|
The Passion of the Christ |
|
Policy on use of information on League website Reflections on Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” Rev. Dr. Paul Anderson Day Executive Director, Bible Society of Maine
I have now seen the film twice, in very different settings of select audiences. The first viewing was with a group of Christian leaders, where a “rough cut” of the film was introduced with a presentation of Mel Gibson’s devout traditional Roman Catholic faith and his vision for the film, focused on the suffering love of God in Christ. After viewing the movie, the group was allowed time to quietly process it. Later, we came together to discuss it: the film drew general praise for its vivid depiction of Christ’s Passion, and was seen as generally faithful to the Gospel accounts within the bounds of artistic/dramatic license. There were a few criticisms and concerns about some specific elements of the film.
The second showing was among a diverse interfaith audience of about 125 people, brought together under the auspices of the Maine Council of Churches, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, Interfaith Maine, and the Jewish Community Alliance. The gathering included clergy and lay leaders from mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, Unitarian, Jewish, Muslim, and pagan faith communities, as well as a handful of Evangelicals, including Kevin McBride, president of the Greater Portland Evangelical Ministers Fellowship, and myself.
The film was preceded by brief presentations by four speakers – one each from the Jewish, Roman Catholic, Evangelical, and mainline Protestant communities. Dr. Abraham Peck opened with a statement of concern that the film carries on the tradition of the “Passion Play” with its negative portrayal of “the Jews” and history of inciting violent anti-Semitism. He also urged his fellow Jews to read the Gospel accounts to better understand the context of the Passion story.
Msgr. Murphy spoke on the Roman Catholic perspective of the Passion, and reiterated the Church’s expression of repentance for the violent associated with Passion Plays, and its repudiation of anti-Semitism. He further noted that the only person singled out in the Apostles Creed (shared by all Christians) is Pontius Pilate: “He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried.”
I shared an Evangelical perspective, noting that most Evangelicals date the Gospel accounts within the first generation of Christian witnesses, and therefore place the Passion narratives within the context of 1st Century Palestinian Judaism. (The study guide which had been provided dates the Gospels to a later period, and therefore reads back into the accounts the Jewish-Christian conflicts of that later time.) While Evangelicals are a diverse group, they do share a common commitment to the “Evangel”—the Bible—3/4ths of which (the Christian Old Testament / Hebrew Tanakh) we hold in common with Jews.
Most Evangelicals see Jesus as firmly rooted in Jewish faith, and understand the conflicts between Jesus and some Jewish authorities to be within the prophetic tradition of the Hebrew Scriptures. I then read from a resolution of the Evangelical Covenant Church, 2000 Annual Meeting, which strongly affirmed that there is no basis for anti-Semitism in the Bible, and which denounced anti-Semitism and all forms of hatred.
Most Evangelicals will view this film devotionally—focusing on the suffering love of God in Christ Jesus. Many Evangelicals see the film as providing an opportunity for evangelism—sharing the Good News—and to encourage people to “read the Book.”
Dr. Ted Campbell, retired professor of Old Testament studies from McCormick Seminary, was the final presenter. Dr. Campbell also encouraged everyone to “read the Book”—the whole Book—and to compare the film presentation against the four Gospel accounts, particularly John. He emphasized that the film focuses on 8 hours of a 33 year life of teaching and ministry. He urged viewers to consider several questions in watching the film—primarily along the lines of carefully watching “who does what, when” at key points throughout the narrative—and compare the film’s representation to the Gospel accounts, as well as the wider context of the history of Jewish-Christian relations.
The group then viewed the film in its entirety. It is an overwhelmingly violent depiction of Jesus’ suffering and crucifixion, in all its brutality and inhumanity. It is, literally and figuratively, an excruciating film to watch.
At the conclusion of the film many people left, while many others immediately wanted to talk about their reactions to the movie. I was not prepared for the vehemence of several expressions of animosity toward the film, including the outrage at its violence and the dismay over its strongly perceived anti-Semitism.
