I have seen coverage about how people are getting stirred up about the new Mel Gibson movie, The Passion. I’ve seen how some Jewish groups and civil liberties watchdog groups are calling it “inflammatory”. I am not at all against many of the causes of civil liberties groups, but in this instance, I have some reservations about just how “inflmmatory” this movie can be (and I have NOT seen it, only conjecturing based on familiarity with the Gospel accounts that portray Jewish authorities opposing Jesus).
This is a story of ALL religions. There are ALWAYS groups who arise who appoint themselves the “official voice” of “pure religion X” and each group does so on the basis of a wide variety of interpretations, and ranges on the scale from left to right, cultural status quo stances (the degree to which the interpretative approaches are counter-cultural or culture-affirming or compromising).
The Christians today have a mass culture of such “Gaurdians of theology”, including my own heritage, the Southern Baptists (and therefore, for me, the Southern Baptist Convention represents for me a present day counterpart to the Pharisees who opposed Jesus in his day). Jesus did not “fit” with the Jewish leaders’ long-held expectations as to what the Messiah would do, be , and say. Therefore, they felt it their solemn duty to create an anti-Jesus apologetic.
To say that the Gibson movie, by portraying this opposition ot Jesus, and their accompanying “complicity” with the Romans (or whatever approach the Gibson movie takes), is somehow critical of Judaism, seems a bit overblown. That would be essentially equivalent to my calling the Southern Baptist leadership to task over what I consider to be “compromising” and “disobedient” as evidence that I am “anti-Christian”, which is ridiculous. I am opposed to the brand of faith being portrayed and carried out” by their approach. I call them to task because I am wounded by the departure of the leaders of my tradition and heritage into what I see as a theologically “bankrupt” stance.
Nobody would say that portrayals of the oppostion of Southern Church leaders to Martin Luther King’s tactics constituted an attack on Christianity. People KNOW and generally accept nowadays that these leaders were “blinded” by their own culture, or else just plain evil and only masquerading as Christians. There was no accusal of “attack” on Christian Churches. When I saw the mini-series on TV called “King”, whcih portayed the mass opposition by Southern White Churches to King and his movement, I was not all up in arms that this movie was “anti-Church”. Here, in applying this analogy to The Passion, it hinges on what the portayed Jesus says and does in response to the oppostion: and even so, here, this response woudl be to a group of leaders who “think they KNOW the truth— and Jesus , as I see him, was always, and STILL IS, not particularly positive toward people who think they have it all figured out.
Clarence Jordan made constant analogy and reference to the Southern Church leaders who opposed his Koinonia Farm in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s, likening them to the Pharisees in his Cotton Ptch gospels.
In the case of the Gibson movie, we have a few nuances to consider. First, we cannot “assume” that we all accept that Jesus was indeed the messiah (I do, and Christians do, but Judaism does not). So , the portrayal of the Jewish leaders opposition to Jesus on theological grounds should not be a concern. This is a theological quarrel. If it is their arguments and quarrels that seem embarassing to the people who are upset with this movie, it is still a portrayal of one particular sect/flavor of Judaism in one particular culture (1st century), and is still far from “reprentative”. Alternatively, if it is the extent to which the Jewish leaders take this opposition to Jesus — in this case, all the way to capital punishment —- if this is the problem, then again, it is the reaction of ONE group within ONE flavor of Judaism within ONE culture and time —– and further, if this is a movie that is purported to “take sides” with Christians against Jews, then why is it an issue of concern to those concerned followers of Judaism? What do they care? This is where I come down , in the end, in my approach to the “embarassment” and “offense” that I feel toward the present Southern Baptist Convention leadership. This is ONE group (the “takeover” group; the “theological cleanser” groups presently in power) in ONE particular time (the time that started around 1980 when the Moral Majority and Christian Right began to become a lobbying and political force, and the Republicans began to sway Church goers in masse that their platfrom was the one of righteousness.)
So, chill out , people. It’s one writer’s, producers, historian’s approach. It all makes me want to see it.
It is interesting how there can be all kinds of inflammatory artwork that will be supported, from a dung-covered Madonna to suicide bombers, and civil-liberties groups will support their display, but these same groups have a hard time accepting this production.
An appropriate passage is I Corinthians 1:22–24:
I’ve only seen a trailer, but on seeing its bloody depictions of the brutality Jesus endured, what jumped out at me is This is what the spiritual powers of empire do. Empire is interlocked domination systems, to use Walter Wink’s term, which ultimately answer to the Enemy.
Some of my conservative Christian brethen in the U.S. oppose empire’s actions then (killing Jesus) but support empire’s actions now (the Bush Doctrine, “theology of empire”).
But I think the powers of empire, then and now, are one and the same.
Jesus showed how to overcome empire then. I don’t think he counsels us to enlist with it now.
(Still thinking about this.)
[Sojo.net: Dangerous Religion: George W. Bush’s theology of empire]
I’m confused by Mike’s comment on many levels.
Chris, have you read Jim Wallis’ Sojo article I linked? — that’s the perspective I’m thinking through.
You’re reading in more than I’m able to follow. Maybe I could have been clearer. The assessment I’ve observed others make is
then: empire evil
now: empire good
If the powers that undergird empire were the same then as now, then we have an interesting change in perception of a reality that hasn’t changed.
I think a consistent view has more integrity. Here’s mine: U.S. empire-building activities now are as antithetical to the Spirit of God as the Roman Empire’s actions were then.
The human response to the powers of empire is to become empire. The Jesus response is altogether different.
I have a hunch you’re reciting Southern Baptist dogma — if so, I’ve learned that’s not a path I can tread with you.
