Confessions of a Liberal Puritan

Miss Murchison suggested that I pass along some of the more nuanced and interesting discussions that have been circulating online among campus ministers and religion professors trying to find a way to answer their students' requests for opinions on a movie (Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ") which few, if any, of us have yet seen.

So, here are a few of the more interesting bits and pieces that have come my way, lately (I hope to see the film myself next weekend, simply because I'm getting so many questions about it from students and parishioners; normally, the amount of violence and gore in the previews would tend to discourage me from seeing a film like this on the big screen -- I'd wait to see it on the small screen, where I can hit the "pause" button if I need to).

----------------
From SIGHTINGS, 2/09/04, "Not My Passion" by church historian Martin E. Marty (explaining why he's NOT eager to discuss the Gibson film ad nauseum):

"...Behind these intentionally flip remarks, I have a serious theological point. The previewers who like violence if it shows Jesus suffering, on the grounds that savagery moves people to appreciate his sacrifice, are measuring the wrong thing. In Holy Week I'll be listening to Bach's 'Passions,' singing about 'was there ever grief like Thine?' and meditating on the wounds of Christ, but not in the belief that the more blood and gore the holier, a la Gibson.

"The humanistic and theological point: pain is pain, suffering is suffering, torture is torture, and horrible pain-suffering-torture is horrible, and I don't think there are grades and degrees of these. Today, all over the world, people are suffering physically as much as the crucified Jesus. The point now is not to accept grace because we saw gore. The issue is not, were his the worst wounds and pains ever, but, as the gospels show, the issue was, and is, who was suffering and to what end. Christians believe that Jesus was and is the Christ, the Anointed, and they are to find meaning in his sacrificial love and death, not to crawl in close to be sure they get the best sight of the worst physical suffering.

"Nothing I have written should be read as a judgment on Christians, Jews, or others who have a different view and who therefore go to see it. Here is a case of 'de gustibus. . .' and a theological point on which I could be wrong."
-------------------

Those of you who know Latin (I stopped with Greek and Hebrew in the realm of ancient languages), am I correct in assuming that 'de gustibus . . .' means something along the lines of 'if that's what you like . . .' (or more roughly, 'to each her own')?
------------------

An e-mail posting from a Jewish member of our campus ministry mailing list:

"If a Jew may be permitted to enter a Christian theological conversation, let me ask 2 questions and make 3 observations:

"1. As a Ukrainian Catholic bishop (whose name escapes me) wrote upon seeing the movie, where's the ending? Where's the hope? The movie is the story of a particularly slow, painful, and bloody death of a Palestinian Jew. ...and? I always thought the good news was that on the third day he rose again (at least that's where the Sanhedrin parted company with Matthew's Jewish-Christian community....)

"2. Come to think of it, what about the rest of the creedal narrative (pick a creed, any creed)? Even if you are a literal inerrantist, John 3:16 is about more than the last 12 hours of Jesus's life.

"3. [John Dominic] Crossan [see last excerpt, below] rightly asks about the life of Jesus. There is a powerful revolutionary message that simply doesn't exist in the movie. Focusing on the end of Jesus's life on earth lets Christians off the hook - and misleads those considering becoming Christian.

"4. The movie - and the marketing campaign around it - demonstrates incontrovertibly that the fault line in American Christianity is not between Protestants and Catholics, nor indeed between evangelical and mainline Protestants. The fault line is between messianic progressives and pietist conservatives. I use each term with care. Messianic progressives are committed to realizing the Kingdom of Heaven. At one end are liberal world-redeeming Protestants and Catholics like Jim Wallis and Dorothy Day; at the other are Rushdoony-style post-millennialist Christian reconstructionists. Pietist conservatives pursue an inner-oriented separation/isolation from the 'wider world' that is deeply individualistic - even atomistic - at its core. They range from meditative ascetics and quietists a la Thomas Merton on the one hand to Falwell-esque pre-millennialists on the other.

"5. And here's the kicker - for all of his 'conservative' piety, this movie represents the apotheosis of baby boomer spirituality. It is Mel Gibson's narcissistic spiritual journey writ large on the big screen. The personal has become the cinematic.

"Just some thoughts, . . ."
----------------------------

From Charles Henderson, executive director of CROSSCURRENTS (see http://www.crosscurrents.org):

"While most of the debate has focused on the potential of this movie for promoting anti-Semitism, I suspect an additional problem is that it presents a distorted view of both the Bible and Christianity. (I stand to be corrected upon actually seeing the movie Weds.) Even worse, it may constitute a form of idolatry.

"Here's why. Gibson himself and many commentators who have actually seen the film seem to agree that it is more or less 'faithful to the text.' I am skeptical. The gospels contain very little detail concerning the physical appearance of Jesus, few descriptions of objects, scenery, costumes, little by way of dialogue. Indeed, Eric Auerbach, in his wonderful book 'Mimesis' makes this point about biblical narrative as such by comparison to Greek epic narrative. Movies, by their very nature as a visual medium are very much of the surface. Biblical narrative, rooted in verbal culture, communicates with a sparing use of words and images. And in this case the medium tends to become the message. Gibson states that his feature length film is as violent and graphic as he can possibly make it and he did this with the express
purpose of driving viewers 'over the edge.'

