gospel writers approached the task of sharing this man with us, they had a variety of sources to draw upon, both written and oral, and each of them made choices which of the sources they would draw upon and what they would highlight. Of the Gospels, only John claims to be an eyewitness to the events described, and so each of the others had the challenge of fitting the stories they had received about Jesus within a narrative framework.
What we see in the Gospels is not a historical account as modern scholars understand it, rather it is a product of believers who are presenting their Lord to the world. It is the same with Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ.
Gibson has a variety of sources to draw upon, which include the Gospels but also include material from later, and some of it from much later. Gibson also has much experience with the depiction of violence and draws liberally upon that.

With these tools, Gibson produces "art", and I use this word to emphasize that it's not entertainment, lest any of you should be under the impression that it is. If you see this, do not believe that you will walk from the theater singing the songs and humming the tunes. I do not for an instant believe that Gibson offered this to the public for a feel-good movie. In that, he succeeded.

What else he succeeded at will be a matter of debate for some time, and that is another thing that makes The Passion "art" instead of entertainment. Much has been made of the violence of the film and the charges of anti-Semitism connected with it. I will comment on the violence latter, and any comment that I make on anti-Semitism is like an eye-dropper of spit in the ocean. I would like to comment on a couple of extra-Biblical devices that Gibson uses.

The first is his use of Satan as a character who pops in and out at various opportune moments. I don't know who was the first to describe Gibson's Satan as being "androgynous", but that description is so apt that I am at a loss now to produce another. While many have depicted Satan as being ugly, in my imagination Satan is beautiful. We aren't usually tempted by the ugly, after all. What are we to make of a Satan that is not particularly attractive and has no gender? Are we being allowed to look on evil in all of its true dullness? Are we being told that neither male nor female has a monopoly on evil?

Satan is not presented in any of the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion, and Gibson's Satan sort of flits among the crowd. We are left to wonder whether any but the few can see the Adversary.

Another device used by Gibson is that of a crow who pecks out the eyes of one of the thieves who were crucified alongside Jesus. This thief had challenged Jesus to save himself if he were truly the Son of God. This is such a strong intrusion into the Gospel accounts that I have to wonder why Gibson used it. Was it to point out the man's spiritual blindness?
One phenomenon associated with The Passion is the evangelicals who are flocking to see it. Some would consider this odd in that Gibson is a "traditionalist" Catholic and carries this heritage to the film. There are a number touches that most protestants would refer to as being Catholic, one example being the prominence given to Mary, the mother of Jesus.

While there are no doubt many explanations for the attractiveness of these Roman Catholic touches for evangelicals, mine would refer to what some call the "bad divorce" between Protestants and Catholics. While it is much more complicated than this, one might say in the division of property, the Catholics got the Sistine Chapel and two thousand years worth of tradition, and the Protestants, the evangelicals in particular, got some mighty good evangelists.
I have to wonder whether the evangelicals look at the rich traditions of their ex with some sort of envy now.

Some who have seen the film believe that it will result in a mass conversion to Christianity and the long-awaited third "Great Awakening" in this country. While I do not doubt the power of God, I do doubt our power as humans to anticipate his moves. An appreciation of The Passion requires such a large overhead in knowledge of the Bible, any non-believer who knows enough to understand the movie is unlikely to convert just by seeing it. On the other hand, a synergy between different branches of Christianity being drawn closer is likely to produce exciting results.

I promised a word about violence. This is a violent movie. I do understand that when our children are out of our sight they see R-rated movies and there is not much we can do about it. However, I wouldn't advise a parent to send a child to this movie alone just because it is a religious movie and you think it'll do them some good. If you really want to do them some good, do something with them, and if it is this movie be prepared.

The movie ends with the Resurrection, but it is so brief that it imparts no healing value. I had written an ending of my own in which Mary Magdalene dropped to her knees and grasped the Risen Lord about His waist as is done in the Gospel According to John. The Passion According to Gibson denies us this, and I have to believe it is for a purpose. I have to believe that he wants us to walk out of the theater NOT being healed. He wants us to experience as much pain as a movie is capable of imparting. Given the limitations of the medium, I believe that he has succeeded to a certain degree.

Having said that, should you see the movie? It's up to you, but if you go, don't expect to walk out of the theater humming the tunes.