How could the two audiences come to such very different reactions? Some thoughts:
Members of the first audience, comprised entirely of Christian church leaders, were predisposed to view the film favorably. This attitude was reinforced by Mel Gibson’s “wooing” of the group, and by the manner in which the film was introduced. Those in the second audience with the most adverse reactions were predisposed to view the film negatively, heightened by the advance media coverage focusing on the controversy surrounding the film, and sensitized by the tone of the presentations which introduced the film. Thus, with exceptions, those who expected to be “moved” by the film were moved by it; those who expected to be appalled by the film were appalled by it. All of these attitudes may be held consciously and/or subconsciously; I do not exclude myself in this consideration.
More significantly, the “lens” through which one views the film has a great effect on what one takes away from it. One’s expectations, theological background and perspectives, and personal experiences, as well as the perspectives and memory of one’s faith-community are decisive in shaping both one’s visceral reaction to Mel Gibson’s “Passion” and the message(s) one takes from the film. As Anais Nin put it, “We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.”
Reflections on Significant Issues surrounding Mel Gibson’s “Passion”
The subject of the movie, the Passion of Jesus Christ, is both extremely sensitive and profoundly emotional. Mel Gibson has produced a powerful film, which further heightens sensitivities and deepens emotions. There are several significant issues to consider in approaching and discussing the movie.
Faithfulness vs. Dramatic License
Early on it was reported that Pope John Paul II said of the film, “It is as it was.” Whether or not the report is true is in question. Some viewers have applauded Gibson’s faithfulness to the biblical account, while others have called it a “5th Gospel” or the “Gospel according to Mel.”
In a foreword to the book, The Passion, Gibson writes that the film “is not meant as a historical documentary. . . . I think of it as contemplative in a sense that one is compelled to remember . . . in a spiritual way, which cannot be articulated, only experienced.” (quoted in Christianity Today, March 2004, p. 35) It is no mere whimsy that he named his company Icon Productions. While the film is realistic in many ways, it is also a highly stylized—iconographic—presentation. Someone has called it a cinematic “Stations of the Cross.”
Gibson based his script on an interweaving of the four canonical Gospels, as well as Sr. Anne Catherine Emmerich’s visionary Dolorous Passion of Our Lord. The film narrative is also heavily influenced by extrabiblical traditions, particularly in its depiction of the Via Dolorosa. Gibson has not slavishly followed any of his sources, but has crafted a film of his own vision of the Passion.
The general outline of the movie is faithful to the Gospel accounts, but many details are added, while other details are omitted or changed. When dramatic or artistic license, or contemplative conjecture, crosses the line, and distorts instead of interprets the story, is a matter for further discussion; people will come to differing conclusions on this issue.
Let us all be clear: “The Passion of the Christ” is a cinematic interpretation of Mel Gibson’s interpretive vision of the Gospel. The film is not Scripture. Everyone should be encouraged to read and re-read and discuss the Gospels in order to become familiar with the full story. Whether or not you see the movie, read the Book!
Gratuitous or Necessary Violence
“The Passion of the Christ” is an extremely violent film. The abuse of Jesus is graphic and unrelenting. Mel Gibson has said the film has “an honest R rating” and that he wanted the violence to be “over the top.” The Gospels tell us that Jesus was mocked, spat upon, beaten, scourged and crucified. The Roman punishments of scourging and crucifixion were extremely brutal, in both intention and practice. In addition, several Old Testament prophecies, which have been understood in reference to the suffering of the Messiah, add details to our images of Christ’s Passion.
Does Gibson cross the line between graphic “realism” and gratuitous violence? Again, viewers will reach different conclusions, based on their own interpretive visions of the event. This is Mel Gibson’s vision.
For my part, I think the violence in the film begins too soon – both in terms of adherence to the Gospel accounts and for the sake of cinematic story-telling. There is no indication in Scripture that Jesus was beaten or abused prior to his appearance before Caiaphas. The almost immediate disfiguring beating of Jesus, depicted in the film, is numbing. From that point on the violence is almost unrelenting; it does allow the drama to build leading up to the crucifixion.
The portrayal of Jesus’ scourging by the Roman soldiers also seems to go too far for the sake of realism. In Roman practice scourging was often a death penalty; however, the Gospels are clear that, after Jesus was scourged, he was still able to stand before Pilate and to carry the cross, at least part of the way to Calvary. No one could survive the extent of scourging depicted in the film. At this point Gibson’s Jesus passes from human to superhuman status.
