okieinexile
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