"I do not believe this resembles in any way, shape or form the editorial project of the gospel writers or editors. No matter how 'authentic' the period costumes, settings, or even spoken words in this film might be, the project of the gospels is not about recreating the actual experience of crucifixion in the reader's mind. Their purpose was to communicate the good news of God's saving activity which the early Christians believed they had experienced in their encounter with the living Christ. Their narratives of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus reflected and were intended to communicate that life-giving encounter. To put this in a different way: the gospels attempt to communicate in a dimension of depth, revealing the
presence of a just and loving God even in the midst of the stream of events that pre-occupy our attention in this all too human world.

"From a theological perspective, I would ask the following. At what point does a movie that focuses the viewer's attention on the surface detail of the sacred story take on the characteristics of idolatry? The same question would be relevant even if the movie dealt with the entire life, and not just the death of Jesus, and focused on his birth, teaching, or resurrection ... staying with the sunny aspects of the story with a similar attention to detail. Clearly Gibson believes he has made a film about the death of God. Jesus being, in his belief system, fully God, he has made a film which presents a powerful, graphic image of a crucified God. How does this differ from the idolatry expressly forbidden in the Decalogue? (Thou shalt not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the
earth; you shalt not bow down to them or worship them.)

"I suspect that Muslims will have no hesitation answering my question should they take the considerable risk of entering this debate. In another sense, this may in some ways repeat the Protestant Reformation's reaction against a form of Roman Catholic piety heavily laden with images of Christ's bleeding, suffering body. This form of iconography at some point does constitute idolatry."

------------------
From Daphne Burt, the associate dean of Rockefeller Chapel, University of Chicago, reflecting on Martin Marty's article in SIGHTINGS (see above):

"...I don't do violence in movies, either, but in this case I feel that I MUST see it in order to respond to what's being said. I expect to preach about it on the 29th (1 Lent).

"I *do* agree with those who reflect that at least this is giving us some really meaty theological issues to talk about!!! When recently have we been able to engage students on theology of atonement, divine retribution, etc?! Not to mention getting them to open their Bibles and note those places in the movie that are NOT in scripture..."

------------------

Finally, from John Dominic Crossan, emeritus professor at DePaul University, a founding member of the Jesus Seminar, and the author of numerous books on Jesus, as published on 'beliefnet.com' (for those who really want to get into the theological and biblical scholarship issues behind depictions of the Passion of Christ on stage and screen):

"Who Killed Jesus?"
"We can never excuse placing accountability for Jesus' death on any specific group, and certainly not on 'the Jews.'"

By John Dominic Crossan

"'It is vital that the Passion Play be continued at Oberammergau; for never has the menace of Jewry been so convincingly portrayed as in this presentation of what happened in the times of the Romans. There one sees in Pontius Pilate a Roman racially and intellectually so superior, that he stands out like a firm, clean rock in the middle of the whole muck and mire of Jewry.' Adolf Hitler (July 5, 1942)

"It is sometimes asserted that even if 'the Jews' killed Jesus (as described in John's gospel), that must be a good thing, since it led to the resurrection. But whether any effect is good or bad, responsibility for the crucifixion's cause must be assessed honestly. Further, many post-Vatican II Catholics and liberal Protestants understand 'the Jews' as standing in for 'all of us.' As we will see below, there is profound truth in that corporate responsibility interpretation, but it can never excuse incarnating such universal accountability in any specific group, and certainly not in 'the Jews.' Passion (from Latin passio or suffering) is the Christian name for the story of Jesus' execution, from Gethsemane to Golgotha and from Mark to John. Mark is the major source for that story used by Matthew and Luke (historical certitude level: A+). Second, those three gospels are the major source used by John (historical certitude level: B-). In other words, it is quite possible that Mark is the only consecutive source for the entire gospel tradition of Jesus' execution. That raises some obvious questions: Why is everyone so dependent on Mark? Why are there no independent accounts apart from Mark? Therefore, how much of Mark is actual history and how much is parable?

"The Problem of Drama. My first faint glimpse of the 'problem' of the historical Jesus occurred in 1960 when I saw the Oberammergau passion play in a version unchanged since Hitler saw it in 1930 and 1934. I knew the story, of course, but something happened when I saw it as drama rather than read it as text. At the start of the play, the stage is filled with children, women, and men shouting for Jesus (our Palm Sunday). But by early evening, that stage is filled with that same crowd shouting against Jesus (our Good Friday). No explanation was made for that change, and no reason was evident for why any people were against Jesus. Furthermore, when the story is staged or screened as drama rather than heard or read as text, that Jewish crowd shouting for the Jewish Jesus' crucifixion takes on a central focus in the narrative. They, rather than Caiaphas or Pilate, seem in charge of the proceedings, responsible for the events, guilty of the results. The anti-Jewish, if not anti-Semitic, potentials in that passion story are emphasized even more on stage or screen than in text or gospel.