[bananabrain]

i'm in two minds about whether to go and see it myself. on one hand, so far i've heard it's not very good. on the other, i'd quite like to see what all the fuss is about. then again, if it is as horrid as all that, maybe i should exercise my consumer choice by not giving him my money. i don't really expect anything with any historical accuracy, given our mel's past form with "braveheart" and "the patriot". (in fact, maybe i shouldn't be surprised if the baddies turn out to be not the jews, but the english, eh?)

i suppose the best thing to do really would be to wait until it comes out on TV and then make up my mind. it'll have to be quite good before it is quite as spot-on about the situation as "life of brian" was - those guys have us down to a T.

victory to the people's front of judea!

b'shalom

bananabrain

[okieinexile]

bananabrain,

It's not a bad movie by any means, but it is not entertainment. Gibson does an excellent job of creating the environment, though one might not agree with what he puts in it. I would quibble over his exposition of Pilate's reasoning for allowing the execution, but that is a minor detail. To my mind, this is a more realistic movie than either the Patriot or Braveheart.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Gibson's work on the passion of Christ is a movie. Anyone who is possessed of a working intelligence knows that there is nothing there that should affect you in any manner if you don't want to be affected, except entetainment, like those sadistic video games.

It's not the same as coming home and seeing your house taken over by a violent gang and your wife and kids made to go through some kind of passion. In such a scene you don't have the option of not being affected emotionally or physically or materially.


Behind the passion and death of Jesus Christ is the much bigger framework of the one and only God, as conceived universally by believers in one God.

For Jews and Christians and Muslims, believers in that one eternal, all powerful, all knowing God in charge of everything actual and potential, for them that God has a script for each of their religion or faith or complex of beliefs about Him.

Assuming that there is a God, that of the Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims, and He is the author of creation, then creation is His script for some kind of a movie where He exercises all the options on us, and we realistically at the end of the day none, options like being born where and when and from whom, and very important with what genes. Also the option of death's incidentals and circumstances.

When we come to the religion of the Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims, then it is also a script containing all kinds of beliefs about God and His plans for mankind and how He wants His plans to be achieved.

Who wrote the script of a religion for the Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims. Who else but God? That is the quintessential and primordial belief of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, from which belief all other beliefs and observances flow and hinge on.


Here is my point: for Christians, all this fuss about the passion of Christ is just from the part of their God pure script, God's play-writing and play-acting.

And Jesus being the Son of God, Himself God, is just also play-acting the suffering servant of Jahweh for the salvation of man. What's the big deal of His crucifixion, death? He would rise anyway. He can't lose anything, He's God all the time He's playing the suffering servant of Jahweh.

If I were the Son of God I would figure out a more civilized way to help mankind, nothing of the blood and gore in horror movies; best of all, write a better script for creation and mankind, where man and God live peaceably together, doing away with any so-called original sin and the need for reconciliation.

Susma Rio Sep

[okieinexile]

If I were the Son of God I would figure out a more civilized way to help mankind, nothing of the blood and gore in horror movies; best of all, write a better script for creation and mankind, where man and God live peaceably together, doing away with any so-called original sin and the need for reconciliation

So you would have us be puppets then?

[The Fool]

I'm curious, Bobby - do you believe that the film makes little of the Resurrection itself, precisely because you interpret Mel Gibson as trying to drive people to healing through Jesus?

Or do you think that Mel Gibson simply got so carried away with enjoying the violence of it, that he was incapable of offering any final resolution to it all? That his point was never about the Resurrection, as much as trying to smear "the sacrifice" like a piece of meat into the face of anyone who volunteers for the experience?

I haven't seen it myself, and don't plan to see the film anytime soon - but I am interested in the perceptions of those I know who have been to see it - especially away from the sometimes raw media banquet about it all.

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i'm in two minds about whether to go and see it myself. on one hand, so far i've heard it's not very good. on the other, i'd quite like to see what all the fuss is about. then again, if it is as horrid as all that, maybe i should exercise my consumer choice by not giving him my money. i don't really expect anything with any historical accuracy, given our mel's past form with "braveheart" and "the patriot". (in fact, maybe i shouldn't be surprised if the baddies turn out to be not the jews, but the english, eh?)

i suppose the best thing to do really would be to wait until it comes out on TV and then make up my mind. it'll have to be quite good before it is quite as spot-on about the situation as "life of brian" was - those guys have us down to a T.

victory to the people's front of judea!

b'shalom

bananabrain

Splitter!