“The Passion of the Christ” is a far cry from the sanitized, almost bloodless depictions of Jesus’ Passion in previous films. For some, the emphasis on “blood and gore” will heighten their sense of the extent of Jesus’ suffering love, as Gibson intends. Others will find it off-putting, to the extent that it actually obscures that intended message. Unfortunately, there are some who have been so jaded by the pervasive violence all around us, that it will not have its intended impact. Be prepared. This film is not for everyone; especially it is not for children.
Anti-Semitism
The Jewish Temple guards who arrest Jesus, Caiaphas and the other priests who condemn Jesus, and the mob that cries, “Crucify him!” are all portrayed unfavorably. Does that depiction constitute anti-Semitism? Jesus, the two Marys, Peter, John, Simon of Cyrene, “Veronica” and many of Jesus’ followers are also clearly depicted as 1st century Palestinian Jews. That is the setting of the story. The only clearly identified Gentiles are Pilate, his wife, Claudia, and the Roman soldiers.
Some have said that Pilate comes across as almost sympathetic towards Jesus, rather than as the brutal tyrant known to history. To me, Hristo Shopov’s Pilate cares only for himself: he is concerned about his position, worried by his wife’s warnings, and would rather not be bothered by this “Jesus problem.” His hand-washing is a pathetic attempt to avoid responsibility. (In a brilliant cinematic moment, Gibson contrasts Pilate’s hand-washing with that of Jesus and his disciples at the Last Supper.) As Msgr. Murphy reminded the audience on Monday night, Pilate is the only person remembered in the Apostles Creed in connection with the crucifixion.
The Roman soldiers are the most inhuman, brutal characters in the film—particularly in the scourging scene. There are a few reminders that the Romans were an oppressive occupying force, the Jews an oppressed people. When Simon of Cyrene (in North Africa) is pressed into service to help Jesus carry the cross, a soldiers spits the epithet “Jew” at him.
The film does show the Jewish authorities, led by the high priest, Caiaphas, as having a hand in Jesus’ crucifixion. On this point, Gibson is faithful to the Scriptures. The portrayal of Caiaphas is a particularly sensitive issue for Jews and for Jewish-Christian relations. He is visually unattractive, and Gibson uses the cinematic devices of putting words into Caiaphas’ mouth, when the Gospels do not identify the speaker, and of having Caiaphas “oversee” the crucifixion. Yet Caiaphas does not embody evil: he does not condemn Jesus until he hears the blasphemy from Jesus’ own lips, and does not take any glee in the grim duty of eliminating a perceived threat to his people and faith.
The true embodiment of evil in the film is the androgynous, attractive-repulsive figure of Satan, who questions Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, lurks throughout the film, and screams in defeat at the moment of Christ’s death. At one point Satan almost tenderly holds the infant Antichrist in a grotesque parody of the Pieta. “The Passion of the Christ” is cosmic drama.
In accordance with classic Christian theology, the responsibility for Christ’s death belongs to all—the Jewish authorities who condemned him, the crowd who demanded his crucifixion, Pilate who ordered it, the soldiers who carried it out, Judas who betrayed him, Peter who denied him—and to everyone of us. Gibson’s own hands drive the nail into Jesus’ palm. Gibson wants every viewer to see her/himself at the cross, and to feel the responsibility. It is for all of us that Jesus prays, “Forgive them.” It is to redeem all of us that he died, and rose again.
This message of universal human guilt—and of Christ’s atoning love and grace—may be too subtle in the face of the overwhelming graphic imagery of the film. I still think that anti-Semitism is neither the necessary nor natural interpretation of the film. As Steve Beard points out, “It is fair to say that anyone leaving the movie theatre with anti-Semitic fervor would have to be deranged or morally warped—or they didn’t watch it.” (www.hollywoodjesus.com) However, some people will find anti-Semitism and/or anti-Judaism in “The Passion of the Christ”—either out of fear or to deliberately impugn Jews today.