Chris,
The insight into the death of Jesus was theological and after the fact—- at the time, NOBODY advocated what happened to Jesus. Even afterward, it is recognized that it WAS INDEED EVIL to kill Jesus. What Jesus endured became holy, but the deed was done by evil forces of empire (and the accompanying and supportive religious leaders).
I didn’t hear anybody saying that the death of Jesus was portrayed inappropriately. I think we all agree that it was indeed GOREY.
As for war, and justifying it on OT “motivations” and interpretations, I can’t take that as a mandate to “kill in God’s name”. I happen to believe that the people who heard God telling them to do certain things in the OT were not actually hearing God. I am certainly not of the opinion that anywhere the Bible says that “God says” is always accurately relaying what “God wanted”; but rather imposing God’s will on what THEY CHOSE to do. That puts me at odds with a lot of conservative approaches, but that’s where I come down. (BTW, it was said that “God commanded” that the menstruating women be banned to outside the city gates. I think we have a RECORDED HISTORY that shows not how God has changed, but how humanity’s understanding of God has changed. Jesus was constantly saying “you have heard it said…..” and many of these were things from the OT that were prefaced with “thus sayeth the Lord” —and Jesus said but I SAY TO YOU….was Jesus cpntradictying God? I don’t think so. Jesus came top calrify a few things about what God is like. Jesus sided with neither Empire (the Romans) nor Zealots (violent backlash against oppressors).
I’m with Mike on this one. I can’t go with what sounds an awful lot like the SBC/Conservative/Hawkish approach. Mainly because it doesn’t jive with the Jesus I read about in the Bible.
Dale
Not sure what all is involved in “Southern Baptist Dogma.” I am a member of Westerville Bible Church (I know the web page looks awful; I only wrote the Meet a Member section). It is part of a loose association of churches called the Ohio Bible Fellowship.
I am not deeply familiar with all the ins and outs of SBC dogma, but I believe I am substantially more conservative in at least the areas of music and seperation.
I read the Sojourner article a few months ago when it came out. I thought it was interesting and had a lot of good points. I don’t remember it saying very much about Bush’s theological positions.
On Christ’s death being accepted as good, I agree that none of the disciples thought it was a good thing until after the resurrection, but Mike was talking about modern Christians. They ought to take advantage of 2000 years of history and see Christ’s death for what God planned—their salvation.
On how empires should be percieved, it should be more like:
then: empires were part of God’s plan (Galatians 4:3–5)
now: empires are part of God’s plan (Daniel 2:20–22)
Maybe I should clarify my position on empires a little. I looked at it this morning and realized it was a little lacking.
Empires are just a form of government. They are not a moral entity. The morality of an empire is determined by its emperor, and to a lesser extent, its citizens. This is the same as any other form of government. The morality of an organization is determined by the morality of the group’s leaders and members, not by the format of the group. Of course, the culpability of the leaders and members depends a lot on the form of government and their respective authority.
Just like in the Old Testament, there were good kings and bad. Monarchy is not good or evil. Even democracy is not a good or evil government. The morality of a nation is determined by the morality of those with influence, not the form of government.
In the last earthly government, Christ will “rule with a rod of iron” (Revelation 19:14–16). If one looked at the form of government without considering its leaders, this would be a repressive and violent government. But because of the righteousnes of its Ruler, the government will be praised (Revelation 19:1–3).
Chris,
I don’t think Mike nor I are debating whether empires are in themselves good or evil, and would not argue that an empire is not better off with a more moral leader than with a less moral leader. The Biblical notion of empire that we are talking about is the one which is aligned with the forces that work against the Kingdom forces. I also believe that “morality” is ultimately judged not on the basis of professed beliefs (that a leader or nation claims to be “Christian” or whatever, but one which places justice and compassion at the head of the line). Mike and I are both convinced that the Bush administration are not living out the characterisitcs of a truly “moral” empire. In fact, the use of the word Empire suggests that the driving force is world power and domination by force and by greed. Drape it with whatever “Christian blessings” you want, and it will still be imnoral. In fact, to “bless” such an empire is tantamount in my book to blasphemy. Governments can only be God’s instruments when the leaders themselves allow their rule to be so. And this, as Wallis says in his article, takes more than just token nods to certain “favorite” theological and “moral” token issues.
It sounds like your Church is VERY similar to that of most of the Southern Baptist Churches who have fallen in line with their present leadership and their emphases. What both Mike and I are identifying as Southern Baptist dogma is basically fundamentalist approaches and readings, and the ones you have been using are pretty classic. I know because I was indoctrinated into that stream, and gradually evolved away from that as I was exposed to such people as Clarence Jordan, Church of the Saviour in Washington, D.C., and JIm Wallis, to name just a few. I was also at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1980 when Reagan was elected and people were all “aglow” about Reagan being a “Christian president”, and seeing in years that followed how he built up the military while slashing programs of social uplift and environmental programs, and I was working with Social Ministries groups in Arizona during the Sanctuary trials when it became known how the Regan administration was feeding us lots of propaganda to keep us from seeing what was going on in Central America (like funding muderous groups who killed whole families — the Contras). People who came to the US to try to escape the hell there were being sent back , with the US claiming there was no political perssecution going on there. This was the roots of my discovery of how deep the propensity for evil is in the context of “empire”. I heard Jim Wallis speak for the first time during that time, and began getting Sojourners since then (1984), and so my faith and politics and culture relationships are constantly being challenged and I am constantly being called to discernment. I see a sad lack of that discernment among churches such as the Southern Baptist (post 1980 brand) and other fundamentalist — and also “mainline” churches whose theology might be more “progressive” but nonetheless are not apt to ask too many questions about whether our US government is “moral” across the board (except on a few pet platforms which are often used as the final and ultimate test, and rarely on issues of justice and treatment of “the least of these”)
So there I am, for what it’s worth.
Dale
Dale