"The Problem of History. There are profound questions still to be asked about the historical accuracy of that basic passion story: about the shouting crowds, the reluctant Pilate, and the innocent Jesus (as victim rather than martyr). Here, I note just one item. In Mark 15:6-15, 'the crowd' comes before Pilate to obtain amnesty for Barabbas and only turn against Jesus when Pilate tries to release him instead. But now watch what happens to that Markan source as the story progresses through the later Gospels. Matthew 27:15-26 first copies Mark's 'the crowd' but then enlarges it to 'the crowds' and finally to 'all the people.' Luke 23:13-15 changes Mark to 'the chief priests, the leaders, and the people.' Finally, John 18:37-40 speaks simply of 'the Jews.' Recall, of course, that those expansions do not represent independent knowledge but dependent development. 'The crowd,' in other words, grows exponentially before our eyes. Even if you accept Mark's 'crowd' as history (I myself think it parable), it only tells us about that small group who are for Barabbas rather than against Jesus, those who want Barabbas freed and refuse Jesus as his replacement.

"The Problem of Theology. Theology is the meaning of history as known by faith. There are three points to be considered in the Christian interpretation of Jesus' execution.

"Sacrificial Death. When people give up their lives for others, either as fire-fighters and police officers or as protesters and martyrs, we term those deaths sacrifices. While all life and death is sacred, such deaths are considered particularly sacred. It is bad theology to imagine that God demands such sacrifices, as if, by divine decree, somebody had to die in that burning building, so if not the trapped child, then the heroic rescuer.

"Vicarious Atonement. It was always possible for martyrs to offer their sacrificial deaths as atonement for the sins of their people. That presumed persecution was sin's divine punishment rather hate's human consequence. During the persecution that led to the Maccabean revolt, the martyr Eleazar asks God to 'be merciful to your people, and let our punishment suffice for them. Make my blood their purification, and take my life in exchange for theirs' (4 Maccabees 6:28-29). It is bad theology to presume that persecution is a divine punishment for sin--but, granted that, the proper answer from God to Eleazar is 'I accept your gift of martyrdom but reject your theology of retribution.'

"Divine Retribution. St. Anselm of Canterbury, the medieval theologian, suggested human sinfulness required divine punishment, but since we are inadequate to repay our offenses, only a divine Son of God could substitute for us. In other words, it was not just that humans might offer vicarious atonement but that God demanded it--and demanded it from Jesus. It is bad if not obscene theology to claim that God demands victims rather than permanently offering forgiveness, a gift as consistently present as the air that surrounds us or the gravity that supports us.

"The Problem of Reality. There is, however, one very profound reason for maintaining those two preceding solutions. If, historically, it was 'the Jews' who forced Pilate to execute a dissident Jewish theologian rather than crucify a religio-political anti-Roman activist, we Christians do not have to face what actually happened. If, theologically, it was a divine plan where all protagonists, however, are not personally responsible, then we Christians do not have to face what actually happened.

"But the reality is that Jesus was officially, legally, and publicly executed by Roman authority--that is, by at least the normalcy and maybe even the cutting edge of civilization in his time. Pilate knew Jesus was not a violent threat, or he would have rounded up and executed many of his closest followers. But Pilate also knew that Jesus was a religio-political opponent of Roman imperialism who had announced the Kingdom of God for this earth in subversive opposition to the Kingdom of Rome. Theologically, then, if we Christians believe that Jesus was the
incarnation of God, we must accept that at least the normalcy of civilization and maybe even its cutting edge (then incarnate in the Roman Empire) legally executed him.

"I have read the chapter on 'The Crucifixion Examined, and Imagined' in William F. Buckley, Jr.'s Nearer, My God: An Autobiography of Faith, and it emphasizes Jesus' intolerable suffering. I have heard that Mel Gibson's forthcoming movie on the passion of Jesus will do the same. Had Pilate primarily wanted suffering, Jesus could have been abused and tortured for weeks in the barracks of his praetorium. But Pilate wanted official and legal execution, wanted a placarded public warning--and even though crucifixion involved terrible pain. To emphasize the detail of suffering is to avoid the implications of execution.

"We Christians belong to the only world religion whose founder was legally executed. But to avoid facing that, we speak about suffering, as if Jesus had been run over by a chariot and died in accidental agony. It is surely easier to blame 'the Jews' or even God or to emphasize suffering than to face the possibility that the Kingdom of God is on a collision course, not just with the Roman Empire on a bad day, but with the normalcy of civilization on a good day.

"In the powerful parable of Matthew 27:19, Pilate's wife sent him this message as he sat in judgment on Jesus: 'Have nothing to do with that innocent man, for today I have suffered a great deal because of a dream about him.' To continue in parabolic style, I imagine what might have happened when Pilate returned to his private quarters. He told his wife that he had received her advice but had condemned Jesus to death in any case. But, he said, he could not understand.

"'Why do these people oppose us? We have brought them law and order. We have brought them peace and prosperity. We have brought them culture and civilization. We have brought them free trade and international commerce. Why do they hate us so?' And his wife said: 'Yes dear, it is a puzzlement. But let's have dinner and forget all about it.'"

-----------------------------

I'll let you know my own thoughts once I've seen it, I guess.