Unfortunately, anti-Semitism is still alive in the world today. In some places it is seemingly on the rise. There are those who may, for their own reasons, seek to use this film to divide people and stir animosity between peoples. Therefore, we must be absolutely clear, in any presentations and discussions of the film, that the role of the priests or the mob does not imply or infer any sense of “blame” or “guilt” on the part of “the Jews” with regard to the crucifixion.
Furthermore, we must be absolutely clear in affirming that there is no room for anti-Semitism in the Scriptures or in Christianity. Mel Gibson has clearly and repeatedly disavowed anti-Semitism, calling it “a sin” and “unChristian.” We can do no less. My own denomination, the Evangelical Covenant Church, passed this resolution in 2000:
The Christian message is not a message of self-interest and superiority but of servanthood and friendship. Only a misrepresentation of the Biblical evidence allows for anti-Semitism or hatred of any sort. The witness of Jesus and the Bible as a whole speaks against such views. There is, therefore, no basis for anti-Semitism in Scripture, or room for anti-Semitism within the hearts and actions of God's people. (www.covchurch.org/cov/resources/resolutions/2000-anti-semitism.html)
There is one other scene in the film that may be troubling to Jews and distorts the biblical witness. Gibson goes beyond the Scriptures in his depiction of the earthquake at the moment of Christ’s death on the cross. According to Mark, “the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.” (15:38) The veil was the heavy fabric curtain which separated the “most holy place” from the rest of the sanctuary—the tearing of the veil, therefore, is a demonstration that, in his death, Christ has removed the wall of separation between God and man.
In the film, the stones of the temple itself are rent asunder. While certainly dramatic, the scene distorts history and Scripture. The temple stood until its destruction by the Romans in A.D. 70. The symbolism of this scene could be interpreted as promoting “supercessionism”—the teaching that the Church replaced the Jews as the people of God—a doctrine which most Christians repudiate. For, as Paul wrote of his fellow Jews, “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” (Romans 11:29)
At any rate, the place of the Jewish people and of the Church in God’s plan requires much more than a dramatic cinematic moment. In all of this discussion, we must be informed by God’s Word—the whole counsel of Scripture. Read the Book!
The Message of “The Passion of the Christ”
Mel Gibson intends the film as a powerful experience of Christ’s suffering love, grace, healing power, and forgiveness, evoking reflection, introspection, repentance and gratitude. The opening quotes from Isaiah, “He was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; . . . and with his stripes we are healed.” (53:5)
Many people have come away from the film with precisely that experience. Others have found the violence overwhelming, leaving an impression of hate instead of love. Still others have left the theatre with more questions than answers.
Gibson attempts to communicate Jesus’ teaching and the meaning of the Passion through a series of flashbacks to familiar incidents of his life—the Last Supper, the Sermon on the Mount—as well as in the words Jesus speaks throughout his suffering. The film also depicts the cosmic conflict with Satan. However, these devices may not be enough to successfully communicate the message to anyone who does not already know the story well. They are overwhelmed by the power of the graphic visual imagery of Jesus’ suffering.
The flashbacks are brilliant, and provide a much-needed relief from the unrelenting violence of the Passion. I, for one, wish they could have been used a little more to flesh out Jesus’ teaching and the meaning. One might also wish that the film had done more with the Resurrection that it does, but Gibson’s focus is on the “blood sacrifice” of Christ. In that it is a powerful and effective tool for us to “remember.”
It is also important to remember that “The Passion of the Christ” focuses on 8 hours out of a life of 33 years, and a teaching ministry of over 3 years. The Passion is a pivotal event. – Approximately 1/3rd of the Gospels focus on the events from Palm Sunday to Easter; 1/8th on the Passion itself. – But it is not the whole story.
Mel Gibson has said that he hopes people will “watch the movie and then read the Book.” I have the same hope and prayer. May this film, and the interest surrounding it, lead us all to read the Book—the whole Book—all the more closely, to discuss it, to learn its message, and to follow the living Word. To that end, the Bible Society of Maine is offering a copy of The Servant King as Told by Luke to anyone who requests one. The Bible Society also has New Testaments, Bibles and other Scripture resources available.
Blessed Lord, who has caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning: Grant that we may so hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them, that by patience and comfort of your holy Word, we may embrace and ever hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life, which you have given to us in our Savior Jesus Christ. Amen. The Book of Common Prayer
|