I’ll probably go see The Passion, having now seen TV Nightline specials and reading Ebert’s review (he gave it 4 stars). I am skeptical of many interviewed evangelical Christian’s opinions that theis movie is an “Evangelistic Tool”. I’m not so sure how well “substitutionary atonement” works in our modern society, albeit it’s lofty status in many a theological system. It certainly was relevant to a first century jewish world, but having never particpated in animal (or human) sacrafice, the image does not do much for me.
I can certainly derive a much better “recognition” of “the cost of discipleship” by looking at the story as the ultimate in “speaking the truth to power”, and walking in Jesus’ steps.
What lingers in my mind and concerns me a little …….
is that everyone is so convinced that the level of violence in this picture makes it more real (which certainly has a level of validity to it), but the THEREFORE is what I question: THEREFORE it would be aa more effective “case” for the respondent to react with something that leads to conversion. The concern lingers that many of these “conversions” and many of the evangelicals who laud this film as an evangelistic tool and are urging their members to attend, are attracted not to the actual Jesus passion story, but to the level of graphic depiction now common fare and a “requirement” for the most “attractive” films. I am not sure who to accuse of this, however, becuase it is also possible that a more “realistic” depiction can be more “instructive” and enhance the “impact”, and have a postitive effect if the proper reflections and implications are applied. I’m just not sure who’s doing this; which ones are attracted by gore or unduly attracted to it in a reverse, unconscious sort of way (maybe I am?), and who’s really tring to get at a deeper understanding (I think I am).
I have long thought , like Ebert, that the other “Jesus movies” are horribly antiseptic and “clean”, showing Jesus with little scatches on his back from the 40 lashes, as if he had squeezed through a thorny patch and scatched himself, instead of endured lashes from a burred whip, which was likely fatal to many who endured it. Little “streams” of blood running neatly around the brow or down the side of the head. It all had very little, if not a negative impact, on the strength of the depiction.
So I guess I’ll have to go see.
What amazes me is the number of people who are interviewed and say something along the lines of, “I had no idea it was that gory.” What sort of antiseptic preaching are these people recieving in their churches?
Also, did you notice that Ebert says, “The screenplay is inspired not so much by the Gospels as by the 14 Stations of the Cross.” The 14 Stations of the Cross are used in worship by a church that deifies Mary and offers a fresh sacrifice of Christ with every Mass (compare with Hebrews 10:10–14). If the movie does depart from scriptures and rely more on tradition, I’m not sure what kind of evangelistic tool this could possibly be. Perhaps, if these ministers relied more heavily on scriptures in their preaching, people would have a better understanding of what kind of sacrifice Jesus was.
I have no plans to see the movie. I already understand that the Romans were sadistic tormenters. Actually watching the torture will not do anything to strengthen the impact of Christ’s sacrifice. It will focus on the physical elements of torture to the detriment of the spiritual—atonement.
Chris,
You display a definite anti-catholic tone in what you say. The “14 stations” are themselves, scripturally based, so the fact that it’s “Catholic” is what seems to bother you most. I do agree, though, that the attraction, I fear, of many (including those in the evangelical camp) is the graphic depiction. However “holy” the subject (and here , for Christians, it obviously is), the portrayal may speak louder than the message (ala “The Medim is the Message”). On the other hand, I’m just gonna have to see. It’s an interesting issue.
Dale
Chris,
By the way, I wonder if you feel we should reject the Bible if we reject Catholocism, since the Catholic Church did all the canonical collection stuff which decided what would be in the Bible. Doesn’t this make it “untrustworthy”, if “Catholics” can’t be trusted? (BTW, I don’t agree with that, or the underlying “mistrust” , nor many such “anti-Catholic” steretypes and/or accusations that are constantly hurled at them from the fundamentalist fringe.
Dale
If you look at the origins of the Stations of the Cross, you will see that it is based in a tradition of indulgences and its stories are an embellishment of scriptures.
The Catholic Church has many erronious doctrines. In my opinion, there are so many wrong beliefs that the truth of the gospel is lost in all the error.
You mentioned the Catholic Bible. I believe the Douay Rheims is a decent translation, but I do not believe the Apocrypha should be included. I hold to the Jewish Canon for the Old Testament. The Apocryphal books were not accepted by the Catholic Church until the Council of Florence in 1451, more than 1000 years after all 27 books of the New Testament were canonized.
I ran across another interesting article about churches coming out against The Passion today. You probably won’t agree with the conclusion that the Reformed Witness Committee of the Reformed Presbyterian Church came to, but you should read it anyway.
The Belfast Telegraph—Church hits out over Christ film
This is a church in Ireland, so not related to the SBC in any way, although probably in general agreement on a lot of theological positions.
Yeah Chris, you’re right, I don’t agree with them…..
I just read the article, and I’ll comment on this line:
And they went on to highlight that “the message of the film is that of Roman Catholicism, not biblical Christianity” and that they believe “the method is also wrong” – as using an actor to portray Christ is “idolatry”.
This is another form of “stereotyping” and “hate” group slander: Anti-Catholic bias, which is rampant among fundamentalists. And it is pure garbage. Just where the heck do fundies think they have descended in the “spiritual bllodline”? Simply looking at Catholic Christ-like examples , like Mother Teresa, and any number of other people (like St. Francis) and such, and modern day people such as Henri Nouwen, Thomas Merton, etc. ) and their lives are all I need to debunk the worth and trustworthiness of any suggestion that they are somehow “not real Christians”. HOGWASH, HOGWASH, and a BIG B.S.
And on the idolatry in having an actor portray Christ: Was God guilty of “idolatry” when he sent Jesus as “incarnation”? Sounds a bit “gnostic” to me to be opposed to artistically portraying Christ (classic gnostics disbelieve that Jesus was flesh and blood since God wouldnot “sil” himself so much as to utilize the nasty, evil, flesh and blood.
No, I would sooner discredit the Bible as too fraught with dangers of the “wrong message” seeping in via human channels (which I believe it actaully did) than to discredit the value of “leading by example” which is what God did through Jesus. The law wasn’t “good enough” in the opinion of some NT scholars (or , as others emphasize instead, humanity wasn’t smart enough to keep from distorting the intent of the law and therefore Jesus came to “flesh out” what God meant by all that…..but of course, as the passion story shows—the Biblical story, not the movie —- even those supposedly “well versed” in the law were among those who were the most clueless about it in terms of how to “live it”.
Catholics have their “distortions” just like any group (like Protestants have groups like this who seemingly provide “other requirements” for “salvation” other than faith in Christ, and therefore “catholics” are in error and therefore outside the “elect”. Hogwash again.
Dale