- The Judean People's front.

PS: You mean...Mel Gibson didn't have the English crucify Jesus??

[Susma Rio Sep]

Quote from Susma:

"If I were the Son of God I would figure out a more civilized way to help mankind, nothing of the blood and gore in horror movies; best of all, write a better script for creation and mankind, where man and God live peaceably together, doing away with any so-called original sin and the need for reconciliation."

Okie reacts: "So you would have us be puppets then?"

The employment of the word, 'puppets', seems like some kind of "argumentum ad hominem." Man would be a puppet if God worked out a script described in the above paragraph, understanding that man being a puppet is an insult to man from the part of God.

On the other hand, as I said, God being in charge of everything, what else is man but a puppet? I think the early theologian, Paul, says something about man being a piece of clay fashioned by God anyway God wants. So man is even of a lower existence than a puppet, a piece of clay fashioned into a figurine as God wants it.

We are here faced with the question of God's omnipotence and man's free will. If we would be logical, as I said in my post, all this thing of God authoring creation and making man, it's still all a script of God. And I still see that God could write another script which from my understanding could be a much better one than as depicted in that movie of Gibson.

Susma Rio Sep

[okieinexile]

Originally Posted by The Fool

I'm curious, Bobby - do you believe that the film makes little of the Resurrection itself, precisely because you interpret Mel Gibson as trying to drive people to healing through Jesus?

Or do you think that Mel Gibson simply got so carried away with enjoying the violence of it, that he was incapable of offering any final resolution to it all? That his point was never about the Resurrection, as much as trying to smear "the sacrifice" like a piece of meat into the face of anyone who volunteers for the experience?

I haven't seen it myself, and don't plan to see the film anytime soon - but I am interested in the perceptions of those I know who have been to see it - especially away from the sometimes raw media banquet about it all.

A final resolution would have been easy. It would have only added five minutes to the film at most. I believe his point was to highlight the true horror of a crucifixion, and the price that was paid for us Christians to have our religion. I don't see this as a film that will drive people to healing. It is a work that will draw certain Christians closer together.

[okieinexile]

Okay, Susma, you are the Son of God. Do it.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by okieinexile

Okay, Susma, you are the Son of God. Do it.

Well, Okie, I can only imagine that if I were God I would do another and a better script for mankind. But certainly I am not God and I know that for a fact.

Yet that actual script of God upon which the passion movie is founded is in fact a matter of belief for Christians, not a matter of knowledge like astronomy.

And I think that even granting that I have that belief, nonetheless with the curiosity that God has endowed us all with, at least for me I can still imagine other possible scripts which He could have written, better for mankind.

Do you think that to entertain such thoughts would be for a believer to offend God so that He will get angry and take vengeance on me?

Susma Rio Sep

[okieinexile]

And I think that even granting that I have that belief, nonetheless with the curiosity that God has endowed us all with, at least for me I can still imagine other possible scripts which He could have written, better for mankind.

You seem to think that mankind is the point of it all.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by okieinexile

You seem to think that mankind is the point of it all.

Okie, you have brought up a good point. I would like to hear you expound on this point.

Tell me though, do you think that I am being annoying with my contributions here in this thread, or non-contributive altogether.

I will try my best to write in a serious manner from now on. Yet, forgive me, but I think I am writing in a serious manner all this time.

Anyway, as one brother monotheist to another, tell me if I am being contributive in a formal sense, or just being annoying.

And to make an admission, I attend service in a free evangelical church. Are you also an evangelical?

Susma Rio Sep

[okieinexile]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

Okie, you have brought up a good point. I would like to hear you expound on this point.

Man was a special creation, but He is not the point of creation.

Tell me though, do you think that I am being annoying with my contributions here in this thread, or non-contributive altogether.

I have difficulty discerning what you are being.

I will try my best to write in a serious manner from now on. Yet, forgive me, but I think I am writing in a serious manner all this time.

Anyway, as one brother monotheist to another, tell me if I am being contributive in a formal sense, or just being annoying.

And to make an admission, I attend service in a free evangelical church. Are you also an evangelical?

Susma Rio Sep

I am what I am. My demoniation is United Methodist.

[El Greko]

[COLOR=Purple]Without spoiling the story, before I go to see the film please could you tell me this - does it end with Jesus dead?